This does seem like a reasonable starting point to me. I know it's not strictly relevant but in 40k lance counts all armour values past 12 as 12. Given that AV tops out at 14, Rail Cannons are STR 10 AP1 and all but one Eldar Lance weapon are STR 8 or less and AP > 1 (the exception being a Prism Cannon firing in lance mode, which is STR 9 AP 1) it actually appears to be a very legitimate use of the lance mechanic.

Ha, you got your reply in before mine

Note AT3+ is actually quite a lot better than AT4+ Lance, because it affects a much wider spectrum of targets. The basic difference being the perceived role of the Railhead HH in relation to other versions and indeed the Tigershark.

Also, I would recommend reducing the Broadside to AT4+ to reflect the intention of the HH as the Tank destroyer for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Thanks for commenting Joe (Yme-Loc)

In case anyone isn't aware, Joe is the Tau army champion and in charge of the primary Tau list, so has the greatest responsibility for this army. I would have postponed this discussion if I'd known he was on holiday, so please don't expect any conclusion in his absence. All I am doing is trying to analyse the current situation, show comparisons and suggest changes. I don't have any authority over the 3rd Phase Expansion list.





Well there you have it in a nutshell. Historically a lot of discussion seems to have centered around whether Tau could be viable as a shooting army without assault elements etc, without a detailed look at whether they actually are all that shooty.
When I started this a few days ago I suspected some units weren't quite as Shooty as described, but frankly it came as a surprise to me to find some of these conclusions, particularly these three:

[] A Fireprism that Double Moves and Shoots still does more damage to RA than a Broadside that Sustains fire on a target that is Markerlit

[] It takes an average of 2 formations of 4 Hammerheads to kill a single Leman Russ without modifiers, and 2.4 Leman Russes to kill a Hammerhead (ie 1 Leman Russ formation of 10 should wipe out a Hammerhead formation without needing to Sustain)

[] That a Hammerhead's Railgun in Epic is half as powerful as a Falcon Transport's pulse laser. That's sort of embarrassing. There's luck, and there's dice, and there's player-perception, and then there is not being able to outshoot a transport

As mentioned I'll post some ideas and suggestions with comparisons of how they'd affect each armour class with each version of attack (move, sustain, double), but they'll only be suggestions for use in playtesting. I specifically don't want to make the Vior'la Tau HH version considerably better than the main Tau list. The goal is to offer a different list rather than a better one.

Well, you just *might* consider using 'improved' versions of the Railgun much like real life. So you could possibly introduce the different stats as representative of Vior'la specialisations (though I do not know how this sits with the "fluff").

As a parallel, the M4 Sherman started life with a 75 mm M3 L/40 gun, but as the opponents turned out bigger tanks this was improved to the 76 mm gun M1, and by the British to the Sherman "Firefly" armed with a OQF 17-pounder (76.2mm) ant-tank gun*.

Note the 76 mm gun M1 had fewer rounds (55 as opposed to 90 for the original 75 mm), and was noticeably less effective against infantry. Equally the Germans issued orders to shoot at "Fireflies" first as it was recognised that these were the only Shermans capable of knocking out the bigger Panther and Tiger tanks - recognition of their efficiency.

However, you should be wary of straight comparisons as I and others have indicated - a single HH is *not* directly comparable to a Falcon, Firestorm or Fireprism because of the many other factors involved in their cost and use (and indeed these all end up with different base costs).

This is indeed true, in fact the only time AT4, Lance notably out-performs AT3 is in the case of 4+RA. It is also marginally better against 5+RA. It does, however give them a defined role as "anti tough armour" and does give the option, under ideal circumstances to get down to AT2, Lance which is obviously the best possible stat line.

By the same token, reducing broadsides down to AT4 would also reinforce the difference in role, by giving them a focus on light tanks and light vehicles.

I'd be happy to playtest any or all of the combinations being put forward.

I agree with you here Joe, like I wrote earlier.

However I see the need for a change anyway. Like Matt points out.



The above is just stats comparison which can be hard to value between different armies/contexts. More importantly (for me at least) is I don't think they work well from a background/fluff perspective. They are supposed to be tank killers and be really good at it.



I like the suggestion of giving them lance the most (of course with increased points cost). It does say heavy tank killer a lot more than just increasing the AT value and is better incentive to use it in that role

This is a good starting point:



But also agree that the AP value should not have the lance ability. Perhaps reducing the Broadsides to AT4+ (which as others have pointed out can be perfectly acceptable from latest background).

This change would be best playtested in one of the new list. The Tau third phase list is approved and doesn't need to be involved (this early at least perhaps later)

maybe you could give the hammerhead
"Heavy Rail Cannon - 75cm AT4+ Lance
or Submunition Rounds - 60cm AP5+" with a "May shoot Heavy Rail Cannon or Submunition Rounds every turn" like the scorpionfish missile sets.

