Let's Contact GW! (Round 3)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2748

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

Post#145 » Dec 20 2017 02:41

Beerson wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:You bet, it was the old Targeting Array. Great piece of wargear. However, the Targeting Array would need to be very cheap for it to be better than a third weapon. Let's look at some Burst Cannons:

XV8 w/ 3x Burst Cannons (72 points): 12 shots > 6 hits
XV8 w/ 2x Burst Cannons + Targeting Array (62+x points): 8 shots > 5.34 hits

So, for the 2x Burst Cannon + Targeting Array to be equal from an efficiency standpoint, x (the cost of the Targeting Array) would need to be 2.08 points. Would Games Workshop give us a +1 BS boost for 2 points? Who knows.


That only works if they don't fix the BC price or rework them completely, at which point I will stop buying any tau related stuff from gw or fw, you know, voting with my wallet
If they fix the price third BC will be always better, if they rework them, who knows...

If they did this I would want to see extra support system slot on xv8 like in the old days if I remember it correctly
Still not a fan of autoincludes, I really want to see battle suits at BS3+ even if bodyguards/paid upgrade to shas'vre (whole team)

This is absolutely just an example- I expect Burst Cannons to get a points reduction (and possibly a rework?) in the Codex but I'm not going to guess what it will be.

And yes, old XV8s could take some hard-wired support systems which did not take up slots! I'd love to see those come back again too.

PeeJ
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 126

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

Post#146 » 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'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2748

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

Post#147 » 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: 434
Contact:

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

Post#148 » 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'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2748

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

Post#149 » 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: 153

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

Post#150 » 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: 29

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

Post#151 » 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: 153

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

Post#152 » 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.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darksilver and 3 guests