Topic: IonHead - do you take? Why? How?

[aelifex]

Inspired by Tarrin's latest thread.  I've never taken an IonHead - I can certainly see some of the benefits, but 3 shots just doesn't seem enough to me, compared to a pie plate (that can act as emergency anti-mech).  Of course there is a points difference, but I'm guessing those who take them don't take them primarily because they're cheaper?

So, as per the title.  I'm here to learn and hope to be convinced

[Wyddr]

Ionheads work serviceably well against light vehicles (AV11 or less), work excellently against monstrous creatures, and okay against infantry (heavy or otherwise). When we add in that they are so very cheap, they become excellent weapons against Dark Eldar (light vehicles, MCs, fragile infantry), pretty attractive weapons against Chaos Space Marines (lots of Rhinos + MCs), pretty solid against most marine types (Rhinos), and work moderately well against regular Eldar (light vehicles, the occasional wraithlord or Avatar to shoot at, fragile infantry).

On the whole, I still prefer the railgun (which is better against heavier vehicles and horde infantry, and I find myself playing against the IG as often as not), but the Ion Cannon definitely has its place.

My primary problem with it, over and above all other concerns for me, is that it just looks ugly. It looks like you're sticking a squirt gun on top of your tank. 

[Kaiizen]

I do have days when I take a look t the Ion head and I see the potential. It's a cheap option that can let a hammer head throw out a lot of medium strength firepower. The problem that I have with it specifically is that it fights for our heavy slots. While I don't rely solely on railguns for anti-tank, I need the threat range they can provide turn 1. Fusion guns are technically more efficient but they don't provide the threat I need when I need it like my railguns do.

If they were ever to put an Ion cannon into another force org slot then I think it would become a no brainer.

[Wyddr]

If they were ever to put an Ion cannon into another force org slot then I think it would become a no brainer.

Oh, very much true. I doubt it will come to pass, but yes.

While I don't rely solely on railguns for anti-tank, I need the threat range they can provide turn 1.

The Ion Cannon isn't too far behind the Railgun in terms of anti-tank and has a comparable range. The odds of an Ion Cannon killing a Rhino are ~20%, whereas the Railgun only edges it out at ~27% (which is mostly due to the AP1 of the Railgun). The odds of the two weapons *damaging* a Rhino are virtually identical (with the slight edge going to the Ion Cannon), however, and the potential for an Ion Cannon to score multiple results exists, whereas such a possibility does not exist for the railgun.

Obviously, if you plan on killing Russes and Predators on turn 1, you need a Railgun. I don't think, however, there's any reason why you can't have both weapons available to you. 

[Blood Hawk]

Inspired by Tarrin's latest thread.  I've never taken an IonHead - I can certainly see some of the benefits, but 3 shots just doesn't seem enough to me, compared to a pie plate (that can act as emergency anti-mech).  Of course there is a points difference, but I'm guessing those who take them don't take them primarily because they're cheaper?

So, as per the title.  I'm here to learn and hope to be convinced

The primary reason I take the ionhead over the railhead is that there is are not a lot of good high strength, low ap weapons in the Tau codex with the volume of fire for dealing with MC and lots of light vehicles.  When I do bring ionheads, I take them in a pairs with my other heavy support being broadsides (normally 2) with drones and ASS.  I also bring FB for more anti tank if needed.

Basically from my experience playing various armies I found my biggest problem was nid lists with lots of t6, 4+ wound MC and IG lists with 5+ chimeras for all their troops to ride in than lists where the large blast template or single railgun where really needed.  Taking the railhead for the large blast I found to not be nearly as effective at anti infantry than our troops (FW plus pathfinder support) and stealth suits at gunning down infantry, also the single railgun shot for anti tank rarely helps.

Which gun is better depends on the situation most times though, You can run into situations where the Ioncannon has very few valid targets but it can very useful in other situations.

[Kaiizen]

The Ion Cannon isn't too far behind the Railgun in terms of anti-tank and has a comparable range. The odds of an Ion Cannon killing a Rhino are ~20%, whereas the Railgun only edges it out at ~27% (which is mostly due to the AP1 of the Railgun). The odds of the two weapons *damaging* a Rhino are virtually identical (with the slight edge going to the Ion Cannon), however, and the potential for an Ion Cannon to score multiple results exists, whereas such a possibility does not exist for the railgun.

