Harkus959 wrote:I don't think the low rate of fire would be as much of a problem if the railgun was more powerful. It's part of the sliding scale of "number of shots vs damage per shot", as one increases, the other decreases. So, if the railgun remains a single shot BS3+ weapon, I wouldn't actually have a problem with that as long as it deals an obscene amount of damage, as railguns should. Id say that if a railgun is capable of killing a rhino or razorback with a single, full damage shot (perhaps, 6+D6 damage?) it is sufficiently powerful to warrant being a one-shot weapon.
The unreliability is the tax we get for having such a powerful weapon. That one shot will be an absolute monster if it hits, but we have to make it hit. This makes the railgun a high risk, high reward weapon. It's up to us, to minimize the risk in order to maximise the reward by using markerlights and strategems to unleash the full potential of the railgun. This would naturally require building armies to formation specific guidelines for those additional CPs as well as including markerlight sources.
I feel that this plays well to the Tau ethos of synergy, providing an incredibly powerful weapon that is dependent on other elements of the army to be truly effective, and the reliance on those other units would mean it wouldn't even need too much of a points increase as most of the tax would be included in these supporting units.
It's part of the problem. More shots > more damage on a single shot.
It's jut more reliable and with a single shot weapon every time you don't miss or wound or it gets caught in an invul save or you roll low on damage (which maybe even gets caught in a FnP ability) means you did nothing that round.
So if the unreliability is the tax, our gun would have to be much more powerful for the same points than any number of Lascannons for that amount of points. That's balancing, yes. It's also a kind of balancing we've never seen happening successfull in warhammer so far so excuse when I don't believe in it happening.
I'll stay with my judgement that having a single-shot weapon on a tank is bad and thus the Railgun will always be a bit behind compared to Lascannon tanks.
To the FLY argument. Sure it's extremely good. Just less so on Hammerheads. Hammerheads rarely get caught in melee in a balanced list so it's not as valuable as it is on Battlesuits and Drones.
We basically pay 27p for +2 wounds and the FLY keyword compared to a Predator. 35p for +3 wounds and FLY compared to a Razorbacks but have no transport capacity.
Additional differences are (apart from the main gun) that we can't take heavy weapon sponsons as the Predator and that we have to take secondary weapons in form of Drones/SMS/BC. Something we usually don't even want on Hammerheads.
So we are basically lacking in everything. Paying points for things we don't need/want on a long range tank (FLY and S5 low range secondary weapons), have a main weapon that costs almost as much as two Lascannons and don't have the option to take even more of them without having to pay for an additional tank.
Some of those things can be fixed with point adjustments (mainly the hull and main weapon cost) but other things, like the unreliability of having only one shot over two shots and not being able to take more of our main weapon on the same tank while having to stick with Gun Drones are things that won't really change but greatly affect the points/damage potential ratio.