The Leman Russ Tank Destroyer is such a unit. It has a AT4+ TK(1) weapon and can be found in the Minervan armylist in the fanmade-supplement Epic: Swordwind.

It would be better if Macro-weapon wouldn't be a to-hit ability like AP and AT but a special ability like Titankiller.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

But since Macro-weapon IS a to-hit ability, the next closest thing to MW (ignores regular armor save) is Lance (ignores RA re-roll).  Both give the exactly the same *effect* (no re-roll of armor save for targets with RA) through different descriptions (and Lance is less effective against non-RA targets).  For reference, the order of power is generally considered to be Lance (ignores RA), MW (ignores normal armor), then TK (ignores both normal and RA).

However, we're wandering slightly from the original topic, which was 'How do we make Ion Cannons more attractive?'

The easy answer is to make them CHEAPER (which requires 2 datasheets, not a problem).

I have no issue with sacrificing the Seeker missiles on a Railhead IF that would keep them the same cost.  If a 90cm AT5+ Guided shot and a 60cm AT5+ shot are NOT equal to a 75cm AT3+ shot, then we should make the Railhead 5-10 points more expensive each and keep the Seekers on both Ionheads and Railheads (precedent exists in the Marine list for 5-10 point individual unit upgrades:  Land Speeders).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Sure, that's the order in terms of power, but that doesn't mean AP1 > Lance. AP1 is more effective against both lightly and heavily armoured vehicles, which equates to MW. The 40k Lance rule is more effective against highly armoured vehicles, but the same against lightly armoured ones. Hence, the Epic lance rule neatly reflects the 40k lance rule.

Lance shouldn't be used as a half-way house between normal and macro, it's a specific ability for representing those weapons which are equally effective against heavily and lightly armoured vehicles, which isn't the case with railguns. Railguns have no 40k or background reason for being more effective against highly armoured vehicles.

I'll bring out the graphs if I have to!

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Agreeed. S10 AP1 is fully representable through AT value.

I'll explain what I meant by saying that Lance and Ignore Cover are "boring". Both the abilities are based on what you have, no matter what you do. In general, it's better to have the game play out on the tabletop (where you do things) instead of in list construction (where you decide what you have). Lance, Ignore Cover and Thick Rear Armour are interesting rules, certainly, but they put the focus away from "doing" and the capabilities they grant are very powerful.

This is why I'd prefer to have Tau AT work on the basic Tau premise of working the tabletop to your advantage; either based on pop-up attacks at stand-off ranges (75 cm railgun) or Crossfires set up with Stealthsuits, Coord. fires and Orca drops. Having 6 AT3+ attacks in a Crossfire situation is very powerful even with no special abilities. You're Tau, so you get the AT3+ as a great "have" ability and you get the Crossfire making tools as "do" abilities.

Ok, a few comments:

First off, I don't think this is something that is causing the list to be broken. Like Dobbsy, I do take Ions and primarily for the flexibility they bring. I much preferred them with the AA just as an annoyance, but that is water under the bridge.

That said, you ever seen a hammerhead with an Ion Cannon in 40K either? That's because
they suck compared with the railgun!

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

The Predator's Autocannon (BS4) is still AP5+/AT6+, Honda.

Assuming that an additional shot is roughly equal to twin-linked, that's AT5+.  however, that's a different discussion that I'm going to let go.
=====
I don't think Honda and CS are going to let us add anything to the Rails (assuming that the Rails are properly balanced at 62.5/375 points), so that means we need to drop the cost of the Ionheads.   To do that, we need to split the statcards.

Let's see here:  Armored Mobile Hunter Cadre, 6 Hammerhead Gunships with Ion Cannons.  Upgrades:  Gun Drones, Hammerheads, Skyray, Networked Drones.  325/350 points, depending on whether it's +5 or +10 points per Railgun, compared to an Ionhead (actually 315/345, but that's tweaked to multiples of 25 per the usual Epic standard).

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

Anyone pondered using them as an upgrade to FWs? Ithin kthey'd be quite helpful with the added AT/AP attacks

I have and it worked out pretty well.  Makes for an expensive formation, but it works ok.

Anyone pondered using them as an upgrade to FWs? Ithin kthey'd be quite helpful with the added AT/AP attacks

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Way back several list versions I did this.  Like Shmitty said, it worked okay.  As I recall, it was the BTS and I put the Ethereal with the FW to make it Fearless and much harder to wipe out.  Kind of expensive for its on-table effect, imho, but it had additional defensive value in denying the BTS goal.

_________________
Neal

It might be interesting to try separate the units into two entries.  Have the AMHC consist only of Railheads and the upgrade consist only of Ionheads.  Then they could have differing prices and roles all at the same time.

Ooooh![/homer simpson voice]

I like that idea!

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"

It might be interesting to try separate the units into two entries.  Have the AMHC consist only of Railheads and the upgrade consist only of Ionheads.  Then they could have differing prices and roles all at the same time

It doesn't just seem to be inferior, it is inferior.

Why is a point decrease a problem?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread