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.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
It is a tank with a single gun with a single shot, from the shooting faction of the game. It is perfectly fine that it is powerful.
When it was released the first time, it was damn scary too. Then the ages creeped it out.
In 8th/9th edition GW is giving dignity back to the old models. This means making it scary again. Now, we can complain about it being too good, or too swingy or whatever, but we all agree that it being again a damn scary gun is absolutely a good thing.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
ccs wrote: Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Do you think it took them 10 years to notice?
I guess snappy one-liners don't add much.
All in all I don't think this is about sales, its just trying to make a one-shot weapon work.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/04 16:51:31
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: The problem I have, and I think others may have too is that these buffs are just very inequal, like someone was pointing out earlier the gunwagon actually got nerfed, and now is 175 points for a 4+ bs chassis putting out d6 s8 ap-2 d2 shots. The guns that actually did get buffed inarguably, the KMB and the tellyport blasta are basically only on a handful of units, even within those only on a few chassis even worth considering.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
The gunwagon is BS5+ and pays 40 points for +1 to hit on a single gun. The only way to make it even remotely worthwhile is paying another 25 points for a weapon upgrade, for a total of 190 points for what is roughly equal to a bare bones LRBT with battle cannon.
The transport capacity is pretty much worthless, as it's not open topped.
The melee capacity is irrelevant as you are not driving a 190 points tank (205 with deff rolla) with 4+ armor and a bast weapon into combat.
It's quite literally one of the worst units in the codex.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Jidmah wrote: There is no point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing. It's just a flawed unit, dead till next codex.
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
Because a battlewagon will always be cheaper, has open topped and the only value the gunwagon has over a battlewagon is +1 to hit on its main gun which is worse than every single main gun on every single buggy, even if you pick the once-per-army upgrade.
And of course, I assumed that it was clear that I wasn't talking about something unreasonable like 80 points for 16 T8 wounds.
But if you insist, I can change my statement to "there is no non-gamebreaking point value where a gunwagon would be worth bringing".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/04 17:45:12
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.
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
Don't forget when it was released it wasn't even best in class for tank-mounted anti-tank though. Solidly 4th or 5th behind:
Vanquishers (8+2d6 pen, ordnance damage table)
Demolishers (10+ 2d6d1 pen, ordnance damage table)
linked Fire Prisms (10+1d6 pen, AP1 also, twin linked, small blast)
So either those weapons are going to be even MORE powerful when their book drops (yikes) or they are going to be breaking tradition.
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
When 6th came around, and Hull points were added, the riptide was introduced, and broadsides were reduced to STR8 heavy rail rifles, it meant that while the railgun was still one of the premier anti tank weapons, and Heavy Rail rifles were still AP1 (trumped by all the D weapons starting to appear) Glancing hits on vehicles would strip hull points and wreck the vehicle. this meant that you could use a more multi purpose platform (broadsides with HYMP) to engage infantry and vehicles, and glance vehicles down through weight of fire, and the one shot railguns fell out of favour, since as they were one shot, and you now had to contend with things like Invisibility, widespread Invuln saves etc, they were increasingly unreliable.
Move to 8th edition, Railguns became simply STR10 lascannons, Heavy Railrifles were now slightly punchier missile launchers no longer able to one shot anything and with the move to vehicles having a big wound pool, having a few shots with unreliable damage with low BS meant that the only really reliable way to take out vehicles was Cold stars with fusion blasters, or weight of fire from S7 missile pods. Incidentally, in 3rd to 7th editions, S7 weapons could not even scratch land raiders, or leman Russ' from the front, and could only barely damage predators. So you are now, in 8th/9th in a situation where Weight of fire is generally preferred over High Strength low shot weapons since all weapons can now hurt anything on the table, whether its reliable or not.
If anything, compared to Railguns as originally implemeted, they are a lot weaker against vehicles, and a lot stronger against MC's. It used to be a rare shot that would instant death a big gribbly, all weapons did one damage unless the shot was double the toughness of what it hit, in which case Splat, MC's used to rock around with 4+ wounds and the STR/T interaction was a lot harsher than it is now.
