Tanks - what a disappointment

Discuss tactical and strategic development for 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#73 » Oct 23 2017 05:18

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:2d6 damage wouldn't be the solution though. Just having a single shot is the problem. It was the problem in 7th and is the problem now.

Oh, I'm talking about having both abilities. 2D6 damage and two shots. Space Marine Predators have 4d6 potential damage. Leman Russes have 3D6 potential damage, or up to 5D6 with Melta sponsons. I haven't seen the Eldar codex yet but I'm sure the Fire Prism is equally frighteningly good.

The Hammerhead currently gets 1D6.

Yeah that makes more sense. Rather unlikely though I fear.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2178

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#74 » Oct 24 2017 03:30

Panzer wrote:Yeah that makes more sense. Rather unlikely though I fear.

Definitely unlikely. Our tanks were supposed to be bad at anti-infantry, but amazing against vehicles. That means we shouldn't just have parity, our tanks should in fact be superior... with the drawback being the fact that they're more lightly-armored and are single-purpose. Anyway, a man can dream.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 367
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#75 » Oct 24 2017 03:57

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:Yeah that makes more sense. Rather unlikely though I fear.

Definitely unlikely. Our tanks were supposed to be bad at anti-infantry, but amazing against vehicles. That means we shouldn't just have parity, our tanks should in fact be superior... with the drawback being the fact that they're more lightly-armored and are single-purpose. Anyway, a man can dream.


I think the twin shot is likely which would mean a Hammerhead could do potentially 18 damage a turn.

If they gave it the ability to generate the D3 mortal wounds on a 4+ vs vehicles would be more in keeping with its armour hunting role.

Honestly though I think ion rifle pathfinders are one of our best anti armour units for 260pts you can get 25 pathfinders with 15 ion rifles that's 15 D3 Str 8 ap-1 D3 damage shots! And with that you have 10 spare markerlight aslo :eek:

User avatar
Studioworks
Shas'Saal
Posts: 134

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#76 » Oct 24 2017 04:28

Nymphomanius wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:Yeah that makes more sense. Rather unlikely though I fear.

ion rifles that's 15 D3 Str 8 ap-1 D3 damage shots!

It's 1 dmg, not D3.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 367
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#77 » Oct 24 2017 04:57

Studioworks wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:ion rifles that's 15 D3 Str 8 ap-1 D3 damage shots!

It's 1 dmg, not D3.


So it is I thought it becomes D3 when overcharged like the CIB my bad

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2178

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#78 » Oct 24 2017 05:23

Nymphomanius wrote:I think the twin shot is likely which would mean a Hammerhead could do potentially 18 damage a turn.

If they gave it the ability to generate the D3 mortal wounds on a 4+ vs vehicles would be more in keeping with its armour hunting role.

18 damage is nice- but remember, the chance of getting both shots to hit and rolling a 6 for both wounds is absurdly, absurdly low. With two shots, you're seeing this once every 10-12 games assuming you fire every turn, and that's not even including the target's save rolls and it's assuming you always get 6s for your damage rolls. A double-tap Hammerhead is going to hit once per turn and deal 3-4 damage.

If we multiply it all out, we get 2*0.667*0.667*3.5, giving us 3.1 damage per turn. I guess that's nice.

Nymphomanius wrote:So it is I thought it becomes D3 when overcharged like the CIB my bad

I thought this too, when the Codex came out! Wouldn't it be nice though if Ion weapons had uniform stats?

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 367
Contact:

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#79 » Oct 24 2017 05:33

Arka0415 wrote:
Nymphomanius wrote:So it is I thought it becomes D3 when overcharged like the CIB my bad

I thought this too, when the Codex came out! Wouldn't it be nice though if Ion weapons had uniform stats?

Especially since every other ion weapon has increased damage when overcharged I just double checked the razorshark just to be sure.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#80 » Oct 24 2017 06:30

Every other ion weapon also has decreased amount of shots when overcharging. Can't have everything. Ion weapons are already outshining most other weapons anyway.

User avatar
Harkus959
Shas'Saal
Posts: 131

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#81 » Oct 24 2017 06:41

Panzer wrote:Ion weapons are already outshining most other weapons anyway.


Another reason to consider we might be seeing Demiurg in the future. On that note, none of our auxiliaries have vehicles, knarlocs and krootox are the closest we get. Demiurg are the faction most likely to provide them, and I imagine their tanks would sport a pleasing array of potent Ion weaponry.

That said, I'd hate to see the railgun rendered obsolete. It's supposed to be the ultimate, long ranged, anti-armour gun so I hope they find a way to maintain that.

Perhaps a situational buff could be incorporated when the railhead fires at multi-wound or high toughness models. That would fulfill it's niche anti armour role, while the specialised nature of the buff would prevent the weapon from being too powerful.

EDIT: keyword specific is also an option, e.g. "When firing at a unit with the <TANK> keyword, the Railgun inflicts an additional D3 wounds."

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#82 » Oct 24 2017 06:51

The problem isn't really with how strong the Railgun is. It's already quite strong for a ranged weapon. The problem is that unlike Lascannons we can't spam it. We have one on a rather expensive tank. No Railgun sponsons, no Twin-Railgun or whatever. Broadsides would be our Lascannon Devastators and if they weren't so expensive they could do that quite well with their two HRR shots.

