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.

PenitentJake wrote:
This is because Knights don't have their dex yet.

They'll get some form of mitigation against this attack- whether a modified FNP, and Damage reduction, or a per phase damage limit like Ghaz.

Comparing a 9th dex to an 8th is always going to be at least a little bit busted; that's why edition churn sucks as a business model, and we'd all be better off with persistent edition based on campaign seasons system that provides small incremental upgrades and modest model releases for every faction every year.

(PS: No, that's not saying it doesn't suck for knight players- it does. It's also not saying they have no right to complain- they do)

Oh god can you imagine how cancerous knights will be with a -1damage reduction?

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The thing with the Hammerhead is that they're realistically only going to fire once. The Hammerheads will cripple but probably not kill one knight, at which point they turn around and blow them to bits and they don't have to worry about them any more.

A Hammerhead is something like T7 W13 S3+? That's not going to stand up to any sort of dedicated AT fire, especially when they're the primary threat to your Knights.

Nothing like a game where alpha strike is king...

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, why do I have a feeling that while everyone is complaining about the HH's, Broadsides will be the ones that really cause folks headaches? I think there's little doubt their weapons will be getting a boost as well, they can come in 3's per slot and two rail shots apiece (as it stands now, who knows what it will be when the codex drops).

Same. Or the other "more powerful weapon", which I assume is the Supremacy Railgun on the Gunrig. If that's the case then hopefully it is just a two shot version of this. That or the Stormsurge Pulse stuff.

The Heavy Rail Rifle on the Broadsides will very like be S10 / S12, AP6, Ignore Invuln, 1 MW, D3+3 damage. It is possible for them to be D3+6 since the old versions were both a D6 and it was just the MW trigger that was 1 or D3. Given the two shots I think GW would be insane to make them flat 6.

With that in mind the HH has a 74% chance to do 10/11/12 to a T7 model. A Broadside would have a 66% chance to do 5/6/7, which seems fine honestly for something approaching 100 points.

 Blackie wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Supposedly, the Riptide is getting moved into the HS slot. So you're less likely to see these than you think.

A patrol and a spearhead allow 8 HS. Slots availability isn't an issue in 9th.

If they become LoW than yeah, you're really less likely to see these than you think. Morkanaut/gorkanaut style.

Edited because I’m an eejit.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/10/the-tau-empire-leads-the-charge-as-five-combat-patrols-prepare-to-land/

That's a ghostkeel

Rihgu wrote:
That's a ghostkeel

Ah, well don’t I feel foolish now. Oops.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Aenar wrote:Riptides have the same statline as a LevDread, if those aren't LoW I doubt the Riptide will be either.

Spoletta wrote:Tau already have a LoW in the dex, I don't think they will give one more.

GW cared about neither of those things for orks.

Feasible, but the 'Nauts went from 18 wounds to where they are now. Something that is 14 would be stretching it a bit, I think.

Nauts went from "almost playable" to "Holy Christ are these things bad" Just wanted to put that in here. If Riptides get the same shoddy treatment, I for one would be astounded.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Aenar wrote:Riptides have the same statline as a LevDread, if those aren't LoW I doubt the Riptide will be either.

Spoletta wrote:Tau already have a LoW in the dex, I don't think they will give one more.

GW cared about neither of those things for orks.

Feasible, but the 'Nauts went from 18 wounds to where they are now. Something that is 14 would be stretching it a bit, I think.

Nauts went from "almost playable" to "Holy Christ are these things bad" Just wanted to put that in here. If Riptides get the same shoddy treatment, I for one would be astounded.

I could see Riptides going to 4++ with Nova Charge and saviour protocol in general going away, which would make Riptides very questionable at 300 points.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Dont forget, railguns are NOT the most powerful gun they have.

whats also not mentioned is the fact the hammerhead can fly, so it can hide behind stuff, pop out, with zero impunity to shooting said rail gun.

Tau basically hard counters knight lists with no real way around it. Its just a feels batman.

Given that they ripped fly from the repulsor and impulsor(not sure about other factions). I'm hoping GW learned it's leason with flying tanks

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Dont forget, railguns are NOT the most powerful gun they have.

whats also not mentioned is the fact the hammerhead can fly, so it can hide behind stuff, pop out, with zero impunity to shooting said rail gun.

Tau basically hard counters knight lists with no real way around it. Its just a feels batman.

Given that they ripped fly from the repulsor and impulsor(not sure about other factions). I'm hoping GW learned it's leason with flying tanks

pretty sure they ripped fly from these because they litterally do not fly in the fluff, they hover. Drukhari kept their flying tanks

I bet Eldar will have fly on their tanks as well. They're outright stated to be aircraft as much as tanks in the fluff (i.e. the Falcon can get in dogfights with imperial aircraft).

Tau it's less certain, but if I were GW's game designers I would leave fly. Helicopter-style pop-up attacks seem well within their "reasonable tactics" (for 40k) wheelhouse.

Eldar tanks will surely have fly.

As far as I know, the HH is more like a grav tank which occasionally can "jump" over a debris.
Don't know if that is enough for GW to consider it a flying model.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Dont forget, railguns are NOT the most powerful gun they have.

whats also not mentioned is the fact the hammerhead can fly, so it can hide behind stuff, pop out, with zero impunity to shooting said rail gun.

Tau basically hard counters knight lists with no real way around it. Its just a feels batman.

Given that they ripped fly from the repulsor and impulsor(not sure about other factions). I'm hoping GW learned it's leason with flying tanks

pretty sure they ripped fly from these because they litterally do not fly in the fluff, they hover. Drukhari kept their flying tanks

All of the CWE grav tanks in the Compendium kept FLY, so I'd say that will carry over to the codex models. But you can't expect consistency from gw: while all of the "small" primaris tanks lost FLY, the BIG ONE, the Astraeus, kept it. So who knows.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
The thing with the Hammerhead is that they're realistically only going to fire once. The Hammerheads will cripple but probably not kill one knight, at which point they turn around and blow them to bits and they don't have to worry about them any more.

A Hammerhead is something like T7 W13 S3+? That's not going to stand up to any sort of dedicated AT fire, especially when they're the primary threat to your Knights.

Nothing like a game where alpha strike is king...

Alpha strike/mitigating an alpha strike has been pretty key for a while now. Arguably for a few editions of the game.

The new Hammerhead doesn't particularly make waves in either direction in that regard.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I bet Eldar will have fly on their tanks as well. They're outright stated to be aircraft as much as tanks in the fluff (i.e. the Falcon can get in dogfights with imperial aircraft).

Tau it's less certain, but if I were GW's game designers I would leave fly. Helicopter-style pop-up attacks seem well within their "reasonable tactics" (for 40k) wheelhouse.

My guess is Fly will be removed from the Hammerhead, but kept for the Devilfish. Not sure which way the Skyray would swing, but I'd almost expect it would have Fly removed. If removed, they'll gain some convoluted rule that allows them to retreat from melee, but not bypass obstacles.

Considering that they pulled FLY off the Monolith, who knows what will happen.

Its the same chassis. Either they all lose Fly or they all keep it (devilfish, Hammerhead, Skyray)

Spoletta wrote:
The claim being made is that other faction have possessed better forms of AT all this time, so going chicken little now is a bit out of place.

Which is ludicrously stupid claim as no other AT gun in the game combines very cheap, flying platform, range of whole table, ignoring of ++, bucket of MW for free with each shot, comically high damage, easy 2+ and rerolls to hit if you want them, and all the other gak. This alone would make it one of the most broken weapons in 40K but to make it even worse, it also counters elite 1W infantry thanks to bucket of MW part, can reliably deal with other elites, pees on demons/custodes/tyranids/harlequins/etc, and can take on chaff to boot (just pay CP to simply force opponent to pick up 8 models off the table, no counterplay possible, from any unit of 12+ models). It's so versatile that the other 1400 points of your Tau army can be spent on countering off-meta builds because your tanks took care of all the obvious threats and you have luxury to be able to plan for unlikely contingencies with the rest.

People pretending SM melta dudes are in any way comparable to this are either joking or simply so blinkered in their SM (or primaris) hate that their opinion about game balance is completely worthless (and that's even ignoring the fact eradicators were never in top 3 of even SM anti-tank units to begin with, even before the nerf, never mind in 40K as a whole, not that people that made them to be such boogeymen that they compare them with a straight face to such broken gak care about facts)...

2 HH: 4%, with a 52% chance to bracket

I really like this disingenuous argument. At first glance, 4% looks low... Until you consider 'bracket' in this context means pretty much 'dead' (the few remaining wounds can be plinked off by even softest units in Tau army, or the knight can be ignored entirely because at this point it has 5/6+ to hit back with whatever it has). ~300 points of models have 57% chance of neutralizing 600-700 point model instantly. Claiming this somehow is OK state of affairs is so warped I have no words.

 Irbis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The claim being made is that other faction have possessed better forms of AT all this time, so going chicken little now is a bit out of place.

Which is ludicrously stupid claim as no other AT gun in the game combines very cheap, flying platform, range of whole table, ignoring of ++, bucket of MW for free with each shot, comically high damage, easy 2+ and rerolls to hit if you want them, and all the other gak. This alone would make it one of the most broken weapons in 40K but to make it even worse, it also counters elite 1W infantry thanks to bucket of MW part, can reliably deal with other elites, pees on demons/custodes/tyranids/harlequins/etc, and can take on chaff to boot (just pay CP to simply force opponent to pick up 8 models off the table, no counterplay possible, from any unit of 12+ models). It's so versatile that the other 1400 points of your Tau army can be spent on countering off-meta builds because your tanks took care of all the obvious threats and you have luxury to be able to plan for unlikely contingencies with the rest.

People pretending SM melta dudes are in any way comparable to this are either joking or simply so blinkered in their SM (or primaris) hate that their opinion about game balance is completely worthless (and that's even ignoring the fact eradicators were never in top 3 of even SM anti-tank units to begin with, even before the nerf, never mind in 40K as a whole, not that people that made them to be such boogeymen that they compare them with a straight face to such broken gak care about facts)...

2 HH: 4%, with a 52% chance to bracket

I really like this disingenuous argument. At first glance, 4% looks low... Until you consider 'bracket' in this context means pretty much 'dead' (the few remaining wounds can be plinked off by even softest units in Tau army, or the knight can be ignored entirely because at this point it has 5/6+ to hit back with whatever it has). ~300 points of models have 57% chance of neutralizing 600-700 point model instantly. Claiming this somehow is OK state of affairs is so warped I have no words.

The whole premise of HH killing a few infantry models making it good at killing chaff is a bit absurd and the strat will be one HH. Killing 20 points of an infantry squad is hardly worthy of a 160+ point model.

This is two HH shooting a knight.

68% of the results in the table below leave the knight on 12+ wounds. 4% kills it outright. 28% leave it crippled. This changes based on when and where you can apply a CP reroll. If you have to reroll the wound then you won't be rerolling damage. If you leave it crippled there's a good chance we'll see the Knight go top bracket via strat and retaliate.

No one is saying Knights are safe. They need tools to deal with this as do Greater Daemons. What people are saying is that the Rail Gun is by no means an absurd design for a weapon. There's other considerations that can make the HH stupid, but it's really impossible to discern where it will land and I'm betting other parts of the codex will be the bigger problem.

Also, FYI, knights are generally sub 500 points right now, so, "600 to 700" points is a stretch.

I mean, the Rail Gun is more reliable against 1 wound infantry than d6 blast weapons (with the possible exception of 11+ man squads; haven't done the math).

Better against 1-wound infantry than, for example, the Basilisk. And against 2 wound infantry. And, come to think of it, 3 wound infantry. And tanks.

Huh. Well at least it doesn't ignore LOS.

...what do you think that graph is showing, Daed? As, whatever it is, it most certainly is not communicating it clearly.

 Dysartes wrote:
...what do you think that graph is showing, Daed? As, whatever it is, it most certainly is not communicating it clearly.

The discrete results of two HH shooting a knight. Each data point is the chance for the knight to have that many wounds remaining.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the Rail Gun is more reliable against 1 wound infantry than d6 blast weapons (with the possible exception of 11+ man squads; haven't done the math).

Better against 1-wound infantry than, for example, the Basilisk. And against 2 wound infantry. And, come to think of it, 3 wound infantry. And tanks.

Huh. Well at least it doesn't ignore LOS.

Maybe there will be a strat for that

It seems very powerful but the worst thing looks like it will either do huge amounts of damage or very little/nothing.....

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the Rail Gun is more reliable against 1 wound infantry than d6 blast weapons (with the possible exception of 11+ man squads; haven't done the math).

Better against 1-wound infantry than, for example, the Basilisk. And against 2 wound infantry. And, come to think of it, 3 wound infantry. And tanks.

Huh. Well at least it doesn't ignore LOS.

Maybe there will be a strat for that

It seems very powerful but the worst thing looks like it will either do huge amounts of damage or very little/nothing.....

Which is the scary part.

The player has much more agency over how an individual roll goes, than a group.

Roll badly with the Demolisher and fail 3/5 wounds? Well, you can reroll 1 wound, but you can't reroll the damage then, which is only a d6.

Roll badly with the HH and fail 1/1 wounds? Good news, you only have to reroll 1 for a minimum of 10 damage!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, the Rail Gun is more reliable against 1 wound infantry than d6 blast weapons (with the possible exception of 11+ man squads; haven't done the math).

Better against 1-wound infantry than, for example, the Basilisk. And against 2 wound infantry. And, come to think of it, 3 wound infantry. And tanks.

Huh. Well at least it doesn't ignore LOS.

Not sure why we're comparing to a super old codex that hasn't had the rando damage removed yet.

HH
- 2 marines : 74%

DL Ravager
- 1 marine : 32%
- 2 marines : 42%
- 3 marines : 18%

Dissie Ravager
- 1 marine : 8%
- 2 marines : 19%
- 3 marines : 26%
- 4 marines : 23%
- 5 marines : 22%

Sub in laser chickens, wazboms, buggies, etc as one pleases.

HH will have a hell of a time ( impossible ) killing more than one of something with four wounds ( Spawn, Grots, etc ) where a DL Ravager could kill three and a Dissie could kill four ( with luck ). There's a bit more nuance than people care to look at.

A few thoughts

When I first heard about the stats on the new railgun I thought my CK are F'ed.

Knights will always be a skew list to an extent. If you bring an only knight list, even armigers. You risk running into AT and being in trouble.

I don't like ignore INV. Rules that disable are usually worse than rules that enable.

There's a lot of powercreep going on in these last codices and it's going to get out of control fast and I'm getting flashbacks to the worst days of 7th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...what do you think that graph is showing, Daed? As, whatever it is, it most certainly is not communicating it clearly.

The discrete results of two HH shooting a knight. Each data point is the chance for the knight to have that many wounds remaining.

Soooo it has 100% chance of leaving it on 24 wounds? I'm sorry its still clear as mud to me, better labels would go a long way and a key what the purple lines showing.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...what do you think that graph is showing, Daed? As, whatever it is, it most certainly is not communicating it clearly.

The discrete results of two HH shooting a knight. Each data point is the chance for the knight to have that many wounds remaining.

Soooo it has 100% chance of leaving it on 24 wounds? I'm sorry its still clear as mud to me, better labels would go a long way and a key what the purple lines showing.

I'm also unclear why the bars for 12/13/14 are different heights - that's the bracket where one HH has wounded, so the variance should just be the D3. They should be equal, unless I'm missing something, and the bars are different heights to the naked eye.

I find it interesting that people are freaking out that this thing blows right through a knight's invul, but no one seems to care that it also blows right through a 2+ save. Personally, I kinda like that this thing tears knights up just as easily as it does other LoWs. Knights already get enough advantages already.

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...what do you think that graph is showing, Daed? As, whatever it is, it most certainly is not communicating it clearly.

The discrete results of two HH shooting a knight. Each data point is the chance for the knight to have that many wounds remaining.

Soooo it has 100% chance of leaving it on 24 wounds? I'm sorry its still clear as mud to me, better labels would go a long way and a key what the purple lines showing.

No, sorry - use the left side for values. Those are the discrete values. The right side is the cumulative value ( the purple line ). So, 100% of results will leave the knight on 24 wounds ( of course ), but about 20% of those will actually be on 24 wounds, then about 16% each for 12, 13, and 14 and so on.