Obviously, if you plan on killing Russes and Predators on turn 1, you need a Railgun. I don't think, however, there's any reason why you can't have both weapons available to you.

The other problem that I forgot to mention is that most tau players already bring weapons that can reliably tackle light vehicles. Fireknife teams are abundant in most tau lists and I never leave home without my deathrains. A full team of deathrains puts out more shots with a higher degree of accuracy than the Ion cannon does for a comparable cost. The ionhead is obviously going to win out against monstrous creatures, but against marines with cover you're probably looking at some very similar results.

Sorry for playing the devils advocate here, I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of your points. I think the big issue for me here is can I replace my deathrains in favor of an Ionhead? If so, what would I replace them with to counter the fact that I'm losing a potential railgun? I fear that the problem with the Ionhead is that it does more than require you to simply 'tweak' a list, you almost have to build a list around it.

[Tarrin the Space Marine]

I love it. More so than the railgun. I often field 3 ionheads and donate the points over to close quarters to a wave of FB/MP suits. Hammering MEQs with all the heavy fire is a sight to behold. It also puts a different slant to a tau force as if you use fw's in warfish you have a brutal assault force chucking out a mass of fire while moving 6 inches.

[Wyddr]

I fear that the problem with the Ionhead is that it does more than require you to simply 'tweak' a list, you almost have to build a list around it.

This is a fair point. That doesn't make it bad, though--it just means you need to change your playstyle. Tarrin's suggested list above is a good example of what you can do with it.

Heck, most of my anti-tank comes from Fusion Piranhas, anyway. I only really use the Railgun for the submunition and for back-up antitank (I still feel the submunition makes the Railgun better, on average, than the ion cannon against most infantry targets, but the Ion Cannon is cheap enough to make it still tempting).

By the by, does anybody else think the Ion Cannon look silly? Is it just me?

[GreaterGoodIreland]

I took an Ionhead once in my recent gaming career, against Sisters of Battle.  It performed very poorly, I find Skyrays far more effective than Ionheads, and Railheads more effective than Skyrays.

Railgun submunitions mean that the Hammerhead becomes an all-round killing machine of epic proportions, that can deal with armour AND swarms.
The normal railgun shot does have an alarming tendency to miss, but that's why you always have backup AT in the Piranha and Broadsides.

[Wyddr]

I took an Ionhead once in my recent gaming career, against Sisters of Battle.  It performed very poorly, I find Skyrays far more effective than Ionheads, and Railheads more effective than Skyrays.

Just because something performs poorly once doesn't mean it always performs poorly. My Stealth Suits always seem to miss everything they shoot at. This doesn't mean that Stealth Suits are terrible shots, but rather that I have poor luck with them.

[Stormie 33]

It's not just you. The ion cannon looks so odd that I converted a new one. Some problems at my local stor 'cos of it. My ionheads usually commit a flanking attack, to pin the target in range of my broadside team (2 ionheads, 3 broadsides) It costs a fortune, but with no escape, marines fall apart every time. If you add suits to the center, you can always fire on the rear armour of vechiles as well. I never field my Tau without at least one ionhead. If playing less than 1000 points, 2 ionheads will almost win the game on their own.

[GreaterGoodIreland]

Just because something performs poorly once doesn't mean it always performs poorly. My Stealth Suits always seem to miss everything they shoot at. This doesn't mean that Stealth Suits are terrible shots, but rather that I have poor luck with them.

Luck had less to do with it, more like the Ionhead just simply lacked the bottle to get the job done.

[Wyddr]

Luck had less to do with it, more like the Ionhead just simply lacked the bottle to get the job done.

Would you mind elaborating so we can get a better idea of what you mean? Statistically the Ion Cannon should perform just fine at killing and damaging Rhinos and their equivalents and should do just fine at killing Sisters. What was the problem, exactly?

[Tarrin the Space Marine]

The only issue i can see is that the sisters were using their 3++ to stop the effect of the AP3.

I have had excellent results against all armies with them leading them to be my preferred HS of choice now.  I actually find myself rarely taking a railhead because they seem to perform poorly. Saying that i have one in my tourney force this week as i have to have varied units.

I do agree though that you need to accomodate some weapons for dealing with heavier armour if you meet it.
As for aesthetics, i actually really like the look. It fits with the mecha theme well.

[Shas'Oink]

I love the Ionheads, and I do like to use them in armies of all sizes... as mentioned already, I particularly like to use two in armies of 1000pts! it gets very vicious!

Anyway I can't rate the Railhead, at least not as highly as others seem to. For four key reasons;

1; It's anti-tank is, on the whole, sub par. In terms of the fact that one shot is all too likely to miss. granted when it hits it is likely to kill what it targets, but all too often those 1s or 2s come up. Of course, you can improve the change to hit by using markerlights... but at that point you have to think that when you do this to an Ion Cannon, it improves the BS for all 3 shots! thereby improving the chance of stacking multiple damage. The only place where the railgun definately does better is against high AV vehicles... but this leads me on to point 2;

2; Long ranged anti-tank is really NOT the best or most effective form of anti-tank. This is usually due to the abundance of terrain. No, in fact close ranged melta shots from Fusion Guns are by far the most effective. If you have to go with long ranged anti-tank then the Railhead competes with the Broadsides. And you'd be a fool to suggest that the Railhead is in any way better than the Broadsides at killing tanks! For the same points as a tank, you can get 2 XV88s, with the ability to kill two separate tanks if you choose. They are also more likely to hit, and additionally benefit even more from markerlights. So, for long ranged anti-tank, take XV88s. They aren't too shabby at anti infantry either, lets be fair... and this brings us on to point 3;

3; The Railhead is good because of its flexibility to target infantry OR tanks. But when you take a look at its infantry weapons you don't see anything any more special or different from any other weapons the tau can take. We have a plethora of pulse weaponry which does the job nicely. The thing that the blast shot does have going for it is the AP4... but if you are considering cover when talking of the Ion Cannon Ap, then you have to do the same for the ordnance blast... and in that sense, the AP4 is less definitive. The real question is why spend points for an anti horde tank when the rest of your army already excels at this?

4; However, the biggest reason for me not using Railheads is because they get killed. What I mean is that the size and awesome look of the Railgun means that it tops the enemy target priority list... and this makes the tank die. We have all experienced this... I can be almost certain. Everyone targets your Railhead(s) with a vengeance.

[GreaterGoodIreland]

Luck had less to do with it, more like the Ionhead just simply lacked the bottle to get the job done.

Would you mind elaborating so we can get a better idea of what you mean? Statistically the Ion Cannon should perform just fine at killing and damaging Rhinos and their equivalents and should do just fine at killing Sisters. What was the problem, exactly?

The guy was using an Organtank line at the back of the board, and this was a game where I had decided to not take Broadsides (it was 1000 points).
I had basically taken an Ion Cannon to give me a few more points to work with to get more Crisis in. I lost the game due to some stupid manoeuvring on my part in the third turn, but the Ion Cannon basically had

1; It's anti-tank is, on the whole, sub par. In terms of the fact that one shot is all too likely to miss. granted when it hits it is likely to kill what it targets, but all too often those 1s or 2s come up. Of course, you can improve the change to hit by using markerlights... but at that point you have to think that when you do this to an Ion Cannon, it improves the BS for all 3 shots! thereby improving the chance of stacking multiple damage. The only place where the railgun definately does better is against high AV vehicles... but this leads me on to point 2;

Can't deny that against AV11, the Ionhead is going to have some serious cajones. BUT it is my opinion that mixing as much anti-AV13/14 into your army as possibly while retaining flexibility is a necessary. People have learned to fear the railgun for a reason.

2; Long ranged anti-tank is really NOT the best or most effective form of anti-tank. This is usually due to the abundance of terrain. No, in fact close ranged melta shots from Fusion Guns are by far the most effective. If you have to go with long ranged anti-tank then the Railhead competes with the Broadsides. And you'd be a fool to suggest that the Railhead is in any way better than the Broadsides at killing tanks! For the same points as a tank, you can get 2 XV88s, with the ability to kill two separate tanks if you choose. They are also more likely to hit, and additionally benefit even more from markerlights. So, for long ranged anti-tank, take XV88s. They aren't too shabby at anti infantry either, lets be fair... and this brings us on to point 3;

Strictly, you're right, melta is more effective at killing tanks. However, the point of long range isn't that it'll murderise everything immediately at range, but that you don't have to be 6'' away to use it effectively. That said, I have come around to Piranhas, so no real complaints there, I use both

The real question is why spend points for an anti horde tank when the rest of your army already excels at this?

More teeth? Every little bit helps, as Tesco says. Add that to my point below...

4; However, the biggest reason for me not using Railheads is because they get killed. What I mean is that the size and awesome look of the Railgun means that it tops the enemy target priority list... and this makes the tank die. We have all experienced this... I can be almost certain. Everyone targets your Railhead(s) with a vengeance.

Absolutely, and I thoroughly approve of them targeting my Hammerhead. Disruption pods do their thing. Last game I played, I had a Leman Russ firing at me for five turns, the Hammerhead got stunned twice. If the Railhead diverts high strength fire away from my other stuff, they're welcome to it.

[Blood Hawk]

I overall agree with oink on Railhead, when I do take them they rarely preform very well.

4; However, the biggest reason for me not using Railheads is because they get killed. What I mean is that the size and awesome look of the Railgun means that it tops the enemy target priority list... and this makes the tank die. We have all experienced this... I can be almost certain. Everyone targets your Railhead(s) with a vengeance.

Railheads attract a lot of attention and are expensive enough that them not being able to do anything really sucks.  Most people I play against, even other tau players don't know what to think of the ionhead sometimes, whether or not they actually should go after it or just ignore it.  Hell one time one of my opponents got a weapon destroyed result on one of my ionheads and honestly asked for the brustcannon to be destroyed, I was more than happy with that result.

Absolutely, and I thoroughly approve of them targeting my Hammerhead. Disruption pods do their thing. Last game I played, I had a Leman Russ firing at me for five turns, the Hammerhead got stunned twice. If the Railhead diverts high strength fire away from my other stuff, they're welcome to it.

yea lemon russes generally really suck at killing other tanks from my experience playing LOTS of IG vs. Tau games, honestly I fear vets with meltas and those stupid under priced vendettas over ruses anyday.

[Shas'Oink]

I'll tip my hat to "GGI"... in that sometimes having something to draw enemy fire is a good way to improve the survivability of your other units. If they are shooting at your railhead, they aren't shooting other stuff. This could be a viable tacitc... except that even with Disruption pods, you cannot guarantee the survivability of the Railhead. Some days the DPs will work wonders and stop you from dying several times over... other times it will flop the first time and you'll blow up in spectacular fashion!

I also agree that having flexibility is what has made the Railgun desirable. But I'm not interested in long ranged shots that aren't made to kill... its a waste of a shot. I am interested in kill shots... so will gladly invest points saved by taking an Ionhead over a Railhead in more Fusion Gun platforms.

[Tarrin the Space Marine]

The guy was using an Organtank line at the back of the board, and this was a game where I had decided to not take Broadsides (it was 1000 points).
I had basically taken an Ion Cannon to give me a few more points to work with to get more Crisis in. I lost the game due to some stupid manoeuvring on my part in the third turn, but the Ion Cannon...

So what you are saying is that your opponent had 2/3 exorcists at 1000 points and you wonder why it performed badly!  It sounds like whatever you were playing with you would have had a difficult time of it. 

RE: Railheads. I personally find the maingun is not effective at AT. Unless you are shooting at a monolith then we have better options. It used to be better but now cover has made it a jack of all trades, which is a shame.

The issue with all of this is that it is way too easy to get short range AT to the chassis without reprisal, nullifying our Dpods. And i am with O:nk here. you really cannot rely on a 4+ to save you. Using a bait target is fine, but when it takes up a solitary HS slot and costs >150 points i don't see the point of using it as a tactic.

Outflank has meant our traditional position for a railhead (corner of the board) is lost to us and drop pods, vendettas etc mean that ist too easy to destroy fast.  This is why the tau army is not one of the better ones, because our stuff is all ranged and allowing armies simple cheap ways to bypass the firestorm nullifies the army.

The ionhead is not a prominent target and the ion cannon is complementary to the burst cannon secondaries.

[GreaterGoodIreland]

Outflanking isn't a particularly massive threat, it can be dealt with in a variety of ways
Hell, it can work to our advantage sometimes: Not everything can outflank, and a unit that isn't on the field is allowing us to concentrate our firepower that little bit more. And when the outflankers do show up, they're often exposed, 'cause if they aren't, they usually haven't a hope of catching us.
There are advantages and disadvantage to playing that sort of game.

As for the 4+ thing, it's halving the capability of people doing damage, that's not to be sniffed at. Combine that with simply using line of sight to avoid the worst of it and the mobility of the tank to begin with, and it's well worth the points. In my opinion, of course.