Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A few preliminary remarks:

1. In a recent poll, the dakka community appeared almost evenly split on the question of whether or not riptides are fair/balanced. At least 40 percent of poll respondents thought that riptides are unfair, and the riptide remains a commonly complained about unit. So much so, in fact, that there is currently a thread started by Jade Angel asking the question of how the riptide could be altered so as to produce a fairly balanced unit.

The people who assert that riptides are balanced will generally appeal to the fact that Tau players need riptides in order to "compete" with other "top tier" armies. In a game with librarius conclaves, space marine battle company rhino/grav spam, the necron decurion, wraithknights and scatterbikes, and (insert all of the other OP, broken bull gak in the game), nerfing a unit like the Riptide would be the death knell for Tau players being in the competitive scene.

Which is, of course, a perfectly legitimate point. In a game in which the entire roof is caving in, it's an exercise in futility to complain about how dusty the floor is.

2. Therefore, in light of 2, my assumption for this thread is that every other unit in the game has been appropriately re-priced/rebalanced. I am assuming a 395 point wraithknight. I am assuming that Imperial Knights remain basically the same. I am assuming that scatter bikes have been nerfed and re-priced. I am assuming that grav has been redone. I am assuming chaos space marines with legion tactics. I'm assuming more expensive drop pods.

3. On to the meat of the issue.

Riptides with Ion Accelerators and stimulant injectors produce:

A T6 MC with a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invuln (which can become a 3+ invuln). Assuming you manage to get past the armor save and invuln, the riptide gets a 5+ feel no pain.

But good luck getting to it in the first place. That gun shoots high strength, low AP pie plates at 72 inch range. And it has the "jet pack" special rule.

To boot, it has 5 wounds.

So good luck shooting it to death. And good luck killing it in close combat. If you charge it, it gets 3 S6, AP 2 close combat attacks.

It's more durable than a landraider and packs better firepower than a landraider. And landraiders cost 250 points.

All in all, the riptide easily functions as a "lite" version of an IK. It has one less wound, lacks the super heavy status, has somewhat inferior fire power, but is as, if not more, durable. It's also easily as, if not more, mobile than an IK.

Whereas IKs will eventually go down to traditional anti-tank weapons, riptides are virtually immortal in comparison to the vast majority of the game.

IKs run anywhere from 325 to 375 points, assuming no upgrades.

My proposal is a 325 point riptide.

What say you, dakka forums?

I'm guessing the vote for 220 was by either an Eldar player or Tau player. Clearly they are trolling this poll. Therefore, we must discount that vote. That means 100% of voters (at this time) think the Riptide needs a point increase.

Did I do this right?

Not that it matters to me, but what do you plan to do with the information that you gather in these polls? Convince your local players and friends that a Riptide is unbalanced? Satisfaction that you are in the majority? Perhaps both even

Whatever your reason, I found Riptides to be fairly okay when I played with and against them, so I put 250

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but let's see how it turns out

G.A

General Annoyance wrote:Whatever your reason, I found Riptides to be fairly okay when I played against them, so I put 250

What kind of army were you using? What kind of army was your opponent using?

so I put 250

You cast a vote for "Riptide (as described) = landraider."

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm guessing the vote for 220 was by either an Eldar player or Tau player. Clearly they are trolling this poll. Therefore, we must discount that vote. That means 100% of voters (at this time) think the Riptide needs a point increase.

Did I do this right?

Assuming the poll roughly follows the same pattern as the previous poll, here are my expectations going in:

Roughly half of the vote will be in favor of the riptide as described costing 220 points or less.

The other half should be for more than 220 points. The question is where the majority of those votes go.

Land raiders are hard to kill for some army's who may find riptide no big deal.

The game is not balanced at all it never will be

 Traditio wrote:

What kind of army were you using? What kind of army was your opponent using?

Well neither list was entirely at the competitive level if that's what you're asking; I took a 750 point Tau Army that included a Riptide to my old club in Dubai not long ago. The army belonged to a friend I was painting it for, and 750 points was the typical army size for quick blind play at that club in question. Played about 4 games, 1 of which was a 2v2. The Riptide was certainly helpful, but I primarily used my Carbine Teams and Battlesuit Squad to cripple my opponents. The Riptide mainly stayed at the back line of my army, which was designed to be a more aggressive force. It was taken down twice.

Against it I played Orks and IG; my IG always take plenty of Lascannons, be they in teams or mounted on Leman Russ tanks, and they made short work of the few I faced. Orks were far less successful, but ultimately I was breaking skulls amongst my opponents Fire Warriors to care about it that much.

Also did a few practice games at home by myself since I was in possession of my friend's army, with mixed results.

You cast a vote for "Riptide (as described) = landraider."

Why?

Because I'd equate a Riptide to a similar power of a Land Raider; Land Raiders were actually weaker in my mind since most people forget that you haven't even paid for that Thunder Hammer Terminator Squad before you drop 250 points for it. Plus I've always followed my IG instincts; when in doubt, apply lascannon fire. Seems to work most of the time

Oldmike wrote:
Land raiders are hard to kill for some army's who may find riptide no big deal.

The game is not balanced at all it never will be

Then I ask that you please abstain from voting in the poll.

The poll question reads:"Assuming...balance."

If you don't think that the game can be balanced, then there is no poll option which can reflect your opinion.

Assuming everything is re-balanced as, Traditio states, 250pts would be fine.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Assuming everything is re-balanced as, Traditio states, 250pts would be fine.

Here, I have to ask:

What rebalancing are you assuming?

Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter
Wraithknight
Scatterbike
Landraider

?

 Traditio wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Assuming everything is re-balanced as, Traditio states, 250pts would be fine.

Here, I have to ask:

What rebalancing are you assuming?

Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter
Wraithknight
Scatterbike
Landraider

?

Wraithknight: 315 minimum. Compared to the 315 point FW Wraithknight which has a longer range weapon but is a massive blast, and can teleport around.
Scatbikes should be (IMO at a minimum) 24 points per model, with Scat Lasers as a 15-20 point upgrade. Of course I think all bike/jetbike units need a point bump.

 Traditio wrote:


Assuming the poll roughly follows the same pattern as the previous poll, here are my expectations going in:

Roughly half of the vote will be in favor of the riptide as described costing 220 points or less.

The other half should be for more than 220 points. The question is where the majority of those votes go.

So what you're doing is trying to eliminate "troll" results by grouping them together, and seeing what "non-trolls" will actually answer. Clever. This of course assumes no one but a troll would actually have these opinions, and/or if someone does have these opinions you can safely disregard it because, well, that's what these Troll Polls are for, right?

250 would be the closest to fair.

I honestly chocked on the amount of salt in your post.

"And good luck killing it in close combat. If you charge it, it gets 3 S6, AP 2 close combat attacks."

Oh man. At WS2 to boot. Whatever will we do?? And it's not Fearless and has LD9? Jesus, what was GW thinking. If someone puts even one of these on the table, I'll just shake their hand and walk away.

But seriously, what are you charging it with, Tactical Marines? Then yeah, RIP you.


"It's more durable than a landraider and packs better firepower than a landraider. And landraiders cost 250 points."

As a Necron player, yeah a Land Raider is easier to kill. Otherwise, It's completely immune to S7 or lower shooting, can transport dudes, and some variants still have decent firepower (excluding CSM). You also can't tank shock a Land Raider off the board (I've seen it happen to a riptide).

You're also lacking the fact that it's BS3, and without Markerlight support, its not very accurate. So a 220 unit that needs support from other units to be as scary as you say it is? Hmmm...

You making a big deal about how difficult it is to kill a riptide. I've tied it up in combat (and actually punched it to death once) using nothing but Necron warriors. I've also had 150 pts of Gaunts tie it up all game. You can kill the other, squishy units Tau have and then ignore the Riptide, or you can tie it up and forget about it (if not sweep it entirely).

Am I saying it's not OP? God no, it is way too durable, and frankly should have been a walker. Is it game breaking with what else is currently in game? No. The Riptide is old news, but I guess people will continue to complain about it. Personally, I'm sitting over here spitting on the abomination that was the Stormsurge.

Ws2 is largely the same as ws4 when you're fighting marines. It's hardly a downside.

Ld9 isn't bad either.

General Annoyance wrote:Against it I played Orks and IG; my IG always take plenty of Lascannons, be they in teams or mounted on Leman Russ tanks, and they made short work of the few I faced.

Assuming BS 4, it would take:

2/3 (to hit) X 2/3 (to wound) X 1/3 (to bypass the nova charged invuln) X 2/3 (to bypass the feel no pain) X 1/5 (the number of wounds) to down a single riptide.

That adds up to 8/405. That's roughly 50 lascannon shots fired at BS 4.

Even if we assume that it doesn't nova charge the invuln, we still get;

2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 x 1/5 = 16/405

That's over 25 lascannon shots, assuming that marines are the ones doing the shooting. At BS 3, the odds are worse.

And that's a "72" in the range section of the stat-line. The riptide easily can stay at the table edges, move so that it just has LoS to whatever it is that's carrying that lascannon, and then make an assault movement back out of line of sight.

I don't doubt for a moment that, somehow, you managed to kill a riptide or two with lascannons. Understand, however, that it's mathematically very unlikely, assuming that your opponent was using an Ion Accelerator and stimulant injectors.

Orks were far less successful, but ultimately I was breaking skulls amongst my opponents Fire Warriors to care about it that much.

Noted.

Because I'd equate a Riptide to a similar power of a Land Raider

How?

Assuming a marine is firing those lascannon shots:

2/3 X 1/3 X 1/4 = 2/36 (or 1/18)

18 lascannon shots to kill the landraider (not even counting the chance of one-shotting it with an Explodes! result) vs. 25 lascannon shots (assuming no nova charge).

Sure, it gets a little better if the landraider stays in cover, but practically speaking, that's hardly seems to be worth considering.

Plus you're more likely to be able to shoot the landraider in the first place because:

1. The maximum range of its guns are 48 inches.
2. It's pretty much forced to move towards the opponent because it's a transport.
3. It's a big vehicle

If riptides cost 250, there is, I am willing to bet, not a single competent Tau player alive who would trade his riptide for a landraider.

Land Raiders were actually weaker in my mind

So shouldn't Riptides cost more than a landraider? If you think that Land Raiders are weaker, then the minimum poll option you should have selected is 275.

Voted "more than 400", because at least if Riptides are nerfed maybe Traditio will have to find a new unit to post about.

 Traditio wrote:
Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter

30 points, up to about 35 depending on choice of chapter tactics.

Wraithknight

150 points or so, maybe 175 with the double D option.

Scatterbike

7 points (5 points for the bike, +2 points for the scatter laser).

Landraider

650 points. Land Raiders are scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
If riptides cost 250, there is, I am willing to bet, not a single competent Tau player alive who would trade his riptide for a landraider.

No, of course not. The Land Raider's primary purpose is to deliver an assault unit into combat. Since Tau have no assault units taking a Land Raider would be a rather poor strategy. But this, once again, demonstrates that your approach to balance is fundamentally broken. You can't just compare durability calculations independent of context and expect to get anything useful as a result.

So shouldn't Riptides cost more than a landraider? If you think that Land Raiders are weaker, then the minimum poll option you should have selected is 275.

Why are you assuming that Land Raiders are stuck at 250 points? The premise of the poll is that the game is balanced. Riptides at 220 points and Land Raiders at 200 points is an entirely valid and consistent proposal.

pm713 wrote:
Ws2 is largely the same as ws4 when you're fighting marines. It's hardly a downside.

Ld9 isn't bad either.

This. You'll hear Tau players going on and on about "psychic shriek!" Except the average result for a psychic shriek is a 10. It doesn't ignore invulns. It doesn't ignore feel no pain.

And it has a maximum range of 18 inches.

And against a marine (even a terminator), WS 2 has exactly the same chance of hitting a marine as WS 4: one out of two.

As someone with a degree in Balance and a Masters in Point Cost Evaluation from the school of Internet Debate, I can back up every one of Peregrine's point values.

Peregrine wrote:Peregrine's entire first posting

Peregrine:

If you don't wish to post serious replies to my postings, then nobody is forcing you to participate in my thread. I'm sure you have better things to do.

I will say this, since this alone stood out:

Different chapter tactics probably should have different costs. An ultramarine tactical marine is better than an imperial fist tactical marine, and an imperial fist devastator marine is better than a ravenguard devastator marine.

No, of course not. The Land Raider's primary purpose is to deliver an assault unit into combat. Since Tau have no assault units taking a Land Raider would be a rather poor strategy. But this, once again, demonstrates that your approach to balance is fundamentally broken. You can't just compare durability calculations independent of context and expect to get anything useful as a result.

How much is "Transport capacity: 10 (or more); assault vehicle" worth?

And I think that you are mistaken. There's nothing about a land raider which forces you to cart around assault units. Tau could easily transport shooty things around to get them within rapid fire range.

They'd still prefer the riptide, though.

Why are you assuming that Land Raiders are stuck at 250 points? The premise of the poll is that the game is balanced. Riptides at 220 points and Land Raiders at 200 points is an entirely valid and consistent proposal.

1. He didn't specify that landraiders should cost less. He indicated that he considered them to be of roughly equal value when he made his answer.

2. Were landraiders considered over-costed in 5th edition?

Nothing about a Land Raider forces you to carry an assault unit but you'd be stupid not to. That would be like taking a fully upgraded Harlequin Troupe and standing them in a corner.

They'd prefer a Riptide because that's actually useful whereas to a Tau player a Land Raider is somewhat useless. In the same way an Avatar of Khaine is a bad choice for a Tyranid army.

The School of Disgruntled Marines is at it again.

Really though, why are we comparing two (or more) vastly different units and trying to justify their costs to one another?

A land raider is not a riptide. Its not even in the same ballpark.

Want a useful comparison, use the other Tau MCs and other shooty MCs, like a WK.

Yes lets compare a Gargantuan MC with a regular MC seems fair.

pm713 wrote:
Nothing about a Land Raider forces you to carry an assault unit but you'd be stupid not to. That would be like taking a fully upgraded Harlequin Troupe and standing them in a corner.

Landraider + crisis suits?

Landraider + fire warriors?

Landraider + kroot?

The tau already have transports. The difference, practically speaking, is that the landraider would have much better AV.

They'd prefer a Riptide because that's actually useful whereas to a Tau player a Land Raider is somewhat useless. In the same way an Avatar of Khaine is a bad choice for a Tyranid army.

Completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. However, since you brought it up:

Wouldn't an avatar of khaine or a wraithlord actually be better in a Tyrranid army?

The tyrranids codex is built around fielding and supporting big scary MCs.

The avatar of khaine and wraithlord don't really work in the Eldar codex because the Eldar codex isn't really built to support MCs.

Plus one is clearly meant to do one thing and the other is meant for multiple things.

 thejughead wrote:
Yes lets compare a Gargantuan MC with a regular MC seems fair.

Which is a significantly closer comparison than a transport vehicle. GCs are MCs with a few tacked on rules, but are otherwise dealt with the same and function the same in the army.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Nothing about a Land Raider forces you to carry an assault unit but you'd be stupid not to. That would be like taking a fully upgraded Harlequin Troupe and standing them in a corner.

Landraider + crisis suits?

Landraider + fire warriors?

Landraider + kroot?

The tau already have transports. The difference, practically speaking, is that the landraider would have much better AV.

They'd prefer a Riptide because that's actually useful whereas to a Tau player a Land Raider is somewhat useless. In the same way an Avatar of Khaine is a bad choice for a Tyranid army.

Completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. However, since you brought it up:

Wouldn't an avatar of khaine or a wraithlord actually be better in a Tyrranid army?

The tyrranids codex is built around fielding and supporting big scary MCs.

The avatar of khaine and wraithlord don't really work in the Eldar codex because the Eldar codex isn't really built to support MCs.

Two of those have no reason at all to take an incredibly expensive no shooting transport. The difference is some of their transports are useful for moving their shooting units around the other is not.

You made the stupid comparisons between Tau having Riptides and Land Raiders not me. You are right the MC that buffs Eldar is a fabulous choice in a Tyranid army.

How about this failing a Nova charge makes it into a Squig? There Traditio can you get over it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
Yes lets compare a Gargantuan MC with a regular MC seems fair.

Which is a significantly closer comparison than a transport vehicle. GCs are MCs with a few tacked on rules, but are otherwise dealt with the same and function the same in the army.

If you wish to make that the point of comparison, then again, I wish to remind everyone that, according to a previous poll, the general opinion seemed to be that wraithknights should cost at least 395 points.

What is your proposal for a riptide with stimulant injectors and IA, given this fact?

If you tell me that a wraithknight is 100 points better than a riptide, then we're left with a 295 point (or more) riptide.

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
Yes lets compare a Gargantuan MC with a regular MC seems fair.

Which is a significantly closer comparison than a transport vehicle. GCs are MCs with a few tacked on rules, but are otherwise dealt with the same and function the same in the army.

If you wish to make that the point of comparison, then again, I wish to remind everyone that, according to a previous poll, the general opinion seemed to be that wraithknights should cost at least 395 points.

What is your proposal for a riptide with stimulant injectors and IA, given this fact?

If you tell me that a wraithknight is 100 points better than a riptide, then we're left with a 295 point (or more) riptide.

A lot more people said it shouldn't cost that.

If you're looking for my opinion, I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

I'd much rather tone things down than keep the ridiculousness and try and cost it correctly. In the long run its easier to keep things within a more reasonable spread than try and escalate points to match crazier abilities.