My list at the moment has 2 hammerhead formations and I've no problem with them

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

How do you feel about Tau as a whole?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

But a Leman Russ is not twice as survivable as a Predator in 40k (which it is in Epic).

The problem goes beyond 40k stats, really. The Hammerhead is clearly an MBT, the Railgun variant is also the "standard" variant and the one that is the preferred weapon when the Hammerhead engages other MBTs. So you'd expect that the shootiest army in the game would mount a weapon capable of taking out enemy MBTs on their own MBT. And that's true when you consider Predators, Falcons and Gunwagons (the MBTs of Marines, Orks and Eldar). But it breaks down when it faces the Leman Russ, which for some reason is twice as tough as any other equivalent tank. And the Russ is, like it or not, the iconic tank in 40k. What other, non-WE, vehicles have 4+RA? The Land Raider (which is famous for being insanely tough) and Tyranid monstrous creatures (created long after the Russ set the precedent)?

Here's what I think the real problem is:
1) The Leman Russ is too tough for what it is
2) This mostly appears against Tau, as they're the only army (other than other IG armies) that try to defeat Russes by pitting their own MBTs against them (Marines, Eldar, Orks, Necrons or Tyranids are mostly happy to engage them and break them).

Agreed completely

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I'll just go start the 5+RA Leman Russ thread now.

I'd make them 3+ flat instead, but I think we're about 12 years too late

My point is that the problem is an underlying issue with the EA rules, so any fix can't be expected to be 'elegant'. I'm fine with a slightly clunky fix (like giving Railheads Lance, or something else) for this reason.

I feel they are perfectly competitive - most of my losses were learning to use them and trying to offensively use Orcas. If I was going to look at an issue it would be buffing Crisis suits as at the moment they usually just sit in cover on OW to provide a SC

If we are comparing 1-on-1 I'd far rather have 12 hammerheads (cheaper than a russ co) as using cover I'd hope to get 2 rounds of shooting before the russ can manoeuvre to reach me. In a standard game I'd follow normal practice of removing small formations (which tau are adept at) and then taking on big formations (like russ companies) with an activation advantage, speed+crossfire, skimmer, markerlights etc all of which the hheads excel at.
Boosting the AT just makes it less important to use these Tau advantages

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Yeah, I've tried this too. Good idea on paper, goes to crap when they double or march into your space then open up the following turn giving you only one round of shooting at them. Hiding doesn't always help you.

If I read correctly (I am not great with percentages) 12x AT3+ will on average give you around 8 hits and 2 kills on a Leman Russ company. Not a terribly super outcome really. I often see reinforced LR companies too leaving plenty of able tanks to smash the HHs in return. Minervan armies are common over here too when you see 2x Leman Russ Companies....

But I guess there's no point discussing this any longer, eh?

Witness this thread

Cheers

So, from the recent comments the issue is focusing on HH vs LR. On the one hand the LR armour is too strong, while the other view is that HH firepower is not strong enough - these are both sides of the same argument. Personally I agree with Ulrik that the LR armour should be weaker. (I also think that other armour be slightly tougher; my now very old suggestion about using different values for RA saves). Unfortunately this position is really all about flaws in the basic E:A rule mechanics that are not going to change.

I also agree with the view that there just *might* be better tactics or combinations of formations etc or even the way that different groups layout terrain that may assist / hinder the way the HH perform (or are perceived to perform).

So, how do we resolve this?

Except that a 3+ AT value makes them even better at killing rhinoes and other lighter APCs. that's the role they're already being used for, because shooting at 4+RA is generally a waste of time with low volume AT shots, regardless of quality. I again point out how i never use vultures to shoot at russ or land raiders, because the entire formations shots will maybe kill two guys. Railheads who have smaller formation sizes are liable to kill maybe a single russ, and be all but totally wiped out in return fire.

