Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts

 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:12 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
As someone who plays against tau more often than plays with (especially since it appears that my hammerhead based tau army will be using the eldar list) I will again say that AT3+ is a bad idea. an increase in AT provides twice the benefit against nonRA vehicles than against RA ones. (again, +1AT gives an 11% increase in the ability to kill a chimera, but only a 4.1% increase in the ability to kill a russ) Tau do not need increased ability to deal with regular AV, they're more than capable of that right now. what they tend to find very difficult, disproportionately so, is dealing with Russ companies and their other heavy tank equivalents.


And overall, tau do not perform all that well. even the eUK stats, the stats people are claiming as evidence against the statistical analysis and general dismissal of an entire continent, Even those stats, if we were to assume that the players taking it were average (maths shows not) or that they were taking enough hammerheads to be noteworth (lists shows not) or that the hammerheads were responsible for the wins (anecdotes and statistical analysis suggest not) they are still only winning 41% of their games.
As yme-loc points out that is more than many other races, the statement you make about hammerheads in the lists you have flat out made up as even a cursory look at the stats shows. They aren't perfect or a larger enough study but they are the only stats we have vs I haven't played tau for years/they are so weak I'm using them as eldar

If one group of people's high end tournament players are winning less than half their games with an army, and an entire other metagame has largely dismissed a portion of that army, that suggests that there's probably a problem
22/27 of the armies in the stats are winning less than 50%, both players who have played Tau in more than one tournament are winning over 50% with them.


12 tanks, shooting for two turns, vs an enemy formation that neither retaliates against the enemy tanks, nor their exposed and vulnerable markerlighting formation, nor recovers from blast markers, can, barring swings in luck, cause 6 entire casualties? that hardly seems like a fair trade to dedicate 900 odd points of your army for half to two thirds of a game.
Yep its a pretty meaningless stats study as it doesn't take into account any other factors, just like the reams of stats for the mythical russ vs hhead static shooting match

If the premier shooty army's premier tank hunting weapon is not adequate to take on what is widely viewed as the most common standard to which to compare all other main battle tanks, seems to me that something is wrong.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:33 am
Posts: 340
The stat comparisons don't appear to be weighted for range stretching either which tends to be a significant tactical boon for the Tau.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:03 am
Posts: 33
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5588
Location: Bristol
Jaggedtoothgrin wrote:
or that the hammerheads were responsible for the wins (anecdotes and statistical analysis suggest not) they are still only winning 41% of their games.

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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Posts: 931
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 706
Hi, I was away for the weekend but it's great to see it looks like some progress was made in the discussions.

kyussinchains wrote:
I want to know whether we have even decided whether we're tackling a list-balance issue here, or a fluff/background one?
in 40k, a hammerhead is (apparently) a sublime vehicle for blowing up enemy armour of all kinds, land raiders, russes and all the rest all die very easily


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.

yme-loc wrote:
Now I can understand that if all you play against everyday is Titan legions and all Russ armies it could be a little frustrating. Even so both fights are still winnable (from experience – we do sometimes fight these armies in the UK meta) they are just difficult (or at least you can content yourself with a hard fought draw thanks to the way objectives work).

Armies are defined by their weaknesses as well as their strengths and I often feel with Tau that people really like them and get a little involved when discussing them and just end up trying to fix every possible weakness or problem without actually worrying about overall balance.


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 :D

yme-loc wrote:
Having thought about it though I am going to trial a version of the Railhead with AT3+ at exactly the same cost as the current version of 4 for 200.


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 :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Cue Rocky soundtrack

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 706
lol

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

Spectrar Ghost wrote:
New version!
Changes:
Fire Prism cost reduced to 50pt.


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 :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
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.)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:53 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 706
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.

Quote:
(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.)


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. :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Are Hammerheads Under-performers? The facts
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net