This thread will compare the Tau Hammerhead to some of Epic's other common tanks in an attempt to find out if they genuinly are under-performers, what areas they under-perform in, whether that actually matters and if so what could be done to fix them.
But first a quick recap of a conversation that's been going since at least 2010:



So step 1, is there a problem with this tank in its role as a dedicated tank hunter. I will compare it to two other tanks; the ubiquitous Leman Russ as a generalist, and the Eldar Fire Prism as another Xeno tank that is about the closest thing I could find to a Skimmer with a similar role to the Broadside.

Key:
[] The table below shows the chances for a Tau Hammerhead to hit and to kill targets with three common types of armour: 4+, 4+ RA and 5+
[] The Railgun column shows the numbers for the primary weapon, the Seeker missile column shows the numbers for the secondary weapon (in this case, it can only fire of the target is markerlit). The third column 'Shots needed per kill' combines the two figures and says how many shots would be needed to kill the target on average.
[] EG To hit (standard) is the basic to hit roll without modification. To hit if Sustain is the roll needed to hit with a +1 bonus for sustaining.
[] The Tau Hammerhead table has an extra pair of rows showing the stats for to hit and to kill if the target is markerlit. This requires a model with the markerlight rule to be within 30cm and LOF of the target.
[] The Hammerhead's secondary weapon (seeker missile) cannot fire unless the target is markerlit.



The Leman Russ
(note: about 62.5pts per tank, strategy rating 2, formation comes with commissar)



The antitank ability of the Hammerhead is not significantly better than the Leman Russ:
[] They both hit on 4+ with a 75cm maingun. The Hammerhead adds 1 to its to hit roll and a secondary 5+ shot if the target is markerlit.
[] The Leman Russ adds a secondary 5+ shot if the target is within 45cm, without any external requirements.
The result is a small advantage to the HH, provided it can manage to keep a markerlight unit close to targets.

The Fire Prism
(note: 65pts per tank, SR4 or 5 (so likely to go first), 5+ armour but unusually survivable movement-rules)



The numbers look overwhelmingly in favour of the Fireprism at all times and all movement speeds, but especially when it comes to dealing with Reinforced Armour.

Here is a direct comparison of the Hammerhead to the Fire Prism
The below is a simplified table that just compares how many shooting tanks are required to kill each type of target.



Looking at how the tanks perform against Reinforced Armour (ie the middle column with a grey header)

[] With no modifiers if takes 8 Hammerheads to do the same damage as 2.4 Fireprisms. Fireprisms do 3.33 times more damage to RA than Hammerhead
[] A Fireprism that double moves and shoots does more damage to RA than a Hammerhead that sustains fire.
[] A Fireprism that double moves and shoots does more damage to RA than a Broadside that sustains fire on a target that is Markerlit

A Fireprism doing its most inaccurate shot while double moving does more damage to Reinforced Armour targets than a Hammerhead that has the perfect firing solution on Sustain and has a second formation at risk within 30cm of the target.

And that is why players so often report that Hammerheads under-perform, despite their being the superior Landraider/Leman Russ killer in 40K. It turns out it's not just all in their heads

Fortunately I now have all the formulas in Excel so it's easy to work out and compare the impact of proposed solutions and alternatives.

Has Lance ever been suggested for them?

_________________
- Ulrik

Yep. And also Disrupt as an alternative. The argument for such is always shot down.

Any idea what the arguments against are? Just curious.

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaos LatD
Squats
Imperial fists
Steel Legion
Black Legion

how about AT sniper like the IG tank hunters in the ulani list (their bloody nasty)

it would fit with the tau long range/accuracy/pinpoint attack ethos

But Sniper is vastly better than Lance.

agreed ulrick maybe lance is the better choice

Well, you are using the NetEA stats for the Fireprism, which are contentious (at least to me ). If you check out the E-UK stats, the Fireprism is AT4+ at 75cm. Yes it has Lance and greater speed, which gives it the slight edge over Leman Russ and Hammerhead, but not to the extent you illustrate here with AT2+. And you also need to consider Eldar "hit-&-run", 3rd retain and SR4+, Tau "Markerlight" and SR3+, IG RA and firepower etc with SR2+, as well as the synergies with other elements in the army.

To be fair, HH and FP tend to use similar tactics, hanging around the rear of the battlefield to pick off armoured targets. And the difference in armour stats makes the E-UK formation of 3x FP (with AA and Lance) for 250 far more brittle than the NetEA 4x HH for 200 (which can be boosted to 6x HH for 300). This tempts the HH formation forward in the battle, while the FP formation is always going to hide.

IMO, your well presented stats and argument suggests that rather than the HH needing a boost, the NetEA FP stats are deeply flawed, especially when combined with the SoV concept and reduced range of 60 cm - but that is another story

Compared against the E-UK stats the HH is much closer to the FP. Better armour and greater numbers / firepower at less cost seem to be balanced against Lance, AA and Eldar SR and H-&-R. So to me the question is rather what is it in the Tau HH that seems to need a boost? How is it underperforming? Or, are you expecting the HH to be significantly better than the FP for "fluff" reasons?

agreed

HH rail gun should be better vs armor fluff wise(& the ion cannon seems a weak choice as well)

but for the points (epicuk wise) they seem ok

I guess the other question is how many times do you get to markerlight a target and then use co-ordinated fire against it (with two or even three HH formations)?

Hi Ginger,
Thanks for the feedback; yes this uses the NetEA version of the stats, as that's the only one played locally. I could do similar tables for the E-UK version, but have never actually played it so can't claim any sort of expertise.



The thread is about the statistics and unit balance rather than 'fluff'; I only mentioned the 40K comparison because it frequently treated as starting point towards the unit's stats in Epic.

It isn't the focus of this discussion but it is possible the Fire Prism is too good at its job, in which case it isn't a great unit to benchmark against. However as you can see the tables also include the far more common and non-specialised Leman Russ. Comparing those two:

Primary
[] Hammerhead Railgun 75cm AT4+ AP5+
[] Leman Russ Battlecannon 75cm AT4+ AP4+
= Slight win to BC (better AP). The Railgun is better if the target is markerlit.
Secondary AT
[] Seeker Missile 90cm AT6+ (cannot fire unless target is markerlit)
[] Lascannon 45cm AT5+
= Win to Seeker Missile due to range, but only if target is markerlit by a unit within 30cm which is neither free nor a given. Lascannon is shorter ranged but obviously far more reliable.
Anti-Personnel
[]Hammerhead: SMS 1x AP5+ IC
[]Leman Russ: 2x HB AP5+
= Small win to Leman Russ

Thus the answer to "How is it underperforming? Or, are you expecting the HH to be significantly better than the FP for "fluff" reasons?"
is that a dedicated tank hunter is probably under-performing if its AT ability is only roughly similar to a much better armoured, better firefighting, anti-anything generalist unit.

In a hypothetical exchange between the generalist jack-of-all-trades Russes and the dedicated tankhunting Hammerheads:
Without modifiers, 10 Leman Russes kill about 4 Hammerheads (1 per 2.4 firing tanks).
10 Hammerheads kill about 1.25 Leman Russes (1 per 8 firing tanks), or 2.5 Leman Russes (1 per 4 firing tanks) if the target is markerlit.

To put it in context, various armies fight in different ways. The Tau way is uniquely focused on shooting, without the assault or even the fire-fight that many armies use to supplement it.
If it is so significantly behind in shooting against formations that could also wipe it out in Assault -even when managing to get markerlights on targets- it does seem to indicate room for improvement.

Don't forget hammerheads also have a the smart missile system. 30cm range AP5+, IC

How are other aspects of all the tanks taken into account.
As in skimmers v non Skimmer, skimmer gives a better field of fire and concealment if terrain is used well, plus fewer DTT are needed when moving. Also the faster skimmers find it easier to maneuver for crossfire.

Basic Speed (skimmers have a better direct speed over terrain as they can pop over DT and impassable buildings instead of maneuvering around them).

Synergy with the rest of the army, your stats show that the HH are twice as good in standard shooting with markerlights but what about FF support,objective/goal taking,helping with activation advantage and so forth.

Actual points cost per tank, the stats you've used show how many units it takes to kill but not how many points, both the LR and Fireprism are usually 65 points but the HH is only 50.
HH are 30% cheaper so for every 10 LR or Fireprisms you get 13 HH's, would it be possible to do a chart showing the points needed of each unit to kill a target type.

Well perhaps you should try them, not least because IMO the E-UK stats are both more balanced, and the AA provides a much better differentiator over the Falcon, however I digress

Given the AP stats, this is evidently not a 'dedicated' tank hunter as it also has an AP role

As dptdexys says, there seems to be a lot missing from the comparison.

Like many formations in various races, the HH do need to have the relevant support to shoot better and prevent being assaulted. Given the ability to combine several formations using "coordinated fire" can be a huge advantage, which together with the higher SR and speed will make it more likely that the HH will be able to engage their enemy first with a significant amount of firepower.

LR on the other hand are intended to grind forward absorbing enemy fire while continuing to function. Their low speed means that they may well have to double to engage a target, while their higher formation cost is usually enough to make them the BTS and hence a more valuable target than the HH.

Given that one key element is co-ordinated fire, how many HH formations do you usually field? Equally, how many formations do you field in a 3K army, and what else do you use?

Tau also benefit from co-ordinated fire which enables several formations to concentrate fire on a target before it can react, in theory with two co-ordinated fire actions, you could hit something with 6 formations without it having a chance to react.... if hammerheads were buffed somehow it would make them even nastier in this role, as already pointed out, skimmer and faster base speed than the russ mean you can keep your enemy at arms length and fire at full effect much more easily, whereas with the russ you need to close to 45cm to get the benefit of your secondary weapons as well as spending more time doubling around terrain

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator