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.

Currently rail -weapons are massively inconsistent.
pathfinders rail rifles do s6 d3 damage with a roll of 6 doing a bonus mortal sound
Broadsides heavy rail rifle are s8 d6 damage with a bonus mortal wound on a 6
the Railgun on the hammerhead is s10 d6 damage, bonus d3 mortal wounds on a 6

all 3 can do 1 damage, despite the "upgrade" and massive platform costs with the broadside and hammerhead

so i propose that rail weapons d d3 damage, and upgrade per level 1d3 for rail rifle, 2d3 for HRR and 3d3 for Railgun, leaving mortal wound chances as is.

I would also propose other factions with similar weapon/featuresets get something similar, but I play T'au primarily

Ad mech dunecrawler's weapons do D6 damage, but to a minimum of 3. That would probably be reasonable for, say, the vehicle-mounted railgun.

Don't forget the Tidewall! It gets two shots that will almost certainly miss for d6 dmg each. I am ok with either the d6 min3 or 3d3 methods. I doubt GW will do 3d3 but FW might.

It seems reasonable to have d3, 2d3, d6 min 3. Though rail rifle is pretty underwhelming for the cost, here's hoping for a massive reduction.

I'd be fine with all of these. Rail weapons are really meh for their cost, and GW leans way too hard on you rolling a 6.

Crit damage seems like an ork thing. Let tau have reliable damage.

I don't think any amount of finagling the damage will really help unless you give it something ludicrous.

I've noticed anti-tank weapons tend to be divided into good/bad based on two things:
1. High average damage
2. Spamability

The higher the average damage from a single shooting phase the less spamable they need to be an vice versa. For example Lascannons have almost identical average damage as a rail gun and slightly worse then a vanquisher battle cannon, but the lascannon is good because you can take a shed load of them on a half a million different platform, mean while the VBC and rail gun are one per tank thus completely unspamable.
On the other end of the spectrum you have stuff like volcano cannons and neutron lasers. Both are also not easy to spam, volcano cannons greatly more so, with the same sort of restrictions VBC and rail guns get, but their average damage is really high.

So for a rail gun to be any where near good, we must increase it's average damage because we can't make them spamable, unless anyone can find space for two more rail guns on a hammerhead, however 1d6 min 3 doesn't really help much, it works for the dunecrawler but it has d3 shots, and 3d3 is definitely going in the right direction, but I don't think it goes far enough for a single shot gun to be worth it. I would put it at 3d6 discard the lowest, then it might actually have high enough damage for a single shot to be worth it.

Almost forgot about the Broadsides, honestly I think they are fine, they just need to not cost 200 points a piece.

Hammerhead railgun should be expensive, but cause catastrophic damage to single targets. I'm thinking Str 16, 2D6 mortal wounds that can't spill over that ignore "wound ignore mechanics". So no disgustingly resilient.

I have no problems with Broadsides being expensive point wise. In 7th they where way too cheap. I think they should be the Tau equivalent of Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, Deff Dreads, etc... more fragile than many of those, but with the best shooting outpoot. So I have no problems with 120-180 points Broadsides. Actually I would prefer it. Of course they need to have rules to make them worth those points.


I agree that Railgun should be devastating agaisn't single targets and be expensive. Maybe no that devastating as Martel said. Probably a Str 12 -4 Ap, 2d6 damage pick the higgest, with d3 mortal wounds on 6 could be cool.

Martel732 wrote:
Hammerhead railgun should be expensive, but cause catastrophic damage to single targets. I'm thinking Str 16, 2D6 mortal wounds that can't spill over that ignore "wound ignore mechanics". So no disgustingly resilient.

2d6 damage feels about right to me, although I think we'd need to consider bumping up the hammerhead's price a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hammerhead with a railgun comes in around 130 points right now. How does that stack up against, for instance, a wave serpent with twin bright lances? (Which comes in around 150 points with that laodout if I'm not mistaken).

I don't think I'd necessarily make it mortal wounds though, and I'm not sure I'd let it ignore FNP equivalents either. Sure, it should have a great AP value, but invul saves tend to represent things that an extra super duper powerful cannon shot shouldn't really ignore. Dark eldar vehicles, for instance, are basically using holograms to play with your aim and make you shoot something that isn't really there. Like a D&D displacer beast. No matter how strong a rail shot is, it probably shouldn't be able to hurt something if it's shooting in the wrong direction. Demonic vehicles are basically using magic to Protect themselves. Your aim was dead on? That's great, but your bullet turned to snowflakes as it struck me, so...

Feel No Pain equivalents are a little trickier. In the case of Nurgle stuff, we're talking about magic again. Like, yeah, you probably tore a chunk of boogers out of that greater daemon, but the remaining booger material just oozed out some replacement goop to close the hole. Which proceeded to turn into an extra face that laughs at you. Similarly, a warlord with the survivor trait is essentially meant to have luck/plot armor that keeps him going. If he miraculously manages to survive a railgun shot due to that 6+ FNP, it's because he got caught on the edge of the shot where he was knocked back, his armor was shredded, etc., but he didn't actually take a rail round to the face. Or maybe he dove out of the way at the last moment, but the debris created by the shot managed to take some wind out of his sails. Whatever. My point being that "this bullet is really strong though" doesn't necessarily counter raw luck and plot armor. Granted, things like power from pain that basically just represent dark eldar being too crazed/high to care about injuries right away don't make quite as much sense. You could apply some of the plot armor logic to it and say that a given space elf is actually just suffering from a bunch of small shrapnel instead of a bullet hole, but that gets a little shakey.

Plus, FNP is applied on a damage basis, not a wound basis. So if you do 7 damage with it, and they have a 6+ FNP, you're probably doing about 6 damage after the FNP roll. More than enough to kill most heroes, barring the really titanic ones.

 Galas wrote:
I have no problems with Broadsides being expensive point wise. In 7th they where way too cheap. I think they should be the Tau equivalent of Dreadnoughts, Wraithlords, Deff Dreads, etc... more fragile than many of those, but with the best shooting outpoot. So I have no problems with 120-180 points Broadsides. Actually I would prefer it. Of course they need to have rules to make them worth those points.


I agree that Railgun should be devastating agaisn't single targets and be expensive. Maybe no that devastating as Martel said. Probably a Str 12 -4 Ap, 2d6 damage pick the higgest, with d3 mortal wounds on 6 could be cool.

I'm not in love with 2d6 pick the highest or with "critical hits on 6s," though I do recognize that those two rules do compliment one another. The way the hammerhead is portrayed, I kind of feel like it should have the potential to one-shot common enemy vehicles. Turning a roll o fa 1 into a roll of a 6 is nice (if mildly unlikely), having that 6 result deal up to 3 more damage is nice when it happens... but even in a best case scenario, you still aren't taking out a rhino.

Now making it difficult to one-shot vehicles in 8th edition seems to be a very intentional design decision, and there's a lot to be said for not stranding your opponent's transports in their deployment zone on turn 1. However, I still feel like the railhead is meant to be this tank that causes the soundtrack to swell every time it fires and just devastate whatever it hits. In editions where strength 10 was as good as it got and one-shotting vehicles was more of a thing, the hammerhead did kind of feel this way. But in 8th edition, doing a max of 8 damage (if lots of things go your way) is only 1 point of damage better than the average damage of two missile launchers or lascannons.

I guess what I'm saying is that, from a fluff perspective, I kind of think I'd prefer for the hammerhead to pack not only a more reliable punch, but a bigger punch in general. Would it be unreasonable to create a stratagem that boosts railhead damage? Something like...

STRATAGEM: Maximized Rail Shot (1CP)
You may use this stratagem during your shooting phase instead of shooting a nominated hammerhead with a railgun. The next time you shoot with the nominated hammerhead, treat its damage characteristic as 6 higher and deal an additional d3 mortal wounds as though you had rolled a 6 on the to-wound roll.

So you give up a CP and one turn's worth of shooting, but you basically add the maximum possible damage you could have done to your following turn's shooting. It adds gravitas to the railhead's shooting and gives it the potential to one-shot things like rhinos pretty reliably, but it also gives your opponent some counterplay by letting them target the "charged up" railhead before it fires, letting them hide important targets, etc.

2d6 Damage is too much for a regular Railgun, and certainly not Mortal Wounds. The Heavy Railgun on the Tiger Shark is S18, AP -5, Damage 2d6.