Quite seriously though, since the Railgun is on one platform, and not a very durable one at that, I can see them being shot once per game, per platform, and depending on how Longstrike is implemented in the new book, thats only 3-4 shots total if you max out with RO3. If you don't have anything that can reply, or the Hammerheads can maneuver round well to avoid counterfire, then they can probably smash multiple units down over multiple turns, especially big things like Mortarian, Knights and so forth, but with the boards being so constrained size wise, they have no-where to move to to leverage their range.
Game play aside, in the fluff, Tau units are supposed to be specialists, not generalists, with units designed to engage specific targets rather than take all comers, and the take all comers is the standard setup for most units now. I would love for various weapons to excel at their specific thing, but be sub par against everything else, but that may be wishful thinking
Dr. Mills wrote: I see it as a threat to any single large monster/vehicle/titanish model, which seems to be what the rail gun was designed for.
I am glad that it has these rules rather than a cop out of doing 'x amount of mortal wounds' as it would be too good at both infantry clearing as well as single big target hunting due to the way mortal wounds are rules wise.
As long as it has a sensible points cost, I'm rather meh to it - a single uber shot from a tank platform not exactly renown for it's durability. I wonder if the smaller rail guns on broadside battlesuits will get a toned down version of this gun?
I'd be more concerned with the broadsides as even toning the gun down a fair bit is scary, you get something like 2 ignores invulns s10 ap-6 d3+3+1MW shots each
I was informed by someone that I consider to be reliable that broadsides do not ignore invulns. 2 shots, s9, ap-4, d3+3 damage, 1MW if it wounds.
which only makes it weirder why the slightly bigger one does.
Is it somewhere between a bullet going mach 10 or mach 12 that reality just breaks?
I suspect it's supposed to be *considerably* bigger, not *slightly* bigger, and we've just spent the last several years being collectively enormously underwhelmed by a deeply mediocre version of the weapon.
Yeah, that's my take as well, after I remembered what it used to do in older editions. This thing used to be S10 AP1, which in 3rd/4th meant it could pen AV14 on a 4+, because AP1 counted "glances" as "pens". And AV14 was the best anything I can remember got. Then the editions rolled on and it kept the same profile as the rules changed, until 8th edition rolled around and suddenly its S10 AP-4 Dd6. Big drop. This thing used to be scary, now it is again. They've just brought it back to where it used to be, more or less.
Don't forget when it was released it wasn't even best in class for tank-mounted anti-tank though. Solidly 4th or 5th behind:
Vanquishers (8+2d6 pen, ordnance damage table)
Demolishers (10+ 2d6d1 pen, ordnance damage table)
linked Fire Prisms (10+1d6 pen, AP1 also, twin linked, small blast)
So either those weapons are going to be even MORE powerful when their book drops (yikes) or they are going to be breaking tradition.
Well, we already have several units armed with Demolishers with 9th edition rules, and they're the same as they were in 8th. Vanquisher is mostly up in the air, but I'm still betting it will be half of the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. And the rumour (still unconfirmed) is that linked Fire Prisms will ignore invulns as well. So, possibly? And nothing is stopping them from boosting Demolishers in the Guard codex or one their "balance dataslates".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
As mentioned in my post, Railguns weren't even in top 3 Best In Class tank-mounted antitank weapons when they were released. I expect the other weapons to be buffed similarly to keep this trend - and that's TERRIFYING for the health of the game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well, we already have several units armed with Demolishers with 9th edition rules, and they're the same as they were in 8th. Vanquisher is mostly up in the air, but I'm still betting it will be half of the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. And the rumour (still unconfirmed) is that linked Fire Prisms will ignore invulns as well. So, possibly? And nothing is stopping them from boosting Demolishers in the Guard codex or one their "balance dataslates".
Yep, so Demolishers now worse than Railguns confirmed (against every target class in the game, nice). If the Vanquisher goes to Strength 16, AP-4, D9, you don't consider that perhaps a bit too OTT? That's what I was afraid of - the Arms Race of superweapons. 1500 points of Titan? No worries, I brought 500 points of Vanquishers. "Who Shoots First Wins" is my favorite mission pack - and good news, it's the name for all modes of play! And yay, more ignoring the thing that ignores the thing rules for the Fire Prism. Especially ignoring invulns. That's the sign of a healthy game right there. I can't wait for the invuln-that-ignores-ignoring-invulns mechanic.
Lethality train has no brakes! (wait did I say that in the first post already?).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/04 18:57:49
Ordana wrote:The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
In the 4th edition armored company rules, the Vanquisher had access to BS4 (3+ now) and Veteran Skills (including a hit reroll) as well. And it was 2d6 and pick the highest while ALSO having the option to fire standard battlecannon shells (except with 24" greater range out to 96").
It was Ordnance and2d6 and add them together, meaning it penetrated much more easily than any other gun in the game AND got to roll on the most devastating damage chart.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/04 19:25:58
Ordana wrote: The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
Vanquisher Cannon was roll 2d6 and add them together. Like the 7th edition Armourbane USR.
Penetration wise, yeah the Vanquisher was WAY better. But Ordana was correct that generally speaking the LR Battlecannon was better overall thanks to the Blast rule. The Vanquisher was a single shot weapon, the battlecannon was a pieplate.
The reason why the old Battlewagon with Killkannon was good was because ork shooting was terrible when it had to roll to hit. Placing a template down and letting it scatter wherever was just fun and usually resulted in more hits then we can get now with the stupid thing. So it was more reliable to hit while the Vanquisher was more reliable to penetrate and destroy
The New Tau gun though...good god almight, if nothing else they likely need to tone it down in terms of dmg output. And the submunitions strat is just broken against Ork specialist mobz. Thing can gut a unit of kommandos in 1 turn.
Ordana wrote: The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
Vanquisher Cannon was roll 2d6 and add them together. Like the 7th edition Armourbane USR.
Penetration wise, yeah the Vanquisher was WAY better. But Ordana was correct that generally speaking the LR Battlecannon was better overall thanks to the Blast rule. The Vanquisher was a single shot weapon, the battlecannon was a pieplate.
The reason why the old Battlewagon with Killkannon was good was because ork shooting was terrible when it had to roll to hit. Placing a template down and letting it scatter wherever was just fun and usually resulted in more hits then we can get now with the stupid thing. So it was more reliable to hit while the Vanquisher was more reliable to penetrate and destroy
The New Tau gun though...good god almight, if nothing else they likely need to tone it down in terms of dmg output. And the submunitions strat is just broken against Ork specialist mobz. Thing can gut a unit of kommandos in 1 turn.
In 4th and 3rd, the pieplate was half strength unless the hole landed on the target - a Russ was a good bit less accurate than a BS4 (3+) vanquisher especially on the move (except against large targets like the Land Raider, which it was incapable of penetrating), unless Strength 4 was sufficient to penetrate your tank.
In later editions (5th-6th), the Armored Battlegroup Vanquisher got a Co-Axial Heavy Stubber which made the main gun twin-linked if it hit the target with any one of its 3 shots. It also got Beast Hunter Shells, which were not only Blast but also inflicted Instant Death. The codex vanquisher did indeed suck badly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/04 19:48:25
Ordana wrote:The Vanquisher was never actually good as an AT gun despite being advertised as such.
Ordanance was 2d6 pick highest, which in no way compensated for 2 more points of str.
The basic Battlecannon was a better AT gun then the Vanquisher because of scatter being better then having to roll to-hit.
In the 4th edition armored company rules, the Vanquisher had access to BS4 (3+ now) and Veteran Skills (including a hit reroll) as well. And it was 2d6 and pick the highest while ALSO having the option to fire standard battlecannon shells (except with 24" greater range out to 96").
It was Ordnance and2d6 and add them together, meaning it penetrated much more easily than any other gun in the game AND got to roll on the most devastating damage chart.
Right, hitting on 3s, rerolling, needing a 7 on 2d6 to pen AV14. At which point, you roll on the "most devastating damage chart" and either cripple or kill the tank (50% chance of either). And you think giving it 1 S16, AP-4, D9 shot is OTT? That won't kill any "tank", it'll just cripple them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest question: Do tau currently, or did Tau prior to this unit buff, LACK reliable anti-tank firepower? I never played them and know little about them aside the basic fluff, and the stats of this platform. I thought they could throw a ton of s10 d3 firepower around with broadsides. Did that change?
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Tau Railguns as originally implemented in 3rd edition were the premier anti tank weapon of any army. packing STR10, AP1 and long range. Hammerheads had this gun, together with a reasonably mobile platform and an alternate fire mode that was one of the few templates they could put down. Broadsides had twinlinked railguns with no alternate fire, (when twin linked let you re-roll hits rather than double shots) and limited mobility (moving with heavy weapons in 3rd forfeited heavy weapon shooting). In game terms what this meant is that in 3rd, and even more so in 4th and 5th, Railguns were excellent at the one shot against vehicles as AP 1 meant that glancing hits would be penetrating hits instead, and penetrating hits had a good chance of blowing whatever it was that was hit to bits. Glancing hits were unreliable and rarely resulted in lasting effects to vehicles.
When 6th came around, and Hull points were added, the riptide was introduced, and broadsides were reduced to STR8 heavy rail rifles, it meant that while the railgun was still one of the premier anti tank weapons, and Heavy Rail rifles were still AP1 (trumped by all the D weapons starting to appear) Glancing hits on vehicles would strip hull points and wreck the vehicle. this meant that you could use a more multi purpose platform (broadsides with HYMP) to engage infantry and vehicles, and glance vehicles down through weight of fire, and the one shot railguns fell out of favour, since as they were one shot, and you now had to contend with things like Invisibility, widespread Invuln saves etc, they were increasingly unreliable.
Move to 8th edition, Railguns became simply STR10 lascannons, Heavy Railrifles were now slightly punchier missile launchers no longer able to one shot anything and with the move to vehicles having a big wound pool, having a few shots with unreliable damage with low BS meant that the only really reliable way to take out vehicles was Cold stars with fusion blasters, or weight of fire from S7 missile pods. Incidentally, in 3rd to 7th editions, S7 weapons could not even scratch land raiders, or leman Russ' from the front, and could only barely damage predators. So you are now, in 8th/9th in a situation where Weight of fire is generally preferred over High Strength low shot weapons since all weapons can now hurt anything on the table, whether its reliable or not.
If anything, compared to Railguns as originally implemeted, they are a lot weaker against vehicles, and a lot stronger against MC's. It used to be a rare shot that would instant death a big gribbly, all weapons did one damage unless the shot was double the toughness of what it hit, in which case Splat, MC's used to rock around with 4+ wounds and the STR/T interaction was a lot harsher than it is now.
Quite seriously though, since the Railgun is on one platform, and not a very durable one at that, I can see them being shot once per game, per platform, and depending on how Longstrike is implemented in the new book, thats only 3-4 shots total if you max out with RO3. If you don't have anything that can reply, or the Hammerheads can maneuver round well to avoid counterfire, then they can probably smash multiple units down over multiple turns, especially big things like Mortarian, Knights and so forth, but with the boards being so constrained size wise, they have no-where to move to to leverage their range.
Game play aside, in the fluff, Tau units are supposed to be specialists, not generalists, with units designed to engage specific targets rather than take all comers, and the take all comers is the standard setup for most units now. I would love for various weapons to excel at their specific thing, but be sub par against everything else, but that may be wishful thinking
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
It's a gun wagon. It will never be a "sit back and shoot" kind of vehicle like a HH. As long as it has transport capacity and T8/W16 it will never be as point efficient at killing things as other vehicles designed to do so.
I'm not claiming it's great. I'd rather run a naked BW with 'ard case and deffrolla and again, as I noted, it pays too much for its gun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/04 23:20:36
That last paragraph though. Pretty sure a Tau infantry unit with effectively S5 -2AP 1dmg shots at 36' range and up to 3 shots at 18' range is a pretty generalist weapon build.
To put that in perspective, against a T6-8 3+ armored vehicle a unit of 12 firewarriors with a fireblade nearby will get 36 shots, 18 hits (no other buffs, including markerlights etc) 6 wounds and 4dmg. Not great, but that is a hell of a lot better then say 30 Ork boyz at 9' range who get 90 shots, 30 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg Thats a 108pt unit putting out 4dmg vs a 270pt unit putting out 3.3dmg.
The railgun is itself a pretty generalist weapon as well. Yeah the gun is massive and only 1 shot but that sub-munitions strat is just ridiculously good against semi-elite infantry. A Unit of 10 kommandos will lose 5 to this strat alone. Thats 50pts, and its an auto-hit ability with mortal wounds so there is no protection except with FNP which is rather scarce in a lot of armies.
Again for comparison on how "generalist" that strat makes the Railgun. 20 Intercessors all in double tap range will get 40 shots, 26.6 hits, 8.8 wounds and 4.4dmg, or 4-5 dead Kommandos. So that Railgun is as effective at killing Kommandos as 400pts of intercessors.
Seems to me more like Tau are more of a generalist army. I mean hell, in 7th Tau used to kill Titans by chucking haywire grenades at them from danger close
Semper's post mis-represented the Gunwagon a little. It's T8 with W16 and a 3+ and can transport 12 models. It has both Ramshackle and 'Ere We Go making it a decent assault vehicle especially if you opt for the Deffrolla. It just pays a bit too much for the periscope and gun. The Rail Gun will put it on 4 to 6 wounds 78% of the time which is mostly middle bracket and quite a lot to commit another HH to.
Well, like I said -- it pays too much for parts that coincidentally make the other end of it not as worthwhile. There are better things in the book, but when you're making a comparison to a unit that makes one big shot and another unit that transports, shoots, can do melee well, rerolls charges, and has some -1D potential then you're not making a straight comparison and it will be misleading.
Not really. It is T8, it does have W16, it does have a 3+ but the transport capacity is functionally USELESS, Ramshackle and Ere we go are functionally useless as well. I can count on one hand how many games where Ramshackle has really ever mattered, and usually its because someone brought a heavy bolter and the only thing worth shooting was my mek gunz which coincidentally actually benefit more from ramshackle then most vehicles thanks to T5 In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no AP 1dmg hitting on 5s. The only way to make it somewhat ok in CC is to give it the deffrolla which ups it to S9, -2AP 2dmg and hits on 2+, but still only 6 attacks, on a now 180pt unit, 190 if you give it the killkannon and 210 if you give it the 4 big shootas it can carry (Don't recommend the big shootas...or hte gunwagon in general ) In regards to it paying "A bit too much" yes...for everything. And I want to tie that in with this quote as well
how can you even make claims like that? there is for sure a points cost where it would be an auto 3-of in every army
You and Jidmah are correct...kind of. Jidmah is correct, there is no points value that is reasonable that this would ever be taken for its main purpose of being a tank. If you priced it the same as a buggy it would be taken but only because it would be unbelievably durable for its cost. You are correct in that it would be an auto-include if priced that low..But not for what it was designed for, it would be an auto-include because it would likely be the cheapiest T8 3+ wounds in the game. Kitted out with its killkannon and 4 big shootas (no other upgrades) this damn thing costs 195pts...its just not worth it, the killkannon averages 1 dead Marine a turn...and its actually slightly less then that. If this thing remained unmolested the entire game, 5 full turns and had nothing but Marine infantry in front of it, by the end of the game it would kill 4.86 Marines with its Killkannon and 3.7 with its 4 big shootas. totals 8.5 Marines, if they are 20pts each thats 170pts. And that is giving Big shootas half range the entire game. My general rule of thumb is that a shooty unit needs to make back its points value in 3 turns to be considered OK. This thing can't even do that in 5 turns. You could literally give the Killkannon 2x the # of shots and it would still be lackluster, especially considering it has a MAX range of 24' which means its one of those wonderful SHORT ranged tanks. And as mentioned, you really don't want this thing in CC because it then can't even utilize its main gun and at best its got 6 attacks. If you wanted it in close combat you would have been better off grabbing a Bonebreaka which averages 9.5 attacks on a turn where it charges....which is also a trash unit because...its only for 1 turn and then it goes RIGHT back to being a regular Battlewagon with smaller transport capacity.
So to summarize daed, its not a decent assault vehicle, its a really crappy one with no purpose except to give the ork player -1 to start the game. And its not even an OK shooting unit since equipped with its best loadouts its unable to earn back its points in a full game. And if you ram it into CC, it sucks and will just spend the rest of the game bogged down.
Point being: did tau honestly need this gun buff? Was this was what was holding them back? This seems more like a reinforcement of their primary problems.
Yes.
Because GW determined that they weren't selling enough Hammerhead kits.
Solution: Make the Hammerhead a desirable unit.
Result: the rail guns new stats.
Honestly this is a contested point. However, I will point out that in 8th edition GW had the now infamous "Orktober" shenenigans where they accidentally released most of the stuff in November, and the stuff they did release was....crap. The buggies were okish looking, I personally only like 1 or 2 of them as far as aesthetics go, competitively...they mostly sucked. The Scrapjet was ok, and 1 other was doing okish but definitely not competitive in the GT scene. But the worst offender, by a country mile was the Rukkatruk squigbuggy. It was so bad and overpriced that even GW went "whoops" and gave it a hefty price cut....which didn't even help. Nobody bought them, they were trash. Then comes 9th and GW buffs it to be the premier buggy with amazing firepower, basically the only model in the ork army with indirect fire and priced it rather aggressively. Suddenly they were flying off the shelf and GW ran out for a bit.
So, does GW price/rules equip models to sell? Sometimes? For every unit you can find that didn't sell well because of trash rules that then DID sell when the rules became OP or just good I can cite you at least 1 other unit that sucked in a previous edition and sucked harder the next....Looking at you Stompa.
Without internal knowledge of what GW is doing and what their warehouses look like we will never know for sure.
It's a gun wagon. It will never be a "sit back and shoot" kind of vehicle like a HH. As long as it has transport capacity and T8/W16 it will never be as point efficient at killing things as other vehicles designed to do so.
I'm not claiming it's great. I'd rather run a naked BW with 'ard case and deffrolla and again, as I noted, it pays too much for its gun.
Well what's funny is that last edition it was more effective lol, it had leman russ grinding advance and da boomer as a cp thing. It was honestly kinda good in 8th.
"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos
This seems ridiculously un-needed. The old heat lances for dark eldar did ap -5 but were only strength 6, the new ones are str 8 ap -4 but d6+2 damage. Dark lances have much the same profile but as heat lances except for 36" range and d3+3 damage.
This gun has 72" range (double the range of dark lances), str 14 (which is over 5 higher than void lances which we never use and 6 higher than dark lances which we used lots of), d3+6 damage (which is better than heat lance's damage which have 1/4 of their range) and when it wounds it does automatic 3 mortal wounds. Oh yeah and i almost forgot it also goes through invulnerable saves which my vehicles need to stay alive. FnP is the only real way around this and it's likely not enough.
I know this is just some leaked stats but this arms race GW forces out with each new codex esp. making some factions stupid absurd i just don't know if i want to play 40k in a serious manner anymore. I know a friend that was competitive in 40k and just stopped playing because his army just always got shafted and he was sick of it. I hated the idea of AoS but i might seriously consider it or a non-GW game. The arms race is ridiculous and i don't want to see a return of 7th edition tau over again.
Perhaps i'm freaking out too quickly but it seems balance is out the window again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/04 23:57:29
SemperMortis wrote: That last paragraph though. Pretty sure a Tau infantry unit with effectively S5 -2AP 1dmg shots at 36' range and up to 3 shots at 18' range is a pretty generalist weapon build.
To put that in perspective, against a T6-8 3+ armored vehicle a unit of 12 firewarriors with a fireblade nearby will get 36 shots, 18 hits (no other buffs, including markerlights etc) 6 wounds and 4dmg. Not great, but that is a hell of a lot better then say 30 Ork boyz at 9' range who get 90 shots, 30 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg Thats a 108pt unit putting out 4dmg vs a 270pt unit putting out 3.3dmg.
