Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 177

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#145 » Dec 20 2017 04:18

The main reason I brought up the +1 BS battlesuit system is all of the people saying "GW would never give the elites BS3+, theyv'e never had that". Ralistically they already did and we did have that for a very small points cost and using up a slot on the suit that could have gone to another system (so a very cheap trade-off). So if we could all stop pretending that didn't exist in the past, that would be super.

I wasn't saying that I wanted it back, or that it was a good solution in 8th with how weapons work now and the changes to the game in general. But there is a precedent for our elites being BS3+. Sadly that means that it is the more likely way for them to do it like that, as they already did in the past.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3213

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#146 » Dec 20 2017 06:36

PeeJ wrote:So if we could all stop pretending that didn't exist in the past, that would be super.

It wasn't really the BS3+ characteristic though. The auto-take upgrade was the multi-tracker, which enabled firing two weapons (rather than only one), so most competitive battlesuit loadouts had two weapons and a multi-tracker. The Targeting Array was good, and it did exist, but there haven't been across-the-board BS3+ rules for battlesuits.

The reason why people keep bringing up the lack of BS3+ on battlesuits is because battlesuit statlines have never had that level of accuracy. Our suits had to be artificially boosted via Markerlights (which required additional units) or Targeting Arrays (which otherwise hampered firepower).

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 524
Contact:

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#147 » Dec 20 2017 12:49

Arka0415 wrote:
PeeJ wrote:So if we could all stop pretending that didn't exist in the past, that would be super.

It wasn't really the BS3+ characteristic though. The auto-take upgrade was the multi-tracker, which enabled firing two weapons (rather than only one), so most competitive battlesuit loadouts had two weapons and a multi-tracker. The Targeting Array was good, and it did exist, but there haven't been across-the-board BS3+ rules for battlesuits.

The reason why people keep bringing up the lack of BS3+ on battlesuits is because battlesuit statlines have never had that level of accuracy. Our suits had to be artificially boosted via Markerlights (which required additional units) or Targeting Arrays (which otherwise hampered firepower).


Yeah but with hard wired multi tracker and twin linked weapons it was much less of an issue I actually used to run a unit of 3 TL missile pod targeting array XV8s which did the business back in the day.

But also there's lots of things we had in older editions that for whatever reason we don't anymore and some may return and most probably won't

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3213

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#148 » Dec 20 2017 06:28

Nymphomanius wrote:Yeah but with hard wired multi tracker and twin linked weapons it was much less of an issue I actually used to run a unit of 3 TL missile pod targeting array XV8s which did the business back in the day.

Back then, missiles stood a real chance to knock out or severely damage vehicles, now, three Missile Pods re-rolling hits at BS3+ would barely do two wounds to a vehicle sadly :sad:

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 391

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#149 » Jan 13 2018 06:49

Just a point that people seem to miss nowadays:
Dealing many mortal wounds makes something better at killing INFANTRY than it does at killing VEHICLES, because mortal wounds jump from model to model.
So if you fired a railgun that dealt d6 mortal wounds, you could deal d6 damage to a tank with 13 wounds or you could kill d6 space marines with 1 wound or d6/2 terminators, which gives you a lot more value than taking off 1/4 of a vehicle's health.
Weapons that are good agains vehicles are weapons that DEAL A LOT OF DAMAGE AND HAVE A DECENT AP VALUE. It doesn't even have to have ridiculously high strengths, like the manta's heavy rail cannon's 16 str. If you look at one of our best tank killer weapons today, the Y'vahra's flamer, you'll see. On nova charge mode, it is 3d6 auto-hits (average 10.5), S6 (so 1/3 of the shots will hit), AP -2 (so 5+ for most things, so 2/3 of the shots will hit), and 3 damage EACH, so on average it will deal 7 damage against something it shouldn't even be shooting at, which is WAY better than the railgun (or even the heavy rail cannon, for that matter).
The real issue here is that GW had a 7e mentality when they wrote our rules, thinking that to be a tank killer, a weapon had to have high strength and AP, and it was OK if it only had average damage. They also didn't want any one weapon one-shotting any tanks. What they forgot though is that rate of fire and weapon spammability are just as important to damage as the damage die itself (like they contribute EXACTLY THE SAME WAY a higher damage die would contribute, by multiplying the average damage), and so is accuracy (the auto-hits from the y'vahra's flamer are part of why it is so good). So models with a single high powered weapon SHOULD INDEED be able to one-shot a tank with that weapon if other models, such as the predator annihilator, or the fusion commander, if you are being picky about inter-codex comparisons, can simply spam weapons that deal the same damage.
The only major difference that mortal wounds will make to us, aside from negating invuln saves, is that it will make our weapons better at killing infantry simply because we will still not have the necessary damage output to take out models with tons of wounds.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#150 » Jan 13 2018 08:22