Any increase in AT value is twice as good an improvement against nonRA units as the effect against RA units

Lance is only an "eldar" rule because noone else will use it. it doesnt matter if its named after a particular type of weapon that functions a particular type of way, the idea is that a railgun has sufficient penetrative power that what would normally be robust protection is of little more value than regular armour, the fact that it doesnt use crystal voodoo power to achieve this is irrelevant, the rule fits the role, and it makes sense to apply it, and it helps fill a gap in the tau firepower capabilities.

likewise, saying "well I don't think hammerheads are underperforming" is pretty blatantly ignoring the maths put forwards in this thread. it doesnt matter how many games you may or may not have won, if the numbers say it's less effective than its elven counterparts, then it is. Maths doesnt lie, and is not subject to the vagaries of luck, memory, and even in these results, modified slightly by subjective criteria, are less prone to selection and observational bias than "we won games at this tournament" arguements. Especially given the indications that tournament wins are not coming from a corresponding use of railgun hammerheads. I am not at all convinced that the armywide tau special rules (of which there are none) outweigh those of the Eldar, nor do the situational markerlight rules overwhelm it, especially when the maths shows how little that helps. It's been mathematically demonstrated that if I want to make my tau armoured force, I'd be better off using the eldar rules and counts as Yme Loc craftworld infact, is that your cunning plan? are you secretly an eldar plant?! J'Accuse! *dramatic fingerpointing gesture*

Maybe the way you play scenery in the UK has impacted on their ability, though I don't see how it would do so enough, the point remains, if an entire country has gone "nah these are rubbish" and produces mathematical data to support their claim then there's reason to believe that a problem might exist.

changing point values is a wet paper bag fix at best, increasing the AT value provides a bigger boost to a role they're already plenty good at, while providing half that boost against the targets we're worried about. cheaper Ion-heads will still be fairly underperforming, making the gun better and keeping them all at the same level makes for a better, more elegant fix. you are making a mistake.


Anyway, maths diversion time! PREPARE YOURSELVES FOR NUMBERS!!!

40k Fire prisms only very recently (this latest codex) actually got access to a Lance shot. so what does that mean for their tank-killing-outright ability (not going to bother with "glancing a formation to death" options)?
Well, Current 40k stats put Railguns killing a Chimera on 22.2% of shots (4 from 12 of 18) (33% of kills from hits) and a russ at 11.1% (2 from 12 of 18) (16.6% of kills from hits)
a current Fire Prism kills a chimera on 16.6% of shots (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of kills from hits) and russ at 16.6% of shots (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of kills from hits)
a previous edition Fire Prism kills a chimera on 11.1% of shots (2 from 12 of 18) (16.6% of kills from hits) and russ on 3.3% (0.6 of 12 from 18) (5% of kills from hits)

So, we can see that the new Fire Prism is 5.5% better at killing russ than the hammerhead, but also 5.5% worse at killing chimera
the old fire prism, however, was half as good as the hammerhead at killing chimera and a third as good at killing russ. It was also, incidentally, more then 3 times more likely to kill a chimera than a russ, while a hammerhead was twice as likely to kill a chimera than a russ.

anyway, how does that translate across to epic?
Well, in epic, Hammerheads without a markerlight will kill Chimera 33% of shots (6 from 9 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill) and russ 12.5% (2.25 from 9 of 18) (25% of hits kill)
With a markerlight (or with the proposed AT boost) they will kill chimera 44% of shots (8 from 12 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill) and russ 16.6% of shots (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of hits kill)
meanwhile, Fire Prisms will kill chimera 55.5% of shots (10 from 15 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill) and russ 41.6% of shots (7.5 from 15 of 18) (50% of hits kill)
while, for funsies, Fire Prisms without lance, will kill 55% of shots (10 from 15 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill) and russ, 20.8% of shots (3.75 from 15 of 18) (25% of hits kill)

so, what does all that numbers-talk mean?

Well, compared to 40k

Hammerheads:
vs Chimera: with out markerlights, Hammerheads kill Chimera 11% more reliably in Epic than in 40k, with Markerlights, they kill them 22% more reliably.
Vs Russ: with out markerlights, Hammerheads kill Russ with 1.4% increased reliability in epic than in 40k, with markerlights they kill them with 5.5% more efficiency.

Current Prism:
Vs Chimera: a current Fire Prism kills a chimera with 38.9% more reliability in Epic than in 40k
Vs Russ: a current Fire Prism kills a Russ with 25% more reliability in Epic than in 40k

Previous Prism
Vs Chimera: A previous style Fireprism (lanceless) kills Chimera with 44.4% more reliability in Epic than in 40k
Vs Russ: A previous style Fire Prism (lanceless) kills Russ with 16.3% more reliability in Epic than in 40k

but what's all that in Variance? a 16.3% increase doesnt sound very impressive, but when you're comparing it with a starting point of 3.3%, its a pretty impressive leap

Hammerhead:
Vs Chimera, without markerlight its a 50% leap in lethality of shots markerlights, it's an 100% increase in lethality of shots.
In both cases, Epic provides an 100% increase in lethality of successful hits.
Vs Russ, without markerlight it's a 12.6% increase in lethality of shots, while with a markerlight, it's a 50% increase in lethality of shots.
In both cases, Epic provides a 52.6% increase in lethality of successful hits

Current Prism
Vs Chimera, is a 233% increase in lethality (in epic, a fireprism is 333% as effective at killing a chimera as in 40k)
Epic provides a 160% increase in lethality of successful hits
Vs Russ, is a 150% increase in lethality (in epic, a fireprism is 250% as effective at killing a russ as in 40k)
Epic provides an 100 increase in lethality of successful hits

Previous Prism
Vs Chimera is a 400% increase in lethality (in epic, a lanceless fireprism is 500% as effective at killing a chimera as the previous editions fire prism was in 40k)
Epic provides a 301% increase in lethality of successful hits
Vs Russ it's a 625% increase in lethality (in epic, a lanceless fireprism is 625% more effective at killing a russ as a previous edition fire prism was in 40k)
Epic provides a 400% increase in lethality of successful hits

But, when the rules for the Fire Prism were written, Fire prisms were the old lanceless variety. so lets take a quick look at the variance between Old 40k Fire Prism and Epic Fire Prism

Vs Chimera, 400% increase in lethality (a Epic fireprism is 5 times more likely to kill a chimera than its 40k counterpart at the time)
Vs Russ: 1150% increase in lethality (an Epic Fireprism is 12 and a half times more likely to kill a russ than its 40k counterpart at the time

But, I hear you say, when the epic rules came out, the vehicle damage rules in 40k were different! weapons were more explodey!
indeed they were, but, while the increased ability to wreck vehicles (5 or 6 on the damage table) there was also no +1 to damage results for AP2 weapons, so the fire prism effect was still the same. it did increase the ability for a railgun to kill a tank slightly (glancing hits from a railgun had a 1 in 6 chance of killing a vehicle, while now they do not) but that variance wasnt worth doing an extra layer of maths unless y'all really call for it

here's a simpler chart to show what I mean

Hammerhead Vs Chimera
40kRailgun 22.2% (4 from 12 of 18) (33% of kills from hits)
EpicRailgun(NM) 33%(+50%) (6 from 9 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill)
EpicRailgun(M) 44%(+100%) (8 from 12 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill)

Hammerhead vs Russ
40kRailgun 11.1% (2 from 12 of 18) (16.6% of kills from hits)
EpicRailgun(NM) 12.5%(+12.5%) (2.25 from 9 of 18) (25% of hits kill)
EpicRailgun(M) 16.6%(+50%) (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of hits kill)


Fire Prism (current) Vs Chimera
40kFirePrism(c) 16.6% (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(c) 55.5%(+233%) (10 from 15 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill)

Fire Prism (current) Vs Russ
40kFirePrism(c) 16.6% (3 from 12 of 18) (25% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(c) 41.6%(+150%) (7.5 from 15 of 18) (50% of hits kill)


Fire Prism (previous) Vs Chimera
40kFirePrism(p) 11.1% (2 from 12 of 18) (16.6% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(nL) 55% (+400%) (10 from 15 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill)

Fire Prism (previous) Vs Russ
40kFirePrism(P) 3.3% (0.6 of 12 from 18) (5% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(nL) 20.8%(+525%) (3.75 from 15 of 18) (25% of hits kill)


Fire Prism (CurrentEpic Vs Old40k) Vs Chimera
40kFirePrism(p) 11.1% (2 from 12 of 18) (16.6% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(c) 55.5%(+400%) (10 from 15 of 18) (66.6% of hits kill)

Fire Prism (CurrentEpic Vs Old40k) Vs Russ
40kFirePrism(P) 3.3% (0.6 of 12 from 18) (5% of kills from hits)
EpicFirePrism(c) 41.6%(+1150%) (7.5 from 15 of 18) (50% of hits kill)




TL;DR version:

Compared to 40k, Hammerheads have recieved a 50% increase in lethality against chimera, but only a 12.6% increase in lethality against Russ, Fire prisms, however, recieved what was, at the time, a 400% increase in lethality against Chimera, and a 1150% increase in lethality against russ! If Hammerheads had such an increase in Russkilling capabilities, that would mean each hammerhead would kill 1.38 russ per shot fired! with that in mind, our suggestion of lance, which would result in a .25 russ killed per shot, seems pretty reasonable!

