Tanks - what a disappointment

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 105

Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#1 » Aug 20 2017 08:15

So by now I played six 8th ed games. 4 times against Ultamarines with 3 victory and 1 defeat (had the last shot to win, but failed) and 2 times against Adeptus Mechanicus with 2 wins.

In every battle I used Longstirke, and in 5 of 6 battles one more Hammerhead, every time with Rail, one with Ion. Just the last two battles I use seeker missiles. And I am absolutely and completely disappointed in their performance. In every battle they did really little damage. Due to bad to wound and damage rolls and good opponent save rolls, their damage was absolutely insignificant.

The peak of my frustration was in a battle against Adeptus Mechanicus. I shot four rounds on his Onager Dunecrawler, a total of 8 Rail shots with 2+ to hit and 3+ to wound. In these for rounds I did a total of 3 damage to the Dunecrawler! 3! THREE!!! T-H-R-E-E!!!! And of course he healed him with a priest. In the same time Commander Shadowsun with the aid of 3 Stealth suits first locked his second Dunecrawler in Close combat and the next round blew him with fusion. In one round. Simple and efficient. After I gave up to kill his tank with my tanks, I shot at his Infiltrators. I shot a crappy infantry with one of the best and finest unit in our whole army. At least I killed one of them.

Same thing with Ion. I used it just once, but was the same disappointed as with the Rail. The only thing that shone and that I love was the two seeker missiles. Used three markers and blew his Castelan robot. Very nice.

Sadly I don't have enough points to avoid using tanks, but as soon as I paint more of the models I will avoid them. Absolutely useless in my experience.

What is your opinion about Longstrike and the other tanks? Have you did better with them? What can I do do do better?

Edit: The only time by now that I was defeated was against Ultramarines. In the last turn two of my tanks (Longstrike with Rail and Hammerhead with Ion) needed to kill two Termies to table the opponent. 0 damage :/

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 88

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#2 » Aug 20 2017 11:04

I really like to use longstrike with a rail gun and SMS. The reason I like him is because he reliably (for me) puts 3-5 wounds on vehicles. Because of the tank ace the SMS works very well with his high BS. While railguns are less effective than in 7th (I miss blowing up stuff in one shot) they still can be randomly useful. I was playing against an guard army of about 70% vehicles and 30% conscripts. Hammerheads can take a lot of punishment before dying. With focusing my hammerhead on one target I took out an average of two tanks per turn. He took between .5 and 1 hammerhead. I do wish that with only one shot they did more damage, but it's amazing when you do that perfect 9 damage.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

1ofmany
Shas'Saal
Posts: 22

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#3 » Aug 20 2017 01:48

Yep it is really a shame........ 2to hit....3to wound...and 1wound.......for 213 points.....yep even if you rol perfect it is only 9 wounds........

First battle I played it was taken down in the first round before it could do any thing..... Predator with 4 lazers... Almost a perfect shot did 20 wounds.....

After several battles it hasn't survived the 3 round....so for me the railhead is done for now it doesn't do any thing of real interest in the game for those 213 points.

Some of you on the forum hope the codex will sort it out.... I hope so to.... But I think that road is already closed, the road to a new codex is long so the codexes that will be released before the end of this year should already be at the printers or even on the boat from the printer at this stage..

If I would have a go at those rules for the railhead I would make it way more reliable with a higher damage probability like 4d3 damage with no mortal wound upgrade. So minimum damage woud be 4 damage and max 12 damage on a perfect rol.

So I hope for the best.


Thanks.

pilky
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 249

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#4 » Aug 20 2017 03:13

Personally I've found them just as good as in 7th, if not better due to their survivability. Got a tournament coming up in a few weeks and I've got Longstrike and a Hammerhead, both with Railgun, seeker missile, and gun drones. Every game they've done pretty well, mostly failing because of my talent for rolling double 1s on a markerlighted target with 2+ to hit :P

Now, their usefulness may be in part because I take other big things, such as a Stormsurge. This forces opponents to make a tough call over what to shoot, increasing the survivability of the whole army

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1012

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#5 » Aug 20 2017 03:16

The rules for vehicles heavily favour Imperium/Chaos style vehicles which can carry multiple big guns over most Xenos vehicles which only have an individual big gun.

Basically, the way to compensate for this is either to to give Xenos vehicles more big guns (which would mean redoing all the models) or to give the big guns on Xenos vehicles stat lines worthy of weapons carried by Titans.

So for Tau, we'd need a Railhead able to do 2D6 or better damage on a hit and a Skyray lugging the equivalent to Destroyer Missiles. Even then, when you consider a Predator has 4D6 damage worth of lascannons ready to go, that'd still make Tau tanks pretty weak in the firepower department.

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 88

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#6 » Aug 20 2017 03:22

Jefffar wrote:The rules for vehicles heavily favour Imperium/Chaos style vehicles which can carry multiple big guns over most Xenos vehicles which only have an individual big gun.

Basically, the way to compensate for this is either to to give Xenos vehicles more big guns (which would mean redoing all the models) or to give the big guns on Xenos vehicles stat lines worthy of weapons carried by Titans.

So for Tau, we'd need a Railhead able to do 2D6 or better damage on a hit and a Skyray lugging the equivalent to Destroyer Missiles. Even then, when you consider a Predator has 4D6 damage worth of lascannons ready to go, that'd still make Tau tanks pretty weak in the firepower department.


What if they gave a railgun 2 shots? A broadside's gets 2 and the pathfinders rail rifle gets rapid fire, seems like two shots wouldn't be too broken. A predetor also costs less than a hammerhead and can do more damage.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3089

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#7 » Aug 20 2017 03:34

A nice way to buff the Railgun would be to give it d6 shots. Sure it wasn't a blast before but it's supposed to punch through tanks like paper so it should be able to cut through infantry like nothing as well.
That's basically the same as a blast just not with a round template but a straight one if we translate it into game mechanics.

The HRR would get 2d3 shots then and the Rail Rifle as infantry sized weapon should be fine with its current stat line if it cost gets reduced to 15p like the Primaris Plasma weapon.


Now if you think that's too much just think about it. A Hammerhead costs twice as much as a Tri-Las Predator and has only a third of its firepower.

1ofmany
Shas'Saal
Posts: 22

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#8 » Aug 20 2017 04:22

Now if you think that's too much just think about it. A Hammerhead costs twice as much as a Tri-Las Predator and has only a third of its firepower.


There a no longer twin linked weapons so the turret has 2 shots...

The predator with 4 las cost a little more then longstrike with rail gun and smart missiles. If the marine players is smart...sadly the ones I play against do puts cronos in the thank he will also hit on 2+ with his 4 las cannons. That wil cost more but he is killing vehicles like a hot knife going throw butter.

The way I see it we need more reliable damage from Longstrike. Done 12 games so far for me the only reliable way to kil a tank is drop a commander with 4 fusions and that is a trade off as he will get killed when the opponents has the round. Even if I go in combat... That unit falls back and there you are in the open ready to get shot to bits from every other unit.

Thanks.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#9 » Aug 20 2017 04:57

In the beginning I fell for the siren's song of new vhicles rules... but they aren't that good for Xenos as they are for Chaos and Imperium. I might even use Railsides instead of Railheads! More than 200p for 1 S10 AP-4 D6(+D3 MW) and 8 S5 AP0 ignore cover/vision isn't that hot

User avatar
Emberkahn
Shas'Saal
Posts: 42

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#10 » Aug 20 2017 08:20

I think the thing which most drastically throws shade on the hammerhead with Longstrike backup is the Fusion commander.

Same chance to hit, only a marginally lower chance of wounding against some targets, and pretty much the same damage. But you get 4 shots, not one. At a lower price. With greater movement and deployment flexibility. With IC rules to protect him. With less problems dealing with LoS.

Given the vast alpha strike capability of the Fusion Commander, and the (at least) 3x firepower, for a lower cost, he has outperformed Longstrike in every game I have used him.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3089

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#11 » Aug 20 2017 11:17

1ofmany wrote:
Now if you think that's too much just think about it. A Hammerhead costs twice as much as a Tri-Las Predator and has only a third of its firepower.


There a no longer twin linked weapons so the turret has 2 shots...

The predator with 4 las cost a little more then longstrike with rail gun and smart missiles. If the marine players is smart...sadly the ones I play against do puts cronos in the thank he will also hit on 2+ with his 4 las cannons. That wil cost more but he is killing vehicles like a hot knife going throw butter.

The way I see it we need more reliable damage from Longstrike. Done 12 games so far for me the only reliable way to kil a tank is drop a commander with 4 fusions and that is a trade off as he will get killed when the opponents has the round. Even if I go in combat... That unit falls back and there you are in the open ready to get shot to bits from every other unit.

Thanks.

Who said anything about Twin Linked?
Also Tri-Las is a term used to describe the loadout, not the amount of shots. It's a relic from previous editions.
Anyway, funnily enough, loyalist Marines are more likely to take the Las-Razorback anyway. No option to double the amount of Lascannon shots but costs 25p less (or 4 power less) and can reduce drops by pulling double duty as transport.

The problem remains though. Two Lascannon shots on a vehicle that costs about half as much as a Hammerhead who has only a single shot on that level plus some S5 shots that rarely do anything worth mentioning.
S10 is rarely better than S9 and the chance to do some Mortal wounds is neat but not reliable (something a weapon with a single shot already isn't to begin with).

Emberkahn wrote:I think the thing which most drastically throws shade on the hammerhead with Longstrike backup is the Fusion commander.

Same chance to hit, only a marginally lower chance of wounding against some targets, and pretty much the same damage. But you get 4 shots, not one. At a lower price. With greater movement and deployment flexibility. With IC rules to protect him. With less problems dealing with LoS.

Given the vast alpha strike capability of the Fusion Commander, and the (at least) 3x firepower, for a lower cost, he has outperformed Longstrike in every game I have used him.

The Commander is a problem for the internal balance, yes. But even without the Commander I'd say the Fusionkeel or just Fusion Crisis are better at anti-tank duty than Hammerheads.



I'll try the Forgeworld Hammerhead variants in my next games if I don't forget it. The Burst cannon one looks pretty sweet for anti-infantry duty.

User avatar
Agent00abe
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 330

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#12 » Aug 21 2017 05:27

Not a tank. Not a Codex unit. And definitely not within Hammerhead pricing range.
BUT. The Tigershark AX-1-0 IS capable of removing a Landraider turn one.
And my regular opponent now hates that plane because of it.

It's the same cost as Longstrike plus two Hammerheads.
It hits on 2+ just like Longstrike. It wounds on 2+ unlike Longstrike (Edit: Meant Longstrike's friends). It has AP-5 unlike Longstrike. And it deals 4d6 (assuming all hits and wounds) damage unlike Longstrike and friends.
It has less overall wounds than the trio but it does have Hard to Hit and a 5++

I think it's worth giving the plane a go if you're often playing with three Hammerheads anyway.
Last edited by Agent00abe on Aug 21 2017 06:40, edited 1 time in total.
Does this Railgun make me look fat?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3089

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#13 » Aug 21 2017 05:34

Agent00abe wrote:Not a tank. Not a Codex unit. And definitely not within Hammerhead pricing range.
BUT. The Tigershark AX-1-0 IS capable of removing a Landraider turn one.
And my regular opponent now hates that plane because of it.

It's the same cost as Longstrike plus two Hammerheads.
It hits on 2+ just like Longstrike. It wounds on 2+ unlike Longstrike. It has AP-5 unlike Longstrike. And it deals 4d6 (assuming all hits and wounds) damage unlike Longstrike and friends.
It has less overall wounds than the trio but it does have Hard to Hit and a 5++

I think it's worth giving the plane a go if you're often playing with three Hammerheads anyway.

Longstrike wounds Landraider on 2+ as well.
However I agree, the Tigershark is a monster and if it weren't a chunk of resin I'd definitely get one for my army!

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#14 » Aug 21 2017 06:12

Agent00abe wrote:Not a tank. Not a Codex unit. And definitely not within Hammerhead pricing range.
BUT. The Tigershark AX-1-0 IS capable of removing a Landraider turn one.
And my regular opponent now hates that plane because of it.

It's the same cost as Longstrike plus two Hammerheads.
It hits on 2+ just like Longstrike. It wounds on 2+ unlike Longstrike. It has AP-5 unlike Longstrike. And it deals 4d6 (assuming all hits and wounds) damage unlike Longstrike and friends.
It has less overall wounds than the trio but it does have Hard to Hit and a 5++

I think it's worth giving the plane a go if you're often playing with three Hammerheads anyway.


Well, an AX-1-0 costs a lot,but at least does its job effectively. Hammerheads, on the other hand...

User avatar
Agent00abe
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 330

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#15 » Aug 21 2017 06:42

Panzer wrote:Longstrike wounds Landraider on 2+ as well.


You are right. What I meant was his friends, not Longstrike him self.
My original post has been edited for clarification :)
Does this Railgun make me look fat?

User avatar
Emberkahn
Shas'Saal
Posts: 42

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#16 » Aug 21 2017 07:10

I've been looking into the Tigershark AX-1-0 and I have a question;

This tigershark, or the equivalent points in fusion commanders? (3)

Tigershark is tougher, but with hitting on 3s wounding on 2s you probably only get 1 railgun through for 7 damage (14 against titans).

Conversely Commanders have 12 shots hitting on 2s with likely rerolls wounding on 3s culiminating in a conservative estimated average of 21 damage.

Even the Tigershark seems to lose to this.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#17 » Aug 21 2017 08:03

Emberkahn wrote:I've been looking into the Tigershark AX-1-0 and I have a question;

This tigershark, or the equivalent points in fusion commanders? (3)

Tigershark is tougher, but with hitting on 3s wounding on 2s you probably only get 1 railgun through for 7 damage (14 against titans).

Conversely Commanders have 12 shots hitting on 2s with likely rerolls wounding on 3s culiminating in a conservative estimated average of 21 damage.

Even the Tigershark seems to lose to this.


AX-1-0 hits on 2s because Macro weapons aren't Heavy. Also, you're using only 1 drop instead of 3, which helps you starting the game

User avatar
russ29
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 322

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#18 » Aug 21 2017 08:55

The tiger shark has also 2 railguns if I remember correctly! The 2+ to hit and 2+ to wound is the main draw here since honestly I haven't seen much titanic units being fielded lately.
Through unity, devastation

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests