I believe it'll make the difference between people taking one or two tank formations, and no tank formations at all (Because they're overpriced atm).

Regardless of what happens with the Railgun Hammerhead, the other two variants are going to need to come down in cost or go up in stats.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

So then we could actually drop the to hit value on a BS a pip and give it Lance, thereby making a 3+ to hit value 4+ twin linked Lance? Could that be feasible and keep the BS cost steady?


Well an extra two tanks with the same stats doesn't make me want to buy two formations of them when they're still quite average. BTW how would we add 2 tanks into an army list when you've already maxed to 6?

Also, I don't see it that way regarding the turret types due to my above reasons. Those turrets do a certain job and if the RG was weak AP what would you use to fire long range AP if you know you required it?

I'd be against this, myself.

I'd rather we stick to the "Twin means +1 to hit" convention of Epic.

Epic doesn't do Ballistic Skill; A Marine Lascannon is the same as a Guard Lascannon.

I think you misunderstand me.

Currently people take no Hammerhead formations because they're underpowered and overpriced. If the points drop (Option A) then they'll no longer be overpriced and people will start taking them.


Except nobody's taking the Ion Turret at all right now because it is overpriced. Your theory rationale doesn't stand up to practical experience that shows the Ion Hammerhead to be undesireable.

The Fusion Hammerhead isn't much better, and the Railgun is the best of a bad bunch.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sigh... work with me here LOL! OK.



Personally, I'd still not take them as they don't do what their sticker says. It's a MBT to kill MBTs. At present it only kills APCs well....


In which country? I use Ion heads. I'm pretty sure Onyx uses Ion heads. With the removal of AP GMs the Ion head is the only platform with long range AP. What's making the Ion under used is the RG with AP5+ to hit. Why need a 4+ for infantry when 5+ isn't such a massive swing in terms of hits.


I disagree here. The fusion would be excellent if its to hit was 4+.

In which country? I use Ion heads. I'm pretty sure Onyx uses Ion heads.[/quote]
No wonder he didn't win any playtest games then.


I might like to see the Ion Cannon go to AP3+/AT5+. AP4+ just isn't hitting out at enemies properly.

[/quote]
I agree the Fusion Cannon should go to 4+ to-hit.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just a question on FW usage. Do people use range stretching? If the FW are within 30cm of an opposing infantry unit in a formation the devilfish's seekers make all units within 90cm a viable target for hits (though zombo and I argue about this I think this is the RAW). As long as you can kill 1 unit you should not be engaged by anything but transports and FW should be able to stall an engagement against them. Also I assume you also normally put devilfish in front of your formation to limit the number of btb contact. The only problems this formation normally has in games are from air assaults and teleport assaults. I rank them easily amongst the best infantry in the game and don't think FF 4+ is needed.

Recon formation - I think need more attention than this thread has given them. At the moment the Tau list relies on activation count and ML's and the recon formation is the primary way it addresses these problems and as such I fell any change to them should be done with caution. The proposal E&C put forward I feel is the best one as it does not penalize tetra's which have become vital to the list and are not worth more than 150points. The problem with the recon is when someone takes formations of 5 piranhas and 1 tetra and spams it as much as possible to take advantage of massed guided missiles. So formations which are majority piranhas should be 175 points.

HH's - I'm undecided on I just want them to at least offer a viable alternative to broadsides. One possible solution is to make broadsides infantry with a 5+ RA save. This will make them about as survivable as a HH. The 40k stats don't deserve 4+ RA their status as LV's has artificially increased their save as it does in most other cases. This teamed with a points break for HH's so they cost the same as broadsides might do the trick.

I agree the fusion guns both on the HH and crisis suits should be 4+. Tau currently have the only twin-linked weapon that doesn't get +1 to hit. I don't think MWFF on crisis is warranted as only 1 model per base has a fusion gun.

Crisis suits have become much too fragile since they lost their drone shields. If tau didn't need supreme commanders so much I wouldn't take them, FW's at the moment out perform them. 4+ RA is for me a minimum. The 40k stats warrant it Terminators 5 wounds per base 2+/5+ crisis 6 wounds per base 3+/5+.

This might be hard for you but I'll ask again if you can keep the personal judgements/comments to yourself (I'm sure you'll say that this is a criticism of the Ion Head but the internet is not as clever as you are and is easily misinterpreted).

Our playtesting followed a very obvious path. The Tau won many games with the new list. As opponents began to understand the Tau weaknesses, the game outcomes began to turn and ended with a string of losses to players that I have a better than 60/40 win/loss ratio against. Marines were especially powerful against the Tau.

I was trying many different combinations as I was trying to take my playtesting seriously, not just finding a winning combination and sticking to it.

Recently, my Epic games have dropped off as I've been playing in a couple of Lord of the Ring tournaments. I'm actually planning a small Epic campaign (6-8 weeks long) leading up to a tournament. I've got about a dozen players lined up and my local club has been very helpful. I was hoping to be able to use my Tau in the campaign but the list just isn't ready. I will therefore have to try and concentrate on something else (probably a Chaos list). I simply don't have the time for serious playtesting .

Dobbsy, even if we did come up with a workable Tau list of our own, I don't believe that it would be accepted in certain other countries no matter what proof we could provide. I don't like the difference in army lists that already exist in certain areas of the world and I don't really want to add to to that. I'd love to come up with a new list but not just for Australia. All that said, I'll be in touch and see what workable ideas we can come up with. One thing is for sure though, if the FireWarriors had an improved FF, I would definately drop one of their ranged attacks.

I just spent several hours down at the emergency hospital with my 5yr old daughter coughing until she vomits and having the doctors tell me there is nothing they can do...it's just a cough. My daughter is fine but we're all shattered and I'm off to work in a minute. I'm not in a good mood and I've had to edit this post a few times.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

AT hits like seekers are an entirely separate round of allocation, they don't allow range stretching for the AP hits. Sure you can read the section the other way, but epic is a game for grown-ups, not kids keen to exploit every loophole.

You don't think a solid 3/3 would work for 150? No spam AT and MLs. I think this is what this formation should be personally. It gives a nice balance and no min/max


Providing the math for resilience is accurate, this isn't a bad option, sans testing. It would make them easier to use with FWs, but I know people are going to mention the size of their guns etc for moving in buildings...


I've never been disappointed with their saves. Just their speed nowadays. They don't seem agile enough to me. They're always just that bit out of range to be used effectively. When they have to double to get in range their shooting goes way down as there's not always ML projection to give them that compensator. I generally find I have to use a Recon formation acting in concert to get any benefit out of them and for the one unit that should really be self-sufficient given it's the go-to unit for crises....

That's what mounted is for. I'd rather not see them as infantry however, they're bloody huge, way bigger than ogryns and other "big infantry". Lascannons and other AT weapons absolutely should be effective against them.



6 wounds, 3+/5+ is only slightly better than power armoured marines, 5 wounds 3+. It's definitely nowhere near terminator level; it's 3+ or 5+ reinforced.

zombo: it's no worse than clipping engagements relying on static res to win or using scout to grab and contest as many objectives as possible. And the crisis suit stat were a typo it's 6 wounds 3+/4+.

Dobbsy: 3/3 seems sub-optimal to me. It doesn't do either job well enough. 5/1 for massed missiles or 4/2 for telescoping marker lights (i.e only exposing one tetra to the opponent and using a piranha to extend its range) seem much better. I personally only use them for ML, crossfire and objective grabbing.

Yep, we can't have everything we want - hence my "suck it up" comment earlier on. In truth this formation should be jack of all trades master of none IMO - they're the annoying gnats that buzz in to capture objectives or light up a target; not the smash a tank force with massed missile fire. With 3/3 you have compromises which is more than fair to everyone. You get a bit of shooting, sustainable MLs with a little AP fire combined with fragile armour saves, all wrapped up in a fast, zippy formation that, in the end, is about recon not tank busting.

I've found 3/3 to work fairly evenly, but if we have to make two separate formations (even though it adds another formation to the list - which I thought E&C was aiming to reduce with Series E) it will be a little disappointing but I guess I'll live with it.

Just my 2 cents

Forget rules for silly bits of resin and plastic for the moment, absolute best wishes for your daughter.


It isn't a critisism of you.
It's a critisism of the Ion Hammerhead... because I think it's crap, and it harms any list it's in.

You could be Dave Thomas and you couldn't win games if you have Ion Hammerheads in your list.


I agree, Marines have the two tools (Air Assault, Teleport) that the Tau are weak against.
Castling up and very cautious player is required against Marines.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Marines really are the rock to Tau scissors, its not just the ultra mobility to initiate assaults given by teleporters and air assaults its also 4+ armour saves combined with ATSKNF.

Its similar to the effect you get with Orks versus Eldar, all those fast skimming FF specialists just makes the fight tough.

Personally I quite like the idea of the fixed 3 tetra and 3 piranha for 150pts, if you want a more dedicated missile artillery formation you can take the piranha upgrade for 75pts, it really is the 5 piranha + 1 tetra formation that is worth 175pts.

I still think that hammerheads are not bad just overpriced you are basically choosing them for mobile ranged AT/AP fire power over the more static defensive fire power of broadsides. A single formation of 4 for 200pts seems a reasonable support formation to me.

I still agree that this is the best solution for Hammerheads***, for what weight that may carry.


***As it should balance the Railgun Hammerhead, the Ion Cannon Hammerhead, the Fusion Gun Hammerhead, and leave the Broadside suits alone, all with one minor change. I might even start to consider the Ion Hammerhead a worthy choice at 200pts.

That's as opposed to changing the to-hit stats and/or points costs and/or weapon notes on all of the above.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter