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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I thought the "wait and see" crowd would wait for like three tournaments

More data is always better. HH will feature at some point, I'm sure. Longstrike and one other is probably the most we will see is my guess though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I thought the "wait and see" crowd would wait for like three tournaments

Wait and see is always best, but at the same time, if you see a car parked on a track and a train barreling toward it, you dont need to wait and see what happens to know whats gonna happen.

Unless knights come out swinging and become a top meta army I can't see 4 x Hammerhead lists being considered at any point.

Dudeface wrote:
Unless knights come out swinging and become a top meta army I can't see 4 x Hammerhead lists being considered at any point.

I'd rather take HH's into Crushing Swarm, who are popular then into Knights where they are sure to get volleyed off the table.

Also why on earth would you play 4 HH's? That was always a meme. You dont need more then 2.

 Ordana wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Unless knights come out swinging and become a top meta army I can't see 4 x Hammerhead lists being considered at any point.

I'd rather take HH's into Crushing Swarm, who are popular then into Knights where they are sure to get volleyed off the table.

Also why on earth would you play 4 HH's? That was always a meme. You dont need more then 2.

The entire basis of this thread is they're so amazingly good at everything that you'd never take anything else and irrevocably break the game.

Metas can shift which can justify some "wait and see" but Tau look to have the numbers to be very good. Custodes have been out a little longer and seem clearly up there too. Its hard to see what revelation would mean they aren't.

4 HH was unlikely to be the tournament list to beat (although it would be interesting to see some people try). I'm not sure how you'll get data on "Timmy bought his Knights (or Greater Daemons, or Dreadknights or Primaris Vehicle list and had most of his army deleted in a turn and then he said wow, this game sucks". Its probably out there. Admittedly, lots of things could probably do the same but still.

You're not supposed to win vs tau as knights.

Dudeface wrote:
Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?

This feels incredibly premature. When Dark Eldar were podiuming left and right after their book came out with Cult and Kabal-heavy lists, did that mean that Covens were not actually busted?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?

This feels incredibly premature. When Dark Eldar were podiuming left and right after their book came out with Cult and Kabal-heavy lists, did that mean that Covens were not actually busted?

They were less broken and didn't appear until the first rounds of nerfs iirc.

Plus if the hammerhead is so OP as to cause thus level of concern, surely it'd be featuring more than the humble crisis suit, or even vespid?

It seems to be forgotten - but Covens did get buffed when the rest of DE got nerfs. Haemi down 10, Talos down 10, Grotesques down 5. Cronos up 5 as a bit of compensation but not really adding up to much.

Lists may have gone that way anyway - but it wasn't just meta whimsy when this happened at the same time as Succubi, Wyches, Incubi and Raiders going up.

just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.

At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.

At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.

Oh I don't disagree but after a month if being told how they're an auto include and wipe out their points worth almost automatically against any target, I expected more of a splash in honesty.

They're a dumb concept as I've stated in here previously, I just don't think they're the scourge of the game they were claimed to be by many.

At this point i'm becoming numb to other armie's bs honestly. Theres just too much of it now

Tyel wrote:
It seems to be forgotten - but Covens did get buffed when the rest of DE got nerfs. Haemi down 10, Talos down 10, Grotesques down 5. Cronos up 5 as a bit of compensation but not really adding up to much.

Lists may have gone that way anyway - but it wasn't just meta whimsy when this happened at the same time as Succubi, Wyches, Incubi and Raiders going up.

I can't prove it but I don't think those buffs mattered that much; if GW hadn't done them, I suspect Thicc City would have still been nasty (and Thin City didn't really get buffed period).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.

At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.

Yeah, some people will just be sad. They deserve it.
Others of us? We merely see a challenge.

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

 Aenar wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Aenar wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.

Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Time to check back in, 2 top placing Tau armies in a large GT. 1 hammerhead between them. Can we now admit to the overreaction?

I'm more interested in seeing if their is a similar tau-outrage mob that demands immediate nerf to the Tau because they did really well in 1 GT.

Tau will be left alone because they aren't orks

VladimirHerzog wrote:just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.

At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.

But that's the thing, they're not really a problematic unit. They excel at chunking big single entities, especially those that rely on invuln saves. Other than that, they're okay against other targets and are on a fairly squishy platform. And they're a single shot, all or nothing type deal.

They're good against single entities and the heaviest of infantry.

Broadsides appear to be good against everything; more shots, comparable damage once the multiple shots are factored in, and better distribution of wounds/mortal wounds because of multiple shots. I'd argue that they're the problematic unit of the two if I had to pick one.


If 40k featured a "side deck" mechanic like some card games do (going into game one with a set list and X amount of toolbox units to sub in for game two once you've realised what you're up against. Obviously those games feature a best of three set up for their matches, not a one and done) then HH's would be very problematic as two/three of them would cover any AT deficiency in any competitive TAC list.

 carldooley wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Aenar wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

Sorry bud, you don't get to complain Tau were broken OP for the longest time. Orkz had 2 editions without a codex, and our 7th was so bad that we wished we had the old 4th one back We finally got a good codex here in 9th and because orkz weren't the "LOL easy win" faction we had so many complainers that they literally changed the rules of 9th to make it so our top lists couldn't compete anymore.

Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.

And you didn't call a judge? That's like saying Harlequin lists are a problem because if you weight your dice to always roll 4+ you'll never fail a save.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I thought the "wait and see" crowd would wait for like three tournaments

Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.

To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:


Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.

That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.

 Aenar wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

Eldar have literally been top tier/the best codex in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. Just.

Something tells me you'll get your wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I thought the "wait and see" crowd would wait for like three tournaments

Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.

To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:


Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.

That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.

There's also the problem of Suits being so good the Railgun defenders in this thread won't make the connection that there's stuff better than the Rail gun =/= nothing wrong with the rail gun

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Aenar wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
Speaking of excuses, what are we on with Eldar, now? I kinda lost track. "Wait for points"? "Let us see all the rules first"? Or is it "It surely isn't as bad as points and rules indicate" already?

I'm at "hoping that they are utterly broken", so that they get all the attention and we Tau can catch a break from all the complaining

Eldar have literally been top tier/the best codex in every edition besides 5th, where they were just upper mid tier. Just.

Something tells me you'll get your wish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I thought the "wait and see" crowd would wait for like three tournaments

Three tournaments is a very short period. People need to get familiar with a new codex before reaching some conclusions, which means 10+ games played in person against that faction.

To me "wait and see" means 3-4 months since the rules' release at least, definitely not days or even a few weeks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:


Depends on the event. I remember playing into green tide lists, having my opponent laboriously measure the movement of each model, then win on points as the match went to time.

That's cheating or abusing house rules' loopholes. Losing in such ways had nothing to do with the actual rules.

There's also the problem of Suits being so good the Railgun defenders in this thread won't make the connection that there's stuff better than the Rail gun =/= nothing wrong with the rail gun

And there's some very blinkered people who will ignore that pretty much everyone agrees they're a poor design choice, but also miss that the "defenders" simply didn't think they'd be a problem. Everyone, myself included, who hasn't been convinced that 4 Hammerhead lists will be a thing, admits that a swingy single shot weapon is a problem one way or another.

I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)

Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against, and it's got specific rules that ignore specific rules just for the sake of it. If it had 2 shots but didn't ignore invul it would be better designed (even if maybe a little undercosted).

I think the big weapons that are Heavy 1d6 dealing 1d6 dmg are crap, but still better for the game that this idiocy.

Apparently this weekend if you look at tournaments and take out mirrors, and take out playing each other, Custodes and Tau had a 76/77% win rate.

So... yeah.

 Mr Raptor wrote:
I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)

Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.

 Mr Raptor wrote:
Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against,

Well, that's an opinion.

ccs wrote:

 Mr Raptor wrote:
I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)

Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.

