Kyrt, I agree it is "theory-hammer", though note I am not suggesting 4x formations of 6x HH. Rather I am suggesting two formations of 4x Railguns, and two formations of 6x Fusionheads, for a total of 1000 points. This gives an average of 250 per formation and to me this seems a good basis for a 12-14 activation army.

The theory behind this being to have sufficient formation numbers to permit the Tau to use multiple activations where needed to markerlight target formations and concentrate shooting were necessary. However, I envisage the Railgun formations being activated separately taking long-range pot-shots (to lower shields / add BMs) and only the Fusionheads being activated together with a Tetra formation to gain both crossfire and markerlight on the desired target.

Indeed against IG (and the dreaded LR formation) a high activation count might just possibly allow the Tau to set up a sustained crossfire at the end of one turn and execute it "with extreme prejudice" the following turn.

However I agree there seems to be a bigger issue with the Ion gun version.

Well that's true, but the Ion Cannon one is so bad and so redundant that it could be removed from the list and few people would ever notice. In the Tau variant list I am working on I reduced its formation cost by 25pts and still noone takes it.
The Railgun one on the other hand is frequently called an under performer, but remains an important enough unit to at least try put a bit of work in to.

It may be my bad luck but Steve54's railheads normally carve my SHTs, land raiders, warhounds and russes up quite handily....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Hard to say, kyussinchains

If each formation of 4 hammerheads kills more than 1 Leman Russ when markerlit, it's your bad luck.
If it takes less than 8 hammerheads firing without modifiers to kill 1 leman russ, it's your bad luck.
If all Steve's shots are against targets markerlit by a 6+ armour skimmers within 30cm, it's your tactics. Consider clipping assaults lol

Comparing the Hammerhead with two other Skimmer Tanks

There are always pitfalls in comparing things from army to army since it is rare for two armies to have an identical unit, so I thought I'd get a disclaimer out of the way first so that reader's know I am aware of this:
Disclaimer: The Following Comparisons are Flawed

With that out of the way I will compare the tank-killing ability of the Hammerhead with two other vehicles that are from Xeno armies, cost exactly the same amount of points, have moderate armour (5+ vs 4+), are Skimmers, move fast (35cm vs 30cm) and have ranged AT weapons.

The main flaw is range, while the first 3 tanks compared all had a 75cm primary weapon, the two below have 45cm which is obviously very significant (although see "The funny thing about Range" below).
The other is that neither of them are really tank-hunters and both have other obvious purposes. The problem with the railgun Hammerhead is that it doesn't take a tank-hunter to beat it at hunting tanks.

Reposting the Hammerhead stats for your convenience:


Eldar Falcon
The Falcon is a transport; it has a dual role in delivering troops and supporting them in Firefights (FF4+), and also adding some AT/AP shooting.
Despite that, I will demonstrate that it is remarkably competitive with the Hammerhead in an AT role.



The falcon primary weapon is twice as good at killing targets with 4+, 5+ and 4+ Reinforced Armour. It is twice as good as the Hammerhead whether sustaining, moving and shooting or doubling and shooting.
The reason for the improved results is that the Falcon Pulse Laser fires 2 shots (2x AT4+) at the same power as the HammerHead's Railgun. Caveat: the range is 45cm, other tanks compared here have a 75cm primary weapon
If the Hammerhead fires on a target with Markerlight support and a seeker missile, it is still considerably less likely to kill the target than a Falcon (eg 2 Hammerheads + Markerlights required to kill 1 Predator, only 1.5 Falcons required to kill 1 predator etc)
Shorter range (45cm), faster (35cm), can transport units.

The funny thing about Range
Did you know that if a Falcon moves, shoots and moves it can hit a target 80cm away from its start and end position and still has a higher chance to kill it than a Hammerhead that Sustains fire on a target 75cm away from its start location?

Eldar Firestorm
The Firestorm is an anti-air craft weapon - one of the game's best with 2x AA4+ shots at 45cm range. Its secondary role is to deliver troops and support them in Firefights (FF4+), and its tertiary role is AT/AP shooting.
Despite that, I will demonstrate that it is remarkably competitive with the Hammerhead in an AT role.



The Eldar Firestorm is better at killing targets with 4+, 5+ and 4+ Reinforced Armour than the Hammerhead is, whether sustaining, moving or doubling and shooting.
The Hammerhead is better at killing targets if they are markerlit, but not by a huge margin. In fact Eldar Firestorms that Sustain are as likely to kill their targets as Hammerheads with Markerlights without Sustain.

So as mentioned, the difference in range is significant, but I hope that these comparisons show just how underpowered the Railgun is compared to some of its peers.

GW's description:
The Hammerhead Gunship is the main battle tank of the Tau, and all enemies who have encountered it quickly grow to respect, if not outright fear, the might of its main armament - the dreaded railgun.

There are many accounts of single Hammerheads demolishing enemy armour with almost contemptuous ease.
During the Damocles Crusade, the Hammerhead gained a particularly fearsome reputation amongst the Imperial Guard. Entire armoured companies were destroyed before they could close with the Tau battle lines, and whole offensives were transformed into fields of wreckage by the formidable Hammerhead gunship.

And it has a profile to match: Strength 10 (out of a maximum of 10) and Armor Penetration of 1 (the best in the game).

In Epic the railgun is half as powerful as the pulse laser on a Falcon transport, and about as powerful as a Firestorm's Anti-aircraft gun (as long as the Tau player is risking markerlight on the target).

I could get my Vior'la Tau list rushed through the approval process much quicker if I didn't attempt to address this but would rather see if this ongoing issue can't be fixed once and for all.

Coming soon - suggestions for changes, what their affect might be, and cost implications and pricing ideas.

I was always a fan of giving the Hammerheads Lance on their railguns but that would have made the Broadsides even better (something that wasn't really required).
Hammerhead Railguns have always under-performed for me (maybe we have a lot of reinforced armour in the local scene? ). I think the lack of desire to come up with a remedy was one of the reasons I stopped playing Tau. They are a different army to play which is a good thing for Epic but they just don't reflect the Tau I read about in the fluff.

I look forward to seeing your proposals Matt!

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

You know adding Lance to the rail gun may not be a bad idea if we also reduce its range. The reduction in range would not mean too much to the HH's but it certainly would to the broadside suits. Like 15cm or something.

Or we could make broadside suits 5+ RA rather than 4+ RA.

Just a couple of ideas. Because IMO the biggest obstacle to HH's is that broadside suits exist.

I will note that the weapon on the Broadside and Hammerhead have always been at least subtly different, and in the latest version of the 40k codex, they're now substantially different. Pre 6th edition, the HH was capable of firing submunitions, which the twin-linked, but smaller, version on the Broadsides was not. Now, the stat lines are completely separate, and the Broadsides mount a 'heavy rail rifle' which is only Strength 8 (of 10) and shorter range (down to 60 from 72), while the Hammerhead still fields a Rail Cannon (Strength 10, 72 inch range), though both weapons remain AP1. For this reason, a lot of 40k Tau players are now fielding the new alternate configuration for Broadsides, which involves High Yield Missile Pods (which, from a firepower standpoint, are basically twin-linked sets of double ROF missile pods from a Crisis suit).

So, from a fluff/canon standpoint, it is entirely legitimate to separate the Epic weapons. It could be justified to give the Rail Cannon variant on the Hammerhead the lance rule and not give it to the Broadside. Or, alternately, give them both lance as it represents their penetrating power, and then reduce the AT value and/or range on the Broadsides to offset any increase in their power to point efficiency.

I disagree immensely.

On holiday at the moment so not really had a chance to comment.

Personally I find the Railhead to function perfectly well for its cost in the third phase list. I also have found the Fusion heads to be quite good although much riskier to use.

The Ionhead is indeed a poor choice in the list and will be reduced in price in the next versions.

I would rather not add a new special rule to the Tau 3rd phase list (especially an until now exclusively Eldar one), AT3+ is perfectly fine to test in newer lists (with no change to Braodsides which effectively have different weapons now). As unintuitive as it may seem sometimes when our dice fail us or opponents just can't seem to fail an armour save, more hits does equate to more failed saves even RA ones.

Care to expand on that?

I for one am beginning to be convinced. Tau in Epic need to be shooty, if they're not shooty then something is wrong

However I would argue that it would be best to first decide one thing: what do you want the respective roles of the broadside and railgun hammerhead to be in the army? Are they the same, or not?

It seems reasonable to me to have:
1. A shooty unit with good armour that can take advantage of cover. For capturing objectives, but still in a shooty style.
2. A mobile tank hunter

Do broadsides actually get used as tank hunters? I suspect not but don't really know. If not, the problem with them having the same weapon would purely be a balance one (i.e. that buffing one automatically buffs the other). Decoupling the weapons would therefore be a good solution.

Normally I would say leave an approved list alone and if you have to change things do it in a new list. If changing the weapons is done for balance reasons and can be justified on the "old" fluff though, I suppose it would be an advantage to change in both lists in order to avoid having different stats for the same unit.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

By there way is there precedent for Lance (which is an Eldar special rule) being used in other lists?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I see what Jstr means; as things stand at the moment, the Broadside LV have better firepower than the HH tank. That seems a little counter-intuitive to the uninitiated like me.
It is somewhat like saying that in addition to bazookas and bazooka rockets etc, each WWII US 5 man special forces team in a jeep with a M20 recoilless rifle could carry the 90 rounds of ammunition and be even more effective than the equivalent Sherman tank . . . . .
(In practice the reverse was true historically - the tank-mounted 75mm gun had better accuracy and range than the jeep mounted 75mm recoilless gun)
Now I know this is "40K" so things are supposed to be more advanced, and Broadsides are LV etc but even so, there would seem to be some room to upgrade the HH a little while downgrading the Broadside a little.

One alternative *might* be to reverse the stats and reduce the range (and cost?) of the Broadsides:
- Hammerhead Railgun 75cm AT3+/AP4+
- Broadside Rail-rifle . . 60cm AT4+

Lance might be an idea, but I am a little loathed to add Lance or sniper to the HH railgun unless you make it valid only against armour as follows
- Hammerhead Railgun 75cm AT4+ Lance/Sniper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75cm AP4+

This is because the intention is to make the HH an anti-armour weapon, not better all-round. Indeed, this approach of separate AT and AP stats would also allow you to reduce the range of AP shots to make this distinction greater. For preference I would add Lance because IMO the additional "sniper" ability to pick off leaders is undesirable - though I understand Yme-loc's reticence here.

I agree with Dobbsy that this debate is purely around the weaponry rather than the Broadside armour stats, so would prefer to leave those as 4+RA.

No - the "Lance" ability is *only* used by Eldar - at least in the Compendium.

That said, the Lance ability does seem to reflect the implied nature of the railgun (better armour penetration because of the higher kinetic energies involved), so reducing the enemy armour save rather than improving the chance to hit seems more appropriate intuitively.

However each "kill" represents both the chance to hit *and* the chance to save, so there seems to be several alternatives to choose from (depending on the perceived role of the HH). In ascending degrees of power;

1. AP4+
   AT4+ Lance - - - improves the chances to kill RA, so making the HH a RA tank hunter, but not otherwise affecting armoured targets
   
   
2. AT3+/AP4+ - - - gives better chances to hit (and thus to kill) - a more general improvement against armour.
   
   
3. AP4+
   AT4+ Sniper - - - improves the chances to kill armour, making the HH a general "tank destroyer". This is a greatly improved version of AT3+
   
   
4. AP4+
   AT5+ (EA+1 MW) might be a way of reflecting better armour killing potential,
   (but only if this parsing is correct - the AP stats must remain unaffected IMO . . .)
   Note this would be a significant improvement on the above anti-armour stats, especially if sustaining. However doubling would reduce the impact of two 5+ shots from 2/3 to 1/3, effectively saying the HH does not have "stabilisers" on the railgun and works best when static, possibly in defence - though I do not know what the "fluff" says on this.

Well you have the three Australian Tau players (on each side of the continent btw) on these boards all saying that they don't. Take that as you will but each of us have all had a huge amount of experience with them and none of us now play the Third Phase list.... Which is sad because when I outlay $400 on a FW army I expect to be able to play it.


See this is what I don't get. Why nerf the points? Just give it a better role - Disrupt?? I'd buy that for a dollar!


That's a sad outcome.


Sigh. You'd think so wouldn't you...? Looks good on paper I suppose.


They don't take a job from each other. They compliment each other. Ones a fast skimmer that can whip about attacking flanks etc the other supports infantry and helps keep fire lanes clear and holds ground making it more difficult for enemy formations to cross open ground.


This is true and unfortunately as the game is largely tilted to winning through engagement, a shooty army that doesn't quite do the job it's supposed to do and that also lacks in engagements, is sort of flat.


See my above reply about their roles, but in the end if the Broadsides weapon has been lowered in impact a smidge it doesn't mean the Railhead can't get a boost to differentiate. Heck drop the BS range to 60 if that's what they're supposed to have in 40K. They really aren't sharing the same niche.


Personally, I don't feel any rule is specific to any particular army list. It's a means to an end and really just a name to recreate various outcomes on the table top. I mean Racial specific things like Commissars or ATSKNF, Hit and Run etc are somewhat different to something technology based like Lance but really if you rename them to gain an effect for another list I don't feel it's wrong. Look at the Knight World list. It borrowed heavily from ATSKNF. But that's just my view.


I actually think that's a very decent proposal Ginger. Remove the secondary to hit value.... It would sure focus the tanks on one particular task or another. Not sure about anyone else but I hardly ever shoot AP with Railguns.

Even...

Hammerhead Railgun 75cm AT4+ Lance (a fairer start to the proposal IMO)
Broadside Rail-rifle . . 60cm AT3+

...wouldn't be a bad option as you could then assign better specific shooting values to other HHs like the Ion head for AP shooting or apply a Disrupt as I mentioned. I don't like the sniper idea at all for any of the tanks as I'm not sure it's necessary.