Given what we have seen in the past few codexes, we can reasonably expect the Railgun itself to get a Strength Boost, perhaps to 12 (Wound T6 on 2+) or 14 (Wound T7 on a 2+). It would also be reasonable for the Hammerhead to gain a "Grinding Advance" type rule to allow it to shoot it's primary weapon twice. If these two boost were given, the Railgun would be much better hand a upstrengthed Heavy Railrifle without being stupidly good.

No, it's not too much. Look at the size of that weapon. I don't care what the tiger shark has. It's not a "regular" railgun, it's a gun as big as many of its targets. It should be as effective as modern armor weapons, but just pay for that effectiveness.

It should be mortal wounds because its absurd for any force field or any other source of "invuln" save to soak a hit from this thing.

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's not too much. Look at the size of that weapon. I don't care what the tiger shark has. It's not a "regular" railgun, it's a gun as big as many of its targets. It should be as effective as modern armor weapons, but just pay for that effectiveness.

It should be mortal wounds because its absurd for any force field or any other source of "invuln" save to soak a hit from this thing.

So an invuln, such as a Flicker Field, that's literally them not being where it was shot, should be ignored?

 alextroy wrote:
2d6 Damage is too much for a regular Railgun, and certainly not Mortal Wounds. The Heavy Railgun on the Tiger Shark is S18, AP -5, Damage 2d6.

Given what we have seen in the past few codexes, we can reasonably expect the Railgun itself to get a Strength Boost, perhaps to 12 (Wound T6 on 2+) or 14 (Wound T7 on a 2+). It would also be reasonable for the Hammerhead to gain a "Grinding Advance" type rule to allow it to shoot it's primary weapon twice. If these two boost were given, the Railgun would be much better hand a upstrengthed Heavy Railrifle without being stupidly good.

Actually I prefer the feeling of the Railgun shooting less but "charging" to make ultra-devastating blows than shooting twice a turn. I know, is acually better to shoot many times, it increases your average damage, but... a Hammerhead is a Hammerhead as Wyldhunt said. I still don't think a hammerhead should be able to one-shoot a Rhino, etc... at least not without a little of luck.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's not too much. Look at the size of that weapon. I don't care what the tiger shark has. It's not a "regular" railgun, it's a gun as big as many of its targets. It should be as effective as modern armor weapons, but just pay for that effectiveness.

It should be mortal wounds because its absurd for any force field or any other source of "invuln" save to soak a hit from this thing.

So an invuln, such as a Flicker Field, that's literally them not being where it was shot, should be ignored?

For balance purposes, I'd say yes. These weapons have been shorted their due for a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
2d6 Damage is too much for a regular Railgun, and certainly not Mortal Wounds. The Heavy Railgun on the Tiger Shark is S18, AP -5, Damage 2d6.

Given what we have seen in the past few codexes, we can reasonably expect the Railgun itself to get a Strength Boost, perhaps to 12 (Wound T6 on 2+) or 14 (Wound T7 on a 2+). It would also be reasonable for the Hammerhead to gain a "Grinding Advance" type rule to allow it to shoot it's primary weapon twice. If these two boost were given, the Railgun would be much better hand a upstrengthed Heavy Railrifle without being stupidly good.

Actually I prefer the feeling of the Railgun shooting less but "charging" to make ultra-devastating blows than shooting twice a turn. I know, is acually better to shoot many times, it increases your average damage, but... a Hammerhead is a Hammerhead as Wyldhunt said. I still don't think a hammerhead should be able to one-shoot a Rhino, etc... at least not without a little of luck.

It should one shot a Rhino trivially given how inferior Imperium tech is. A modern-style main battle tank should almost always one shot a troop carrier.

You are correct. Is both fluffy and logical. But it isn't balanced (Unless you make hammerhead VERY expensive) or actually fun to play.

"Oh yes, all your transports have been destroyed in my first turn, enjoy walking to my gunline meanwhile I shoot you to pieces".
As a Tau player I don't want to go back to the times where everybody hates playing agaisn't me

But Tau is a modern military vs sword waving idiots. The Hammerhead should be far more effective than the Riptide certainly and be on par with the Stormsurge based on barrel length.

And there is a price point where it IS balanced. We'd just have to find it.

IG can already destroy all my transports on turn 1 with missiles that magically hit 2D6 times rerolling number of shots at Str 10. At least the Hammerhead needs LoS to make my tank disappear.

I think at it's current price point of about 160. A hammerhead should be str 14 doing 2d6 damage (overall a predator with 4 las would still be better vs practically everything) On a 6 it ignores invo saves. The broadside should be str 10 and have the same ability.

It should be better vs single targets at that price point. The four las pred can still knock out 4 separate targets. This is one HUGE shot. It should also ignore abilities that ignore wounds. Your nurgle power has no power here! Morty should be a two shot with this thing. That's just the aesthetic think it should have. Catastrophic with a C.

 Galas wrote:
You are correct. Is both fluffy and logical. But it isn't balanced (Unless you make hammerhead VERY expensive) or actually fun to play.

"Oh yes, all your transports have been destroyed in my first turn, enjoy walking to my gunline meanwhile I shoot you to pieces".
As a Tau player I don't want to go back to the times where everybody hates playing agaisn't me

To be fair, the stratagem I proposed wouldn't allow you to one shot a rhino until the second turn, at which point the rhino has had a chance to scoot up the field and basically do its job. Plus, it's a stratagem, so you would only be able to benefit one railhead a turn with it. Considering I can take enough lances or pulse lasers on an eldar vehicle to potentially kill a rhino in one turn (albeit less reliably), I don't think that's unreasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think at it's current price point of about 160. A hammerhead should be str 14 doing 2d6 damage (overall a predator with 4 las would still be better vs practically everything) On a 6 it ignores invo saves. The broadside should be str 10 and have the same ability.

Yeah, that's the thing. Strength 10, especially on a single-shot weapon, has almost no benefit over a strength 9 or strength 8 weapon. Against most targets, you'll still be wounding on a 3. So while 2d6 damage sounds like a ton, you're really only talking about the firepower of two lascannons. Getting two lascannons worth of damage out of a single shot on a relatively durable platform for 160ish points seems reasonable.

I'm still not in love with the "ignore invulnerable saves" or "do mortal wounds" or "ignore FNP" stuff though. when an invulnerable save represents a forcefield, I could see overwhelming the force field, but many invulnerable saves represent supernatural effects, an affinity for getting out of the way of the shot before the trigger is pulled, holograms that make the firer shoot in the wrong direction, etc. The railgun is an impressive weapon, but it's still basically just a physical projectile being shot out of a barrel really really quickly. I'd be fine with my dark eldar not shaking off a railgun with feel no pain type rolls, but surely demons should be able to giggle at mortal science guns and heal with booger magic.

I'd be more open to making the rail gun inflict mortal wounds if we were willing to increase the price significantly, but I think most people would prefer really good AP on a less-than-200-point model. Maybe I'm mistaken in that belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's not too much. Look at the size of that weapon. I don't care what the tiger shark has. It's not a "regular" railgun, it's a gun as big as many of its targets. It should be as effective as modern armor weapons, but just pay for that effectiveness.

It should be mortal wounds because its absurd for any force field or any other source of "invuln" save to soak a hit from this thing.

So an invuln, such as a Flicker Field, that's literally them not being where it was shot, should be ignored?

For balance purposes, I'd say yes. These weapons have been shorted their due for a long time.

Ah, so we're using, "This option was bad for a long time" as a valid excuse to overpower things now? Where can I submit my application for Assault 10 Strength 20 Ap-5 vespid guns? ;D

Any argument in 40k based on “realism” I’d reach imo.

I’d like rail weapons to become more consistent, as the idea of a reliable firebase when supported is one of the Tau core themes. How do people feel about a flat damage number for the vehicle ones? The mortal wounds highroll rule seems like a good way to keep them from being totally boring. I’m not sure what the numbers would be though...

You could also make them more like a ranged version of an IK chainsaw. They are Str 16, AP -5, Flat 6 damage, and ignore invulns.

Bring back submunition profile:

Heavy rail rifle (submunition) - 48"|Heavy 2D3|S:8|AP:-2|D:1
Heavy rail rifle (solid) - 60"|Heavy 1|S:12|ap:-4|D:3D3|MW on +6

Absolutely deadly on charged single round (if it hits). Submunition profile - potentially damaging, but not quite as reliable as HYMP

They lost the sub-munition? BOO

Martel732 wrote:
They lost the sub-munition? BOO

They did not.. just 1d6 s6 ap-1 d1, like all former large template weapons, a d6 doesn't seem to fairly analogue a hit in 6th or 7th ed (i started in 6th)