Let me rephrase that. It feels more like a meme rather than a serious thing. Also, you need to own 3 railguns, and a lot of casual people don't. The whole point of casual play is to not specifically follow the meta and take 3x the best thing in the codex.

ccs wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
just because hammerheads arent tearing up the competitive scene doesnt mean theyre not a problematic unit.

At casual tables, having a model that can straight up delete anything big with (the perceived) no counterplay is gonna feel terrible to face.

Yeah, some people will just be sad. They deserve it.
Others of us? We merely see a challenge.

Yeah, I will just experience the challenge of not playing my Greater Daemons against Tau or playing my Chaos Knights. Such great challenge. This kind of egocentric chest thumping nonsense is more toxic than any amount of doom crying.

40k is more and more becoming a game where if you do not playing with the most optimized meta list you can get rolled in even the most casual of environments. Do you know boring the game gets when I roll my opponents, with the game being decided by turn two? It happens a lot in the games I play, despite everyone saying the game is so balanced. It sucks when I do it to someone and it sucks when it happens to me. I played this game weekly for the past year or so and I can not remember the last time I had a game that was not over after turn 2. If it is not LOS ignoring long range weapons, fast moving high power weapons or super fast melee units getting across the table in one turn there is always some sort of all or nothing play in modern 40k that decides the game early on. This is the first week in years where I have just decided that I have no interest playing and due to that loss of interest I also have no interest in painting anything.

The HH is not going to ruin the game, but it sure as gak feels like an additional straw on the already broken back of the player base having to deal with the unreal power creep. They are creating rules to counter other rules that counter certain rules in a never ending chain of bs.

I'll throw my hat in the ring. I posted a pseudo battle report in the Imperial Knights thread. The short of it is that Knights actually do well against a TAC Tau list in a casual setting. Top tier tournament lists are running a trio of Broadsides, or a Stormsurge, but rarely more than that. So what if Tau can build the hardest counter to Imperial Knights? That kind of Hammerhead spam would be god-awful against a huge variety of other lists. In a tournament, you just wouldn't run into it. In a casual game, you'd tell your opponent to knock it off. Either way, it's not a practical problem.

 Mr Raptor wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Mr Raptor wrote:
I don't think for a single moment that railguns will be broken or taken by 3 in competitive (or any format outside of joke, really, because who the hell would want to take 3 HH in casual ?)

Why wouldn't someone take 3 HH in casual? I don't know about where you play, but we see all sorts of stuff outside tourney play.

Let me rephrase that. It feels more like a meme rather than a serious thing. Also, you need to own 3 railguns, and a lot of casual people don't. The whole point of casual play is to not specifically follow the meta and take 3x the best thing in the codex.

Your logic on this confused: So 3 HH are somehow a meme that's not to be taken seriously, won't be an issue in tourney play, BUT if you take 3 outside a tourney - in casual play - you're following the meta by taking 3x the best thing in the codex....

As for any casual player who's interested in fielding 3 HH but doesn't own them? I'm betting they can solve that problem.

 Mr Raptor wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Mr Raptor wrote:
Th real problem of this weapon really is that it's a poor design. It's not something that's fun to play with or against,

Well, that's an opinion.

And that's a great contribution.

I say it's bad design because it's both hit and miss and has 0 counterplay. It's not the worst thing in the world but it's kind of a shame that GW thougth that the only way to make a frightening canon was to make it ignore invuln. And it's not like it's a warp bullet or a reality bending ammo, or whatever feckery you could have to justify it. The whole reason it has a special rule to ignore the system is "bullet go fast".

Zero counterplays? Really? You sure?
Gw wanted to make a scary gun - yep, they succeeded. This thing tags something, it'll leave a mark.... What fluff justification they give it is irrelevent to me.
Wether or not it's fun to use/play against? Very much an opinion. Obviously it'll suck for you. Me? I just see a challenge - and one I'm sure I'm up to. The kid who was assembling a HH at the shop Sat evening? He seemed really excited about it.