Of course, you'd probably need to split the Hammerhead variants into different profiles, for this

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Should I give th Fio'Ka list the new stats for testing the tanks? The only issue is there are no Broadsides to see how they relate.


250 points for 4? Puts them at 62.5 each

If the Third Phase list were really poor and in need of boosting you would expect this to be bourne out in tournament play, but this doesn't appear to be the case. I took a look at the stats Epic-UK have up for Tau and out of 51 Tau games fought they have won 41%, drawn 33% and lost 25%.

Rather than using a different version of the list like they normally do, Epic-UK use the same Third Phase list too, albeit version 6.4 rather than 6.6 because Epic-UK only change their lists every few years, but they are pretty much the same (several small changes between the two, a mix of boosts and reductions).

It's sad that you find the Tau army so poor you've given up on it Dobbsy There's got to be something happening and it's obviously frustrating for you, but the list is obviously being played successfully at least in tournaments in the UK.

Suggestion/challenge to Yme-Loc and Dobbsy: play a game of Epic over Tabletop with each other at some point in time when you're both free, Yme-Loc using Tau and Dobbsy any approved list, both using all comers tournament lists. It's possible Yme-loc might use Tau tactics and maneuvers Dobbsy hasn't and/or Dobbsy could crush the Tau and demonstrate to Yme-loc the inferiority of the list. It could help more than just having different opinions here.

I think the railhead is fine for it's cost too and personally I would prefer it to be left as is.

However, if a change is made, and you're separating the Ion Hammerheads to a different cost already, then it is always possible you could slightly boost the railhead to AT3+ (no special rule please) but slightly increase the cost for a formation of them to 225. That could satisfy those complaining the gun isn't as powerful as it supposedly should be, but making the better gun be paid for so as to keep things balanced.

I have long thought the Railhead needed improving, its a MBT in a wargame that i don't believe competes with the MBTs of my opponents (we play a lot of tank heavy games). Its put me off playing the Tau as I don't feel one of my favourite units are properly represented, and that's not meant in a childish way, but it seems as though there's an accepted way to play EA and any other way isn't considered.

With that said, and in the interest of contributing positively to the discussion here's a slightly different way to maybe introduce the Lance rule. I don’t think the Railgun should have the Lance rule by itself because I feel it should be an Eldar speciality, but what if Markerlights gave the Lance rule either as an added effect or a choice of effects (maybe you choose to add to the hit rule or confer the Lance rule)?

Mark

I'm not a fan of giving lance to non-eldar units either, plus it's no use against non RA targets, and from the fluff, the hammerhead should go through stuff like that like the proverbial hot knife, plugging the numbers, I'd be in favour of a boost to AT3+ which is better than AT4+ lance in the majority of cases, and only marginally worse vs 5+RA

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Lance doesn't even actually fit that well for the Railheads main gun, lance is specifically representing the 40K lance weapons ability that reduces any armour over 12 to 12 so heavy armour just isn't a better defence.

Against a Railgun despite some of the more colourful background descriptions heavy armour is clearly a better defence as it means a 4+ is required to penetrate against a Russ for instance compared to a 2+ or 3+ against a less well heavily armoured transport style vehicle.

Lance is clearly an Eldar special rule.

An increase in fire power from 4+ to 3+ is a significant boost, it alows a Hammerhead to stay mobile and shoot at marked targets while hitting on a 2+ which is significant firepower.

I dont even think a large points increase is needed for the Hammerheads if they are tested at 3+ as although they are a good support element at 200pts with their current stats, the Tau list is very sensitive to points changes and even with a good boost to firepower the Hammerheads are still a support element. I would try them at 4 for 225pts with the upgrade staying at the same price.

This leaves a really good price scheme for Hammerheads as
4 Ionheads 175pts + upgrade 2 Ionheads 75pts
4 Fusionheads 200pts + upgrade 1 or 2 Fusionheads 50pts each
4 Railheads 225pts (at AT3+) + upgrade 1 or 2 Railheads 50pts each

I'd be happy to try that, I'm always a fan of getting your opponent to roll more dice anyway...

That is true, but I don't think it tells the whole story. Of the 12 different lists, 10 are from three regular tournament players (Steve, Joe J and Mike T), with the largest users of Tau being Steve and Joe. Those two players accounted for 8 of 12 lists and have very good championship scores overall, and in fact all three are above the curve:
Steve: 94/25/48
Joe: 67/17/30
Mike: 47/41/27

The other two lists were from two players, Mark H (also a very good record) and Martyn T (his only tournament, FSA 2011 in which he lost all three games and won the wooden spoon).

I think for every single player, their Tau performance actually brings down their overall averages.

Looking at Hammerheads specifically, Joe only ever used 1 list with them (1 formation), Steve used them about half the time. Mike didn't include them.

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

Posting to confirm that I am indeed very bad with tau lists and only used a single formation of (fusion) hammerheads in the lists I did take.