Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Railgun VS other Anti-Tank
Closed Thread
Old 02 Nov 2006, 04:30   #1 (permalink)
lonely tau
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

A while ago on this website I started a topic that, while a good idea, was ran into the ground really quick, and one aspect of what ran it into the ground was saying that not having a Railgun in a Tau list is generally a bad idea. For some reason I was reminded of this as I was wandering aimlessly around the house, and I decided to bring this topic up for the hell of it, and keep in mind it was arguing over it for Anti-Tank

So, the Question, Railgun for Anti-Tank or other various weapons for Anti-Tank?

Keep in mind this is your opinion, and I know the advantages of all weapons and etc through having used them.
 
Old 02 Nov 2006, 08:02   #2 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 742
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

This has been discussed a ton of times, generally with a good amount of polarization. Some people swear by Railguns, others by Fusions and Missiles.

I am one of the fusion missile guys. While a Railhead can let off subs it effectiveness is still a point of debate (a clever player will space nicely). Besides that, yeah you have a S10 Ap1 weapon, but after the tanks are gone (or you miss a bunch with that one shot) who are you going to shoot at?

It has been my experience that Ions, Missiles, and Fusion (normally with on Helios suits) are much more versatile. They all have multiple targets in mind.
Fusion - tanks, monstrous creatures, MEqs, HQs
Missiles - Light vehicles, back armor, 4+ saves, High Toughness targets, non T4 HQ
Ion - Basically same as missiles, with more shots, and better against MEqs

A Railgun can take care of all the above, but much slower and less efficiently.

Again there is a lot of polarization on this view, and when it comes down to it, it's really a matter of opinion.
__________________
Dorkamorka
Exokan is offline  
Old 02 Nov 2006, 08:26   #3 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 544
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exokan
I am one of the fusion missile guys. While a Railhead can let off subs it effectiveness is still a point of debate (a clever player will space nicely).
Against a lot of armies that is worth it in itself, getting orks to spread out really messes with their assaults

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exokan
Besides that, yeah you have a S10 Ap1 weapon, but after the tanks are gone (or you miss a bunch with that one shot) who are you going to shoot at?
Same could be said for seekers and fusion though, if the tanks are gone quickly and its due to the rail gun I would still consider it as worth it (getting only one shot out of it but removing the tank is better than getting of shots out of a missile pod but only taking it out in the end)

That said, you're right when you say it depends on your experience, who you're fighting and the rest of your army. We tend toward mechanised in my group so its usually a case of rail guns and missile pods with a smattering of other antitank things.
Tastyfish is offline  
Old 02 Nov 2006, 09:46   #4 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Is the Politiburo smoking weed?
Posts: 5,144
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exokan
I am one of the fusion missile guys.
Me too...

If I play mech then thats all. If your zipping around the board tanks sometimes find it difficult to keep up. However when I play hybrid I always take at least one broadside suit to kill off the tanks...

If you use a Hammerhead to knock out tanks its a bit of a waste when a broadside can do it better...
Genmotty is offline  
Old 02 Nov 2006, 16:07   #5 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado
Posts: 349
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

As others agree - it's a matter of preference.

I do believe that any Tau player must, simply MUST learn to effectively employ Fusion Blasters on crisis suits and/or Piranha (really you should try suits first) because Fusion reduces your need for S10 AP1, and helps you save points.

That said, if I'm going into a game with a list that is "takes on all comers" I will always take either a Railhead or a pair of Broadsides. When you don't know what you will face, the railgun is a tremendous security blanket.
__________________
Proudly banned from both Mech Tau Tactica and Advanced Tau Tactica by Kai'Lore. Kai'Lore has no honor and the fact that my mere presence reminds him of this is more than his cowardly person can bear. He banned me from the new site after less than a day. =)
heliodorus04 is offline  
Old 02 Nov 2006, 17:24   #6 (permalink)
Shas'El
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,891
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

Tastyfish fusion and seekers can insta-kill marines. You don't really need tanks for them to be effective. Rail heads on the other hand are good only against hordes or AV14/13. With the Ap4/5 on the submitions it doesn't really cut it or MEQs and the one shot S10 AP1 solid slug can kill anything without trying is a waste when you are trying to takle a marine squad in one turn. The seekers one the other hand are cheaper than a Railgun and you an have more of them. On your warfish or pathfinders devilfish you can have two plus a Skyray's 6 means alot of damage to the enemy. And packing fusion blasters onto piranhas, stealths, and crisis suits is cheaper and more effiecent in close terrain. Railguns are really good in open terrain and against monoliths, landraiders, and other big s cary things like that. The Railgun is versitile but not always where needed. It is an expensive weapon that doesn't always perform well when needed. I personally use both strategies and have started to swith over to the fusin, missiles. It all really depends on when it's needed. Gotta go to class but I will return.
__________________


Crisis 541 is offline  
Old 02 Nov 2006, 18:03   #7 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brampton Ont. Canada
Posts: 6,441
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

I like the railgun. It'll splatter most tanks just by lookin' at em funny. The only problem is people know this, so the railgun toting stuff tends to get shot at. A lot. Therefore while I tend to rely on railguns for busting open the heaviest vehicles (lighter stuff I'll usually turn a missile pod or ion cannon loose on), I prefer having a fusion or two up my sleeve just in case
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch: the noob
Is it just me, or does Fish Ead really love to use a Dreadsock?...
I'd hate to get on his bad side... >
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiwaz
Fishy has just proved to me that Canadians CAN be scary...
Fish Ead is offline  
Old 03 Nov 2006, 03:26   #8 (permalink)
lonely tau
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

I myself am a Railgun guy, seeing as the Pihranna with tank-hunting upgrades and an Ionhead is just going to set you back even more points, So I prefer to throw all of my eggs in one basket with the Railhead, as It performs a great Anti-tank role and a great anti-infantry role as well, plus it gives me more points to mess around with!

Although it is a valuable skill to learn how to get close with your pihranas for tank-hunting, Railguns do it far better in my opinion!
 
Old 03 Nov 2006, 05:17   #9 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alachua, Florida
Posts: 8,647
Send a message via MSN to MalVeauX
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tau
A while ago on this website I started a topic that, while a good idea, was ran into the ground really quick, and one aspect of what ran it into the ground was saying that not having a Railgun in a Tau list is generally a bad idea. For some reason I was reminded of this as I was wandering aimlessly around the house, and I decided to bring this topic up for the hell of it, and keep in mind it was arguing over it for Anti-Tank

So, the Question, Railgun for Anti-Tank or other various weapons for Anti-Tank?

Keep in mind this is your opinion, and I know the advantages of all weapons and etc through having used them.
I'll try and break it down into two categories:

[size=12pt]Primary Anti-tank[/size]

Missile Pod
Ion Cannon

Both of these weapons are supreme for average anti-tank support, due to number of shots and accurate and access. Two battlesuits with twinlinked Missile pods is basically the same as a single Ion Cannon for cheap. The Ion Cannon and Missile Pod (pods being massed that is) are better against everything from A10 to A12 that is glance only and in many cases, penetrable. So if you're fighting Skimmers in any shape or form, these are your best guns for the job, better than everything else you are going to have to use. They're also your cheap long ranged guns. The average armor in the game is A12 and below. Only specialized lists that only use the absolute highest armor levels will be less affected by these weapons. Hence, they are your main anti-tank. If you face anyone with only A12 or less, you literally do not need railguns or fusion blasters for the purpose of anti-tank specifically. Due to the large number of shots, you tend to achieve more glances and you have higher potential for more glances and thus cause more damage to these target types. They are not good to be used against anything beyond A12 though. They also double very well against most infantry, without being extreme over kill against all infantry types in the game (and the Ion Cannon is excellent against Monstrous Creatures without a 2+ armor save). These happen to be your cheapest anti-tank guns that are massable that do not require situations such as close range, or the ability to penetrate to deal real damage--several glances will often times do the same results as few penetrating hits and glances can be expected, whereas penetrations can be avoided by various effects in the game.

[size=12pt]Supplementary Penetration Anti-tank[/size]

Railgun
Fusion Blaster

I say supplementary because frankly, there's less really high armor values that are penetrable than there are low armor values that are widely glance only a good portion of the game out there. This is of course different depending on your personal environment, but on a general scale, you're less likely to see massed high values than massed low values. When it comes to penetrating, this is where the AP1 and high strength (or high penetration) weapons come into play. If you are routinely facing A13 and A14, that are not glance only, or often obscured, then these weapons will do the job the best. That means, if you're facing penetrable tanks or penetrable skimmers. The monolith is the only skimmer that the Railgun should ever be used upon, for example. The fusion blaster alternatively, should never see a Monolith's armor plate. Land Raiders, Battle Wagons, Predators, Leman Russes and variants--anything A13 or better that is penetrable, is where the Railgun is used. However, if you are low on Railguns or you’re significantly having problems due to too many of these massive armor values and too few Railguns, that's where Fusion Blasters (from Crisis or Piranha) supplement or lead the way. Firing a single high powered shot like this against a light armor value will of course have an enormous chance to penetrate, but these lighter armor values are also the more common armor values to be under an effect that makes them glance only and also a single penetrating hit half the time doesn't even stop the lighter tank from doing anything and thus you waste your expensive high powered quality shot on the weak and likely massed armor. Save it for the big penetrable armor. These guns are also largely wasted on the lighest infantry as well.

The Rest

There are other weapons which can do anti-tank. The humble but massed pulse rifle can drop A10~11. Seeker Missiles can take on A11 effectively as well. But that doesn't mean they're good at it or should be expected to do any of this. After all, a flamer can glance the rear armor of a Leman Russ, but does that mean you should be trying to do that? Of course not. The good thing about Tau firepower is that largely it can all in some way affect vehicles. But that doesn't mean every weapon is good at this, and it doesn't mean that the strongest gun in the arsenal of the best at the job either. You'll find that the most reliable damage comes from reliable shots that don't require a single sudden hit to accomplish all your work. Lots of shots take the hoping out of reliable damage dealing.

Why:

One of the biggest problems in Tau that I find is that many gamers use Railguns to fire at targets that are not penetrable or simply have very low armor values, like a Dreadnought or Chimera. If your opponent only has one vehicle or two at best ever, then sure, this works. But when you face someone with several vehicles, with A12 and below, you will find that Railguns are less and less effective and Railguns are very crippled when it comes to skimmer based forces. The Ion Cannon literally outperforms the Railgun in many ways. But it all comes down to what you need to do and who you're facing.

Part of reliably breaking a tank comes from not relying on a single shot to do it. Instead, finding how the easiest and cheapest way to achieve good damage, without wasting the shot(s). That said, while a single high powered shot has a great chance to penetrate something light, it has poor odds to do real damage because you still have to roll damage and realistically, small armor values will more rarely be penetrated as they are likely fast moving vehicles that are glance only, under the effects of something that makes it glance only and even obscured 50% of the time and thus glance only. This is why large single shots can be bad, due to being just a single shot, even if the odds are high. Multiple shots with good odds are significantly better at that. The single high powered shot is only good when its the only reliable way to cause damage to the highest armor values.