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Well I would have imagined that given the LR is not going to change, that the evidence put forward here might have had an effect to bring the HH up to a level whereby it resembles the description of its abilites and thus perhaps make it a closer match in a two-way shooting range (shooting vs saves) with the LR.

Given that looks unlikely, I am really at a loss to answer that question.

I'll read through JTG's post later when I have time, thanks for posting it.



Interesting point GlynG, but I had the same point of view as Kyrt even before he posted that reply.
I expect you'd agree that Tau are an advanced army unlikely to be played by newer Epic players. It's one of the less well known armies, gets less coverage, it's is hard to find models for and is extremely expensive. I've only seen it played by some of the most hard-core Epic players, so that's likely to have an impact on its performance in the same way as Dark Eldar in 40K (weak army, mainly played by very experienced players, scores higher than would otherwise be expected)

I'll add a personal note now, since most of my posts have been about stats and comparisons.
Since I started playing it I have had a great time, but not only have I lost a game to other player's Tau I have also never found an army so challenging to win with myself. Every game requires a big comeback - especially when fighting things like tank legions and titans that ignore all the AP weapons and then also shrug off Hammerheads. (Defining 6 to 8 hammerheads per damage point as "shrugging off")

On the bright side it has made me a lot better Epic player, when I use other races now it feels like dropping training weights and sprinting



As someone who owns a grogeous Tau army but recently also got an Eldar one, that is the last thing I want to happen. I've not tried the eldar yet, but it's fairly obvious how much better they are going to be vs the sort of RA armies that are run locally. Steve54 is absolutely right about the tactics he posted, hiding and picking off weak formations, gradually gaining activation advantage, using crossfire and the skimmer etc, but he'd probably do the same with Eldar and might have an easier time of it.

I hope noone feels this is treading on their toes, but I don't want Tau to end up played by just a dozen die-hards on Taccomm. Hence the effort here regarding the Hammerheads.

That's a pretty skewed version of the argument

1 country seems to uniformly point to them being underpowered and has stats to point to this, these stats don't take into account however how the army plays or any context.
Other country thinks they are ok and has tournament data to support this, this data doesn't take into account that it is generally more experienced players who use the list. I've no idea what you are talking about with terrain - I can't imagine anybody plays that Russ can see over terrain?
40k comparisons IMO are largely irrelevant- as long as the unit broadly does what it is supposed to do in 40k.
So IMO its not as cut and dried as you make out regarding the need for change.

The AC has shown he is willing to listen to potential issues and has suggested testing an AT change, so no need for any histrionics. Or can I do the same as I don't think there is a need for change but a change is being tested?

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

This is quite a tough one for me. I can see all sides of the argument. They can undoubtedly be left as they are and made to work. I started out with Tau and can definitely relate to the feeling of taking off the training weights now I've moved onto other forces. That said, you can definitely win with them, they can pull off some phenomenal moves that just aren't available to other forces and I can't remember losing a game because my Hammerheads didn't take down enough RA targets. It's usually down to poor decisions and allowing my opponent to exploit a weakness. As always, Tau are very unforgiving to use. If you make any substantial mistake you will usually be punished for it and have a hard time after that, you often have very little contingency and often feel like you have to "come back" to win.

I guess what people have a problem with, and I understand this fully as well, is that Hammerheads just don't come across as tank killers or in anyway particularly able to deal with heavy armour any better than a bunch of sustaining seeker missiles which just seems a bit weird. The crux is that it feels like they should be better at dealing with RA.

If anything is going to change I would have thought AT4+, Lance is it as it address the issue in question and allows both sustain and markerlights to come into play to max out the stat line which gives tactical options.

I don't really see any issue with using Lance in a non-Eldar context, I keep hearing that this system in particular is supposed to be heavily abstract and I can't see any issue with using an existing mechanic that conveniently allows for "Macro Weapon lite" weapons to exist.

If the alternative is AT3+, I'm almost inclined just to leave it as is, broadsides do that already.

My view is that they *should* see an improvement and that a perfectly suitable one is sat there, on the other hand they're not massively broken either, they just don't feel right. I'm certainly not planning to stop using them, I just don't get that part of the argument. If a formation of Hammerheads taking out half a Leman Russ less than they could is losing games there are probably bigger issues at play