Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Hammerhead Anti-Tank
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23171		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Tue May 01, 2012 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Can anyone point me to the reason for the Hammerhead going from 3+AT to 4+AT? I assume its a game balance thing (if 4+ is enough), but in isolation it seems a touch low.

Thanks
Author:  Onyx [ Tue May 01, 2012 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
There are a few factors to consider:
Markerlight the target and it goes to 3+.
Sustain Fire (rare I'm sure) and it goes to 2+.

Of course, you'll just as often be Doubling and shoot at a target in cover, with no Markerlight and hitting on 6's...
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Tue May 01, 2012 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
So purely a balance thing? I know the V4 rules had both Railheads and Broadsides 1 better, so does that mean they were too strong back then? It seems to me that having the same AT as a Leman Russ isn't representative is all. With most of the list the ranged values have been strengthened to compensate for lowered FF values, it almost seems like the opposite has happened here.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue May 01, 2012 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Quote:
Of course, you'll just as often be Doubling and shoot at a target in cover, with no Markerlight and hitting on 6's...

AT targets rarely live in terrain, and if you didn't move a cheap-o scout formation first as part of a coordinated fire order, you may be doing Tau wrongly. ;-)
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Tue May 01, 2012 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Onyx wrote:
There are a few factors to consider:
Markerlight the target and it goes to 3+.
Sustain Fire (rare I'm sure) and it goes to 2+.

Of course, you'll just as often be Doubling and shoot at a target in cover, with no Markerlight and hitting on 6's...


Wouldn't surprise me ;D
Author:  Onyx [ Sun May 06, 2012 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
Of course, you'll just as often be Doubling and shoot at a target in cover, with no Markerlight and hitting on 6's...

AT targets rarely live in terrain, and if you didn't move a cheap-o scout formation first as part of a coordinated fire order, you may be doing Tau wrongly. ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out, very useful info ;)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun May 06, 2012 11:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Mind you, I might not be against AT3+ rail guns. :)
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Sun May 06, 2012 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Mind you, I might not be against AT3+ rail guns. :)

As you've been here a little longer than I, do you know why they lost them? The printout I have from V4 has both the HH and BS railguns one better. It seems more appropriate to me, but it may be they were too strong and a points raise was decided against?
Author:  Jstr19 [ Sun May 06, 2012 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
The problem wasn't with the HH it was with the broadsides. They dropped to AT4+ when the ML rule was added because broadsides are armed with a twin-linked version of the same weapon. Twin-linked in epic translates as +1 to hit. It was considereed to be a little bit overpowered to have a formation with a 75cm ranged weapon that could double and still hit on 2+,
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Mon May 07, 2012 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
I can see the problem, but for me its about what is representative. If compared to a Battlecannon, or even a Vanquisher cannon it seems too low. I would like to see it improve again (the rules I have had both the ML rule and the higher value), and the Broadside problem solved another way. Perhaps a slow and ponderous rule, or maybe only use them as upgrades.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon May 07, 2012 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
It's probably worth noting again that they hit on a basic 3+ when the target is marker lit- very good for their price.
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon May 07, 2012 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
it all depends on whether you think epic should be strictly representative of 40k, (down to the horrible imbalances, codex creep and GW making everything the next super weapon to sell more overpriced plastic kits to impressionable 14 year olds) or whether it should be a balanced and tactically challenging set of rules by itself, if that sometimes means artificially strengthening or weakening certain weapons or troops (and the tau army seems to have written the book in that respect) to preserve a theme or playstyle, then that is the price we pay for our beloved game :)
Author:  xerxeshavelock [ Sun May 13, 2012 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hammerhead Anti-Tank
Well I do think that the abilities should be broadly similar as I am strongly of the feeling that unit stat changes should not be how units are balanced - that is the job of army lists (both points values and unit configurations). However I don't feel the Railgun is that out - its probable not as good as the 2+ Vanquisher but better than the Battlecannon so 3+ seemed right to me. That said I think they're certainly useable and I'm not about to get into an argument over it :). My question was more about the design process that strengthened Tau ranged fire at the expense of FF. It doesn't seem to have happened here, in fact the opposite seemed to have happened. I also noticed that the HH doesn't seem to have much love in the lists I have read here and wondered if there was a connection.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/