So it's not that our weapon is strong, it's that other armies can bring weapons that are almost as strong in way bigger numbers easily.

Tanks are a bad platform for single shot weapons if that's all they have. Period.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2178

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#83 » Oct 24 2017 07:05

Panzer wrote:Every other ion weapon also has decreased amount of shots when overcharging. Can't have everything. Ion weapons are already outshining most other weapons anyway.

True! They can't make the Ion Rifle D3 shots D3 damage, nor can they make it 1D1 shots D3 damage, so it makes sense that all they could do would be to make it D3 shots 1 damage.

Harkus959 wrote:That said, I'd hate to see the railgun rendered obsolete. It's supposed to be the ultimate, long ranged, anti-armour gun so I hope they find a way to maintain that.

Perhaps a situational buff could be incorporated when the railhead fires at multi-wound or high toughness models. That would fulfill it's niche anti armour role, while the specialised nature of the buff would prevent the weapon from being too powerful.

EDIT: keyword specific is also an option, e.g. "When firing at a unit with the <TANK> keyword, the Railgun inflicts an additional D3 wounds."

If they want to make it the "ultimate anti-armor gun" and also make it outperform the Predator Annihilator, and keep the single shot, it would need some absurd stats like S16 and damage 3D6. Actually, even if it had a gun like that (at the current points cost) it would be statistically equal to the Predator albeit less reliable. If that was the case it'd probably need a points increase (190 or so?) but I think that would be fair.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 433

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#84 » Oct 24 2017 10:17

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:Every other ion weapon also has decreased amount of shots when overcharging. Can't have everything. Ion weapons are already outshining most other weapons anyway.

True! They can't make the Ion Rifle D3 shots D3 damage, nor can they make it 1D1 shots D3 damage, so it makes sense that all they could do would be to make it D3 shots 1 damage.

Harkus959 wrote:That said, I'd hate to see the railgun rendered obsolete. It's supposed to be the ultimate, long ranged, anti-armour gun so I hope they find a way to maintain that.

Perhaps a situational buff could be incorporated when the railhead fires at multi-wound or high toughness models. That would fulfill it's niche anti armour role, while the specialised nature of the buff would prevent the weapon from being too powerful.

EDIT: keyword specific is also an option, e.g. "When firing at a unit with the <TANK> keyword, the Railgun inflicts an additional D3 wounds."

If they want to make it the "ultimate anti-armor gun" and also make it outperform the Predator Annihilator, and keep the single shot, it would need some absurd stats like S16 and damage 3D6. Actually, even if it had a gun like that (at the current points cost) it would be statistically equal to the Predator albeit less reliable. If that was the case it'd probably need a points increase (190 or so?) but I think that would be fair.


Isn't it sad that we made up some ridiculous stats for our gun and even THAT would only bring it equal to what SM already have? My friends keep reminding me how "good" fly is for our tanks, which I agree with but we are being out shot by everyone who can spam lascannons. Maybe if we had a super cool shield like eldar to stop getting annihilated at range but that's not going to happen. I suspect we'll see a str bump to railgun up to 14 or 16 and heavy rail rifle up to 10 or 12. I doubt they'll change any of the damage and we'll get the grinding advance type shooting buff on our hammerhead.

Not sure what they are going to be able to do to skyrays to make them not suck. Maybe not have seekers as expendable ammo like they have done to other armies, just limit the amount they can shoot per turn like 2 or 4.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 2178

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#85 » Oct 24 2017 10:19

Yojimbob wrote:I suspect we'll see a str bump to railgun up to 14 or 16 and heavy rail rifle up to 10 or 12. I doubt they'll change any of the damage and we'll get the grinding advance type shooting buff on our hammerhead.

I agree- I think we'll see a Strength buff on the Railgun especially. It was S10 because 10 was the highest possible strength- now, there's no reason to have that limit.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 433

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#86 » Oct 24 2017 10:29

Arka0415 wrote:
Yojimbob wrote:I suspect we'll see a str bump to railgun up to 14 or 16 and heavy rail rifle up to 10 or 12. I doubt they'll change any of the damage and we'll get the grinding advance type shooting buff on our hammerhead.

I agree- I think we'll see a Strength buff on the Railgun especially. It was S10 because 10 was the highest possible strength- now, there's no reason to have that limit.


Yeah, it's not even a maybe in my mind. They ARE going to make it so we can wound light vehicles on 2's instead of a pathetic 3 on rhinos. So lame.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#87 » Oct 24 2017 10:38

We'll see about that.
I say the Railgun will stay inferior to Lascannon tanks but it'll get a nice Stratagem.

User avatar
Harkus959
Shas'Saal
Posts: 131

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#88 » Oct 24 2017 10:56

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.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#89 » Oct 24 2017 11:10

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.

User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 433

Re: Tanks - what a disappointment

Post#90 » Oct 24 2017 11:36

Panzer wrote: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


I agree with you 100% which is why I put "good" in quotes on my post because fly just is so rarely a thing so we pay tax for nothing. I'd love to see additional weapons on our tank hunting tank that actually did something.

Return to “Tau Tactics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest