If I have a problem with an army that packs 3xRailheads or any kind of power gaming *cough* coz that's essentially what it is.
onlainari wrote:Marc wrote:you think not liking the railhead is bad, i just don't like the railgun!
I could have been more specific. I played 14 games, 10 of which were at 1750pts, without railguns. While my w/l/d during this period was a respectful 10/2/2, I still believe railheads are better than ionheads after this extensive play testing.
Spooky wrote:"if your oppents list hadent been anti-meq aimed exaclty how successful do you think your hammerhead would have surived"
people do always build their lists with MEq mostly in mind, as they make up 60% of the average field. but people also try and leave themselves the capacity to deal with 'odd' armies like tau, eldar, nids, etc.
i agree that if an army tools specifically for tau, it makes things a lot more difficult... tau carve out an existance by being a minority army, so people don't build for us, so you can take on the average "all-comers" army and it can't deal with tau very well as its too different.
Spooky wrote:are you gonna try and kill siren with fusion then? lol. say hello to daemonettes!
Spooky wrote:"all you need 3 lascannons for the forunt armour and 9 for all three"
well, surprisingly, i wouldn't be planning on sticking my tanks in front of 9 lascannons all game long.
hammerheads have no place facing tactical squad's lascannons. its just not a good idea. thats what SMS is for. against a tri-las pred, i'd try and stack a lot of my rails/crisis into it at once, skimmers can shoot underneath each other (skimmers don't block LOS) so you can jump all 3 railguns out in a line and shoot all into it. you should win that firefight... then move on.
lascannons aren't really what kills my hammerheads, its more assault cannons and stuff thats mobile.
Spooky wrote:yes, those things are nasty for tau. they're nasty for any kind of tau. i don't see their mention as being a specific reason to not take hammerheads, as any kind of tau army will get punished by them.
Spooky wrote:but, this is not an arguement which supports taking less hammerheads. if you took less hammerheads, this problem would happen more often. if you take more hammerheads, the problem will happen less.
Spooky wrote:"- the more tanks you have, the more you overload the enemy's anti tank." ---- "true but that considers many targets"
Spooky wrote:"a good anti tau list i played against had metla bombs on the IG squad leaders to deal with [tankshock]"
you changed what we were talking about. i was talking about submunitioning hordes, its a great weapon against nids or orks. your point was correct, that they can always space out (although thats a disadvantage for them as it slows them down) and my counter point was that tank shock will bunch up the horde again, ready for submuntion love.
but now you bring in meltabomb guardsmen into the arguement? this is not relavent. i wouldn't be tank shocking guardsmen, because i'd be hiding in the backfield railgunning their tanks, and guardsmen aren't an assault threat to my infantry.
no mate, i didn't say that. i play with an all-comers tournament tau list, against other all-comers tournament lists. because tau are a minority, and different to fight against than most opponents, it gives us an advantage. that advantage would be lost if people tooled up against tau
don't really follow you, but i'd much rather have skimmer tanks rather than suits against slaanesh.. against a siren anyway you use 3 hammerheads to block the prince in, it's only str6 or something, if you get *right next* to it then it can't move and can't summon daemons
the point is not the weapon, its the speed. lascannons are slow. broadsides are slow. hammerheads are quick. you have the initiative, you can decide how many lascannons you expose your hammerheads to. this makes hammerheads survive, because you don't have to play foolishly with them
let's be fair here and compare like with like. a hammerhead army can still have devilfish for the FW, cover for the kroot, and shield gens on the suits if you want. the issue of comparison is hammerhead rails vs crisis fusion. against deepstrikers, both suffer. depending on the weapon, one suffers more than the other.
you don't need deepstrikers to kill fusion teams though, as they're so cripplingly short ranged.
does that make it invalid?
no, again, hammerheads have the initiative because they're quick. it's my choice to tank shock or not. i wouldnt tank shock meltabomb guard.
again, its an example of the speed of the hammerhead being useful to dictate the game
again, its an example of the speed of the hammerhead being useful to dictate the game.
El'Flashman wrote:If I have a problem with an army that packs 3xRailheads or any kind of power gaming *cough* coz that's essentially what it is. It's just I can't justify ( and admittedly I've never and proberly will never do the tournement scene) "power gaming".
In my mind.
It makes me feel dirrrty
Seriously though surely the biggest counter argument to a 3xRailhead has to be cost. With the rebirth of the Broadside as a viable Heavy weapons option, thanks of course to the fixing of drones and the addition of the ASS. You have potentially 2xTL Railguns for the same cost as a Railhead...
Hypothectically if you take two other Heavy support options you can drop the Broadsides after your opponent has put down most of their's. Meaning you should have to move very little in your opening turns to make a killing.
Just my thoughts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest