Anyway I'm sick of Moray discussion, lets have something else.
Hammerheads, railguns and so on would do me!
So the humble hammerhead. Everyone knows the ion version is pointless in an army with so much other good AP stuff (or if you don't you expect to fight ferals).
I propose 3 things to make them balance and incidentally make the rest of the army a bit better.
1) Make them WYSIWYG
The discerning shopper amongst you will have noticed that the two models have different weapon load outs. So the Rail head gets burst cannon and the Ion SMS.
2) Change the main gun stats.
The Ion is 60cm, AT4+/AP4+. The Rail becomes 75cm AT4+/AP5+. Now I know people have pointed out the comparison with the battlecannon. I'd like to point out a bit of real world stuff. At the end of WWII the Soviets had a 122mm gun on the JS-x (1-3) tank (which remained in service for 20 years and gave the allies something to panic over in 1945!). This had poorer armour penetration and range than an AT 100mm tungsten core arrowhead shot. But it was a 55lb shell. So it didn't matter because anything hit was pretty much out of it. If they weren't dead the exterior was wrecked and the crew stunned. A bit like the comparison between a railgun and a battlecannon I feel
3) Lower the cost. With the above changes I would expect a formation of 6 to roll in at 300-325. The Swordfish upgrade may need to increase in cost as now its a fair bit better, maybe 25 points each?
4) Make Hammerheads come in multiples of three. So 6 basic formation, Hammerhead upgrade +3 tanks, hell the swordfish could be 1-3 tanks +25 each.
Only problem is I would still take Rails with the swordfish upgrade but at least its closer now!
And of course the railgun changes cascade into other problematic units hopefully making them easier to balance, cost and use.
_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
) I was left with a 'good enough' feeling about the special rule. It is simply that I have deep reservations over the always popped up idea given the lack of playtesting with it (by playetesting I mean different people playing against different armies on different terrain with different playing styles, not just the same two guys who say "Yup, always popped up worked better in that game too."). I am cautiously open to it but would like to see overwhelming evidence that it is better. If that can't be provided then I see no need to change something that works well enough.