Ion Cannon vs. A10 to A14

Normal Ion Cannon & BS4, standard kit included, costing 130 points.
A10 - 2 x 67% chances to glance; 2 x 50% chances to penetrate. (In other words, very close to guaranteed, but 100% doesn't exist).
A11 - 2 x 50% chances to glance; 2 x 33% chances to penetrate. (Again, very good odds, nearly guaranteed, but not 100%).
A12 - 67% total chance to cause a glance. 33% glance to penetrate. (Good odds for glancing)
A13 - 33% chance to glance overall. (Not good. If you fire at A13, you're `hoping.&#39
A14 - N/A

Missile Pod, Crisis vs. A10 to A14

Twin-linked Missile Pod (typical Death Rain configuration costing 47 points).
A10 - 2 x 50% chances to glance; 2 x 38% chances to penetrate. (In other words, very close to guaranteed to glance often).
A11 - 2 x 38% chances to glance; 2 x 25% chances to penetrate. (Still good odds to glance, 50/50 to penetrate basically.).
A12 - 50% total chance to cause a glance. 25% glance to penetrate. (50/50 odds to glance.)
A13 - 25% chance to glance overall. (Not a good choice at all to attempt. `Hoping.&#39
A14 - N/A

Note - Due to how many of these cheap twin-linked suits you can fit into your list rather easily, think about how these kinds of odds can stack up when firing together, as Tau should, collectively to bring down a target. For less than the cost of a single Hammerhead, three Death Rain suits have a better combined chance to glance/penetrate A12 than a Railgun--for less points, and better odds to mass glance transports to get effective damage results, than a Railgun. Also note, it's more difficult to spread enough firepower out to destroy these three Crisis suits than it is to cause a single glance to a battletank of ours, which would effectively stop an ion cannon or railgun from firing.

Railgun vs. A10 to A14

Normal Railgun on Hammerhead at BS4, assume with typical kit 165 points.
A10 - 67% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Good, but you're wasting this shot big time.)
A11 - 67% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Good, but you're still wasting this shot.)
A12 - 55% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Barely 50/50 odds, same odds to glance as a Missile Pod.)
A13 - 44% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Near 50/50 odds to penetrate is solid here.)
A14 - 33% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Very good odss to penetrate A14, by comparison.)

Note: The single BS4 railgun from the Hammerhead is largely wasted on the lighter armor. The other Str7 weaponry simply will cause more damage on average and will be more reliable. Remember--you will fail to hit with this railgun, 2 out of 6 times which means no penetration at all. When firing at light armor values, use more firepower. When firing at extremely high and penetrable armor values, then use the Railgun.

Twin-linked Railgun on Broadside at BS3, assume 75 points with support system.
A10 - 75% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Great, but wasted.)
A11 - 75% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Again, great, but wasted.)
A12 - 62% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Solid penetration odds still, but largely wasted.)
A13 - 50% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (50/50 odds to penetrate is great.)
A14 - 38% chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Almost the best chance possible, very good.)

Note: The single twinlinked railgun of the XV88 is the best railgun you have, for the least amount of points and you can get more of them than hammerhead variants. If you need pure high powered anti-tank, for penetrating high armor and doing so multiple times and reliably, they simply are one of your best long ranged choices. They're better than Hammerheads at the job, but the drawback is their mobility (or the lack thereof). The point is, you can get two Railguns here for the relative price of one Hammerhead.

Fusion Blaster vs. A10 to A14

Twin-linked Fusion Blaster on Crisis at BS3, assume 47 points with support system.
A10 - 63% (if within 6", 75%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated. (Good but largely wasted.)
A11 - 50% (if within 6", 69%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (50/50 outside of 6".)
A12 - 38% (if within 6", 62%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Poor outside of 6", good otherwise..)
A13 - 25% (if within 6", 54%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Rotten odds outside 6", good inside 6".)
A14 - 13% (if within 6", 43%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Great odds to penetrate within 6" only.)

Note: The fusion blaster, twinlinked, is pretty good at penetration within 6" of the target, to get the added penetration. It's more effective than the Railgun at penetrating all armor values, if it's close enough. But the problem is delivery, be it simply moving towards the target or deep striking, all of which is risky to an extent.

Normal Fusion Blaster on Piranha at BS4, assume 75 points.
A10 - 55% (if within 6", 67%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Barely good.)
A11 - 44% (if within 6", 61%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Decent odds.)
A12 - 33% (if within 6", 55%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (50/50 odds to penetrate A12 is bad.)
A13 - 22% (if within 6", 48%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Rotten odds outside 6", good inside 6".)
A14 - 11% (if within 6", 39%) chance to glance or penetrate, if eligible to be penetrated (AP1). (Good odds within 6" only.)

Note: The fusion blaster here is significantly poor if it is not within 6" of the target. However, within 6" of a target, its signifanctly good at causing a penetrating hit, having a higher chance than even a single railgun. It's important to note that Piranha move fast enough to have the odds to be in this relavant closer range, more so than a Crisis suit, without deep strike or any other risky means. And of course, we can take several of them.

Possibilities

You're likely to deal more damage to armor in a given game with more shots. From A12 to below, you will get a lot more work out of your Str7 weapons due to flexibility of range and the high rate of fire and their average strength for anti-tank. Missile Pods and Ion Cannons can mow through light armor. You will not be wasting firepower and even if you drop the tanks, your firepower is still very good against all infantry and several monstrous creature types. It's also the cheapest form of anti-tank to mass and generally one of the most effective at it, for that cost even in comparison to the penetrating weapons.

If you're always facing extremely high armor values, or if you're facing very few vehicles (like 2 dreadnoughts or 2 predators in any given game) then you're very well off with the high penetrating guns like the Railgun and Fusion blaster (but only within 6" range!). The odds to glance are fine, but its the ability penetrate that really makes them worth it. If you're using these guns aginst lesser than A13, your'e likely wasting their abilities for their cost.

A special mention can be made that in the Tau Empire codex, a `railgun-free' Tau force is more and more possible than before with the addition of Piranha. Lots of Piranha, lots of Missile pods and Ion Cannons and perhaps a few Crisis can literally take on more armor than three Railheads could hope to ever tangle with. A bunch of broadsides will be extremely effective at removing tanks by comparison, but you lose mobility and you lose precious heavy slots to this. It's perfectly possible to build a list that has anti-tank in every part of the army other than the heavy support, freeing up your slots to always throw out submunitions and ion cannon shots for pure raw and mean anti-infantry, and allowing other units to do the fast moving role of anti-tank (which are also better at hunting down hidden vehicles, as well as dealing damage to enemy skimmers or glance-only transports). That is often seen as total blasphemy, but it is indeed possible and there's nothing wrong with playing without Railguns--they're largely wasted against a great deal of armies out there--all of which is subject to your personal groups and what is being fielded. If you don't need railguns specifically, you can play without them without missing anything in terms of anti-tank in many ways.

Anyhow, that may be seen as `backwards.' We'll see.

Cheers!
__________________
[table][tr][td][/td][td][table][tr][td] [/td][td]Apocalypse is the only way to forty-kay.[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table]
MalVeauX is offline  
Old 03 Nov 2006, 06:11   #10 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: melbourne, australia
Posts: 744
Send a message via MSN to firewarrior123
Default Re: Railgun VS other Anti-Tank

I have said it before and i'll say it again, YOU NEED A RAILGUN IN YOUR ARMY!

How could you possibly choose a much weaker ion cannon over a strenght 10, ap 1 weapon. I mean seriously, this is crazy!
__________________
(\_/) this is bunny
(0.o) please copy and paste this into your sig and
'(__)' help him achieve world domination
firewarrior123 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WH Anti-Tank? TipTop1987 The Inquisition 9 17 Apr 2010 18:13
Anti tank chich0 Space Marines 8 22 Jul 2008 20:15
What do YOU use for anti-tank ? Bladesuit Eldar Army Lists 11 28 Nov 2007 07:16
Fortress door+Tank+Railgun=Tau Victory Flaming Aun Tau 5 03 Sep 2007 11:29
The Anti-tank LT Sitarangi Forces of Chaos 1 15 Jun 2007 02:21