The real problem is that tank mounted anti tank weapons are too unreliable for the cost. IG vanquishers are in a similar spot to Hammerheads. If it were up to me, all such weapons would be strength 16 with 3d3 damage. For one shot it better be good.

Right now a Hammerhead has a 45% chance of wounding a T8 model each turn and doing 3.5 damage, which puts it at 9-10 damage over the course of a 6 turn game. With those changes a Hammerhead can expect to wound a T8 model just over 55% of the time and deal 6 damage on average. Which means that over the course of a 6 turn game, it will do 20 damage. Plus the occasional mortal wounds.

Which means it'll take a hammerhead 2-4 turns to kill a Russ, and then the rest of the game to cripple or kill another. It also has the potential to one shot said Russ (9 wounds plus 3 mortal wounds) though it would be rare. And Russes are pretty tough compared to other tanks. Don't forget, we don't need to kill the tanks to win, crippling them works just fine too. So that's 3-4 crippled Russes right there.

To me, that would be worth it.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 391

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#151 » Jan 15 2018 03:59

Torch wrote:The real problem is that tank mounted anti tank weapons are too unreliable for the cost. IG vanquishers are in a similar spot to Hammerheads. If it were up to me, all such weapons would be strength 16 with 3d3 damage. For one shot it better be good.

Right now a Hammerhead has a 45% chance of wounding a T8 model each turn and doing 3.5 damage, which puts it at 9-10 damage over the course of a 6 turn game. With those changes a Hammerhead can expect to wound a T8 model just over 55% of the time and deal 6 damage on average. Which means that over the course of a 6 turn game, it will do 20 damage. Plus the occasional mortal wounds.

Which means it'll take a hammerhead 2-4 turns to kill a Russ, and then the rest of the game to cripple or kill another. It also has the potential to one shot said Russ (9 wounds plus 3 mortal wounds) though it would be rare. And Russes are pretty tough compared to other tanks. Don't forget, we don't need to kill the tanks to win, crippling them works just fine too. So that's 3-4 crippled Russes right there.

To me, that would be worth it.

Meanwhile, a fusion commander would be killing a russ in 1 turn. For just about the same number of points. And it wouldn't be hitting half the time.
And I don't know where you got wounding 55% of the time if the hammerhead only hits 50% of the time.

Folklore
Shas
Posts: 25

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#152 » Jan 23 2018 11:23

Is anyone else worried that they are going to keep everything essentially the same and try to fix all of the blatantly poor design with stratagems? I have this pit in my stomach that we will get access to everything we want (JSJ, BS3+, better markerlight solutions) but it will all be stratagems. List building will turn into this horrid meta game where you are trying to squeeze every last CP out of your points limit.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 573

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#153 » Jan 23 2018 11:50

Temennigru wrote:
Torch wrote:The real problem is that tank mounted anti tank weapons are too unreliable for the cost. IG vanquishers are in a similar spot to Hammerheads. If it were up to me, all such weapons would be strength 16 with 3d3 damage. For one shot it better be good.

Right now a Hammerhead has a 45% chance of wounding a T8 model each turn and doing 3.5 damage, which puts it at 9-10 damage over the course of a 6 turn game. With those changes a Hammerhead can expect to wound a T8 model just over 55% of the time and deal 6 damage on average. Which means that over the course of a 6 turn game, it will do 20 damage. Plus the occasional mortal wounds.

Which means it'll take a hammerhead 2-4 turns to kill a Russ, and then the rest of the game to cripple or kill another. It also has the potential to one shot said Russ (9 wounds plus 3 mortal wounds) though it would be rare. And Russes are pretty tough compared to other tanks. Don't forget, we don't need to kill the tanks to win, crippling them works just fine too. So that's 3-4 crippled Russes right there.

To me, that would be worth it.

Meanwhile, a fusion commander would be killing a russ in 1 turn. For just about the same number of points. And it wouldn't be hitting half the time.
And I don't know where you got wounding 55% of the time if the hammerhead only hits 50% of the time.


Hammerheads hit 66.66% of the time, even better with light support or Longstrike. But I totally agree that QFC >>>Hammerheads. Yes, the range is nice and the ability to fire off 2 MW can be good but QFC's just get stuff done and for cheaper.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#154 » Jan 23 2018 12:31

Temennigru wrote:
Torch wrote:The real problem is that tank mounted anti tank weapons are too unreliable for the cost. IG vanquishers are in a similar spot to Hammerheads. If it were up to me, all such weapons would be strength 16 with 3d3 damage. For one shot it better be good.

Right now a Hammerhead has a 45% chance of wounding a T8 model each turn and doing 3.5 damage, which puts it at 9-10 damage over the course of a 6 turn game. With those changes a Hammerhead can expect to wound a T8 model just over 55% of the time and deal 6 damage on average. Which means that over the course of a 6 turn game, it will do 20 damage. Plus the occasional mortal wounds.

Which means it'll take a hammerhead 2-4 turns to kill a Russ, and then the rest of the game to cripple or kill another. It also has the potential to one shot said Russ (9 wounds plus 3 mortal wounds) though it would be rare. And Russes are pretty tough compared to other tanks. Don't forget, we don't need to kill the tanks to win, crippling them works just fine too. So that's 3-4 crippled Russes right there.

To me, that would be worth it.

Meanwhile, a fusion commander would be killing a russ in 1 turn. For just about the same number of points. And it wouldn't be hitting half the time.
And I don't know where you got wounding 55% of the time if the hammerhead only hits 50% of the time.


Hammerheads are BS 3+. If they wound on 2s we get 2/3*5/6=5/9 is 55%. Ignoring armor.

A fusion commander hits on 2s and wounds on 4s. 5/6*1/2=5/12 per fusion. So, 45% of the time he wounds. With 4 fusion we get a little under 2 wounds per turn, I'll just round that to 2. 2 wounds means 2D6 damage which averages to 7 per turn. So, 2 turns (average) to kill a russ, with a small chance of insta killing it. If anything, they're pretty close to on par.

If hammerheads get the grinding advance rule (on top of all that) they'd be devastating. As they should be.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 573

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#155 » Jan 23 2018 01:38

Torch wrote:
Temennigru wrote:
Torch wrote:The real problem is that tank mounted anti tank weapons are too unreliable for the cost. IG vanquishers are in a similar spot to Hammerheads. If it were up to me, all such weapons would be strength 16 with 3d3 damage. For one shot it better be good.

Right now a Hammerhead has a 45% chance of wounding a T8 model each turn and doing 3.5 damage, which puts it at 9-10 damage over the course of a 6 turn game. With those changes a Hammerhead can expect to wound a T8 model just over 55% of the time and deal 6 damage on average. Which means that over the course of a 6 turn game, it will do 20 damage. Plus the occasional mortal wounds.

Which means it'll take a hammerhead 2-4 turns to kill a Russ, and then the rest of the game to cripple or kill another. It also has the potential to one shot said Russ (9 wounds plus 3 mortal wounds) though it would be rare. And Russes are pretty tough compared to other tanks. Don't forget, we don't need to kill the tanks to win, crippling them works just fine too. So that's 3-4 crippled Russes right there.

To me, that would be worth it.

Meanwhile, a fusion commander would be killing a russ in 1 turn. For just about the same number of points. And it wouldn't be hitting half the time.
And I don't know where you got wounding 55% of the time if the hammerhead only hits 50% of the time.


Hammerheads are BS 3+. If they wound on 2s we get 2/3*5/6=5/9 is 55%. Ignoring armor.

A fusion commander hits on 2s and wounds on 4s. 5/6*1/2=5/12 per fusion. So, 45% of the time he wounds. With 4 fusion we get a little under 2 wounds per turn, I'll just round that to 2. 2 wounds means 2D6 damage which averages to 7 per turn. So, 2 turns (average) to kill a russ, with a small chance of insta killing it. If anything, they're pretty close to on par.

If hammerheads get the grinding advance rule (on top of all that) they'd be devastating. As they should be.


What target are you shooting at that Hammerheads, not Longstrike, wound on 2's and commanders with fusion wound on 4's? Hammerheads wound Russ' on 3's when fusions do so on 4's.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#156 » Jan 23 2018 01:41

It was my proposed change of giving rail guns S16 and 3D3 damage. Which is what Temennigru was replying to.

User avatar
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 391

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#157 » Jan 23 2018 02:16

Torch wrote:
Hammerheads are BS 3+. If they wound on 2s we get 2/3*5/6=5/9 is 55%. Ignoring armor.

A fusion commander hits on 2s and wounds on 4s. 5/6*1/2=5/12 per fusion. So, 45% of the time he wounds. With 4 fusion we get a little under 2 wounds per turn, I'll just round that to 2. 2 wounds means 2D6 damage which averages to 7 per turn. So, 2 turns (average) to kill a russ, with a small chance of insta killing it. If anything, they're pretty close to on par.

If hammerheads get the grinding advance rule (on top of all that) they'd be devastating. As they should be.

On average yes. But having the potential to insta-kill something makes something better. That is why railguns were so good in 7e. Each dreadnought you shot at had a low but still existing chance to instantly explode. If you shot at 100 russes with 100 fusion commanders, on average none of them would die, but with randomness a few of them would.
On top of that, every single space marine and astra militarum tank hunters have enough fire power to take down any tank in a single shooting run with those damn spammable lascannons.

User avatar
Torch
Shas'Saal
Posts: 77

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#158 » Jan 23 2018 02:21

Well, if the damage is changed to 3D3, then rail guns have a chance to one shot a Russ. (3) 5+ rolls to do 9 damage and a 5+ to do 3 mortal wounds (if you wounded on 6).

User avatar
FoxZz
Shas
Posts: 44

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#159 » Jan 24 2018 10:16

Do you think S12 railgun at 6 +D6 dammage would be too powerfull ?

Heavy railgun could be S10 3 dammage +D6.

It would insure 7 wounds on a unsaved hit, potentially more, which would install kill light vehicles and potentially install kill heavier ones.

So the low rate of fire hit or miss railgun would be able to compete with the law cannon spam and it would fit the devastating railgun fluff.

The guaranteed dammage would balance the unreliability of the single shot.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 573

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#160 » Jan 24 2018 11:24

FoxZz wrote:Do you think S12 railgun at 6 +D6 dammage would be too powerfull ?

Heavy railgun could be S10 3 dammage +D6.

It would insure 7 wounds on a unsaved hit, potentially more, which would install kill light vehicles and potentially install kill heavier ones.

So the low rate of fire hit or miss railgun would be able to compete with the law cannon spam and it would fit the devastating railgun fluff.

The guaranteed dammage would balance the unreliability of the single shot.


This made me think of something. What if we didn't get a grinding advance type change but an increased damage change for not moving? Might be interesting. Granted I know I'd much rather prefer the extra shot but I wonder if that could be something GW might be considering.

User avatar
FoxZz
Shas
Posts: 44

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#161 » Jan 24 2018 02:48

I don't like those rules too much because it promotes "camping" while I feel Tau are supposed to be a mobile race.
Sadly the disappearance of armour values gives less incentive to move tanks around in order to get side shots.

User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 164

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Post#162 » Jan 25 2018 05:18

FoxZz wrote:I don't like those rules too much because it promotes "camping" while I feel Tau are supposed to be a mobile race.
Sadly the disappearance of armour values gives less incentive to move tanks around in order to get side shots.


With 72" range guns you really don't need to move.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bel'kro and 13 guests