The railgun is itself a pretty generalist weapon as well. Yeah the gun is massive and only 1 shot but that sub-munitions strat is just ridiculously good against semi-elite infantry. A Unit of 10 kommandos will lose 5 to this strat alone. Thats 50pts, and its an auto-hit ability with mortal wounds so there is no protection except with FNP which is rather scarce in a lot of armies.
Again for comparison on how "generalist" that strat makes the Railgun. 20 Intercessors all in double tap range will get 40 shots, 26.6 hits, 8.8 wounds and 4.4dmg, or 4-5 dead Kommandos. So that Railgun is as effective at killing Kommandos as 400pts of intercessors.
Seems to me more like Tau are more of a generalist army. I mean hell, in 7th Tau used to kill Titans by chucking haywire grenades at them from danger close
These apples to oranges comparative vacuum analysis games are just silly - especially when you're willing to apply Montka to T'au ( plus HQ ) and nothing to Orks. Not to mention for those Strikes to be shooting a vehicle like that they'd need to be within 18" AND be the closest eligible unit of it turn 1, which is pretty much impossible if you decide it not to be a thing -- and it only gets more restricted from there.
Even 12 Shoota Boyz under Waagh pick up to 36 WS3 S4 swings where 12 Strikes would be 12 WS5 S3. In that math Shoota Boyz are an order of magnitude stronger than Strikes in melee.
Like I get that Shoota Boyz get sort of screwed by Waaagh, but this is not a good way to assess relative strength.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Well what's funny is that last edition it was more effective lol, it had leman russ grinding advance and da boomer as a cp thing. It was honestly kinda good in 8th.
And that made the design of the unit lopsided. No one wanted to move it like a transport, because moving too far lost you shots. It's a conflicted model that needs a point drop and the return of boarding planks strat that GW has no doubt decided to bury in a supplement in the future.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/05 00:14:55
flamingkillamajig wrote: This seems ridiculously un-needed. The old heat lances for dark eldar did ap -5 but were only strength 6, the new ones are str 8 ap -4 but d6+2 damage. Dark lances have much the same profile but as heat lances except for 36" range and d3+3 damage.
Yeah, and if a Ravager had a single Dark Lance it would kind of suck.
Fortunately it gets 3 and probably costs 75%~ of the Hammerhead.
GW could have just gone "screw it, Heavy 3 or 4, S10 AP-4 D3+3 damage, bit of fizz with mortal wounds on a 6".
And there are arguments for the game that a weapon that has a more normal distribution would be better as its less swingy.
But it doesn't obviously fit the fluff idea of a massive railgun that does one shot one kill. It also obviously steps on the Ion Cannon, which is presumably going to get a similar buff as well (although probably not quite to the same magnitude).
As for the Orks - sure the Gunwagon sucks. But don't compare it to the Gunwagon. Compare it to say 2 Scrapjets.
I just realized the stupidity of making this thing s14. What t7 units are there in the game that are scary enough to merit this weapon? This seems like it was designed by a rules member that was still extremely salty about 8th edition IH Dreadnaught characters. S16 would make sense, but s14 just means it has +2 to wound anything t7, which are light transports and Dreadnaughts. Neither of which warrant 10+3MW and anti-invuln firepower. Am I missing a horde of t7 Heavy units running around?
Honestly as a dark eldar player the only way i can think of fighting these things is just spamming lots of smaller vehicles. We still don't know what else tau have though.
@Tyel: I don't think you understand. I can only have 3 ravagers and a couple flyers. God only knows what else they can bring. Each shot that hits (the hardest part) and wounds (2+ to wound) will auto-kill almost any vehicles i have (each railgun shot does 7 damage+3 mortal wounds and avoids invulnerable saves and all my armor so 10 damage i can't avoid during its worst shots). If they pick out the ravagers first i'll be down a solid amount of firepower esp. if this happens turn 1. As i said before the only things i can do against this is spam vehicles or something similar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/05 00:51:12
In no way, shape or form is a Gunwagon a "Decent assault vehicle" even if you give it the 15pt upgrade of a deffrolla. Its got 6 attacks base at S8 no 
