A 41% win rate is 10% higher than the win rate of Orks or Steel Legion, 5% higher than Codex Marines and even 3% higher than the win rate of the dreaded Biel-Tan.

Of course in reality there are too few data points and players to really draw many conclusions, I can only go on my experience the list seems balanced but tricky to use with a definite difficulty against two very specific builds Titan Legions and Tank Legion but both those games are still playable and can even be won.

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

The stat comparisons don't appear to be weighted for range stretching either which tends to be a significant tactical boon for the Tau.

I have only played against the Tau a few times, so take this as you want.

I have found the Hammerheads if they are played right, (let's not include luck as it works both ways), to be fine with that current stats with the ml they can be really good.

Also please let's remember this is epic and not 40k there is a reason that most of us prefer this over 40k.

Also I do agree that the Tau don't need lance.

Regards from Aus

Steve54 uses multiple Hammerhead formations at tournaments and both the results and his anecdotal reports are that they do well for him.

You're quoting 41% wins out of context and making it sound like a bad thing. It's 41% wins compared to only only 25% losses, the rest are draws. The one game in the stats where the Tau played the Ulani list (the Epic-UK tank list, equivalent to the Minnervan list) was won by the Tau incidentally.

Having a bad army match up and an uphill struggle doesn't a bad list make - I'd suggest it's even harder for a tyranid list to win against Eldar.

Back to the big picture, Yme-loc has argued the case and made the call and there is to be a trial of AT3+ Hammerheads, without even the cost increase I would have expected with it. Lance is definitely stated not to be happening. It is settled. Go out and play and report back ye Tau players. The debate and arguments are getting circular here and it is doubtful anything more will be achieved through them.

Have to agree with this. I could have gone either way but I think it's been settled now. It's actually made me want to concentrate on the list a bit more. I'll be playing tau for my next few games.

As I said earlier, AT4+ Lance or AT3+ are the two best options *if* we are to boost the HH.

Obviously AT3+ will hurt standard armoured formations more than RA formations, and like others, my main concern is the effect of AT3+ when combined with ML / Co-ordinated fire and / or Cross-fire. To my understanding, the Tau should be making best use of these tactics. While this may not be easy, it will be rewarding when achieved.

Lets give it a try. This boost will make the HH railhead easier to use in general, though I do not think the improvement against RA will be very significant; 4%-7% if the figures presented are accurate. As a consequence, I am not sure that this 'fix' will actually solve the perceived problem.

Hi, I was away for the weekend but it's great to see it looks like some progress was made in the discussions.



From my point of view, entirely list-balance which is why I've been generating comparisons of damage output of various tanks. There's also talk of the fluff and background story of the vehicle because naturally that's a lot of people's window into the game, but speaking as the OP this thread was originally about balance and compartive performance.

In a nutshell the balance concern was Tau don't deal with large amounts of RA at all well using shooting, and can't fall back on assault/CC/FF to pick up the slack like most armies. To that I added the concern that once I started looking at the figures, Hammerhead shooting is almost embarassingly poor compared to reasonably similar Eldar vehicles, which can fall back on assault/CC/FF etc.

The fact that the Hammerhead is a "sublime" vehicle in 40K for taking out exactly these targets in 40K (amazing S10 AP1) and is indistinguishable in power from a battlecannon in Epic (merely S8 AP3 in 40K) and half as powerful as a pulse laser (S8 AP2 x2) is actually secondary to my own concern, but obviously a major factor in players reporting that it underperforms expectations or is frustrating.



Titan legions and Russ-heavy armies are very popular locally, so yes it's fair to say people have found using Tau frustrating. Apparently the UK meta and some of her lists are slightly different from our own, but I can only really comment on what I know.
Even for me it's sometimes felt like an uphill battle even against newer players with shall we say, "less optimised lists", but I've been enjoying them regardless.
I wouldn't be making this effort otherwise



Thanks for being open to ideas and willing to make the effort Joe. I would be more than happy to join in with some play testing. I've previously been mainly focussed on the Vior'la varient, but am happy to pitch in with assessing changes to the 6.6 version if needed.

PS - Somewhere in the thread there was the idea of a game on Tabletop or Vassal with Yme-Loc or Steve to try create a battle report for comparison. I'd be happy to participate so if anyone wants to do this:
Challenge Accepted

Cue Rocky soundtrack

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

lol

By the way, I saw post in the Biel Tan thread:



That's relevant to this thread because everything I wrote was based on the assumption that Fire Prisms were more expensive than Broadsides (65pts vs 50pts).
As readers may recall, without modifiers it takes only 2.4 Fireprisms to do as much damage to RA as 8 Hammerheads (each does 3.33 times more damage).
Even if it Moves - Shoots - Moves, a Fireprism does more damage to RA than a Broadside that Sustains fire on a target that is also Markerlit. (See maths in first post in this thread). I am very surprised to see such a king of tank-killers get a price decrease, but that's a feedback post for the Eldar thread rather than this one.

In the meantime any eldar players who pop their heads up to say Yme-Loc's suggestion of AT3+ would require a Hammerhead price bump may note a little red dot on their forehead. That, my space-elf friends, is a markerlight

As a 'pointy ear' elf friend, I can only re-iterate that IMO the NetEA approach to FirePrisms is inappropriate, and has been flawed ever since it was first presented ~2008 by Sotec. The E-UK team have effectively retained the original approach of 3x FP for 250 or ~83 points each . . . . .

So, a price bump just *might* be appropriate for AT3+
(Though this would need to be tested both because of the cost sensitivity of the Tau, and because this change is unlikely to produce the desired effect against RA targets.)

It would be good to keep this particular discussion to NetEA lists.
There is no more need to bring EpicUK lists into this discussion (even though EpicUK and NetEA share the same Tau list). Everyone is aware of the differences now.

_________________
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.

Thanks, Onyx is correct that this discussion is about NetEA lists, and it's already complicated enough to compare unit costs and performance across lists even within one version of the army rules.

Still, I do appreciate that the unit and prices may be different in some cases in your local epic environment Ginger and that this will naturally lead you to slightly different conclusions about costs. I can only really comment on the NetEA lists.



Regarding whether the desired effect is achieved, I hope to have two games soon so I can report back.
I'd like the first to be with AT3+ Railgun hammerheads, and the second, with opponent's permission, to be to test the idea of AT4+ 'Armour Penetrator' (which shouldn't be treated as more than just a proposal/idea at the moment)

"Armour Penetrator - Tau rail weapons use linear accelerator technology to project a solid projectile at hyper-velocity. It is capable of punching through the thickest of armour and of taking down the largest of enemies. A Non-infantry unit with Reinforced Armour that is hit by an Armour Penetrator weapon is not allowed to re-roll its saving throw."

If nothing else it's a great excuse for a couple games.

Point noted guys, though I am only trying to suggest that these endless comparisons are completely flawed IMO for the many reasons already stated - to the extent that (with great respect to Matt) we need to move on rather than continually banging on about them.