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

Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=7335		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  T0nkaTruckDriver [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
As those who play Tau in 40K know, the Mechanized approach has gained significant favor since the release of the 4th edition rules which eliminated screening, placed increased emphasis on mobility (missions), and allowed rapid-fire after moving (dismounting). A large part of this popularity is due to the durability of Tau vehicles and the concept of "victory point denial".

Running a few numbers can demonstrate that a properly equipped Hammerhead is as durable against LasCannon fire as a Land Raider or Monolith! In fact, the durability of Tau Hammerheads in 40K is somewhat a legendary amongst regular opponents of the Tau in my area. For this reason, I find it difficult to understand the huge discrepancy between the 4+ (Re-inforced) save on a Land Raider and the 4+ (not Re-inforced) save on the Hammerhead. To be fair, Land Raiders in 40K have AV14 all around, while Hammerheads only have that same durability on the front, but I'll point to Leman Russ tanks in the IG who also have 4+ (Re-inforced) armor in E:A and yet don't share the durable side and rear plating of the Land Raider in the 40K setting.

If Hammerhead durability was chosen for game-balance reasons... ok, fine, I can't argue much with that. But if we're trying to draw comparisons between E:A and 40K, I think 3+ armor might be more appropriate. Similarly, I think the Devilfish might be better off with 4+ armor... the fact that both Devilfish and Rhinos have the same 5+ armor in E:A makes me shudder (coming from a 40K background).
Author:  Lion in the Stars [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:28 am ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
The short answer is that Hammerheads have the same armor save in Epic that Predators do.  

It's not just Hammerheads, Eldar Falcons and Wave Serpents are very tough to kill in 40k, assuming that they're moving quickly.  The whole 'skimmer moving fast' rule makes the AV13 front armor of a HHead very tough.  4+ to glance with a Lascannon, and then you need a 5+ to kill (wait, re-roll that Immobilized result, I have Decoy Launchers).  I don't believe that the Epic armor values reflect that rule, and I'm not convinced that they should.  Railheads are scary enough right now, and adding anything to their armor would change the balance of the entire list.  

FWIW, a Devilfish has the same armor as a Wave Serpent or Falcon, the same as a Chimera.  I don't think it's worth changing, but others may disagree.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:54 am ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
I don't want to see these change any time soon. Their balance seems right at this point.
Author:  Tactica [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
I'm with Dobbsy and Lion.

Predator, Eldar tech are standards we adhere too.

Cheers,
Author:  T0nkaTruckDriver [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability

(Lion in the Stars @ Aug. 30 2006,20:28)
QUOTE
The short answer is that Hammerheads have the same armor save in Epic that Predators do.

And this is the point I was trying to make. In E:A, Predators and Hammerheads are equally durable. Yet in 40K, a Hammerhead is 1.75 times as durable as a Predator. When one unit is almost twice as durable as another, I feel they should have different stats to reflect that.

Similarly, a Devilfish is 2.4 times as durable as a Rhino in 40K, yet the two units have equal durability in E:A.

I realize that much of this gets at the limitations of a d6 system, and that many of these choices were made for game balance reasons. However, in another thread, there was the discussion of designing the E:A list so that it feels 'tau-ish'. To me, one of the defining characteristics of the Tau is their durability, their ability to avoid fire and their ability to soak what they can't avoid. This is what sets the Tau apart from the Imperium, the fact that they don't recognize the concept of expendable troops.
Author:  Lion in the Stars [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Hammerhead and Devilfish Durability
Remove the 'Skimmer moving fast' rule and there's no point in taking vehicles in a Tau list.  Skimmers moving over 6" are killed by immobilizing hits.  That means there are 4 results (of 6) on the Penetrating hits table that will kill my Hammerhead (or your Falcon).  Right now there are 2 results of 6, and with a 10-point piece of wargear I can force a re-roll of one of them.

Personally, the Hammerhead feels right now.  4+RA, like a Leman Russ, is a bit much, even if it does come close to reflecting the survivability that the Tau tanks have in 40k.

Hena:  A Rhino is an 'armored' baby carriage that a squad of Fire Warriors can demolish with their pulse rifles.  The thing is, a Chimera has slightly better front armor and weaker side armor.  A Devilfish has the Front Armor of a Chimera, and the Side Armor of a Rhino.  It's better armored than either one, and has the same Epic Armor Save, even though it's far harder to kill in 40k than either a Rhino or Chimera.  I do understand the question, but by the same line of reasoning, Eldar Falcons and Wave Serpents should have at least 4+ saves in Epic.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/