I can tell you for a fact that Matt Shadowlord is a highly experienced and knowledgeable player and didn't lose a game at Cancon and his grasp of the rules and strategy is excellent. Onyx is an excellent player. I myself am an average-good player. There's a spectrum of opinion involved here and we all seem to come to the same conclusion so I don't think "these stats don't take into account how the army plays in context" is a fair assessment of this debate.

EUK has tournament stats to show their results, which in context for EUK is great, however I do actually have concerns about the fact that all other EUK lists differ to Net EA lists in points leaving differences on the table top that may in fact effect NetEA comparisons, given the Tau list crosses over both groups. e.g 3000 points of Tau in NetEA gets you 3000 points as an opponent list - say SM.

3K Tau EUK gets you 3K+ versus EUK SM when compared to the NetEA SM list( e.g. difference in cost of Tactical formations etc) . I think this may skew outcomes to a degree - not sure how much however. I just have reservations that it may.


I think what he's alluding to is that EUK play may have very little terrain on the table. From pics I've seen from games posted in the past you fellas seem to play on a lot more open terrain tables which has a big impact on certain types of lists.


I think this is the entire argument. The unit doesn't do what it's supposed to.


Speaking of histrionics, the change only really takes us back to the v5.0+ series of the list which had a lot of testing so it's not like something new and it's obvious AT3+ will hit more But the tank will still be middling when fighting other heavy armour.

I do not want to take sides. I feel like Alf O Mega, I can see both sides of the argument. However, it seems the Australian (?) metagame is not a Hammerhead vs Russes, but a Tau vs Minervans issue, or a RA-packed metagame, and quite possibly a side effect of the community's desire for all WE and AV army lists. I have only played Steel Legion Guards, and that list punishes you for taking a Tank Company and especially two.

On terrain: I prefer to play on terrain-FILLED tables. Lots of area terrain that provides LOS cover and makes for tactical manoeuvers. Some play on what I see as flat expanses of no terrain with obstacles and buildings sprinkled in between. Tau generally suffers when the amount of area terrain gets critically low and long range shooting is unchecked or restricted to hull down.

My opinion: I understand the wish for more Hammerhead punch. If that is what is wanted, I just pray it would go with a sufficient points increase.

/Fredmans

I'm also stuck betwix't both camps; whilst I think (rail) hammerhead formations are perfectly good@200 points (or 6@300), I don't think their stats (or the railgun statline at least) accurately models what they're supposed to be like in universe. They also suffer from the fact that Eldar tanks seem to be just flat out better then they are.

Stats out of context - stats with no context are exactly what Matt has produced and JTG thinks are being ignored. They don't take into account how armies work or anything other than the AT values (speed, skimmer etc) all they really show is what happens on a bare table with immobile tanks in isolation from any other units.

EUK stats aren't perfect as you point out but there aren't any others, the views of a range of EUK players are just as valid as the range of Australian players though.

Terrain- I've never heard that EUK uses less terrain - we use 12 area pieces as per the rulebook. If we do use less terrain surely that is bad for the tau?

IMO the list works fine, and is competitive, as it is. Probably rail heads should be better but the list still works and both alternatives are problematic.
AT3 - not much improvement vs RA but better vs nonRA and will lessen the tau need to move and take advantage of speed/crossfire and ML detracting from the feel of playing them.
Lance - an improvement vs RA but IMO a step too far vs other RA targets than Russ Co such as land raiders, wave serpents and even warhounds.

From what I've read and the stats hheads have a problem in some peoples view vs massed RA, so basically Russ companies. Any boost to them should take into account more than just that match up.

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

Good posts Fredmans and MikeT.

I definitely understand the call to give the HH Railhead more "punch" to make it feel more like the "fluff", though I am also concerned about the repeated comparisons with Eldar using bald stats***.

AT4+ Lance would be my preference (despite Steve's misgivings about effects on titans) - though I understand the reticence to use an Eldar special rule.
My concern here is that Markerlight was specifically added to give Tau shooting 'more punch', and this was done in a way that could be both exploited and countered (which is part of the reason that Tau can be 'challenging' to play). If HH are already adequate/good against other targets, AT3+ may well be OTT, because Markerlight would make them even more lethal against non-RA targets.

If Yme-Loc (and the community) would permit this 'abuse' of the Eldar special rule, the following stats would be my preference:-

Railgun 60cm AP4+
. . . . . . 75cm AT4+ Lance

4x HH for 200, +100 for a further 2x HH

(And I would also prefer the Broadsides to be reduced to 60cm AT4+, which IMO would also help encourage the use of more HH formations.)

Terrain coverage, location and more importantly it's use (tactics) could well be one differentiator. I would agree with Steve that E-UK tables are well covered (~25% - 33%) and more importantly they are very consistent - we have used the same terrain in all the tournaments I have ever attended for at least 8 years. However this discussion probably ought to be removed to a separate thread - with pictures from the different groups to illustrate density and layout, interpretations and tactics.

*** Stats like Metrics are tricksey little devils, they need to be taken in context; for example, travelling at 70 MPH on a motorway in clear, dry and bright conditions may be perfectly reasonable, whilst 70 MPH on a dark, wet country lane in the fog will only end in tears

I think it seems that way from pics, but bear in mind we use area terrain, so the terrain with 1-2 poxy buildings on represents being covered in buildings and totally blocks LoS, from appearances it seems the Perth crew have more open line of sight than we do here in the UK

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

With regard to splitting out the AP from the AT, I can see why you would want to do that but IMO it feels really messy, very few weapons have these split stat lines (e.g. basilisk), and I can't think of any off-hand that do it for AP vs AT.

Between the two options of AT3 and Lance, I would probably prefer Lance. Normally I do not like the proliferation of special rules, but TBH Lance doesn't really "feel" like an Eldar-only thing. I agree with Steve that neither options are perfect, but I think the Lance option is the lesser of two evils. AT3+ feels more like a general boost, whereas Lance does more to actually clarify the tank's role. And whilst it's true that Lance will give Tau a boost vs other RA targets like Warhounds*, actually I think for a shooty army Tau are surprisingly not great at dealing with such things anyway, doing so primarily with a 375 point aircraft formation. Thus my main worry with Lance would be that it may further erode the role of the fusion hammerhead.

So, what about removing AP entirely from the railgun on the hammerhead?
Railgun 75cm AT4+ Lance

I guess some people will balk at removing it, since it always seems more positive to give rather than take away. But if the tank is to be re-imagined as a heavy armour hunter, then the presence of an AP option seems hardly justifiable anyway IMO. Also, removing AP would preserve the differentiation of role from fusionheads, who are good vs everything including heavy infantry but only at close range. Lastly, there aren't any other railguns with AP anyway (aside from MW on the heavy stuff obviously), so no impact on other units. Notably, broadside railguns already lack AP. As far as balance is concerned, I haven't yet built my Tau army but I'm pretty sure I would pick them with these stats and price.

* Regarding Warhounds, I think Steve is right to point out that HHs with Lance would become pretty good against Warhounds (seekers for shields plus railguns for damage). I'm just not convinced that they *shouldn't* be good at this. After all, something should be good at killing Warhounds (everything should have a counter ideally), and squadrons of railheads seem as justified as anything else.

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

Oh, and regarding ion cannons, dirsupt sounds fine but I know nothing of what the gun should be like in 40K. The other thing is, that should probably also carry over to the tiger shark and manta.

Onslaught has a good proxy for a hammerhead with twin ion cannon...?

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

***BREAKING NEWS***

in a game of imperial fists vs tau, steve54 just killed two achilles with a single hammerhead formation, 5 hits, 2 failed saves.... surely this must be a sign of the end times.... I wonder if someone can offer an explanation?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Looks like you need to improve the armour on those achilles

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

OK when I next get some time to play I'm going to break out my Tau again. I will give the current HH some more runs and try a few different set ups. I've been pretty vocal in this discussion but it's also been some time since I played them so I think I need to reacquaint myself and see if I can prove this more.


LOL I had once had 3 Land Raiders killed by Whirlwinds in single salvo....

That's average kills to hits in my reckoning of statistical analysis.

I'm in the lance camp for fluff reasons like I said earlier, but...

...surely they should increase in price? No? They are 4 for 200 points currently. Lance would be a considerable (and appropriate IMO) boost. I think 250 pts like Dobsy suggested (and +125 for 2 more) is a better start. Perhaps even 275 pts. I also see no reason to increase the AP value to 4+, that would make them better against inf and that's not something I feel they need.

Not really, 5 hits on 4+ RA with inv save would be 1 kill on average. 5 hits sounds on the high side too, unless there were more than 4 hammerheads and/or on sustain with markerlights. 4 hammerheads with a skyray advancing with markerlights and no cover would be just under 5 hits on average, but then that's 300 points.

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

A boost in performance is desired, a boost in price, not so much. Lance on a hammerhead might push it up in price a little, but at the moment, I'm not sure it does.

If you give a hammerhead Lance, and it sustains on a target with a markerlight, it will have the same killing effect as a fire prism that advances. (infact, the fire prism will have longer range)

Now, despite what some people are saying, we have been taking into account circumstances outside of the straight up killing power of the two guns.
Skimmer, why yes, both units have it.
Speed, ditto. infact, the Eldar tank has increased mobility due to its Hit And Run rule, which brings us to Army Rules

"army special rules" and all that included, Eldar have better rules to support a fire prism than tau do to support a hammerhead. being able to shoot while on the move is a very valuable activity, especially with the eldar ability to shoot, and then move out of retaliation range.

likewise, the only time when "coordinated fire" is an advantage over farsight is when you are planning on retaining as well as coordinating fire, and were intending to target the same formation anyway. Otherwise, the ability to retain twice and target different formations is much more useful.

Add in that eldar get a free Avatar, and the other hit and run perks (which are considerable) and you have Eldar coming out ahead of tau on basic special rules. (also note, Markerlight is a neat rule, but it's situational, where as, if eldar AP/AT values are all 1 better than Tau's to start with they get that bonus all the time, so its not an advantage to the tau.)

So, the Fire Prism can move and shoot, and have the same AT value as a Hammerhead that sustains, and has markerlights on its target. that doesnt seem like a fair trade already, it certainly doesnt seem like something that requires a points boost to the tau if you give the hammerhead a special rule that the Fire Prism also has.

Maybe it does, but I think a trial without the points increase would be a good starting point, see if hammerheads suddenly start overwhelming the game.

Overall, I'd think a fair statline change would be:
Railgun gets split munitions, like the Scorpionfish, so it can shoot Solid Shot (AT4+ Lance at 75cm) or Submunition (AP5+ 60cm)
Ion Cannon gets Disrupt
Fusion Cannon gets nothing now, but maybe we look at giving it a range of 40cm or something, puts it outside 30cm retaliation, but still within 45

None of those changes would need to flow over to other vehicle weapons (I have no analysis on Ioncannon performance on barracuda and the like) but maybe could if we think they're also suffering

As to the Fio'ka statlines, I dunno, they're both fairly rubbish, especially if the Ion Cannon gets disrupt.

Personally, I'd also like to see a slight drop in price on attached Skyrays (not backed up by maths, havent done it yet, but damn they're pricey) and I'd like to see devilfish mounted pathfinders put into the Fio'ka list.

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