I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book. It just so happens that my play area also favors lots of shooting lanes. So that blows everyone's bright of ideas out of the water. I have to weather pretty much their entire payload the entire fight.
It's also kind of pathetic in my mind to have to beg for a building or hill to hide behind. It kind of gives away right there that my list needs an advantage to compete.
Personally I feel that unless its part of a specific scenario , wargaming is always enhanced by terrain and the tactical elements it provides and requires......
Was reading an intersting article in a wargaming mag recently abot hills and all the different aspects of them:
Command and Control: The ability to see an enemies movement and respond without them being able to do the same.
Movement: going up hills is hard work and even harder to charge effectively if HtH is involved , going down is easier and more powerful charges can be made
Firing : This was interesting element I had not heard of - apparently troops shooting firearms uphill tend to overshoot - there is awhole thing called the "Riflemans Rule" to compensate. Plus of course firing from hills have advantages in range and effectivvness - especially in low tech envrionments.
Concelment Most of the time you do no know whats on the other side............
Fauk wrote: I played Tau myself, with a small army, and played against them, on games from 1,2k to 2,5k on a friendly and hard environment, with more than three armies in the past. The thing I noticed while playing with them and against them is that the main problem seems to be that every weakness the Tau army has can somehow be nullified. Sometimes it is easier to do this, and sometimes it is harder to do it.
For example:
Guy 1: Hm Markerlights are good, let’s make them heavy so that it can be a tough choice if you want to move or not. Guy 2: Yeah but make it 36", no cover saves against them, and give the guys holding them a scout move.These 2 things were in the previous Tau book and nobody complained about them. Pathfinders were also tougher in that book, having a 4+ save rather than 5+ Guy 3: Yeah and also give it to drones too so that they can benefit from JSJ, better toughness and a better armor save and the possibility to fire markerlights with BS5.
Guy 1: The broadsides have BS3 and their weapons are heavy too, should be good for enemies to keep them out of range. Guy 2: Yeah but give the rockets 36" and the other weapon 60" and make everything twinlinked for free to compensate for BS3. This is one thing which, if anything, has gotten better in the new codex. Previously Broadsides could gain Slow and Purposeful (which only lasted on that player turn, meaning they could still overwatch the next) using Advanced Stabilisation Systems then fire S10 AP1 railguns up to a range of 72" at full ballistic skill, no markerlights required. Or you could give them BS4 if you didn't mind them being stationary, again without needing markerlights. Now I think the XV88 railgun was nerfed a bit too much (I think it should be S9 AP1 maybe with a price increase back up to 70pts/model, it shouldn't be lower strength than a marine held lascannon) but that's just my opinion and my love of suits.
Guy 1: CC should be the weakness of the army, as tau are clearly focused on shooting. Guy 2: Lucky us that the shooting phase is way more dominant than the assault phase, but to be sure give them a better overwatch for free, and make it possible for the markerlights to boost the BF when firing snap shots.
Guy 1: Krisis are some cool multifunction units, with many strong weapons, which are somewhat short in range and with T4 and 3+ Armor it shouldn´t be so hard to kill them. Guy 2: Yeah but give them JSJ so that they have the potential to get up to two movement phases for free, so that they are not in any kind of danger after shooting in 9 out of 10 cases. Oh and let’s not forget that every single one can deepstrike to make up for that short range they have and that they can ignore most terrain freely to get that heavy weapons in range.This was also in the previous books and people didn't have a problem beating it then. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Missile Pod Crisis have long range, but the other weapon systems have 24" range at maximum. The way to beat Crisis teams has always been to outmanoeuvre them using fast units to give them no safe place to jump to then either hit them with heavy weapons or bury them in small arms fire. A unit of 3 crisis suits dies exactly the same as 6 marines to normal weapons, but is bigger and so less likely to be out of sight. It is also, when loaded up, much more expensive.
Guy 2: Let´s also find a way to ignore some other rules like night fighting and blind for free or 1 point only, and make it so that they can defend themselves against deep striking units, for 5 points on all the heavy weapon systems. BSF were in the previous codex, too. Tau have always been able to ignore Night Fighting either with BSF or previously with markerlights
So to make a long story short, I don´t think that Tau are far too strong, maybe the riptide with the IA is a problem, but besides him, the Tau simply needs some weaknesses where there isn´t a dirt cheap way to get around it.
Ah yes, yet more generic complaints that the Tau don't play as other armies do.
Irony is that the OP's suggestions are far from absolutely objectionable, but fear not! Here comes the butthurt brigade to complain about everything that makes the Tau a different and interesting army to play.
Yet more complaints about Supporting Fire, with zero consideration for the utter incapability of the Tau to do damage in close combat and that fact having severe consequences for balance if nothing is done about it.
Yet more complaints about markerlights, including some who seem to be exaggerating the actual effect of the mechanic while ignoring the costs in points and opportunities lost of using markerlights in numbers that permit "army-wide ignore cover" etc.
Yet more complaints about the Riptide as if it was a phenomenon of its own and not part of a cross-army trend.
Sidstyler wrote: Ld6 is fething pitiful, and even if you pay the points for a strain leader to mitigate it, Precision Shots are in the game now and it wouldn't take much effort for someone to just kill the leader.
In any case, it doesn't matter how good or bad they are, they will never see play as long as they're competing with markerlights for a place. You just lose way too much and gain practically nothing by giving up markerlights for them. Honestly, even if you moved them to Troops they would still lose out to fire warriors because they can put out more firepower, especially with ethereal or fireblade buffs; why bother with AP3 when you can kill Marines by just pouring tons of shots into them? Make them roll enough dice and they're bound to fail saves eventually. And AP3 isn't that big a deal when you have a spammable unit dropping AP2 templates every turn anyway, which isn't a much more significant investment of points and is also more mobile and more durable.
I don't know what it would take to really fix them, honestly, but make no mistake they do need to be fixed. They're a pile of crap compared to just about every other unit in the Tau army and they don't really scare [i]anyone[i].
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Alcibiades wrote: Vespids are faster than Crisis Suits (Fleet + MtC) and have Hit and Run + very high I, making them good harrassment units. Stealth Suits can infiltrate.
True, but are you really gonna pay 18 points per vespid with their crappy leadership,ok BS, T and armour. basically, would you rather have a squad of 4 vespids, or 8 fire warriors, it'll be the fire warriors any day.
Well they have the same BS and armour as firewarriors and higher T, and unlike the fire warriors they have AP3 assault weapons with only one shot which will miss half the time and due to its short range will almost always get outperformed by pulse rifles, point for point and can drop over obstacles and move through cover and generally zip around fast (+stealth in ruins). And don't they have higher Ld with a strain leader than firewarriors do?
Depends on playstyle I suppose.
Fixed that for you
Tau don't need Assault 1 AP3 guns on fragile, expensive jump infantry. We already have AP2 guns with longer range and a more durable platform in the form of Crisis suits. We don't need S5 guns on fragile, expensive jump infantry. We can have S5 in troops with fire warriors or in Elite on crisis teams (a single crisis suit with dual burst cannons puts out the equivalent of over 3 times as many points worth of Vespid in terms of shots) and stealth teams (more durable in ruins than Vespid thanks to stealth shield generators), in fast attack on pirhana, pathfinders, drones.
There is one situation where Vespid will cause more wounds in shooting than an equal amount of points of fire warriors against Space Marines in the open and that is when the range to the target is 15" < range <= 18". In this case 12 Fire warriors will cause 1.3 wounds and 6 vespid will cause 2 wounds. However if the range were over 18" then vespid cause zero wounds and if the range were 15" or less the Fire warriors cause 2.6, on average. If the Marines were in cover the Vespid only get worse as it doesn't affect the Fire Warriors due to their AP5, whereas the Vespid get worse as the points paid for AP3 loses value.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Anyway, I am not trying to start a big Defense of Vespids Fund, so let's just leave it at that.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
The riptide with:
Ion accelerator ( St 8 or 9 AP 2 large blast)
Twin plasma
feel no pain
interceptor
comes in at at 225
While my Morkanuaght base is 230 and with a kff, extra armor and got riggers is 310. And the ork naughts are looked at as pretty crappy subpar units.
So cheaper, more durable and can be supported by (markerlighys)or help support its army (overwatch) is a lower point value unit ? Too me that doesn't make sense.
I know have cheap troops and other units can be an argument, but I've seen plenty of 2 or 3 riptide lists. But I hardly see 1 naught or more armies.
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
I know, that's why it's less efficient, but then also gives redundancy -- the enemy cannot "sploosh! there go your markerlights" by targeting 1 or two squads.
It's more triangulation -- two stealth teams, say, targeting one tank. The first fires, but is unlikely to destroy it mathematically, but the marker light gives a boost to the next shooter. Who then gives a bost to the next one, if there is another one.
Again, I'm not going "rah rah!" for this idea -- just saying that it's there.
I'm not going to go balls to the wall for the awesomeness of Vespids, but the comparison was being made with Crisis Suits... and do you really need 3 dedicated markerlight units?
Yeah the IA riptide is unbalanced, sure.
If you have 3 or more heavy hitters, like 3 riptides or a combinatoon of broadsudes and riptides odds are you want 3 markerlight units as you can spread them over more targets.
See, this is a setup I would never even consider getting. I hate the very notion of Riptides -- they strike me as very un-Tau.
Markerlights can also be spread out among other units -- shas'uis, marker drones attached to just about anybody, stealth suits, skyrays, sniper drones, etc. You don't really need dedicated ML units, albeit this will be less efficient (but more redundant and hence harder to neutralize).
Anyway, I am not trying to start a big Defense of Vespids Fund, so let's just leave it at that.
Feed an oversized blue killer insect here!
We can't really have a reduction in how many 'Tides you can take, so wouldn't it make sense to move it to Heavy Support, so it can have fun with the Broadsides and Hammerheads instead... Maybe even move the Skyray to, say, Elite or Fast Attack?
Also, am I the only one wanting Pathfinders as Troops, costing around 8 pts standard, but 13 if with a Markerlight? I want Pathfinders as a means of attack, not just sitting still all the time :/
Also also, the regular Railgun could use some kind of boost in points + rules, to make the the obvious choice to go for armour. Armourbane maybe? Is that stretching it?...
Problem with that is that marker drones don't have networked markerlights or target locks, so in suit teams you're either putting more markerlights on a unit you're already shooting at or you're equipping your suits with target locks, which can use points or systems slots you could otherwise use for something else.
I know, that's why it's less efficient, but then also gives redundancy -- the enemy cannot "sploosh! there go your markerlights" by targeting 1 or two squads.
It's more triangulation -- two stealth teams, say, targeting one tank. The first fires, but is unlikely to destroy it mathematically, but the marker light gives a boost to the next shooter. Who then gives a bost to the next one, if there is another one.
Again, I'm not going "rah rah!" for this idea -- just saying that it's there.
Mmmm, when I take stealth teams (so when I'm doing Farsight Enclaves lists, love crisis suits too much to not take them) I do often go for 3 minimal units in cover with marker drones and a loaded up shas'vre (Fusion Blaster, Markerlight+Target Lock, Homing Beacon, drone controller).
So opponent has to either:
a) ignore them, in which case I can get some marker light hits, maybe take down some infantry and threaten the rear of light vehicles and pose a potential risk to heavier armour. Then, when my crisis suits drop in I have 3 bubbles of no scatter to drop into which is pretty sweet.
b) try and kill them. Thanks to their cover save this can take quite a bit of firepower (unless they using ignores cover weaponry but then I have 3+ armour on top). Whilst they're doing this they're not focussing on the more dangerous parts of my army, leaving them more intact.
Also also, the regular Railgun could use some kind of boost in points + rules, to make the the obvious choice to go for armour. Armourbane maybe? Is that stretching it?...
The Hammerhead railgun? It needs to be twin-linked. One shot which misses a third of the time, then has to penetrate armour, then roll a 5+ to explode a vehicle is not that good. Making it less likely to miss is the first step to making it good.
The riptide with:
Ion accelerator ( St 8 or 9 AP 2 large blast)
Twin plasma
feel no pain
interceptor
comes in at at 225
While my Morkanuaght base is 230 and with a kff, extra armor and got riggers is 310. And the ork naughts are looked at as pretty crappy subpar units.
So cheaper, more durable and can be supported by (markerlighys)or help support its army (overwatch) is a lower point value unit ? Too me that doesn't make sense.
I know have cheap troops and other units can be an argument, but I've seen plenty of 2 or 3 riptide lists. But I hardly see 1 naught or more armies.
Nauts are a bit overcosted for what they do IMO. On the other hand if you compare Riptide with Wraithknight or NEmesis Dreadknight you will see the disparity is much smaller.
EDIT: for example at 220 points you could get an NDK with
Personal Teleporter
Greatsword
Gatling Psilencer (12 Force shots)
Heavy Incinerator
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
Sidstyler wrote: Ld6 is fething pitiful, and even if you pay the points for a strain leader to mitigate it, Precision Shots are in the game now and it wouldn't take much effort for someone to just kill the leader.
In any case, it doesn't matter how good or bad they are, they will never see play as long as they're competing with markerlights for a place. You just lose way too much and gain practically nothing by giving up markerlights for them. Honestly, even if you moved them to Troops they would still lose out to fire warriors because they can put out more firepower, especially with ethereal or fireblade buffs; why bother with AP3 when you can kill Marines by just pouring tons of shots into them? Make them roll enough dice and they're bound to fail saves eventually. And AP3 isn't that big a deal when you have a spammable unit dropping AP2 templates every turn anyway, which isn't a much more significant investment of points and is also more mobile and more durable.
I don't know what it would take to really fix them, honestly, but make no mistake they do need to be fixed. They're a pile of crap compared to just about every other unit in the Tau army and they don't really scare anyone[i].
Stingwings are cool. That some unit exists somewhere that can do bad things to them is not a reaso not to take them. That can be argues about anything in 40K. Lol
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary [i]for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
Not for me, not when that "meta" mostly dictates that your army is too broken to be playable, or that they clash so much with the established aesthetic that they really have no place in the universe anyway, etc.
Trying to reason with those kinds of people is impossible and it's soured me not only on the game but the community itself. I have so much hate and bitter contempt for my fellow gamer at this point it's just really sad.
Martel732 wrote: I still think its insane to have my entire strategy against a given list be completely dependent upon a feature (table terrain) that is not defined ANYWHERE in the rule book.
Anymore.
I pulled out my 5th edition rulebook just now and looked to see what it had to say about setting up terrain.
How Much Terrain? As a general rule in Warhammer 40,000, the more terrain, the better the gaming experience. If you use too little terrain, games will be short and not very satisfactory, with too much advantage going to the player who gets to shoot first. For a balanced game, where close combat troops have a chance to get into contact with the enemy without being completely blown away in a couple of turns, we expect that about a quarter of the total playing surface should have terrain on it. The assumption here is that if terrain pieces are roughly 12"x12", then six or seven pieces are needed to fulfil the 25% recommendation on a standard 6'x4' table (of course these dimensions are approximate and terrain features like woods should not be square, as irregular features look much better!).
In your terrain collection there should be a good mixture of types. An equal division between terrain which interferes with line of sight and provides cover (such as woods or ruins), terrain which provides cover, but does not block line of sight (such as barricades, craters, scrubland and low rubble) and terrain which blocks line of sight completely (such as hills, rocky outcrops, buildings, etc.) makes for good tactical play. It is best to build your terrain collection with this in mind, otherwise the game balance could be seriously affected. Terrain that completely blocks line of sight is particularly important. Too much of it and your ranged firepower will be seriously impaired favouring assault troops; too little and the game will turn into a shooting match, with very little movement or tactical choices.
Emphasis mine.
So, how's that for definition? Still sound "insane" to you? This all came directly from GW at one point in time, before they stopped caring, threw their hands up and said "Just do whatever, god!". This is why a lot of us find your stance on this issue to be pretty fething bizarre, because for all intents and purposes, this isn't how the game is "supposed" to be played at all. Tables are supposed to have a variety of terrain on them to begin with, including LOS-blocking terrain which is probably the most important type from 5th onward. GW acknowledged this at one time and even said it was necessary for balance reasons.
Tau do have legitimate issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of yours in particular, and the reason why you're so down on your Marine army, are entirely your and your gaming group's own doing. That they all play shooting armies and favor lots of open terrain is no surprise, but you shouldn't have to "beg" to have a variety of terrain types to hide behind. If they're unwilling to create a balanced terrain set-up then you're never going to have very balanced games, and if it comes down to it I would suggest either finding a new group or being a lot more assertive in how the table is set-up, if possible using the precedent set in earlier editions to help convince them that it's critical to having a balanced, fun game and that they're deliberately creating an advantage for their own armies that, frankly, they don't really need in the current edition. If they're unwilling to listen after that then it seems pretty obvious to me that your issue is with your gaming group and not necessarily GW's poor ability to write rules, though I do find it odd that this bit concerning terrain is no longer in the rules and GW literally just says "We sell terrain! So you should play with lots of it! But we're not too fussed if you don't, Forge the Narrative and all that, lel!"
I think I'd have to agree with you there, lol. Could be one reason why I've lost so much interest in playing the game.
I've kinda grown fond to it, and I think it's the reason I'm still here, actually. The game is the meat and modeling and painting is the potatoes, but the meta is the sauce.
Not for me, not when that "meta" mostly dictates that your army is too broken to be playable, or that they clash so much with the established aesthetic that they really have no place in the universe anyway, etc.
Trying to reason with those kinds of people is impossible and it's soured me not only on the game but the community itself. I have so much hate and bitter contempt for my fellow gamer at this point it's just really sad.
Oh no, I hate it too. I write on forums, follow the news and read reviews, while arguing about how the state of the game is at the moment, but I'm not a part of it myself, and none of my friends are. We are a strictly friendly bunch playing Campaign Kill Team with friendly and fluffy setups - I have never ever seen the shadow of the meta. I once brought a Riptide, but fast put it on the shelf, because it didn't fit in among my opposing players.
The game is most fun between people who agree on how the game works, I find. That's not what I find here on this site, though - I find entertainment, perspective and flow. It lightens up my hobby considerably to have so many angles to approach it from, that being e.g. meta.
Martel732 wrote: They won't honor those passages because it's an old rules set. I understand and agree with you but that's just not my reality.
Well, that's really unfortunate then. I play a shooting army and I can't imagine being so much of a douche that I refuse to play with terrain so that I can shoot everything always. I can't imagine how that's any fun for either player or how it hasn't gotten old yet.
Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
BoomWolf wrote: Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
Except marines don't gun line well. Especially not BA.
BoomWolf wrote: Heck, lack of terrain even ruins the game for the tau player himself.
No place to make tactical jumps with his suits and the strict superiorty of long-range high-caliber guns really pushes you to a gunline and that's about the least interesting army to play with.
Except marines don't gun line well. Especially not BA.
Yep. Dev Squads and Las Preds are about the only gunline SM have
Ugh, here's yet another battle report I've stumbled on that just irritates the crap out of me.
I just want to say, for the record, I'm not trying to insult either of these guys or anything...but look at that table. There's practically nothing in the center, except a ring of barricades (that provide practically no cover). All the terrain is on the sides, and since nothing blocks LOS the Tau player basically has clear lanes of fire right from the start, and will for the entire game. On top of that, the Chaos player makes the really odd decision to deploy pretty much his entire army in the center of the table, apparently banking on those barricades to protect him, and then marches across an open field to the Tau line hiding behind an Aegis. You can probably imagine how the game goes.
Like I've said before, Tau have legitimate issues that should be addressed . But I've seen so many battle reports just like this one that I find it really hard to take complaints seriously sometimes. It really does make it hard to see whether it's the Tau codex to blame or the player.
The biggest happy for me was when 7th dropped and tau couldn't team buffmanders with riptides anymore.
Though it also meant I couldn't put buffmanders with my centurions anymore.
Maybe go back to the old way of marker lights stripping cover and a price increase for the interceptor add on. Maybe take away jsj from riptides, but that might be going a little far. Maybe change storm of fire as well?
Eh, only minor things need to be done to bring tau in line with the 7th edition codices.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A Defiler's battlecannon is AP3 isn't it? The Tau players Broadsides should've been rolling 2+ armour saves, not 4+ cover saves.
It is AP3, but it was the drone that was the closest target so he was taking his either his built-in 4++ or his 4+ cover save from the barricades. He did it just fine. If the drone would have died on the first hit, then he would have been taking 2+ armor saves. It's still scary because a fail instant kills a broadside.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A Defiler's battlecannon is AP3 isn't it? The Tau players Broadsides should've been rolling 2+ armour saves, not 4+ cover saves.
It is AP3, but it was the drone that was the closest target so he was taking his either his built-in 4++ or his 4+ cover save from the barricades. He did it just fine. If the drone would have died on the first hit, then he would have been taking 2+ armor saves. It's still scary because a fail instant kills a broadside.
Aargh, brain fail. Went back to old wound allocation systems...
What if the riptide was forced to buy the 2 shielded missile drones? It would make it more expensive and give the opponent the opportunity to force a morale check... granted, fluff-wise it would be silly, but hey.
samsonite207 wrote: What if the riptide was forced to buy the 2 shielded missile drones? It would make it more expensive and give the opponent the opportunity to force a morale check... granted, fluff-wise it would be silly, but hey.
Whatevs man. I voluntarily run one of those drones with my riptide. Ruins the effectiveness of grav guns. And plus, move through cover goes to the unit so the drone doesn't have to take dangerous terrain checks
Sidstyler wrote: Ugh, here's yet another battle report I've stumbled on that just irritates the crap out of me.
I just want to say, for the record, I'm not trying to insult either of these guys or anything...but look at that table. There's practically nothing in the center, except a ring of barricades (that provide practically no cover). All the terrain is on the sides, and since nothing blocks LOS the Tau player basically has clear lanes of fire right from the start, and will for the entire game. On top of that, the Chaos player makes the really odd decision to deploy pretty much his entire army in the center of the table, apparently banking on those barricades to protect him, and then marches across an open field to the Tau line hiding behind an Aegis. You can probably imagine how the game goes.
Like I've said before, Tau have legitimate issues that should be addressed . But I've seen so many battle reports just like this one that I find it really hard to take complaints seriously sometimes. It really does make it hard to see whether it's the Tau codex to blame or the player.
Saw that one.
God-aweful terrain placement, followed by making what is practically the worst tactical decision possible-"lets send everything through the killzone!", not only he blocked his own path, he was liturally out in the open for easy picking.
You can hear the chaos player's voice in despair as he gets annihilated and does not actually get to play, but in all honestly he DIDNT play to begin with, he just pushed everything forward with zero forethought, planning, manuvers or anything that can be described as strategy.
Too often I've seen people complain on "how OP tau are" after getting decimated, bit when deploying THIS level of tactics, the only way they would win like this is if their own codex was absurdly overpowered.
Given an example I've had against me: he had a land raider filled with inqusition assault troopers (mix of DCA, crusaders, acolythes, prisets, etc) charging up on me, practically alone (some long range shooty squad in the back, and the entire rest in reserves) into no less than 2 railheads and 3 EMP fire warrior squads and two tetras for marking (rest of my stuff DSing), through the middle open ground on turn 1 in all-out assault style deploying on the front, going as far as he could.
He was somewhat surprised that the raider was cracked open and the passengers slaughtered in a turn, but honestly-how could I FAIL at killing them? I didn't even run top-tier units there. but when you practically dish out your dudes as easy kills, they WILL die easy.
Get terrain, USE terrain. its there to mess with your movement, not to sit in the sidelines and look pretty.
It's not as easy as getting terrain and using terrain. We have a TON of terrain where I play. Just not much of it is LOS blocking. Do you know how useless 5+ cover is for marines much of the time? All it does it buff hordes.
Martel732 wrote: It's not as easy as getting terrain and using terrain. We have a TON of terrain where I play. Just not much of it is LOS blocking. Do you know how useless 5+ cover is for marines much of the time? All it does it buff hordes.
My area got used to running at least one large building to block LOS in the middle and in a corner on each side.
Generally we played with One medium one in the center with two LOS blocking pieces going along either side. That way something can actually move across the board to get to the backfield without taking an entire army's worth of fire.
I can't honestly say what has been going on much in 7th at the FLGS. The 40k community rather dried out and I got maybe 4 games in before setting it down.
Sidstyler wrote: Ugh, here's yet another battle report I've stumbled on that just irritates the crap out of me.
I just want to say, for the record, I'm not trying to insult either of these guys or anything...but look at that table. There's practically nothing in the center, except a ring of barricades (that provide practically no cover). All the terrain is on the sides, and since nothing blocks LOS the Tau player basically has clear lanes of fire right from the start, and will for the entire game. On top of that, the Chaos player makes the really odd decision to deploy pretty much his entire army in the center of the table, apparently banking on those barricades to protect him, and then marches across an open field to the Tau line hiding behind an Aegis. You can probably imagine how the game goes.
Like I've said before, Tau have legitimate issues that should be addressed . But I've seen so many battle reports just like this one that I find it really hard to take complaints seriously sometimes. It really does make it hard to see whether it's the Tau codex to blame or the player.
None of your protests had anything to do with the codex. Just a dumb player and their equally dumb willingness not to set the board up cordially.
Again I repeat: tart making player distinctions and Codex distinctions clear in your mind.
Martel732 wrote: It's not as easy as getting terrain and using terrain. We have a TON of terrain where I play. Just not much of it is LOS blocking. Do you know how useless 5+ cover is for marines much of the time? All it does it buff hordes.
So you don't want to use terrain that will buff hordes but you want to use terrain to buff yourself?
That's about typical, honestly. "Buff Marines, feth everyone else!" Is usually what these kind of threads boil down to no matter what army they're about.
Savageconvoy wrote: Wait. Now I'm lost. Your terrain doesn't include LOS blocking terrain. And you think the answer isn't to add LOS blocking terrain?
What do you think the answer is then?
No, no. I could have terrain added, but very little to none will be LOS blocking. It's just not available/accepted. Therefore, terrain in my case will not accomplish what everyone claims it will. That's what I'm saying. All it will do is add a cover save which lists like WS spam don't care about, or Tau will ignore.
But it seems like you have the answer, but just can't/won't use it then. Why can't you use LOS blocking terrain? You have a say in what field you play on. At least some would be helpful. Not every model needs to draw LOS to every other model.
I can't use it because no one with play without their "firing lanes". Plus, the primary local store doesn't have much LOS blocking terrain.
I'm not completely convinced LOS blocking terrain is going to help that much vs WS spam or jump-shoot-jump shenanigans anyway. I think Eldar and Tau are just way too effective for their point costs.
How is Jump shoot jump really a problem? I don't remember it being that big of a concern in 5th.
But I really think you should give LOS blocking terrain a try before just writing off Tau and Eldar as over costed. Try playing where half the army can't support half of the field. It really cuts down on Tau's synergy. It helps CC units that start on the board get across field safely.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not completely convinced LOS blocking terrain is going to help that much vs WS spam or jump-shoot-jump shenanigans anyway. I think Eldar and Tau are just way too effective for their point costs.
So you're not sure it's worth it, and you don't want to/can't test to see if it's worth it.
Self fulfilling prophecy for the lose. Yes, LoS blocking terrain literally changes the game in all kinds of ways. I now understand why you hold the opinions you do - your meta is horrible and taints your view of everything.
Martel732 wrote: I can't use it because no one with play without their "firing lanes". Plus, the primary local store doesn't have much LOS blocking terrain.
I'm not completely convinced LOS blocking terrain is going to help that much vs WS spam or jump-shoot-jump shenanigans anyway. I think Eldar and Tau are just way too effective for their point costs.
OFC they want their "firing lanes", because it makes it so damn easy for shooting armies to win!
Proper terrain forces them to actually THINK about unit placing, zone control and movement.
Yes, it will also help the JSJ units-but these are the OTHER side of said armies, some units are desigened to be a terrain user, some are desigened to be open field powerhouses. by having proper terrain a mix of the two before needed, making the army not as narrow-minded on doing one thing that has no restrictions and as such exterminate anything with ease.
With more LOS terrain crisis suits will be better, yes. but with no LOS terrain? they just dont use crisis suits, because the "open field" units have superior firepower once they get easy firing lines.
There is a point where there is too much LOS blocking and crisis suits and other JSJ units suddenly become the pieces of "feth this dung", but we are talking on zone mortalis/space hulk levels of LOS blocking here.
As for WS spam, it really helps alot against it too. because half the problem with them is the fact their insane range lets them touch ANYTHING on the map. some LOS terrain-and suddenly not every WS can shoot any unit.
I'm still sure that given it shield's fluff it as supposed to be 6" gun and somehow it became 60" and nobody noticed, but looking at the existing rules-its a huge range gun that ignores cover, with no LOS terrain there is simply no answer to it.
If I start insisting, I'm going to "that guy". I have, by the way, seen a ton of batreps using the kinds of tables I play on. And with similar results. And I still find it incredibly distasteful that I need specific terrain requirements to compete against Tau/IG/Eldar/Necron gun lines.
There's also the issue that GW has made assault so bad now that most players in my meta have given up on it. Hence, the clamoring for "firing lanes".
"with no LOS terrain there is simply no answer to it."
Martel732 wrote: And I still find it incredibly distasteful that I need specific terrain requirements to compete against Tau/IG/Eldar/Necron gun lines.
It's just a fact of life. It's been a fact of life for years (obviously changing the codexes).
There's also the issue that GW has made assault so bad now that most players in my meta have given up on it. Hence, the clamoring for "firing lanes".
You've been like this for a long time - 7th is the only edition that hasn't made clear that you should have LoS blocking terrain. And not having it isn't "firing lanes" it's "planet bowling ball".
Oh, there wasn't much LOS-blocking terrain in 5th or 6th for me. Originally, the concept was put in place to speed up local tournaments. Then, since people wanted to practice for tournaments, they started insisting on "tournament boards" as the standard. Then the only store that even had a lot of LOS blocking terrain went out of business.
It's funny that they were tabling the old BA in three turns with Taudar in 6th, but adding LOS terrain would be an "unrealistic and unfair advantage for marines that just slows the game down".
Martel732 wrote: Oh, there wasn't much LOS-blocking terrain in 5th or 6th for me. Originally, the concept was put in place to speed up local tournaments. Then, since people wanted to practice for tournaments, they started insisting on "tournament boards" as the standard. Then the only store that even had a lot of LOS blocking terrain went out of business.
It's funny that they were tabling the old BA in three turns with Taudar in 6th, but adding LOS terrain would be an "unrealistic and unfair advantage for marines that just slows the game down".
How in the hell does it speed up tournaments?
Whatever, I'm done responding to your complaints about this - you know the solution. Just please keep in mind in the future that your experience doesn't match reality - at all.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, there wasn't much LOS-blocking terrain in 5th or 6th for me. Originally, the concept was put in place to speed up local tournaments. Then, since people wanted to practice for tournaments, they started insisting on "tournament boards" as the standard. Then the only store that even had a lot of LOS blocking terrain went out of business.
It's funny that they were tabling the old BA in three turns with Taudar in 6th, but adding LOS terrain would be an "unrealistic and unfair advantage for marines that just slows the game down".
How in the hell does it speed up tournaments?
Whatever, I'm done responding to your complaints about this - you know the solution. Just please keep in mind in the future that your experience doesn't match reality - at all.
There are plenty of complaints about Tau/Eldar even with fancy terrain.
Martel732 wrote: There are plenty of complaints about Tau/Eldar even with fancy terrain.
And most of those complaints are unfounded. With okay terrain I win about as much as I lose with Nids against both.
Does that mean that the Wave Serpent is fine? No, it's overpowered. As in - it should cost more or lose some abilities. That doesn't mean it's an auto-win unit, just that it's above the power curve from where it should be.
Savageconvoy wrote: How is Jump shoot jump really a problem? I don't remember it being that big of a concern in 5th.
But I really think you should give LOS blocking terrain a try before just writing off Tau and Eldar as over costed. Try playing where half the army can't support half of the field. It really cuts down on Tau's synergy. It helps CC units that start on the board get across field safely.
every board needs a little LOS blocking terrain. You don't even need actually LOS blocking - you can just agree that you cant shoot over an area...(a dense acid fog over a pond - or something - be creative.) If they refuse to let you add some terrain pieces to the board don't play them.
Martel732 wrote: I can't use it because no one with play without their "firing lanes". Plus, the primary local store doesn't have much LOS blocking terrain.
I'm not completely convinced LOS blocking terrain is going to help that much vs WS spam or jump-shoot-jump shenanigans anyway. I think Eldar and Tau are just way too effective for their point costs.
OFC they want their "firing lanes", because it makes it so damn easy for shooting armies to win!
Proper terrain forces them to actually THINK about unit placing, zone control and movement.
Yes, it will also help the JSJ units-but these are the OTHER side of said armies, some units are desigened to be a terrain user, some are desigened to be open field powerhouses. by having proper terrain a mix of the two before needed, making the army not as narrow-minded on doing one thing that has no restrictions and as such exterminate anything with ease.
With more LOS terrain crisis suits will be better, yes. but with no LOS terrain? they just dont use crisis suits, because the "open field" units have superior firepower once they get easy firing lines.
There is a point where there is too much LOS blocking and crisis suits and other JSJ units suddenly become the pieces of "feth this dung", but we are talking on zone mortalis/space hulk levels of LOS blocking here.
As for WS spam, it really helps alot against it too. because half the problem with them is the fact their insane range lets them touch ANYTHING on the map. some LOS terrain-and suddenly not every WS can shoot any unit.
I'm still sure that given it shield's fluff it as supposed to be 6" gun and somehow it became 60" and nobody noticed, but looking at the existing rules-its a huge range gun that ignores cover, with no LOS terrain there is simply no answer to it.
I refuse to play against wave serpents unless it's a torny - a 60 inch ignore cover d6+1 str 7 gun? that weapon alone would justify a 140 point cost on a armor 12 vehicle.
You're not going to be TFG for not giving in to all your opponents demands on table layout. You can have plenty of shooting lanes and still have LOS blocking terrain just to stop some units from having complete LOS to every model on the table.
I can't think of a game I've had where I've had a a single unit able to really see more than 50% of the table at a time.
I honestly have problems with assault some times because too many units are able to hide behind LOS blocking pieces and move almost all the way across the table unseen.
Martel732 wrote: Aren't Nids super good now with Flyrant spam? Or are you not using that build?
I've never spammed anything but dakkafexes - even when they were subpar.
My typical list is 2 Flyrants, a Tervigon, gaunts, and dakkafexes. I haven't played since the pods came out but it's changing significantly.
Martel732 wrote: There are plenty of complaints about Tau/Eldar even with fancy terrain.
There always have been, though. Even when both armies were mid to bottom-tier, just because people like to complain about those armies. Tau always get it no matter what because people just hate Tau. It finally relented towards the end of 5th edition because certain other armies were just so dominant then. People stopped playing Tau, they stopped placing in tournaments...it got to the point where insisting Tau were "OP" would just make you look stupid or bad at the game.
Like it was said, a lot of Tau complaints over the years have been completely unfounded, and stem more from a personal dislike for the army's appearance and a desire to see them removed from the game more than anything in the rules. So it's kinda hard to really pinpoint what exactly needs to be fixed because people have bitched about literally everything in the Tau codex at some point or another, and complain constantly about everything again since the update, from the brand new additions to things that didn't change much or even at all.
Martel732 wrote: Aren't Nids super good now with Flyrant spam? Or are you not using that build?
I never once hated on Tau until they got the ability to table a 5th ed BA list in 2.5 turns while taking minimal losses in exchange. But then, the ion accelerator will do that for you. That, and the ability to battle-brother in Eldar.
Now the Eldar problem is gone, but they still have super-undercosted Riptides that they can now take as many of as they like. However, at the same time, I think that many Tau units could stand for buffs. So I'm hardly a Tau hater. I'm just sick of being hit with the same weapon system over and over.
I'll take on marine bike spam any day of the week over Tau or Eldar. They at least have to move a bit in order to kill me. BA, of course, can't do bike spam without unbound.
With all fairness, a 5th edition BA list in the 6th edition (where the IA was only presented) was dominated by even the supbar dark angels.
And tau got much weaker from that day with the rule changes of 7th, most of their shenanigans were based on IC+riptide or allies combos (or both at once)
As for the super-undercosted riptides, for the love of god stop saying that.
The RIPTIDE is fine, the ION ACCELERATOR is broken, learn to separate elements! its comments like these from people who does not make proper separations that makes GW completely miss the point when reworking a codex.
As for bikes having to at least move a bit in order to kill you-so would tau if you had decent terrain. I play on terrain heavy tables and my tau rarely stay put.
Sure the hammerheads sit back, perks of a 72" gun with front 13 tanks-but I got a large number of suits deep striking and dancing around, and even my fire warriors tend to push forward, because I need to get better positions than the starting zone.
Martel732 wrote: I never once hated on Tau until they got the ability to table a 5th ed BA list in 2.5 turns while taking minimal losses in exchange. But then, the ion accelerator will do that for you. That, and the ability to battle-brother in Eldar.
Pretty much any 6th edition list could do that, especially on a table with no relevant terrain. It's not unique to Tau.
As for the super-undercosted riptides, for the love of god stop saying that.
The RIPTIDE is fine, the ION ACCELERATOR is broken, learn to separate elements! its comments like these from people who does not make proper separations that makes GW completely miss the point when reworking a codex.
The problem with the IA is that the opportunity cost to use the Str8, AP2 large blast is negligible. One Gets Hot roll on a model with 2+ and FnP is kind of a joke. If the Blast was only available with its Nova Charge it would not be as bad. You would have to legitimately choose offense, defense, or mobility. As it stands now, the Iontide gets the offense basically for free and can tactically use the defense/mobility as needed. I think the Burstide is a pretty balanced unit because it has to make tactical choices with its Nova Charge and the Gets Hot rolls mitigate some of the weapon's damage output.
BoomWolf wrote: With all fairness, a 5th edition BA list in the 6th edition (where the IA was only presented) was dominated by even the supbar dark angels.
And tau got much weaker from that day with the rule changes of 7th, most of their shenanigans were based on IC+riptide or allies combos (or both at once)
As for the super-undercosted riptides, for the love of god stop saying that.
The RIPTIDE is fine, the ION ACCELERATOR is broken, learn to separate elements! its comments like these from people who does not make proper separations that makes GW completely miss the point when reworking a codex.
As for bikes having to at least move a bit in order to kill you-so would tau if you had decent terrain. I play on terrain heavy tables and my tau rarely stay put.
Sure the hammerheads sit back, perks of a 72" gun with front 13 tanks-but I got a large number of suits deep striking and dancing around, and even my fire warriors tend to push forward, because I need to get better positions than the starting zone.
It's really not just the IA. It's the general toughness of the unit...2+5+fnp plus easy to acquire toe in cover and 5 wounds on a unit that can sit back all game. Needs to costs more or have less wounds. I expect tau to bring some advanced weapons but in turn they should be able to be killed.
It's really not just the IA. It's the general toughness of the unit...2+5+fnp plus easy to acquire toe in cover and 5 wounds on a unit that can sit back all game. Needs to costs more or have less wounds. I expect tau to bring some advanced weapons but in turn they should be able to be killed.
Well the cover isn't really that big of a concern considering the built in invul save.
The number of wounds is actually factored in with the Nova ability. If you're using a HBC you have to nova every turn or sacrifice a lot of firepower. Once you factor in a lost wound from Nova the Riptide actually ends up being fairly balanced in my opinion. Not that there is any real guideline to go off of.
FNP might be a bit costly on it, but is still a bargain for the added durability. Maybe the alternative would be to make it Nova ability instead to grant FNP like an automated recovery system that's in the vehicle section.
It's really not just the IA. It's the general toughness of the unit...2+5+fnp plus easy to acquire toe in cover and 5 wounds on a unit that can sit back all game. Needs to costs more or have less wounds. I expect tau to bring some advanced weapons but in turn they should be able to be killed.
Well the cover isn't really that big of a concern considering the built in invul save.
The number of wounds is actually factored in with the Nova ability. If you're using a HBC you have to nova every turn or sacrifice a lot of firepower. Once you factor in a lost wound from Nova the Riptide actually ends up being fairly balanced in my opinion. Not that there is any real guideline to go off of.
FNP might be a bit costly on it, but is still a bargain for the added durability. Maybe the alternative would be to make it Nova ability instead to grant FNP like an automated recovery system that's in the vehicle section.
I just think it's under-pointed. It could stand a base 40 point increase. You'd still see them in droves with that increase.
I just think it's under-pointed. It could stand a base 40 point increase. You'd still see them in droves with that increase.
Not with HBC you wouldn't. You'd probably still see the IA version a lot and wouldn't really fix the problem people complain about most.
Honestly I think there are two easy fixes to the Riptide. Either swap Ion weapons with the Hammerhead, and give the Hammerhead a reason to exist while still giving itself a rather impressive weapon, or removing the non-nova blast from the IA.
I guarantee that will solve the majority of complaints about the Riptide.
Martel732 wrote: I never once hated on Tau until they got the ability to table a 5th ed BA list in 2.5 turns while taking minimal losses in exchange. But then, the ion accelerator will do that for you. That, and the ability to battle-brother in Eldar.
Pretty much any 6th edition list could do that, especially on a table with no relevant terrain. It's not unique to Tau.
No, against other lists I could last considerably longer. Believe it or not.
I just think it's under-pointed. It could stand a base 40 point increase. You'd still see them in droves with that increase.
Not with HBC you wouldn't. You'd probably still see the IA version a lot and wouldn't really fix the problem people complain about most.
Honestly I think there are two easy fixes to the Riptide. Either swap Ion weapons with the Hammerhead, and give the Hammerhead a reason to exist while still giving itself a rather impressive weapon, or removing the non-nova blast from the IA.
I guarantee that will solve the majority of complaints about the Riptide.
I would totally be fine with that weapon swap. The hammerhead, while formidable, is not nearly as beefy as the Riptide.
I just think it's under-pointed. It could stand a base 40 point increase. You'd still see them in droves with that increase.
Not with HBC you wouldn't. You'd probably still see the IA version a lot and wouldn't really fix the problem people complain about most.
Honestly I think there are two easy fixes to the Riptide. Either swap Ion weapons with the Hammerhead, and give the Hammerhead a reason to exist while still giving itself a rather impressive weapon, or removing the non-nova blast from the IA.
I guarantee that will solve the majority of complaints about the Riptide.
So change ion accelerator to an Ion Cannon is what you are saying? Humm...That could work.
Yeah. Hammerhead gets a 3 shot AP2 weapon with AP2 pie plates. Drawback is that it's more stationary, can't fire interceptor, and can be shaken/stunned. It might actually validate a lot of the vehicle upgrades.
Riptide gets AP3 shots, still good against most MC, and an AP3 pie plate that is decent against all but the heaviest armored infantry.
Nova on that is still up in the air on how it would work. But you would actually balance out both units I think with the swap. That and it makes more sense that an entire tank dedicated to a single gun would have the better gun.
If the guns are switched then nova charge should beStr 8 AP2 large blast and overcharge as Str 8 AP3 large blast. This means that the Riptide can still deal with 2+ armour but will have lost Star 9 and ordnance.
SGTPozy wrote: If the guns are switched then nova charge should beStr 8 AP2 large blast and overcharge as Str 8 AP3 large blast. This means that the Riptide can still deal with 2+ armour but will have lost Star 9 and ordnance.
What if AP2 was entirely gone from the IA?
Make all IA versions AP3 and leave AP2 to the Hammerhead?
It would give the proposed Hamemrhead idea a more clearly defined role, as well as making the Riptide vs. Crisis Team choice for an Elite slot more meaningful (since 3 plasma crisis provide 12 AP2 shots)
If you hate riptide IA spam, don't play against that person casually, and if it's a tourney, then you should be able to deal with such things, and if not, you won't win anyway.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: If you hate riptide IA spam, don't play against that person casually, and if it's a tourney, then you should be able to deal with such things, and if not, you won't win anyway.
Switching ion cannons/accels IS an option, but the hammerhead is also a more budget unit than the riptide, and I'm not sure it will be healthy to give that gun to a 125 point tank.
The easiest fix for the riptide is to remove the non-nova IA blast, and give a slight cost increase to the FnP upgrade (like 5 or 10 more)
I don't see it as that bad on the Hammer head. It can't get Interceptor, can't get FNP, doesn't get invul saves (except for one instance with a specific wargear item), can be shaken/stunned, has few hull points, and AV12 sides.
Yeah, it's cheap but it gives the Hammerhead a boost while still being vulnerable, reduces issues with Riptide spam, and has a chance to reduce Broadside spam.
I do agree that your fix would work as well. Especially with the non-nova blast being gone it would make the FNP upgrade less of a concern for people.
I just think it's under-pointed. It could stand a base 40 point increase. You'd still see them in droves with that increase.
Not with HBC you wouldn't. You'd probably still see the IA version a lot and wouldn't really fix the problem people complain about most.
Honestly I think there are two easy fixes to the Riptide. Either swap Ion weapons with the Hammerhead, and give the Hammerhead a reason to exist while still giving itself a rather impressive weapon, or removing the non-nova blast from the IA.
I guarantee that will solve the majority of complaints about the Riptide.
I am not a proponent for changing the IA, but if I was to see a Nerf to rip-tides I think this is the most acceptable option. Making the standard attack H3 Ap3, an AP 3 large blast and then an S9 Ap2 Large blast with ordinance seems fair. The Nova charge should remain the same because there is a risk involved with achieving this power-level. The rip tide is also meant to be a titan hunter - can hardly be such without the IA.
For Stem injectors I feel the point cost is fair. 35 is enough to make me hesitant to take it, and in 1500 point games I have forfeited SI in favour of placing other units or upgrades elsewhere.
The toughness of the Rip tide is fine the way it is. It is the Tau's only tough unit, while it may be hard to kill it is not nearly as difficult to kill as a number of other units in 40k universe. I always think of thunder wolf cavalry which can absorb the concentrated fire of my entire army (including my rip tide) and still emerge unscathed. Meanwhile my rip tide is prone to killing itself from failed nova-charge/gets hot, or from succumbing to mass small arms fire. Which has happened a number of times. Decreasing the toughness of rip-tides will encourage more IA and a cost reduction of the model, making it more spammable.
As FnP is a 50% virtual wound increase, and assuming a unit is 40%-60% of its cost , less than 20% of the price for FnP is practically a no brainer unless it blocks something more important.
Given that 20% of a base riptide is 36 points, and it easily gets higher with upgrades-its not even a choice to get one, its actively holding yourself back not to.
Had the FnP been in the 40-45 range, it would become an actual choice with no clear answer, but currently, there is a fixed answer of "yes, you should.", again unless you need these hardpoints for another upgrade.
BoomWolf wrote: but the hammerhead is also a more budget unit than the riptide
And that needs to change. Delete the Riptide (let people use it as a counts-as crisis suit if they want to keep using the model), remove its awful fluff from the codex, and make the Hammerhead the scary gunship it is meant to be. Restore the ability to shoot on the move, make dpods a 4+ cover save again, and make the railgun a D-weapon (and make the LoW railguns line weapons), and give the ion cannon the Riptide's stats at minimum. It's absolutely stupid that the current codex turned the Hammerhead into "that cheap but weak unit you only buy if you don't have any better ideas".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shaso_Keo wrote: The rip tide is also meant to be a titan hunter - can hardly be such without the IA.
And it can't be a titan hunter with the IA. A single STR 9 ordnance shot for 200+ points is just laughably weak against titans, while a titan's return fire can expect to remove multiple Riptides per round of shooting. The IA's only purpose is removing whole MEQ/TEQ units from the table every turn, you're never going to shoot at vehicles unless you have no other target available.
BoomWolf wrote: but the hammerhead is also a more budget unit than the riptide
And that needs to change. Delete the Riptide (let people use it as a counts-as crisis suit if they want to keep using the model), remove its awful fluff from the codex, and make the Hammerhead the scary gunship it is meant to be. Restore the ability to shoot on the move, make dpods a 4+ cover save again, and make the railgun a D-weapon (and make the LoW railguns line weapons), and give the ion cannon the Riptide's stats at minimum. It's absolutely stupid that the current codex turned the Hammerhead into "that cheap but weak unit you only buy if you don't have any better ideas".
Don't forget to bring back Vehicle Target Locks so it can shoot its SMS at infantry whilst the railgun targets vehicles, oh and switch the twin linked burst cannon back into two individual burst cannons. As it is at the moment there is absolutely no reason to ever equip the Hammerhead with a burst cannon as the SMS is better in every single way.
And I'd be happy to keep the Railgun as S10 if it gained twin linked. S10 doesn't matter much when you only get 6 shots a game and on average only 4 will hit, let alone armour penetration and vehicle damage chart after that.
I really don't see how a Riptide really destroys the fluff. Tau were against building machines so large that you needed to install anti-grav generators just to stop them from collapsing under their own weight. The Riptide is just a machine that's about the size of one of their tanks, which rests on 3 tiny landing pads.
That being said, I doubt it'd be usable as a counts as Crisis suit based on the height of it alone. Besides, people have been asking for a bulked up suit for Tau for the longest time. I get some people don't like it, but no need to say it needs to removed all together just because you personally don't like the story explanation for it.
Aside from that, yeah. Tau vehicles could really use their old wargear back and some buffs to the Hammerhead. As it stands Piranha and Skyrays are the only ones that ever see play for me, and only because they're so cheap that it makes them easily expendable.
Savageconvoy wrote: I really don't see how a Riptide really destroys the fluff. Tau were against building machines so large that you needed to install anti-grav generators just to stop them from collapsing under their own weight. The Riptide is just a machine that's about the size of one of their tanks, which rests on 3 tiny landing pads.
That being said, I doubt it'd be usable as a counts as Crisis suit based on the height of it alone. Besides, people have been asking for a bulked up suit for Tau for the longest time. I get some people don't like it, but no need to say it needs to removed all together just because you personally don't like the story explanation for it.
Aside from that, yeah. Tau vehicles could really use their old wargear back and some buffs to the Hammerhead. As it stands Piranha and Skyrays are the only ones that ever see play for me, and only because they're so cheap that it makes them easily expendable.
The real issue is FNP. It makes it essentially immune to everything but laz cannons and you cant aford to shoot 20 at it in a game...theres too much risk youll do NOTHING.
I agree. I prefer to see MC survivable based on T rather than saves.
I'd rather the FNP upgrade change the Shield ability to 4++ and FNP when purchased. That way you still need to nova each turn to use it, you can't use FNP to prevent the nova damage, and cuts back on the shield.
Savageconvoy wrote: I really don't see how a Riptide really destroys the fluff. Tau were against building machines so large that you needed to install anti-grav generators just to stop them from collapsing under their own weight. The Riptide is just a machine that's about the size of one of their tanks, which rests on 3 tiny landing pads.
It's against the fluff because the previous fluff was that the Tau didn't build giant anime robots. Unlike the religious zealots of the Imperium the Tau have sensible engineers and build sensible weapons, a policy that does not allow large walkers. Crisis suits are Starship Troopers power armor equivalents, and fill a similar "heavy infantry" role. The Riptide, on the other hand, is way too big for that role and competes with tanks (where it loses horribly because large walkers are a stupid design choice). If GW wasn't obsessed with selling giant MCs they would have recognized that the Riptide is just an ion cannon Hammerhead with much weaker armor and buffed the ion cannon's stats.
It's against the fluff because the previous fluff was that the Tau didn't build giant anime robots.
So building Dreadnaught sized robots is fine. Building one that is only twice the size of that is going too far? The Tau were against fortress sized titans. Not against a larger crisis suit. It's not stated anywhere, if it was then it's obviously retconned.
The Crisis suits are piloted mechs. Not Power Armor. They sit in the chest and are plugged into to the suit. If anything the Crisis suits need to be made larger to support the fluff.
It's against the fluff because the previous fluff was that the Tau didn't build giant anime robots.
So building Dreadnaught sized robots is fine. Building one that is only twice the size of that is going too far? The Tau were against fortress sized titans. Not against a larger crisis suit. It's not stated anywhere, if it was then it's obviously retconned.
The Crisis suits are piloted mechs. Not Power Armor. They sit in the chest and are plugged into to the suit. If anything the Crisis suits need to be made larger to support the fluff.
I agree with most of what savage convoy said, but in terms of the making crisis suits bigger, while I think it would look cool to have enforcer crisis suits everywhere, the pilots legs actually go into a bit of the legs so they have space(edit:they are the size the fluff supports). This nullifies the need to have enforcers everywhere (even though they are super amazing awesome cool ect)
I personally think the riptide is about the right size ever since playing Titanfall. I think the crisis is too small and the broadside is probably too small too. Just looking at the size of a tau to fit inside it. Bear in mind the way the legs are articulated wouldn't allow the Tau legs to go down
It's against the fluff because the previous fluff was that the Tau didn't build giant anime robots.
So building Dreadnaught sized robots is fine. Building one that is only twice the size of that is going too far? The Tau were against fortress sized titans. Not against a larger crisis suit. It's not stated anywhere, if it was then it's obviously retconned.
The Crisis suits are piloted mechs. Not Power Armor. They sit in the chest and are plugged into to the suit. If anything the Crisis suits need to be made larger to support the fluff.
I agree with most of what savage convoy said, but in terms of the making crisis suits bigger, while I think it would look cool to have enforcer crisis suits everywhere, the pilots legs actually go into a bit of the legs so they have space(edit:they are the size the fluff supports). This nullifies the need to have enforcers everywhere (even though they are super amazing awesome cool ect)
Wait, as far as I've understood, the Tau is put into the machine in a fetus position, the head peaking above their knees?
Boniface wrote: Bear in mind the way the legs are articulated wouldn't allow the Tau legs to go down
The thing about the legs I got from a black library work, I believe it is either Fire Caste, The Greater Good, or Damocles. But it is definitely mentioned.
Also a quote from page 40 of the current tau codex:
"It is a towering battle suit, easily twice the size of the fire warrior who wears it." If we look at the models, this is reflected well, so it probably doesn't need resizing.
1. I think this ones is already a thing, though I am not sure
Commanders and suits are space marines, str. 8+ to isnta-death, they are good, but far from unstoppable god-suits the complaints seem to make them. The commander with the sensor suit and other buff mod is up there in points. Drone swarms aren't that common, or effective really, even with the improved bs. since tau seem to be army wide 3, 5 on some. Riptide = baneblade = lord of skulls = every other big thing made in recent years, bitch at one bitch at all. Skyfire isn't a huge deal unless you run flyer heavy, if not, it's just a waste of points. Outside of tournament lists, where everyone seems to be WAAC, tau are fairly balanced, unless you are min-maxing, or something similar
They are still worse at it than tactical marines, after all these guys got S6 grenades, and three marines cost less than one suit.
Its not something to rely on, its just something that's fun when it works.
Same as having a single crisis suit duke it out for three whole rounds against a necron overlord. that should NOT happen. but it did.
(though my record is the "Roomba wars" where drones bonked necron wraiths to death XD)
(Or maybe the "khorne lord assault derp" scenario where he died in a challenge against my commander? heck I got too many of such occasions, my tau are locally known as the assault tau army)
Hunam0001 wrote: I'm in the camp that Riptides should be LOWs, or an AV13 walker with jump and/or skimmer abilities.
Or both.
But then Mind-shackling, Poisoning and Gate of Eternity-ing them wouldn't be as funny (or possible).
Also if it had AV13 it would be as sturdy as the Gorkanaut, Morkanaut and the Knight-Titan. Given its role, it doesn't really need the heavy armor a walker does as its not supposed to get close enough to need armor that high. Thats one of the things the jet-pack is for. AV13 might imply it could jump into melee (which might go poorly given its initiative is 2, meaning it would be swinging at the same time as nauts. Also if it did engage it melee it likely wouldn't win against either nauts or knights , one of which has a D-Weapon, the other of which drops you to initiative 1 for any un-saved wound).
Also if they made the Riptide a LOW, they'd have to do the same for the nauts and anything else with 5 hull-points.
There are better things to take in the LOW slot than the riptide for Tau. Till FW unveils what the Tau super-heavy ground unit will be, we have to go off the notion that any LOW for the Tau that isn't a character will be a flyer.
Desubot wrote: It doesnt need AV. it just needs to be T5 so we can at least ID it with St10 and bolters will wounds on 5s instead of 6s.
Changes to EWO and FNP
T5 are you kidding me? pls look at !!every!! other MC that could be find, T6 to T8 is what you can find so no thats not gonna happen and ID such a bit 200pt modell isnt ok. I agree that the Rip does soak to much damage up but reducing the toughness isnt right, maybe invul to max 4+?
The Imperial Answer wrote: There are better things to take in the LOW slot than the riptide for Tau. Till FW unveils what the Tau super-heavy ground unit will be, we have to go off the notion that any LOW for the Tau that isn't a character will be a flyer.
Can only agree with that, Tau arnt the race which builds big walker and titans, the only really big models will be flyers/transporter or FW will break with the style tau are meant to be.
ok my bad, forgott Daemon prince, but every MC from tyras has W6, i looked the codex before i wrote that. (harpy and drude doesnt count for me cause flyers)
Again, i agree with you that the Rip holds to much damage till it falls but T5 isnt the right way. I think the extremly cheap Ion and the kombination from 2+ Armour and 3+ invulsave is the main problem.
When the ion would be 10-20pt more expensive + range to ~48" than this would be fixed + reducing the max invul from Nova to 4+
The only thing that needs a change is the cost of the Ion Accelerator on the Riptide, raise the cost and maybe edit their supporting fire to two units can overwatch instead of every unit within six inches. Other then that the Tau do not need to be nerfed in anyway shape and form, vast majority of Tau hate is overblown and overdone.
Why can't we look at what those models have and compare the durability of the models?
I'm confused. Are we looking to make the Riptide balanced or nerf it so it never gets seen again? Because that is honestly what a lot of people are suggesting.
Hunam0001 wrote: Yeah, I just meant give it an AV, and some way of sill doing the jet pack thing.
But certainly LOW slot.
In a game where:
- any Imperial player can field as many Kniggts as he feels like through the IK detachment
- any GK player can field 3 NDKs per CAD as heavy support
- any Nids player can field 2 Flyrants per CAD as HQ
R'varna (submunition) is Ap4 which is useless in an army that has so much ap4
Y'vahra is interessting, it can deal really heavy damage to vehicles and heavy infantry andi dont know why the ioncannon use its profile and the haywireeffect together. The rules are still experimentall so i think it will be changed. The flamer is a little bit to strong i think, torrent 6" is ok but heavy 2 AP2 is to much. Maybe heavy 2 AP3 but i think a flamer with AP2 could just be to extreme. The AP3 from the CSMflyer is really strong so i think better AP isnt ok.
For the rest:
THe anger from many players cause of the time of taudar is still there so we get such comments for so long and it won't change in the near future. Maybe when we will get a new codex but then they will find new thinks that are so op^^
I have to say, that some combinations from tau are really heavy and some things should be fixed/changed but the most points that are discussed here arent such a problem i think.
IMO yes, as similarly powerful units (flyrants, wraithknights, nemesis dreadknightsor Imperial Knights) don't have similar restrictions (and in case of Imperial Knights, dreadknights and flyrants it's almost a certainty they won't in the foreseeable future).
I wouldnt have a problem with this change, normally i have only one Rip on the field but most Tauplayer play more cause they go to tournaments.
If this rule is for all the strong MCs/walker/... like LordBlades mentioned it will be absolutly fine
I wouldnt have a problem with this change, normally i have only one Rip on the field but most Tauplayer play more cause they go to tournaments.
If this rule is for all the strong MCs/walker/... like LordBlades mentioned it will be absolutly fine
Oh, it definitely would be applied to the Wraithknight, Dreadknight, and Hive Tyrant. WKs and Tides are supposed to be extremely rare, the LoW slot seems highly appropriate. I could see Farsight and Shadowsun being LoW as well, but that would cause things to go a little sideways if Riptides were LoW as well.
I wouldnt have a problem with this change, normally i have only one Rip on the field but most Tauplayer play more cause they go to tournaments.
If this rule is for all the strong MCs/walker/... like LordBlades mentioned it will be absolutly fine
Oh, it definitely would be applied to the Wraithknight, Dreadknight, and Hive Tyrant. WKs and Tides are supposed to be extremely rare, the LoW slot seems highly appropriate. I could see Farsight and Shadowsun being LoW as well, but that would cause things to go a little sideways if Riptides were LoW as well.
Realistically though, the GK codex is 4 or so months old and the nids are 1 year old. GW will most likely not make such changes until they publish the next cidex, which most likely means 2-3 years minimum.
Likewise, they won't change the IK detachment until the next IK codex mor will they alter the ally matrix (which allows every Imperium faction free access to knights) until 8th edition.
Only faction 'at hand' would be Eldar, which has a pretty old Codex.
As such, I feel moving the Rpitide to LoW in the current context is a too big nerf.
I wouldnt have a problem with this change, normally i have only one Rip on the field but most Tauplayer play more cause they go to tournaments.
If this rule is for all the strong MCs/walker/... like LordBlades mentioned it will be absolutly fine
Oh, it definitely would be applied to the Wraithknight, Dreadknight, and Hive Tyrant. WKs and Tides are supposed to be extremely rare, the LoW slot seems highly appropriate. I could see Farsight and Shadowsun being LoW as well, but that would cause things to go a little sideways if Riptides were LoW as well.
Realistically though, the GK codex is 4 or so months old and the nids are 1 year old. GW will most likely not make such changes until they publish the next cidex, which most likely means 2-3 years minimum.
Likewise, they won't change the IK detachment until the next IK codex mor will they alter the ally matrix (which allows every Imperium faction free access to knights) until 8th edition.
Only faction 'at hand' would be Eldar, which has a pretty old Codex.
As such, I feel moving the Rpitide to LoW in the current context is a too big nerf.
True. Ideally it be widespread, and unfortunately it can't be applied to recent codices. And if it wouldn't affect Dreadknights and Hive Tyrants, it wouldn't be worth seeing it affect the Wraithknight and Riptide. I guess I will just have to stick with my original idea of making Riptides Walkers instead of Monstrous Creatures.
casvalremdeikun wrote: . I guess I will just have to stick with my original idea of making Riptides Walkers instead of Monstrous Creatures.
sry but that wont happen, too^^
Tau doesnt build walker, its not in their philosophy(im missing a better word for it). They doesnt build titans and heavy walker and that is the cause why they have the Rip as a MC and Krisis which are more mobile which suits the art of war tau do better.
Desubot wrote: It doesnt need AV. it just needs to be T5 so we can at least ID it with St10 and bolters will wounds on 5s instead of 6s.
Changes to EWO and FNP
T5 are you kidding me? pls look at !!every!! other MC that could be find, T6 to T8 is what you can find so no thats not gonna happen and ID such a bit 200pt modell isnt ok. I agree that the Rip does soak to much damage up but reducing the toughness isnt right, maybe invul to max 4+?
Demon Princes are T5. And ID happens a lot from things like Force weapons.
casvalremdeikun wrote: . I guess I will just have to stick with my original idea of making Riptides Walkers instead of Monstrous Creatures.
sry but that wont happen, too^^
Tau doesnt build walker, its not in their philosophy(im missing a better word for it). They doesnt build titans and heavy walker and that is the cause why they have the Rip as a MC and Krisis which are more mobile which suits the art of war tau do better.
how precisely is a giant suit of robotic armor with a pilot NOT a walker?
casvalremdeikun wrote: . I guess I will just have to stick with my original idea of making Riptides Walkers instead of Monstrous Creatures.
sry but that wont happen, too^^
Tau doesnt build walker, its not in their philosophy(im missing a better word for it). They doesnt build titans and heavy walker and that is the cause why they have the Rip as a MC and Krisis which are more mobile which suits the art of war tau do better.
how precisely is a giant suit of robotic armor with a pilot NOT a walker?
Its a monstroes creature and no walker, easy^^
i know what you want to say but then dreadknight and toe same have to be walker to
@rigeld2:
pls read my post after this, there i wrote that i forgott DPs and they are the only ones with T5.
That forceweapons cause instant death is ok cause its for everyone and not cause of the miserable toughness that would degrade a MC
casvalremdeikun wrote: . I guess I will just have to stick with my original idea of making Riptides Walkers instead of Monstrous Creatures.
sry but that wont happen, too^^
Tau doesnt build walker, its not in their philosophy(im missing a better word for it). They doesnt build titans and heavy walker and that is the cause why they have the Rip as a MC and Krisis which are more mobile which suits the art of war tau do better.
how precisely is a giant suit of robotic armor with a pilot NOT a walker?
From a fluff stand point:
Some walkers are piloted with physical action from the pilot (like Sentinels or Dreadknights) while others are controlled directly by the pilot's mind (Dreadnoughts, Tau suits, Eldar Wraithstuff). It can be argued that the latter have more in common with MCs than with traditional 'manned' walkers. IIRC there is a mention that Tau suit pilots 'feel' the suit like their own body (a pilot who got his suit's arm blown off for example will be temporary unable to use his own arm after disembarking as his body 'thinks' he lost the arm).
Also, Tau and Eldar walkers are drastically more agile than Imperium walkers and since MCs lack many of the walker mobility limitations makimg some walkers MCs was a decent way to reflect this.
casvalremdeikun wrote: how precisely is a giant suit of robotic armor with a pilot NOT a walker?
Stop trying to make sense of this. It doesn't. There's examples on both sides that contradict the standard idea behind what is and is not a walker.
Dreadknight: MC instead of a walker
Wraithknitght: MC. Wraithlords are MC and the titans are superheavy walkers not GC.
Broadside: T4 infantry while a Dreadnaught is a walker and similar in size.
Centurions: How are they not walkers? Robotic armor with a pilot.
Helbrute: Clearly more demon than machine yet it's a walker
Forge/Maulerfiends: Walkers despite being mostly demonic entities
I'm sure there are more examples. Easiest way I can look at it is just to try and imagine it as (x) unit +1. Crisis suit is infantry so a larger one is a MC. Wraithguard are infantry WK is MC. Terminator is infantry so the Dreadknight is a MC.
xsharkmanx wrote: @rigeld2:
pls read my post after this, there i wrote that i forgott DPs and they are the only ones with T5.
That forceweapons cause instant death is ok cause its for everyone and not cause of the miserable toughness that would degrade a MC
You also handwaved away Harpies and Crones for no good reason... 2+ save with a 5+ invul is better than snapshots with a 4+ save.
But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it.
Pls read my post correct, i wrote that the flying tyraMCs arent the same thing for me cause they are flying. That is a strong devense because only few troops can harm them effecktiv from the start. That point makes it for the one toughness less. And if you say 2+/5+ then the dreadknight is the same^^
And what are crones? dont know what you mean.
I dont want to fight and be so passive aggressiv like your last sentence implies but if someone writes something like this, i do feel attacked. And when i dont know the one and only MC with T5 that does not fly, my bad, im not allmighty^^
casvalremdeikun wrote: how precisely is a giant suit of robotic armor with a pilot NOT a walker?
Stop trying to make sense of this. It doesn't. There's examples on both sides that contradict the standard idea behind what is and is not a walker.
Dreadknight: MC instead of a walker
Wraithknitght: MC. Wraithlords are MC and the titans are superheavy walkers not GC.
Broadside: T4 infantry while a Dreadnaught is a walker and similar in size.
Centurions: How are they not walkers? Robotic armor with a pilot.
Helbrute: Clearly more demon than machine yet it's a walker
Forge/Maulerfiends: Walkers despite being mostly demonic entities
I'm sure there are more examples. Easiest way I can look at it is just to try and imagine it as (x) unit +1. Crisis suit is infantry so a larger one is a MC. Wraithguard are infantry WK is MC. Terminator is infantry so the Dreadknight is a MC.
There was a debate on this in the background section. In the lore:
-the riptide is described as being "worn" just like any other battle-suit.
-broadside is the same as above.
-dreadknight is basically a giant armor.
-the wraith-knight is grown out of wraith-bone and isn't entirely mechanical.
-centurions are just a giant suit of armor also, kind of like terminator or power-armor.
-the fiend daemon engines are daemons operating a large mechanical body, just like a defiler or decimator.
-the brute raises an interesting point, but that's just a mad-man wired into a dreadnought. Also you can have constructs that are entirely daemon yet still walkers, such as the soul grinder.
xsharkmanx wrote: Pls read my post correct, i wrote that the flying tyraMCs arent the same thing for me cause they are flying. That is a strong devense because only few troops can harm them effecktiv from the start. That point makes it for the one toughness less. And if you say 2+/5+ then the dreadknight is the same^^
Not the same. The Riptide is more mobile and more of a threat in general. Dreadknight's are strong, but Riptides are better.
Chance of a BS4 Autocannon hurting a Riptide with T5:
2 shots, 1.34 hit, 1.13 wounds, .18 wounds after saves.
Chance of a BS4 Autocannon hurting a Harpy:
2 shots, .32 hit, .27 wounds, no save allowed (.13 if it Jinks).
Very similar survival-wise. Even when you compare Lascannons it's .19 wounds on a Riptide and .13 wounds on a Harpy (.07 if it Jinks).
And what are crones? dont know what you mean.
Hive Crone. Tyranid MC. Similar to a Harpy.
I dont want to fight and be so passive aggressiv like your last sentence implies but if someone writes something like this, i do feel attacked. And when i dont know the one and only MC with T5 that does not fly, my bad, im not allmighty^^
If you're not sure if you know all of them, don't make absolute statements like you did.
xsharkmanx wrote: @rigeld2:
pls read my post after this, there i wrote that i forgott DPs and they are the only ones with T5.
That forceweapons cause instant death is ok cause its for everyone and not cause of the miserable toughness that would degrade a MC
You also handwaved away Harpies and Crones for no good reason... 2+ save with a 5+ invul is better than snapshots with a 4+ save.
But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it.
So FMC or things that have access to wings are T5, while ground MC tend to have higher T? Or at least things that have access to wings.
I don't think the DP are a good point to focus on though. I thought they were generally considered to have a bad statline when they were introduced, with upgrades that really force it into very standard roles. Mostly being pysker with wings.
Chance of a BS4 Autocannon hurting a Harpy:
2 shots, .32 hit, .27 wounds, no save allowed (.13 if it Jinks).
Did they fix the rule for cover saves with FMC? Have to admit I'm not familiar with 7th's official cover rulings at the moment. But I remember that most FMC were still low to the ground and easily able to hide behind terrain pieces. When they had area terrain still (I know it's gone now except craters) they had the ability to just put the base in them and still get the saves.
@ rigeld2
Im really bemused by your posts^^
We can compare flying and no flying MCs and than we can compare ants and elephants. Both are animals but if you want that an ant is moving a fallen tree than you will have a hard time.
Sry for this but flying MCs are something complete different for me and these two cost 135/155 and not 185 like the Rip.
Rips survive to much, i agree but reducing T6 to T5 isnt the way.
And i can take my question from above back, i told you that i see flying TyrantMCs different and english isnt my main so i didnt know that the schwarmdrude is hyvecrons in english so no error from me.
If you watn to compare rip with W5 and a harpye than pls take a Wraithknight and a Dreadknight, too. And if you are at it, consider to look at all the other MCs (with lifepoints!). if you can show the results for every one that way so that we can compare every then we can talk again about it^^
xsharkmanx wrote: @rigeld2:
pls read my post after this, there i wrote that i forgott DPs and they are the only ones with T5.
That forceweapons cause instant death is ok cause its for everyone and not cause of the miserable toughness that would degrade a MC
You also handwaved away Harpies and Crones for no good reason... 2+ save with a 5+ invul is better than snapshots with a 4+ save.
But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it.
So FMC or things that have access to wings are T5, while ground MC tend to have higher T? Or at least things that have access to wings.
I don't think the DP are a good point to focus on though. I thought they were generally considered to have a bad statline when they were introduced, with upgrades that really force it into very standard roles. Mostly being pysker with wings.
While that might be true, that's not what he originally said at all. And even with T5 the Riptide is tremendously survivable.
Chance of a BS4 Autocannon hurting a Harpy:
2 shots, .32 hit, .27 wounds, no save allowed (.13 if it Jinks).
Did they fix the rule for cover saves with FMC? Have to admit I'm not familiar with 7th's official cover rulings at the moment. But I remember that most FMC were still low to the ground and easily able to hide behind terrain pieces. When they had area terrain still (I know it's gone now except craters) they had the ability to just put the base in them and still get the saves.
Sure. So give the Riptide a 4+ cover save from Ruins
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xsharkmanx wrote: @ rigeld2
Im really bemused by your posts^^
We can compare flying and no flying MCs and than we can compare ants and elephants. Both are animals but if you want that an ant is moving a fallen tree than you will have a hard time.
Sry for this but flying MCs are something complete different for me and these two cost 135/155 and not 185 like the Rip.
Rips survive to much, i agree but reducing T6 to T5 isnt the way.
If you refuse to consider Flying MCs then there's no real discussion to be had. But it's not because they're ants and elephants - it's because you refuse to consider them.
Flying is just another method of survivability. Ignoring it is about the same as ignoring invul saves. Sure, they cost less - but they're far less effective and survivable.
If you watn to compare rip with W5 and a harpye than pls take a Wraithknight and a Dreadknight, too. And if you are at it, consider to look at all the other MCs (with lifepoints!). if you can show the results for every one that way so that we can compare every then we can talk again about it^^
The discussion wasn't about Wraithknight's and Dreadknights. To elaborate, the WK has a 3+ save and no invul. Dreadknights aren't as maneuverable (even with the Teleporter) nor generally effective.
xsharkmanx wrote: @ rigeld2
Im really bemused by your posts^^
We can compare flying and no flying MCs and than we can compare ants and elephants. Both are animals but if you want that an ant is moving a fallen tree than you will have a hard time.
Sry for this but flying MCs are something complete different for me and these two cost 135/155 and not 185 like the Rip.
Rips survive to much, i agree but reducing T6 to T5 isnt the way.
If you refuse to consider Flying MCs then there's no real discussion to be had. But it's not because they're ants and elephants - it's because you refuse to consider them.
Flying is just another method of survivability. Ignoring it is about the same as ignoring invul saves. Sure, they cost less - but they're far less effective and survivable.
If you watn to compare rip with W5 and a harpye than pls take a Wraithknight and a Dreadknight, too. And if you are at it, consider to look at all the other MCs (with lifepoints!). if you can show the results for every one that way so that we can compare every then we can talk again about it^^
The discussion wasn't about Wraithknight's and Dreadknights. To elaborate, the WK has a 3+ save and no invul. Dreadknights aren't as maneuverable (even with the Teleporter) nor generally effective.
I dont refuse to say Flying MCs ARE MCs because they are but for me they are two different types. Both have their pros/cons, tasks to do,... but a flying MC cant have the same toughness cause it have to fly! eagles and so are light animals for example and i know that not everything in 40k is ok but to go a little bit like the rules in nature flying mcs will never have the same toughness like Mcs on the ground. That said and saying that the daemon prince is a poor dog it won't be ok if the toughness of the rip to 5. The cronos and Talos from dark eldar have T7 and they are way more fragile then Rips.
And ok the discussion wasnt about wraithknight and dreadknight but when you go and take some MCs for comparison then why am i not allowed to do it too?
In this case i can give the Sentence from you that you wrote to me earlier to you back:
"But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it. "
rigeld2 wrote: And even with T5 the Riptide is tremendously survivable.
Making it about 17% more susceptible to plasma and autocannons. IDable from Smash, Orbital Bombardment, WK base attacks, and more. Still loaded with weapons that get hot and 1/3 chance to wound itself. Just as tough as a marine on a bike or Centurion.
So you want to make a MC with drawbacks that most ground based MC don't suffer from? That doesn't sound tremendously survivable at all.
xsharkmanx wrote: @ rigeld2
Im really bemused by your posts^^
We can compare flying and no flying MCs and than we can compare ants and elephants. Both are animals but if you want that an ant is moving a fallen tree than you will have a hard time.
Sry for this but flying MCs are something complete different for me and these two cost 135/155 and not 185 like the Rip.
Rips survive to much, i agree but reducing T6 to T5 isnt the way.
If you refuse to consider Flying MCs then there's no real discussion to be had. But it's not because they're ants and elephants - it's because you refuse to consider them.
Flying is just another method of survivability. Ignoring it is about the same as ignoring invul saves. Sure, they cost less - but they're far less effective and survivable.
If you watn to compare rip with W5 and a harpye than pls take a Wraithknight and a Dreadknight, too. And if you are at it, consider to look at all the other MCs (with lifepoints!). if you can show the results for every one that way so that we can compare every then we can talk again about it^^
The discussion wasn't about Wraithknight's and Dreadknights. To elaborate, the WK has a 3+ save and no invul. Dreadknights aren't as maneuverable (even with the Teleporter) nor generally effective.
I dont refuse to say Flying MCs ARE MCs because they are but for me they are two different types. Both have their pros/cons, tasks to do,... but a flying MC cant have the same toughness cause it have to fly! eagles and so are light animals for example and i know that not everything in 40k is ok but to go a little bit like the rules in nature flying mcs will never have the same toughness like Mcs on the ground. That said and saying that the daemon prince is a poor dog it won't be ok if the toughness of the rip to 5. The cronos and Talos from dark eldar have T7 and they are way more fragile then Rips.
And ok the discussion wasnt about wraithknight and dreadknight but when you go and take some MCs for comparison then why am i not allowed to do it too?
In this case i can give the Sentence from you that you wrote to me earlier to you back:
"But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it. "
Flying is literally just more maneuverability and more survivability. Agreed?
Survivability comes down to "How much damage can X model take from Y weapon on average?" Agreed?
Maneuverability comes down to "How far does this model move, and is any of that movement restricted in any way?" Agreed?
Just making sure we're discussing the same thing here. And if you'll note - I addressed *why* the Wraithknight and Dreadknight don't need to have their toughness changed in my opinion. So I didn't ignore them. I'm not handwaving them. I've addressed them.
You continue to handwave/ignore FMCs for no reason.
xsharkmanx wrote: @ rigeld2
Im really bemused by your posts^^
We can compare flying and no flying MCs and than we can compare ants and elephants. Both are animals but if you want that an ant is moving a fallen tree than you will have a hard time.
Sry for this but flying MCs are something complete different for me and these two cost 135/155 and not 185 like the Rip.
Rips survive to much, i agree but reducing T6 to T5 isnt the way.
If you refuse to consider Flying MCs then there's no real discussion to be had. But it's not because they're ants and elephants - it's because you refuse to consider them.
Flying is just another method of survivability. Ignoring it is about the same as ignoring invul saves. Sure, they cost less - but they're far less effective and survivable.
If you watn to compare rip with W5 and a harpye than pls take a Wraithknight and a Dreadknight, too. And if you are at it, consider to look at all the other MCs (with lifepoints!). if you can show the results for every one that way so that we can compare every then we can talk again about it^^
The discussion wasn't about Wraithknight's and Dreadknights. To elaborate, the WK has a 3+ save and no invul. Dreadknights aren't as maneuverable (even with the Teleporter) nor generally effective.
I dont refuse to say Flying MCs ARE MCs because they are but for me they are two different types. Both have their pros/cons, tasks to do,... but a flying MC cant have the same toughness cause it have to fly! eagles and so are light animals for example and i know that not everything in 40k is ok but to go a little bit like the rules in nature flying mcs will never have the same toughness like Mcs on the ground. That said and saying that the daemon prince is a poor dog it won't be ok if the toughness of the rip to 5. The cronos and Talos from dark eldar have T7 and they are way more fragile then Rips.
And ok the discussion wasnt about wraithknight and dreadknight but when you go and take some MCs for comparison then why am i not allowed to do it too?
In this case i can give the Sentence from you that you wrote to me earlier to you back:
"But it's okay - it doesn't help you prove your point so it's okay to ignore it. "
Dude, you are literally saying AND acknowledging in the same sentence that you are approaching FMC and MC with a double standard. How are we to take you seriously at that point?
Totalwar1402 wrote: IMO the Tau codex is class because unlike a lot of codexes it allows you to take an army that's very reflective of what an actual tau empire army would look like (ie lots of battlesuits) unlike the likes of Eldar where you have nothing but wave serpants. However, as a tau player, I think some things need to change.
1. Make Shadowsun and Farsight Lords of War to prevent them being used in the same game. Or create a rule preventing such a team up ever happening. If he has the Dawnblade, Farsight is always a traitor and would never fight alongside shadowsun or Aun Va.
2. Make it so that only commanders can take buff upgrades and so that they can only have one active at a time. Reduce the amount of upgrade slots they have.
3. Get rid of the drone controller to prevent abusive bs5 markerlight drone swarms. This means the army must rely on lower bs units for its markerlights.
4. Riptides price should remain the same. But, they and also all other battlesuits including broadsides should be prevented from taking intercept and skyfire upgrades. This AA role should be purely given out to the skyrays and tau aircraft. Its simply broken to give main frontline units cheap access to AA and anti flanking weaponry, especially because it directly counters many of the deployment strategies used to counter shooting armies.
The main point though is I think a lot of the problems with tau stem from the buffs and the equipment section rather than the units or weapon profiles themselves.
Honestly after gutting them in the way you suggest why not just remove the army?
Retcon them out of 40k entirely?
How about just take out riptides and make them use the older codex.
@ rigeld2
and again im amused^^
we are clearly talking about the same definitions but pls take in you rconsideration that these flying monsters kost a lot less and are a lot more mobile.
What "Savageconvoy" wrote is absolutly correct, MCs on the ground will get more fire pointed at them than fliying ones and plasmas are the most common option to do the job. a 2+ wound for a gun that needs the same for little bikes/centurions/... no thx, that is no relation.
And i dont ignore FMCs but i see them other then you but ok lets take them to the consideration because you are asking so politly...... So look at the costs and we can talk again if you want to have harpy and rips to have same toughness... And something to add: you dont shoot plasma so often at FMC because its you wont hit them with single shots but its possible that you kill yourself. And another point: FMCs can choose where they want to be with there massive moverange so they can avoid threads much better.
The wraithknight has 3+ ok but a toughness 8 makes nearly all weapons less dangerous to wound (plasma on a 5!) and you should not ignore his 6 lifepoints. The dreadknight is more mobile with a 30" jump. HIs 12" jumps after that are the same cause rips jump 6" and then 2W6 which is 6,5" so Rips jump 0,5" more a turn... The other side of both MCs against the rip is, that both are absolute great in close combat. They have other tasks to do and are more flexible/can do shooting and cc but the rip is only for shooting and is there better but can do nearly nothing in cc.
so its your turn again
@Quickjager
I say that both are MCs but cause of the difference that ones are flying and the other are not these two TYPES are a little bit different so i take them as two different parts of the whole number of MCs. Flying MCs have many big differences to normal MCs and thats why i watch them this way.
rigeld2 wrote: And even with T5 the Riptide is tremendously survivable.
Making it about 17% more susceptible to plasma and autocannons. IDable from Smash, Orbital Bombardment, WK base attacks, and more. Still loaded with weapons that get hot and 1/3 chance to wound itself. Just as tough as a marine on a bike or Centurion.
So you want to make a MC with drawbacks that most ground based MC don't suffer from? That doesn't sound tremendously survivable at all.
Making it worth to take the risk of novacharging for that 3+ instead of just ignoring it 9 out of 10 times, because it isn´t needed at all. On top of that he has a 60" range with the IA which means that most of the stuff you said will propably never reach him.
Making it worth to take the risk of novacharging for that 3+ instead of just ignoring it 9 out of 10 times, because it isn´t needed at all. On top of that he has a 60" range with the IA which means that most of the stuff you said will propably never reach him.
That's not a good thing though. Forcing the decision to choose the shield above the others or else it's as easy to wound with plasma as any infantry model will result in the same problem as we currently have. You'll only see the IA used because it'd be too risky to use the shorter range HBC and would be impossible to nova for fear of wounds or not picking the shield.
Base Riptide with a HBC is fine. IA is a problem and too many people have the answer of "If you just throw the Riptide in the trash then you don't have to worry about the IA"
xsharkmanx wrote: @ rigeld2
and again im amused^^
we are clearly talking about the same definitions but pls take in you rconsideration that these flying monsters kost a lot less and are a lot more mobile.
They're not that much mobile. They move between 12 and 24" a turn but can only turn 90 degrees. A Riptide moves between 13 and 18 inches a turn, the majority of that in the Assault phase, and can move in any direction it wishes.
What "Savageconvoy" wrote is absolutly correct, MCs on the ground will get more fire pointed at them than fliying ones and plasmas are the most common option to do the job. a 2+ wound for a gun that needs the same for little bikes/centurions/... no thx, that is no relation.
Why are you bringing bikes and Centurions into it now? Nurgle bikers are T6 - are they relevant? Chapter Masters on bikes are 2+/3++/6+++ (usually) - are they relevant?
It's an MC with drawbacks that most ground-based MCs don't suffer from, but it also has huge advantages that most ground based MCs don't have. Like the assault move. Like the weapon selection.
And i dont ignore FMCs but i see them other then you but ok lets take them to the consideration because you are asking so politly...... So look at the costs and we can talk again if you want to have harpy and rips to have same toughness... And something to add: you dont shoot plasma so often at FMC because its you wont hit them with single shots but its possible that you kill yourself. And another point: FMCs can choose where they want to be with there massive moverange so they can avoid threads much better.
Yeah, FMCs are never on the ground - they're never needed to score, ever. </sarcasm>
FMCs aren't any more maneuverable than a Riptide. They have more available movement distance, but it's severely limited in application (can't ever move backwards). They also can't JSJ.
And plasma is fired at my Flyrants all the time. 1/6 chance to hit, 1/18 chance to lose the model. Hmmmm...
The wraithknight has 3+ ok but a toughness 8 makes nearly all weapons less dangerous to wound (plasma on a 5!) and you should not ignore his 6 lifepoints.
One more wound than a Riptide? Okay, we'll also take into account that the Riptide has more wounds than a Carnifex. Or a Demon Prince. Or many other ground based MCs.
The dreadknight is more mobile with a 30" jump. HIs 12" jumps after that are the same cause rips jump 6" and then 2W6 which is 6,5" so Rips jump 0,5" more a turn...
The Dreadknight has a single 30" shunt. It's not significantly more mobile - the fact that JSJ is a thing is a massive advantage for Riptides.
The other side of both MCs against the rip is, that both are absolute great in close combat. They have other tasks to do and are more flexible/can do shooting and cc but the rip is only for shooting and is there better but can do nearly nothing in cc.
Showing your bias again - the Riptide is actually decent in CC unless you're fighting dedicated CC units (and sometimes even then). Hit on a 4+ and ignore armor, with S6. DKs hit on a - what's that? 4+? And ignore armor? ohwait.
Riptides aren't amazing in CC, but saying they "can do nearly nothing" is a flat out lie.
You clearly overestimate the performance of the existent FMCs in the game.
Making it worth to take the risk of novacharging for that 3+ instead of just ignoring it 9 out of 10 times, because it isn´t needed at all. On top of that he has a 60" range with the IA which means that most of the stuff you said will propably never reach him.
That's not a good thing though. Forcing the decision to choose the shield above the others or else it's as easy to wound with plasma as any infantry model will result in the same problem as we currently have. You'll only see the IA used because it'd be too risky to use the shorter range HBC and would be impossible to nova for fear of wounds or not picking the shield.
Base Riptide with a HBC is fine. IA is a problem and too many people have the answer of "If you just throw the Riptide in the trash then you don't have to worry about the IA"
The decision isn't to choose the shield above all others - it makes the shield a viable choice because there's a situation that warrants it.
Right now, there isn't. And it's not 17% more likely to wound.
Chance for a wound from a BS4 Rapid Fire plasma gun on a T6 Riptide:
2 shots, 1.34 hits, .9 wounds, .3 wounds after invul (ignoring FNP for now)
T5 Riptide:
2 shots, 1.34 hits, 1.12 wounds, .38 wounds after invul (ignoring FNP for now)
On average, it'll increase wounds take per Plasma Gun by .08. You're seriously over-exaggerating the effectiveness of plasma to say that lowering the toughness by one is "throwing the Riptide in the trash".
Oh, and the Autocannon is even smaller - T6 is .14 wounds after armor saves, T5 is .18. ZOMGITSTRASHNAO.
The major difference between T5 and T6 is the ability to ID.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: @rigeld2 wk comes with a 5+ sparkling shield IIRC Edit: woops forgot to refresh before posting.
Correct - I'd forgotten. Most people don't keep that shield though, IME.
I've managed to burn CSM players relying on helldrakes to kill my BA by getting into HTH before he can really cripple me. No such luck with Riptides that start on the table, have basically infinite range and point to marine units and have me pick them up. Playing against Riptides sucks. They are far more effective than FMC, especially now that FMC have to land first, then assault. That gives me the chance to react a bit.
Desubot wrote: It doesnt need AV. it just needs to be T5 so we can at least ID it with St10 and bolters will wounds on 5s instead of 6s.
Changes to EWO and FNP
T5 are you kidding me? pls look at !!every!! other MC that could be find, T6 to T8 is what you can find so no thats not gonna happen and ID such a bit 200pt modell isnt ok. I agree that the Rip does soak to much damage up but reducing the toughness isnt right, maybe invul to max 4+?
The Imperial Answer wrote: There are better things to take in the LOW slot than the riptide for Tau. Till FW unveils what the Tau super-heavy ground unit will be, we have to go off the notion that any LOW for the Tau that isn't a character will be a flyer.
Can only agree with that, Tau arnt the race which builds big walker and titans, the only really big models will be flyers/transporter or FW will break with the style tau are meant to be.
The major difference between T5 and T6 is the ability to ID.
You're not mentioning that Bolters now cause 2x the amount of wounds as before. Heavy Bolters will wound on 4+. Most common weapons will be wounding it more often. In CC it has an already bigger disadvantage to other MC, since it can be ID'd by others and has terrible combat abilities on top of not having fearless or any LD buffs. Reducing T is a huge drawback and I think you're really understating it.
Lets look at bolters
Against T5 it should take about 135 bolter shots to deal 5 unsaved wounds.
At T6 it takes about 270 bolter shots to deal the same number of unsaved wounds.
That is a significant drop in it's resilience to standard infantry weapons.
Martel732 wrote: I've managed to burn CSM players relying on helldrakes to kill my BA by getting into HTH before he can really cripple me. No such luck with Riptides that start on the table, have basically infinite range and point to marine units and have me pick them up. Playing against Riptides sucks. They are far more effective than FMC, especially now that FMC have to land first, then assault. That gives me the chance to react a bit.
Were these IA Riptides or HBC Riptides? I don't think anyone defends the IA as is. Many of the pro-Riptide people even say that it needs to be nerfed.
The major difference between T5 and T6 is the ability to ID.
You're not mentioning that Bolters now cause 2x the amount of wounds as before. Heavy Bolters will wound on 4+. Most common weapons will be wounding it more often. In CC it has an already bigger disadvantage to other MC, since it can be ID'd by others and has terrible combat abilities on top of not having fearless or any LD buffs. Reducing T is a huge drawback and I think you're really understating it.
Let's be clear - it can only (currently) be ID'd by Force weapons. It doesn't have terrible combat abilities - at least no worse than many other MCs. Its WS is 1 worse than most TMCs. That one difference doesn't matter even a little bit until your opponent is WS5+ - like I said.
Not being Fearless only matters if you lose combat. Full Tac Squad throwing Grenades - 10 attacks, 6.7 hits, 4.49 wounds, less than one wound gets through armor (at T5). 3 attacks back, 1.5 hit, 1.2 wounds, no armor save. Why is your leadership relevant? And that's if they catch you - with an average movement ~7" higher than a Tac Squad it should be difficult for that to happen.
And it should be more vulnerable in CC since it's designed and even in this thread defended as a shooting platform.
Lets look at bolters
Against T5 it should take about 135 bolter shots to deal 5 unsaved wounds.
At T6 it takes about 270 bolter shots to deal the same number of unsaved wounds.
That is a significant drop in it's resilience to standard infantry weapons.
Yup. What a shame. It's less survivable. Yes, it's more than just more vulnerable to ID - I assumed that the vulnerability to small arms increasing was a given and that I wouldnt've have to go into that.
It really only changes for S4-S7 weapons - it means that more than just anti-tank weapons will fire at the Riptide. And that's not a bad thing.
Always the "into the trash" mentality for fixing a problem.
I suggested it several pages ago and I still stand by it. Swap Ion Accelerator and Ion Cannons. Buffs Hammerheads a bit, and puts the bad gun a more fragile unit (shaken/stun and such) while also nerfing the Riptide. Let it keep the Nova profile for the weapon.
Make it toughness 5 and it'll never see the table. I assume that's what some people want though. Because it will be treated like a vindicator tank. Turn 1 the mandatory S10 weapon will shoot and likely ID it.
That makes the model pointless. If it gets a T nerf the. The cost has to come down to ~120-150 at least because it'll be at best a distraction and likely the first blood option when facing Tau.
Now I'm obviously being fairly silly in that assumption but I can totally see it falling into that role.
Just as a matter of curiosity I wonder how many vindicator tanks get taken. I bet it isn't many.
I honestly think that the riptide is one of the better upgrades for Tau in this edition.
It actually gives us a decent ranged weapon (still not saying it isn't underpriced) on a mobile platform.
I mention the mobile bit because people bitched something chronic about gun lines.
People seriously need to stop telling Tau players it's unfair to have a new model. By all means change the cost and tweak some details but dropping it to T5 is just making it irrelevant IMO.
I hardly think it's the worst thing in the game.
Boniface wrote: Make it toughness 5 and it'll never see the table. I assume that's what some people want though. Because it will be treated like a vindicator tank. Turn 1 the mandatory S10 weapon will shoot and likely ID it.
That's simply not true. Many armies don't have access to a S10 weapon, and even then there won't be enough to "likely ID it."
That makes the model pointless. If it gets a T nerf the. The cost has to come down to ~120-150 at least because it'll be at best a distraction and likely the first blood option when facing Tau.
There are still many things easier to kill than a T5 Riptide.
Just as a matter of curiosity I wonder how many vindicator tanks get taken. I bet it isn't many.
How many Riptides have a 24" range and can only move 6" and have a 45 degree arc of fire? It's silly to compare the two.
I mention the mobile bit because people bitched something chronic about gun lines.
People seriously need to stop telling Tau players it's unfair to have a new model. By all means change the cost and tweak some details but dropping it to T5 is just making it irrelevant IMO.
I hardly think it's the worst thing in the game.
I never said it's the worst thing in the game. And it doesn't make it irrelevant.
Savageconvoy wrote: So do you think that will fix the problem?
If you drop it to T5 then you're just ensuring that people would only take the IA and stay at range.
So it'd be different from now... how?
OH! It'd be easier to kill! Gotcha!
(hint, that's literally all I've been saying. Thanks for finally agreeing with me!)
The major difference between T5 and T6 is the ability to ID.
You're not mentioning that Bolters now cause 2x the amount of wounds as before. Heavy Bolters will wound on 4+. Most common weapons will be wounding it more often. In CC it has an already bigger disadvantage to other MC, since it can be ID'd by others and has terrible combat abilities on top of not having fearless or any LD buffs. Reducing T is a huge drawback and I think you're really understating it.
Lets look at bolters
Against T5 it should take about 135 bolter shots to deal 5 unsaved wounds.
At T6 it takes about 270 bolter shots to deal the same number of unsaved wounds.
That is a significant drop in it's resilience to standard infantry weapons.
Martel732 wrote: I've managed to burn CSM players relying on helldrakes to kill my BA by getting into HTH before he can really cripple me. No such luck with Riptides that start on the table, have basically infinite range and point to marine units and have me pick them up. Playing against Riptides sucks. They are far more effective than FMC, especially now that FMC have to land first, then assault. That gives me the chance to react a bit.
Were these IA Riptides or HBC Riptides? I don't think anyone defends the IA as is. Many of the pro-Riptide people even say that it needs to be nerfed.
IA, of course. All toughness arguments, etc, don't mean much to me compared to the IA. If the thing can't melt entire squads unfailingly, the other details become secondary to me.
Wait whats wrong with bolters being able to hurt it easier??
40% of the complaints was that it was too tough and can never die
while the other 60% was about the IA
Having bolters in that range in the first place means something has horribly gone wrong already and besides you still have a 2+ so its not even remotely game breaking
OH! It'd be easier to kill! Gotcha!
(hint, that's literally all I've been saying. Thanks for finally agreeing with me!)
And you're making the HBC and base Riptide worse when it's not really a problem which is what I've been trying to say. HBC Riptide for it's cost is a fun model and not at all bad. It's fairly balanced against the Dreadknight pre-update in terms of cost/durability.
Have I ever said the IA is fine as it is? No. I just don't like the idea of trying to fix a single gun and making the alternate load out almost useless.
Rips can fire a 60" range
Bump up shields to 3++
can benefit from cover better
and besides the world luckiest orbital bombardment shot, most ST10 things are at best 24" or less.
It adds actual play element into a point and click army.
Damnit you ninja!!!!!!
Also i play tau and i have no issue with T5.
Considering that Tau don't really have guns with a strength below 5, Tau not having trouble dealing with T5 doesn't mean much.
I'll just say that T5 Riptides could make us see more Railgun Hammerheads. 37% chance to ID a Riptide with the 5++, goes down to 18.5% if it has the 3++. Not bad odds if you're going for an alpha strike First Blood whilst also reducing quite a bit of your opponents ranged firepower.
Considering that Tau don't really have guns with a strength below 5, Tau not having trouble dealing with T5 doesn't mean much.
I'll just say that T5 Riptides could make us see more Railgun Hammerheads. 37% chance to ID a Riptide with the 5++, goes down to 18.5% if it has the 3++. Not bad odds if you're going for an alpha strike First Blood whilst also reducing quite a bit of your opponents ranged firepower.
blerh i ment i have no issue with riptides being T5
Considering that Tau don't really have guns with a strength below 5, Tau not having trouble dealing with T5 doesn't mean much.
I'll just say that T5 Riptides could make us see more Railgun Hammerheads. 37% chance to ID a Riptide with the 5++, goes down to 18.5% if it has the 3++. Not bad odds if you're going for an alpha strike First Blood whilst also reducing quite a bit of your opponents ranged firepower.
blerh i ment i have no issue with riptides being T5
The only thing that needs to be changed about the Tau is the cost of the Ion accelerator, raise it to 15-20pts. more Other then the other complaints:
-The Riptide is not to tough to kill, there is plenty in the game that can take it down and just like many other MC's in the game you do it the same way.
-The complaints in regards to Marker Lights are also overdone. If you are having trouble dealing with T3 and T4 models with a 4+ or 5+ save then then you may want to look at your army. Also if they take to many Marker Lights it means their army as a whole will struggle, they can only Laze one target and they are not the only army that has something that ignores cover. That and the points add up for said squads of pathfinders and markerlight drones very quickly.
-The whole "it can improve its save, weapons ect." due to the Generator, guess what it can hurt itself 1/3 of the time not making it as reliable as people make it out to be.
-How the Riptide is undercosted, what is continually failed to be pointed out is that in order to give it its abilities like interceptor, feel no pain ect. you have to pay a pretty decent amount of points with the more optimal builds making it on par as a Wraithknight in regards to points cost.
Overall I think the Tau are still to this day getting an unfair rap and they don't nearly deserve the hate that people make them out to be. A lot of the issues that I have seen and heard can be related to peoples misconceptions and fallout from 6th edition.
-How the Riptide is undercosted, what is continually failed to be pointed out is that in order to give it its abilities like interceptor, feel no pain ect. you have to pay a pretty decent amount of points with the more optimal builds making it on par as a Wraithknight in regards to points cost.
It was pointed out quite early on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Imperial Answer wrote: Always wondered how a Riptide didn't destroy itself given all of its weapons have "Gets Hot!" when over-charged
Marker light bump, eldar divination when it was a thing, attached hq with twinlink when it was a thing, and ammo dumps. (i think there was a way to get it PE as well but i dont recall)
-How the Riptide is undercosted, what is continually failed to be pointed out is that in order to give it its abilities like interceptor, feel no pain ect. you have to pay a pretty decent amount of points with the more optimal builds making it on par as a Wraithknight in regards to points cost.
It was pointed out quite early on.
Ah must have missed that, at work on my phone so a little distracted I must admit
A lot of people have been complaining about the riptide's toughness, and how hard it is too kill.
I don't have a normal riptide, but I do have a Y'vahara version (I know I'm such a dick, please move on)
Now the Y'vahara only has 4 wounds with a 5++ and 4++ within 12", and I have consistently had it die to one unit's small arms fire each time I've played(that said, its not hit the table much)
So my point is, while reducing a riptide to T5 isn't as drastic as what they did to the Y'vahara, it would make it less survivable, and a less viable option, and the mob would go yay! Now we can just roftl stomp tau!!! So my final point is, just generally giving armies the nerf bat when there's something you don't like is a gak way of going about things, if you'll pardon my French.
Bharring wrote: I can shoot my entire SM army at it, and do maybe 2 wounds.
Most anti-tank can't chew through 5hp.
Most anti-MC can't touch a 2+.
Its the sweet spot of 'FU' to a TAC list.
Have you ever heard of Grav Guns or Grav Cannons? They are the instant FU and counter to Riptides and allow Marine armies to have a very easy counter to the Riptide. Also in regards to anti-tank Lascannons will do the job very nicely as will Drop Pod armies with the right amount of Plasma, melta ect. TAC armies have plenty to counter Riptides.
If you dont have your 3+ invul i think that you need 8 Melter/laskanons hits to bring a Rip down or 10 Plasmahits. Grav is the same like melta/lasca. There are marinee out there with a lot of special weapons that can bring a rip in 1-2 rounds down. Two Bikes with melta/plasma/grav and a trike with multimelta are an example for that. fast, durable and shoot a lot of shots that really hurt Rips. One of the elitechoice can drobpod and could carry 2 plasma/melta/grav + a combiweapon, that is also an option but cause of early warningshould be used carefully. Centurions with gravcannons are also good, so i would say, that marines have a good range of choices to shoot a rip down and i didnt mentioned the ways for example assaulttermis would deal with him in CC.
Other armys have poisen, there own MCs, CC. There is always a way to fight a rip.
I dont say that it is easy and for orcs it is really hard because of the missmatch and if there is more than one rip it will be harder again but thats why i only play one. I dont want to punch my opponents to the one and only list they can play against me.
I suppose I need to get with the times. Not a fan of bikes, and my chapter doesn't have Cents, so Grav isn't an option, but I suppose that's my problem. Add to that the Tide killing any of my Marines it wants each round, and it can be painful. 2+/5++ 5wounds seems too much for so much killy.
Tac termies are easily APed by Tau, and Assault termies usually don't last long in range of Fire warriors. Combine that with catching a jumpjet MC with 60" range with a unit that only moves 6", and you can't catch or corner it by t7.
Poison, in most forms, is not ap2, and so isn't that scary to a riptide.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: A lot of people have been complaining about the riptide's toughness, and how hard it is too kill. I don't have a normal riptide, but I do have a Y'vahara version (I know I'm such a dick, please move on) Now the Y'vahara only has 4 wounds with a 5++ and 4++ within 12", and I have consistently had it die to one unit's small arms fire each time I've played(that said, its not hit the table much) So my point is, while reducing a riptide to T5 isn't as drastic as what they did to the Y'vahara, it would make it less survivable, and a less viable option, and the mob would go yay! Now we can just roftl stomp tau!!! So my final point is, just generally giving armies the nerf bat when there's something you don't like is a gak way of going about things, if you'll pardon my French.
Wow exactly what kinda small arms fire made you fail 4 2+ saves? t5 wouldnt drastically change gak. besides possibiily people taking more hammerheads which isnt a bad thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I suppose I need to get with the times. Not a fan of bikes, and my chapter doesn't have Cents, so Grav isn't an option, but I suppose that's my problem. Add to that the Tide killing any of my Marines it wants each round, and it can be painful. 2+/5++ 5wounds seems too much for so much killy.
Tac termies are easily APed by Tau, and Assault termies usually don't last long in range of Fire warriors. Combine that with catching a jumpjet MC with 60" range with a unit that only moves 6", and you can't catch or corner it by t7.
Poison, in most forms, is not ap2, and so isn't that scary to a riptide.
Honestly the good old land raider also works well since at best they have ST9 ordnance or a butt load of gets hot glance attempts (and i believe they no longer can get Tank hunter besides the really pricy formation) and by the time they can use the melta you are in CC range. run up 12 every turn and you can catch them. not everyone rolls 48" on there nova jumps. (wait 4d6 right? its been a while)
Bharring wrote: I suppose I need to get with the times. Not a fan of bikes, and my chapter doesn't have Cents, so Grav isn't an option, but I suppose that's my problem. Add to that the Tide killing any of my Marines it wants each round, and it can be painful. 2+/5++ 5wounds seems too much for so much killy.
Tac termies are easily APed by Tau, and Assault termies usually don't last long in range of Fire warriors. Combine that with catching a jumpjet MC with 60" range with a unit that only moves 6", and you can't catch or corner it by t7.
Poison, in most forms, is not ap2, and so isn't that scary to a riptide.
In all fairness, termies are pretty bad and overcosted, it's not really a Tau issue.
Bharring wrote: I can shoot my entire SM army at it, and do maybe 2 wounds.
Most anti-tank can't chew through 5hp.
Most anti-MC can't touch a 2+.
Its the sweet spot of 'FU' to a TAC list.
Have you ever heard of Grav Guns or Grav Cannons? They are the instant FU and counter to Riptides and allow Marine armies to have a very easy counter to the Riptide. Also in regards to anti-tank Lascannons will do the job very nicely as will Drop Pod armies with the right amount of Plasma, melta ect. TAC armies have plenty to counter Riptides.
Marines never win that firepower race. The Riptide can delete entire squads at a time.
Bharring wrote: I suppose I need to get with the times. Not a fan of bikes, and my chapter doesn't have Cents, so Grav isn't an option, but I suppose that's my problem. Add to that the Tide killing any of my Marines it wants each round, and it can be painful. 2+/5++ 5wounds seems too much for so much killy.
Tac termies are easily APed by Tau, and Assault termies usually don't last long in range of Fire warriors. Combine that with catching a jumpjet MC with 60" range with a unit that only moves 6", and you can't catch or corner it by t7.
Poison, in most forms, is not ap2, and so isn't that scary to a riptide.
In all fairness, termies are pretty bad and overcosted, it's not really a Tau issue.
In all fairness, their main problem is that they are forced to have PF for every team member and cant settle for budget power weapons like SW or CSM does.
You never need a power fist on every single model in a squad. NEVER.
Even one is situational.
xsharkmanx wrote: If you dont have your 3+ invul i think that you need 8 Melter/laskanons hits to bring a Rip down or 10 Plasmahits. Grav is the same like melta/lasca. There are marinee out there with a lot of special weapons that can bring a rip in 1-2 rounds down. Two Bikes with melta/plasma/grav and a trike with multimelta are an example for that. fast, durable and shoot a lot of shots that really hurt Rips. One of the elitechoice can drobpod and could carry 2 plasma/melta/grav + a combiweapon, that is also an option but cause of early warningshould be used carefully. Centurions with gravcannons are also good, so i would say, that marines have a good range of choices to shoot a rip down and i didnt mentioned the ways for example assaulttermis would deal with him in CC.
Other armys have poisen, there own MCs, CC. There is always a way to fight a rip.
I dont say that it is easy and for orcs it is really hard because of the missmatch and if there is more than one rip it will be harder again but thats why i only play one. I dont want to punch my opponents to the one and only list they can play against me.
Do you not understand that this thing is ALWAYS going to be toe in in ruins or have a 3++????
To kill it with shooting is almost always a waste of firepower.
5 wounds 3++ save and 5+ FNP. Assuming you are str 8 ap 2 or better. The riptide only takes 22% of those wounds. Formula is simple - Riptide takes 22% of wounds 3+ save and 5+ fnp = 22% wounds taken. BS4 = 67% hit. 2+ to wound = 83% wound. .22 x .67 x .83 = .12% chance of a las cannon causing a wound. So it seems to me that youll need something in the order of 40 laz cannon shots to kill it.
Sound crazy? plug 40 laz cannon shots into the formula. youll find on average 40 laz canons wont kill a riptide. 40 x .667 x .833 x .33 x .66 = 4.92. so 40 laz cannons statistically will fail to bring down the rip which has 5 wounds.
40 laz cannons shots is comparable to a 1500 point marine army shooting at it for like 5 straight turns straight....You see now why 3 of them are basically impossible to kill.
The problem with the defensive side of the Riptide isn't that it can't be taken down - It certainly can. The problem is that, compared to what role it has and, if you want to consider it, breaks with the fluff. Yes, it is sturdy, and made out to be sturdy in fluff, but being able to tank all that fire? More than most MCs, if not all of them?...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point to Tau was always to play smart and apply firepower right, because they can't take the beating they'll take if someone gets through to them... The Riptide doesn't really fit this. The fluff makes it up to be a breakthrough unit made to assaults and aggressive warfare, but that's hardly what the range on the main guns suggest... On top of that we have the traditional Tau mobility and firepower (Which I too find excessive, the Hammerhead Ion Cannon swap would be great IMO), which wouldn't matter all that much if it was easy to take down when not used properly... But it's not. And that's the problem. It simply has no downside. Yes, it can damage itself, but you choose to do so, and it has an unreal amount of wounds for such a model... And on top of that, it's not like you can single it out, what with the ability to take more than one.
It's not all that bad. I just think it's too much... It's basically what I feel about Tau in general. It's too much, it's too easy. It's the thing with Dark Eldar players - Many are outright proud to play an army that need a right amount of thinking to work properly. You can talk about how it's badly or well designed, but you can't ignore the fact that, to many people, fighting and working to get your plans and tactics to work is entertainment in its own. The Riptide ignores that, because it gives you everything you'd ever want from a model - Lot's of wounds, a long ranged weapon that is just shy of the highest damage in the game excluding D weapons, fast... And not only that, it can enchance any of those aspects to become even greater than usual with a little luck. It's just... Too easy.
Bharring wrote: I suppose I need to get with the times. Not a fan of bikes, and my chapter doesn't have Cents, so Grav isn't an option, but I suppose that's my problem. Add to that the Tide killing any of my Marines it wants each round, and it can be painful. 2+/5++ 5wounds seems too much for so much killy.
Tac termies are easily APed by Tau, and Assault termies usually don't last long in range of Fire warriors. Combine that with catching a jumpjet MC with 60" range with a unit that only moves 6", and you can't catch or corner it by t7.
Poison, in most forms, is not ap2, and so isn't that scary to a riptide.
What is the Chapter you are playing as? And Terminators do struggle against Tau just because of the weight of fire tends to bring them down, and the same can work in regards to Riptides. Poor enough fire into one of them they are bound to fail some 2+ saves.
perhaps making the nova shield 4++ for shooting 3++ for cc
Terminators get a 5+ invulnerable save and can spend only 15pts. to improve it to a 3+ save with storm shields, so why can a Riptide not get a 5+ invulnerable save?
2 things I've noticed about this thread (and Tau in general).
Firstly It seems Tau hate almost all boils down to the Riptide. Every Tau 'hate' thread I've seen on here ends up talking at length about the Riptide and everything wrong with it.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
I agree feel no pain on it isn't fair and the ion accelerator should be at least 20 points.
EWO should be about 20 points on it too.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Bharring wrote: So Cents or Bikes to kill Rippy, or just eat squad deletions every round?
Why not a 3+ instead of a 2+? Isn't it basically a tougher Crisis Suit?
Changing the 2+ to a 3+ is the same effect as reducing the toughness from 6 to 5 when it comes to small arms fire (S4). On the other hand, for S7 with an AP that allows its armour save (ie Autocannons), T5 with a 2+ save results in 0.14 wounds per hit compared to 0.2 per hit for T6 and 3+ save. So changing the save to a 3+ makes the Riptide slithly more vulnerable to autocannons and their equivalents than lowering its toughness to 5 and keeping the 2+ save would.
Plus yeah, Broadsides are a thing. The materials that Tau make their armour from is, when regarding weight to protection ratio, better than that which Space Marine power armour is made out of. So it really wouldn't make sense from a fluff standpoint for the Riptide to have an inferior save to space marine centurions or terminators, considering how big it is, how heavy it is and how much of that mass will be armour.
Xenomancers wrote:
Do you not understand that this thing is ALWAYS going to be toe in in ruins or have a 3++????
That's an IA issue, not a Riptide one. With HBC you need to choose between 3++ and actually killing stuff. Make the IA the same and many cimplaints will be solved.
The Riptide for what it comes with is balanced including point value and what it is armed with. The only thing that I feel should be changed is the cost to upgrade the Heavy Burst Cannon to the Ion Accelerator. Increase the points cost to about 15-20pts. Other then that there is NOTHING wrong with it.
And I agree completely with Boniface, it is a complete double standard that the Tau should not be allowed to have AP2 weapons or a tough MC, especially with Imperial armies all having access to Imperial Knights, Drop Pods, Grav Weapons ect. A huge oversight that people fail to take into account is the ability for Imperial Armies to ally allowing them to fill any weaknesses or needs their army might have.
gmaleron wrote: The Riptide for what it comes with is balanced including point value and what it is armed with. The only thing that I feel should be changed is the cost to upgrade the Heavy Burst Cannon to the Ion Accelerator.
And I agree completely with Boniface, it is a complete double standard that the Tau should not be allowed to have AP2 weapons or a tough MC, especially with Imperial armies all having access to Imperial Knights, Drop Pods, Grav Weapons ect. A huge oversight that people fail to take into account is the ability for Imperial Armies to ally allowing them to fill any weaknesses or needs their army might have.
Okay so an IK costs about 45% more and is about half as survivable and can be killed by 2 lucky melta shots...Yeah...Riptide is balanced. Hard to say which will kill more as it depends on what kind of targets are available.
Those 2+5++ termies have far lower firepower at full strength
They lose 20% firepower for every wound failed
They take wounds from small arms (s4) *three* times as often.
So same saves, but takes 3x as many wounds, loses hitting power for every loss, and takes more hits from blasts/templates.
Yeah, those tac termies can do more damage in CC to MCs than the Tide, but do so at i1. I2 vs i1 is actually a large difference, as you can punk the really nasty stuff.
Reasonably better melee in exchange for far lower dakka, much shorter range, taking a lot more wounds, having a lot less maneuverability, and costing 200 pts? Even ignoring Riptide systems, just wow. Tac Termies aren't really competative, bit I don't think that makes your point...
Boniface wrote: 2 things I've noticed about this thread (and Tau in general).
Firstly It seems Tau hate almost all boils down to the Riptide. Every Tau 'hate' thread I've seen on here ends up talking at length about the Riptide and everything wrong with it.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
I agree feel no pain on it isn't fair and the ion accelerator should be at least 20 points.
EWO should be about 20 points on it too.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
The kinds of weapons I'd use on terminators cause 1/3 the wounds on a Riptide.
Xenomancers wrote: Okay so an IK costs about 45% more and is about half as survivable and can be killed by 2 lucky melta shots...Yeah...Riptide is balanced. Hard to say which will kill more as it depends on what kind of targets are available.
Imperial Knights have a constant 4+ invulnerable save that you can pick which side its facing in your opponents shooting phase (so if you sit in a corner it will always have it), a Strength D Close Combat weapon, 6 Hull Points and cannot be blown up with one penetrating hit. On top of that it has a double shot S8 AP3 Ordnance Cannon which will wipe out a squad of Battle Suits just as easily as a Riptide can take out Space Marines. And don't even get me started on how nasty the Forgeworld Knights are. Take into account you can run a bound army of them as well (meaning you can field 5 Imperial Knights in a 2000pt. list).
And your argument for it being able to be taken out by "two lucky melta shots" meaning that you would have to get 2 penetrating hits, fail two 4+ invulnerable saves and then roll two 4-6's to blow it up on top of being within 6-12 inches of it. If you really want to argue that, then a Riptide can be killed by x2 lucky Grav Gun shots. Also the IK does not have to worry about hurting itself 1/3 of the time with its Nova Charge, or gets hot with its Ion Cannon. Sorry the Riptide IS balanced, its only the Ion Accelerator that should be changed.
Boniface wrote: 2 things I've noticed about this thread (and Tau in general).
Firstly It seems Tau hate almost all boils down to the Riptide. Every Tau 'hate' thread I've seen on here ends up talking at length about the Riptide and everything wrong with it.
Maybe because that's really the only thing "wrong" with the codex? Buffmanders rub me the wrong way, but they're apparently fluffy so it's fine.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units. The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
-Your argument for T6 vs T4, frankly the whole argument using Terminators is kind of silly (and I am guilty of making that comparison) as they are not a god comparison to go off of, a better comparison would be to use a Dreadknight or Imperial Knight as they are much more similar to the Riptide. The same goes with weaponry, of course S4 weapons are going to be better against T4 infantry, if you are relying on S4 weapons to bring down a MC then that is a problem with your list as in general all MC's need to have anti-armor and Special weapons such as Melta and Plasma to bring them down reliably.
-It is not a complaint about the weapon getting hot, it is a fact. Though it is only a 1/6 chance there is still a chance and after playing with and against Riptides I have seen it happen on numerous occasions even with the FNP save. Most of the mentions are not "complaining" as you put it, but stating it as fact.
-Saying you "rarely need the 3++" is not an argument as there are multiple other functions of the Nova Charge that make it worthwhile. And again its not a complaint its a fact that there is 1/3 of a chance that you can hurt yourself with no saves of any kind allowed unless you have feel no pain.
-Yes the costing issues ARE minor as the Riptide as it comes is balanced especially when compared to other MC's. As mentioned by several Tau players we agree that the Ion Accelerator is undercosted, personally I feel it should be a 15-20pt. upgrade. Also things like Early Warning Override could be bumped up a few more points however the Feel No Pain upgrade is perfectly fine. 35pts. for FNP is not cheap. There should be no drastic 30-50pts. bump for ANY of the upgrades the Riptide has access to.
I am not trying to come off as saying "your opinion is wrong and this is right" so please don't take it that way. I just personally view the Tau and Riptide hate in particular to be overblown and overdone and it gets really annoying after awhile.
Quickjager wrote: The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
When you boil it down it is not really any different, the only thing that the Ion Cannon can really do that the Battle Cannon cant is instant kill 2+ armor save infantry, it does have that on the Battle Cannon. However the Battle Cannon has this:
-x2 Shots, meaning x2 Blast Templates which mean twice the number of hits, wounds and casualties.
-Does not "get hot" (not a complaint its a fact).
-Its an Ordnance weapon making it much more effective against vehicles and thus a wider array of targets. The Riptide can become an Ordnance weapon but at the risk of 1/3 of hurting itself.
Yes there are Shenanigans that can be added on to the Riptide like Skyfire, Interceptor ect. but that is part of the Tau fluff. If you want to talk about Shenanigans try having Grav Cents or Grey Knight Purifiers coming down in Drop Pods, ect. Imperial armies have different but just as many shenanigans that they can pull as the Tau do.
Xenomancers wrote: And I agree completely with Boniface, it is a complete double standard that the Tau should not be allowed to have AP2 weapons or a tough MC, especially with Imperial armies all having access to Imperial Knights, Drop Pods, Grav Weapons ect. A huge oversight that people fail to take into account is the ability for Imperial Armies to ally allowing them to fill any weaknesses or needs their army might have.
Okay so an IK costs about 45% more and is about half as survivable and can be killed by 2 lucky melta shots...Yeah...Riptide is balanced. Hard to say which will kill more as it depends on what kind of targets are available.
Imperial Knights have a constant 4+ invulnerable save that you can pick which side its facing in your opponents shooting phase (so if you sit in a corner it will always have it), a Strength D Close Combat weapon, 6 Hull Points and cannot be blown up with one penetrating hit. On top of that it has a double shot S8 AP3 Ordnance Cannon which will wipe out a squad of Battle Suits just as easily as a Riptide can take out Space Marines. And don't even get me started on how nasty the Forgeworld Knights are. Take into account you can run a bound army of them as well (meaning you can field 5 Imperial Knights in a 2000pt. list).
And your argument for it being able to be taken out by "two lucky melta shots" meaning that you would have to get 2 penetrating hits, fail two 4+ invulnerable saves and then roll two 4-6's to blow it up. If you really want to argue that, then a Riptide can be killed by x2 lucky Grav Gun shots. Also the IK does not have to worry about hurting itself 1/3 of the time with its Nova Charge, or gets hot with its Ion Cannon. Sorry the Riptide IS balanced, its only the Ion Accelerator that should be changed.
____Xenomancers Wrote___( not sure whats wrong with this post but it's not working right.)
4++ to 25% of it's facings and it's a melle specialist charging directly at you. I've already posted indisputable math that proves it takes about 40 laz cannon shots to kill a 3++ 5+fnp riptide.
Lets see the math on laz cannons into the 4++ armor 13 arc of the IK. Lets just make it simple and say that NONE OF THESE SHOTS PEN. 66% hit .50% glance and .50% save. So a laz cannon has about a 17% chance to take a hullpoint off of the IK in the front arch with the shield up - compared to a 12% chance to take a wound off a riptide. So thats an avg of 35 laz cannon shots to kill the IK in it's most protected arc with sub optimal weapons compared to 40 for the riptide - throw in some melta in non sheild facings and that puppy is going down real easy - 8 Meltas will easily kill it.
8 meltas at bs 4 would statistically cause just 1 wound to a riptide.
gmaleron wrote: The Riptide for what it comes with is balanced including point value and what it is armed with. The only thing that I feel should be changed is the cost to upgrade the Heavy Burst Cannon to the Ion Accelerator.
And I agree completely with Boniface, it is a complete double standard that the Tau should not be allowed to have AP2 weapons or a tough MC, especially with Imperial armies all having access to Imperial Knights, Drop Pods, Grav Weapons ect. A huge oversight that people fail to take into account is the ability for Imperial Armies to ally allowing them to fill any weaknesses or needs their army might have.
Okay so an IK costs about 45% more and is about half as survivable and can be killed by 2 lucky melta shots...Yeah...Riptide is balanced. Hard to say which will kill more as it depends on what kind of targets are available.
Since when is an IK half as survivable as a Riptide?
It's a super-heavy so it ignores most stuff that vehicles are vulnerable to (aka the Damage Table except Explosion, and even explosion is nerfed vs. Knights), at Range you're shooting vs AV 12/13 and a 4+ shield (And the knight either returns fire with 2 Battle Cannon shots or with a S8 AP1 Melta Large Blast (at a BS 1 better than an IA Riptide and with no Gets Hot!). In melee, unlike the Riptide it's even more badass than it is at range.
As for the 2 lucky Melta shots:
Let's assume BS4 and you flank/rear the knight, allowing a shot to go to an unshielded side:
2 shots: 22% chance they both hit and go through shield. You then need to roll a min of 5 for a penetrating hit vs AV 12, 15% chance of getting this far. Now you need to roll 5 + on the Damage table twice, with a total odds of 1.7 %. Subsequently in order to kill the knight you need to roll a total of 4 on 2 d3. So yeah, the odds of blowing up a knight with 2 melta shots are about 0.5-0.6%. So yeah, every 180-200 games a knight will blow up in 2 Melta shots.
Relying on "Mathammer" in a dice game to me is not an excuse, especially in a random dice game. I am not discounting that statistical averages but I have NEVER seen over 40 Lascannon shots needed to bring down one of my Riptides, or when playing against Tau with my Imperial Guard, one of my opponents.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Irrelevant because riptides aren't for killing tanks...they are for killing infantry and light vehicles.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Should mention the Archeron Imperial Knight, it has a Hellstorm (so the APOCALYPSE FLAME TEMPLATE) that is S7 AP3 Ordnance and a Reaper Chainfist that is AP2 Strength D on a WS4 Superheavy with 4 attacks....
Xenomancers wrote: Irrelevant because riptides aren't for killing tanks...they are for killing infantry and light vehicles.
And Imperial Knights are meant for only killing vehicles? You just made your own argument irrelevant if that's the case.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit, I was given a situation and I ran with it. As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
gmaleron wrote: -Your argument for T6 vs T4, frankly the whole argument using Terminators is kind of silly as they are not a god comparison to go off of, a better comparison would be to use a Dreadknight or Imperial Knight as they are much more similar to the Riptide. The same goes with weaponry, of course S4 weapons are going to be better against T4 infantry, if you are relying on S4 weapons to bring down a MC then that is a problem with your list as in general all MC's need to have anti-armor and Special weapons such as Melta and Plasma to bring them down reliably.
I wasn't the one that brought up the comparison, I was responding to it. And no, not all MCs do have to have special guns to take them out. I've lost far more Carnifexes and Tervigons to bolter fire than I have to Plasma fire.
2 plasma shots, 1 hits, 1 wounds, I get a 5+ cover save.
17 bolter shots (8 dudes plus a pistol from the heavy weapon guy) 11 hit 2 wound, I get a 3+ armor save and rarely ever FNP. (Hint - I took a wound from the bolter fire).
Perhaps you should expand your thought process to include all MCs, not just Wraithknights, Dreadknights and Riptides.
-It is not a complaint about the weapon getting hot, it is a fact. Though it is only a 1/6 chance there is still a chance and after playing with and against Riptides I have seen it happen on numerous occasions even with the FNP save. Most of the mentions are not "complaining" as you put it, but stating it as fact.
Except by emphasizing it as everyone in this thread has when in reality there's a less than 2% chance of it happening, you're trying to bring it to the forefront of the discussion. Sure, it can happen. It's not realistic for it to happen, especially not multiple times per game.
-Saying you "rarely need the 3++" is not an argument as there are multiple other functions of the Nova Charge that make it worthwhile. And again its not a complaint its a fact that there is 1/3 of a chance that you can hurt yourself with no saves of any kind allowed unless you have feel no pain.
Since I was responding to a statement about having to nova charge for the 3++, my statement was very relevant. Yes, there are other options. Those are the more commonly used ones. And yes, you'll take a wound about 10% of the time using them.
But they're a huge benefit (with the HBC. With the IA it's not that big a deal).
-Yes the costing issues ARE minor as the Riptide as it comes is balanced especially when compared to other MC's. As mentioned by several Tau players we agree that the Ion Accelerator is undercosted, personally I feel it should be a 15-20pt. upgrade. Also things like Early Warning Override could be bumped up a few more points however the Feel No Pain upgrade is perfectly fine. 35pts. for FNP is not cheap. There should be no drastic 30-50pts. bump for ANY of the upgrades the Riptide has access to.
I disagree.
So in reality I haven't ignored anything - I've addressed everything that's been said. Awesome - thanks for helping to clear that up.
gmaleron wrote: Relying on "Mathammer" in a dice game to me is not an excuse, especially in a random dice game. I am not discounting that statistical averages but I have NEVER seen over 40 Lascannon shots needed to bring down one of my Riptides, or when playing against Tau with my Imperial Guard, one of my opponents.
Pretty sure math is the basic premise for units point pricing. Come on you've never seen 12 laz cannons fire at a riptide and you take 0 wounds? making something like 6 saves or so? Happend to me all the time. I don't get mad cause I know statistically I shouldn't have got more than 1 anyways. I've learned. You just don't shoot at them. They are basically invincible to the firepower you can realistically field unless you are eldar with distort weapons. This is why people have a problem with them.
makes me wanna buy 3 x XV-107..and 3 XV-109 and field 9 riptides in one FOC..lol..yes the tears..mmm so salty and full of rage!...
Someone already made a thread on that a couple months ago with the R'varna pre-nerf rules, he was asking for advice how to deal with it; guess what he wasn't having fun, enjoy your game mate this kind of attitude that doesn't contribute to the discussion doesn't really help.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator?
So you're in the camp that even the HBC version has to be nerfed?
Savageconvoy wrote: Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Should mention the Archeron Imperial Knight, it has a Hellstorm (so the APOCALYPSE FLAME TEMPLATE) that is S7 AP3 Ordnance and a Reaper Chainfist that is AP2 Strength D on a WS4 Superheavy with 4 attacks....
Xenomancers wrote: Irrelevant because riptides aren't for killing tanks...they are for killing infantry and light vehicles.
And Imperial Knights are meant for only killing vehicles? You just made your own argument irrelevant if that's the case.
The argument was 5 IK vs 5 Riptide. I don't think theres any doubt 5 IK would wreck 5 riptides not only is it about 800 more points lol and it's also not what riptides are designed to do anyways.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
Rending HBC shots will do more than you think.
12 shots, 6 hit, about a Rend (meaning a pen) per shot with a less than 2% chance to take a wound from Gets Hot.
5 Riptides with HBC, Fusion, FNP, and 1 Shielded Missile Drones (for the ablative wounds) costs 250 points.
You add in 2 buffmanders and 2 sets of Broadsides as well as the Riptides and you're at 2k points. All that vs 5 IKs.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
Sure - all 150 points of options. Go ahead - go wild.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator? So you're in the camp that even the HBC version has to be nerfed?
Well off the top of my head... 2 Inquisitors w/8 Acolytes and a Rhino, though you could go 2 Inquisitors w/ Aegis and Icarus or Quad. As for why I'm comparing it to Tactical Terminators and not the DK or WK, you have to look at the roles.
The Terminators are meant to be a solid platform with alright damage. Sounds like the Riptide right?
Wheras the WK and DK are meant to advance up the field and eventually engage the enemy in melee, or be a bully unit; you HAVE to put them in a dangerous position for them to do their roles. Riptide not so much.
Then there are the stat differences, DK has 1 wound less, more BS a 36 inch threat range (assuming upgraded which you always should) a possible 4++ that has the same chance of periling as the Riptide has to get hot. Then the WK has 2 more T and a additional W, only a 3+ save to compensate for its additional T, but its base cost is a whopping 240 and has a 48 inch threat range. They're just to different in roles to compare!
EDIT: Why did I think a fully upgraded riptide cost less than a base WK?
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
You mean the inquisitors that will die the second someone looks at them funny with smart missile systems? Okay.
I never said 5 vs 5, I was making the point you could bring 5 Superheavies in a Bound list in a 2000pt. game. Honestly all I am seeing is the typical double standard that Imperial Players it seems in particular have against the Tau. They complain about our shenanigans while they have just as many if not more thanks to their ally rule and a lot of them are much nastier then what a Riptide can do, I wonder at times if some of this stems from "were mighty Space Marines we deserve the best" mindset. Not accusing anyone in particular of it but it definitely seems to be an impression im getting.
Savageconvoy wrote: As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed. Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator?
Exactly, for example lets compare a Dreadknight to a Riptide:
-50pts. cheaper BASE and with upgrades and is better in close combat, better BS and only has one less wound.
-S10 in Close Combat with x4 attacks and WS5.
-2+ armor save and 5+ invulnerable save
-Can "shunt" once a game basically meaning it will be in your face right off the bat.
-Access to Psychic powers
Now according to what has been said about the Riptide does that mean that some of the same arguments should be made towards the Dreadknight?
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
Rending HBC shots will do more than you think. 12 shots, 6 hit, about a Rend (meaning a pen) per shot with a less than 2% chance to take a wound from Gets Hot. 5 Riptides with HBC, Fusion, FNP, and 1 Shielded Missile Drones (for the ablative wounds) costs 250 points. You add in 2 buffmanders and 2 sets of Broadsides as well as the Riptides and you're at 2k points. All that vs 5 IKs.
Problem with that is that there's a 1/3 chance that the HBC doesn't get rending as the Nova charge failed. And if it's going for Rending on the HBC it can't double tap the Fusion Blaster which has a better chance of getting an Explodes result thanks to AP1.
So lets start with a 2/3 chance of getting nova charge, then if that goes off we have 12 shots, 6 hits, 1 rend, 4+ invulnerable save etc. Overall that gives the HBC 0.3 penetrating hits on an IK. Add in a single TL-FB which gets you another 0.125 outside of Melta Range (and you don't want to be within Melta range of an IK as that means you're probably getting charged next turn).
It's awesome that these IKs have their shield covering every facing. Man, I wish I had those IKs.
And your percentage was off, by the way. 0.3% cannot be correct - I think you forgot to make it a percentage because it's ~32% chance. (12 shots * .5 to hit * .16 to rend * .5 to save * .67 to happen in the first place)
And the TL-FB is a 1 shot * .75 chance to hit * .5 chance to be relevant = 37.5% chance to do at least a hull point, 25.5% chance to pen. (before saves, so 18.75% and 12.75% respectively)
Boniface wrote: 2 things I've noticed about this thread (and Tau in general).
Firstly It seems Tau hate almost all boils down to the Riptide. Every Tau 'hate' thread I've seen on here ends up talking at length about the Riptide and everything wrong with it.
Maybe because that's really the only thing "wrong" with the codex? Buffmanders rub me the wrong way, but they're apparently fluffy so it's fine.
There isn't anything strictly 'wrong' with the Riptide, it's just a bit 'more' than it should be. I've not denied that.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Directly quoting you is taking you out of context? O.o
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
So you're arguing something that's irrelevant? Discussing survivability (which is what you're attempting to do) without taking Toughness into account (which is what you're trying to do) is silly - there's no reason for it.
Riptides and Terminators are apples and oranges survivability wise.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
So... it's the same as missing. So why call it out specifically?
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
I never said it was right. And I've never taken the 3++ into account because IME it isn't used or needed.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
20-30 points isn't minor. And it's at least that IMO.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
You'd probably be surprised with how survivable tanks are in 7th edition. Because tanks, in general, are significantly harder to kill than they were in 6th.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Good way of nerfing Tau would be removing them from 40k universe, they ruin the grimdark anyway.
Just sell them to disney, they will fit the fluff and visuals of Star Wars perfectly as a race descending from admiral Ackbar and tuna fish.
Spoiler:
heheh@ mr. Sidstyler.
For the record though, I do think Eldar fit grimdark even less, except wraithlords and wraithguard. The fact that pussy ponytail elves were most powerful on the table ruined 6th edition for me more than random tables and look out sir. Make them bald give them cyber eye ffs I dont know but they look bad and wave serpent is not OP because it has a tax of owning an ugly pussy tank on it.
Tau are second, fire warriors, stealth suits are ok, new broadside is incredible but crisis suits, kroot and riptide legs make me cringe. Whats worst though is the look of the race itself imo, just like elves in space they are too soft, nice, I dont know. Moar grimdark, they should look closer to the more menacing grey alien types for example rather than have the E.T. vibe they have now.
Sidstyler wrote: It is double-dipping, and Supporting Fire is overkill anyway when they already brought back Overwatch. Even if they hadn't, though, being able to unload with every Tau unit in range is just stupid. One unit, maybe.
Anyway, if you want a possible explanation for why people get "sensitive" when the topic of Tau nerfs comes up, it's probably because people have been calling Tau overpowered and demanding they be nerfed pretty much ever since they were introduced into the game...regardless of their actual power level, even though they were always kind of a mediocre army and certainly never as bad as they are now even at their "peak". "Fish of Fury" was as bad as it ever got, which I personally don't even think counts since that came about in an edition where you could consolidate into new units after assaulting. It was easily fixed in 5th edition anyway by just letting people assault the damn devilfish, which is why people stopped doing it and suddenly Tau fell all the way down to trash tier (though 5th edition was so well-designed in comparison to what we have now that they were still playable, if you knew what you were doing...every single army had a "best of" list and even sub-par armies could compete).
We've had to listen to this gak for as long as we've been Tau players and it's fething old. Some of it just comes off as sour grapes, too, like the years-old bolters vs. pulse rifles issue. When you point out every single other advantage or perk that tactical Marines get compared to fire warriors all you get is a dismissive "doesn't matter", "doesn't matter", "doesn't matter"...all that matters is that Tau, a foul xenos race, have a basic gun that's one strength higher than the best gun in the UNIVARSE!, and god fething damn it that just can not be allowed. Damn all the reasons why this came to be, Marines are supposed to be the best, end of. Just one example. And when you add to that the fact that many people are quite adamant that Tau don't even "belong" in the universe in the first place, and often ask for the army to be removed from the game entirely instead of just nerfed, I don't know any other way to respond to that than with matched hostility. It feels like fighting a fething war sometimes; these people don't listen to reason, they don't even really care, they just want your army, and you, gone. Period. "Go play a different game you fething weeb, stop tainting my grimdark with your Gundam and Hello Kitty bullgak!"
And in that case it's just Tau, too. You never see anyone claim that Eldar don't "fit in" and that the game would be better off if Eldar just weren't around anymore, even though they're far more powerful than Tau are, and in my opinion their aesthetic clashes with the "grimdark" just as much, if not more...the only thing that makes Eldar "grimdark" is their fluff, and it can be argued that Tau are pretty much the same now if you've actually fething read any of the new stuff. With every new codex they've been making Tau darker and darker and it's to the point now where Aun'Va is coming off as some kind Emperor Palpatine-esque character. Before the evil in the Tau Empire was kinda subtle, now it's all but spelled out for you and slapping you in the face (especially in the Farsight supplement, where he's looking more and more like the valiant hero instead of the traitor turning his back on the Empire like before). The point is though, you never see that with any other army. When people criticize Tau they aren't just doing it for the sake of game balance, they're doing it because of the appearance of the models, or the fluff they personally don't like or find "boring" (And glorious Spehss Mahreens constantly overcoming everything you throw at them because Spehss Mahreens is interesting? Maybe if you're 12...), or some other nonsense factor that has no bearing on the game and is entirely up to opinion, and making it awful god damn personal while they're at it.
Hell, I don't want to have the most overpowered army in the game. I want to feel like my wins actually matter and that the quality of my codex didn't "skew" the result, I don't like feeling like I only won because I played Tau, or the opposite; like all throughout 5th edition where I felt like I was losing because my codex was too old. I really don't want to defend the current codex because it does have legitimate issues that need to be fixed or toned down, but I've been on the defensive for so long it is genuinely hard to see those issues sometimes because I naturally assume everyone falls into that group that just wants GW to Squat my army, or to nerf them so hard into the ground that everyone stops playing them and they achieve the same result, which is getting Tau off the table.
So...yeah, that's my explanation anyway. lol. I type too fething much, I'm going to eat tacos and put some models together now, god damn.
Directly quoting you is taking you out of context? O.o
The meaning is put of contxt, suppose that's the problem with this form of communication.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
So you're arguing something that's irrelevant? Discussing survivability (which is what you're attempting to do) without taking Toughness into account (which is what you're trying to do) is silly - there's no reason for it.
Riptides and Terminators are apples and oranges survivability wise.
Still missed it. I don't mean compare the units, I mean people say 2+ is rubbish on something's but not others. That was it. My point was 2+ is 2+ all the time. The same tactic applies just the delivery method is different. Termies die to weight of fire, so will a riptide.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
So... it's the same as missing. So why call it out specifically?
That means 2 chances at missing. Aka I didn't get hot but I scattered and missed or I got hot had to save a wound (no biggy) but now my riptide is doing nothing. Pity I didn't nova for something good/different. Point is one can't have it all ways. It's a factor that comes into it. Nova is before shooting so it is possible to waste a nova charge or ability for no gain.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
[
I never said it was right. And I've never taken the 3++ into account because IME it isn't used or needed.
I didn't mean you. I meant generally people always say yes but 3++, which is just a lie. 3++ is sometimes but a risk.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
20-30 points isn't minor. And it's at least that IMO.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
You'd probably be surprised with how survivable tanks are in 7th edition. Because tanks, in general, are significantly harder to kill than they were in 6th.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Quote something I ignored. Just one thing.
I think it's just the medium of communication combined with the nuances of English and all that. You didn't so much ignore them as misunderstand my meaning. I'm happy to leave some of these points, I disagree about tanks, I think they're rubbish all the time, but that's just my opinion.
Well, it can buy upgrades for optional skyfire or interceptor or both. It uses all its regular weapons otherwise.
Don't really see it threatening flyers unless there is something I am missing.
You're missing something. I'm not sure what but an AV12 (at most) vehicle should be scared of S7 weapons, or mass S6. Or Melta (which the Riptide has)
That's a good point, actually - what about the Riptide and all its extra weaponry, let alone the Missile Drones? Shouldn't we consider all these things (Most likely IA, the Nova Reactor, Secondary Weaponry, Drones and various upgrades) as well when judging the Riptide?
HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Also funny to see how people always ignore that when NOVA fails you don't only get hurt, it literally fails and you don't get the benefit.
And that overcharged HBC is 12 gets hot shots. It average it's 0.33 wounds from that alone.
HBC riptide that tries to overcharge every turn deals on average 3.33 select wounds in a game. And if he doesn't, he deals neglectible damage.
Boniface wrote: Still missed it. I don't mean compare the units, I mean people say 2+ is rubbish on something's but not others. That was it. My point was 2+ is 2+ all the time. The same tactic applies just the delivery method is different. Termies die to weight of fire, so will a riptide.
Sure - so will a Wraithknight. That's a a silly statement, however, when the weight of fire most armies have isn't very effective against it.
A 2+ on one model is not always the same as a 2+ on another model. A 2+ on a Grot, for example, wouldn't be worth much because it's so easy to generate wounds on them. A 2+ on a Riptide is valuable because it's harder to generate wounds.
That means 2 chances at missing. Aka I didn't get hot but I scattered and missed or I got hot had to save a wound (no biggy) but now my riptide is doing nothing. Pity I didn't nova for something good/different. Point is one can't have it all ways. It's a factor that comes into it. Nova is before shooting so it is possible to waste a nova charge or ability for no gain.
Yes, it's possible to miss. Just like any other Gets Hot weapon. Plasma Cannons can Get Hot and scatter too!
My point is saying that it can miss and Get Hot is just putting emphasis on Gets Hot - when it's a small chance of it happening.
I didn't mean you. I meant generally people always say yes but 3++, which is just a lie. 3++ is sometimes but a risk.
So you brought up the 3++ as if anyone in the thread was saying they always have it? O.o
I think it's just the medium of communication combined with the nuances of English and all that. You didn't so much ignore them as misunderstand my meaning. I'm happy to leave some of these points, I disagree about tanks, I think they're rubbish all the time, but that's just my opinion.
So you agree I didn't ignore anything? Because you originally said that I did.
And right now Hammerheads are rubbish because there's no reason to take them - the Riptide is harder to kill and has better firepower. Change one of those facts and poof - the Hammerhead becomes attractive.
Note that I said the Riptide is harder to kill; not that the Hammerhead is easy to kill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BoomWolf wrote: HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Why isn't it a threat?
Also funny to see how people always ignore that when NOVA fails you don't only get hurt, it literally fails and you don't get the benefit.
I'm not ignoring it.
And that overcharged HBC is 12 gets hot shots. It average it's 0.33 wounds from that alone.
HBC riptide that tries to overcharge every turn deals on average 3.33 select wounds in a game. And if he doesn't, he deals neglectible damage.
Really? 12 shots, on average 2 Gets Hot. I've already proven that you'll suffer a wound from a Gets Hot less than 2 percent of the time.
So how does 60 shots (5 game turns) times 2% give you 3.33? And exactly how is 4 fewer shots and no Rending "negligible"? I mean - obviously Flyrants are doing barely over negligible damage...
I had to reread it (at work and a little distracted) and misinterpreted what was being said, that's my bad. Then again its not out of place considering that all the Riptide haters wont stop complaining until its about 100pts. more expensive and cant have an AP2 weapon...
Desubot wrote: Did this thread go full ham within the last 3 hours or something?
Just the typical Bias that seems to surround the Tau and Riptide and general, not to sound like an @$$ but complaining about a unit that is not overpowered is getting worn out.
Desubot wrote: Did this thread go full ham within the last 3 hours or something?
We had this with the Tactical thread, and now in the Marines VS Space Marines, and it never ends well... One time a mod even stopped it. But that's when passionate people get together I guess.
Bharring wrote: So Cents or Bikes to kill Rippy, or just eat squad deletions every round?
Plus yeah, Broadsides are a thing. The materials that Tau make their armour from is, when regarding weight to protection ratio, better than that which Space Marine power armour is made out of. So it really wouldn't make sense from a fluff standpoint for the Riptide to have an inferior save to space marine centurions or terminators, considering how big it is, how heavy it is and how much of that mass will be armour.
Phoenix lords have a 2+, Wraithknight being the biggest non titan on the game has a 3+, your logic doesn't apply. Both the wraithlord and the wraithknight have no inv by default, the wraithlord doesn't even have a way to get one. Because they are T8 and it is a way to compensate for it. The riptide can have a 2+, 3++, FNP. There is just no way to hurt this thing, all its sides are covered. Plus great mobility and worst of all, CHEAP, too cheap, waaaaaaay too cheap.
Really? 12 shots, on average 2 Gets Hot. I've already proven that you'll suffer a wound from a Gets Hot less than 2 percent of the time. So how does 60 shots (5 game turns) times 2% give you 3.33? And exactly how is 4 fewer shots and no Rending "negligible"? I mean - obviously Flyrants are doing barely over negligible damage...
Nova fails, on average, once or twice a game.
Over a 6 turn game, Nova will fail twice and from those two fails (assuming the Riptide has FNP) it will suffer 1.33 wounds.
Then on each of the 4 turns it has passed Nova and fired a nova-charged HBC it will, on average, get 2 rolls of Hot!
So now we have 8 wounds, 2+ armour then 5+ FNP which gives us another 0.88 wounds.
So a Riptide with FNP will, on average, take 2.22 wounds over a 6 turn game if it is attempting to nova charge its HBC every turn.
If the HBC Riptide doesn't have FNP (ie it's going Skyfire and Interceptor, instead, to try and do anti-air) then, over 6 turns, it would take 3.33 wounds combined from gets hot and failing the Nova Charge (2 from Nova failing, then an extra 1.33 from 8 gets hot! followed by 2+ armour).
Arnais wrote: Phoenix lords have a 2+, Wraithknight being the biggest non titan on the game has a 3+, your logic doesn't apply. Both the wraithlord and the wraithknight have no inv by default, the wraithlord doesn't even have a way to get one. Because they are T8 and it is a way to compensate for it. The riptide can have a 2+, 3++, FNP. There is just no way to hurt this thing, all its aspects are covered. Plus great mobility and worst of all, CHEAP, too cheap, waaaaaaay to cheap.
Again way to ignore that the 3++ is not an automatic thing (fails 1/3 of the time) and it is NOT cheap as in order to give it FNP and other upgrades it is often up there in terms of points cost as a base Wraithknight (FNP, Intercepor and Pilot Array is the exact cost of a Base Wraithknight). I can agree some things need a slight point change but you are CLEARLY exaggerating. And lets cover what the Wraithknight gets compared to the Riptide:
-Can move 12inches without having to rely on random 2 D6 roll, that lone makes it more maneuverable
-Can be buffed by Psychic Powers or even cast them (in case of Wraithlord)
-Can Twin-Link ALL of its weapons by firing one
-Has a S10 AP2 weapon that if it rolls a 6 to wound the WHOLE MODEL dies
-Can get Battle Focus making it even more maneuverable
Well, it can buy upgrades for optional skyfire or interceptor or both. It uses all its regular weapons otherwise.
Don't really see it threatening flyers unless there is something I am missing.
You're missing something. I'm not sure what but an AV12 (at most) vehicle should be scared of S7 weapons, or mass S6. Or Melta (which the Riptide has)
That's a good point, actually - what about the Riptide and all its extra weaponry, let alone the Missile Drones? Shouldn't we consider all these things (Most likely IA, the Nova Reactor, Secondary Weaponry, Drones and various upgrades) as well when judging the Riptide?
Why would you take drones on a Riptide since a dead drone forces a Ld check?
I'm pretty sure someone did accuse the riptide of have 3++ available freely.
Schrodinger's Riptide is common. he has the IA, EWO, VT and stims (despite the setting being impossibe), and still costs the base 185 points, he also have all NOVA features active, at all times.
As for hammerheads-they ARE rubbish.
And I say that as someone that takes at least 2 hammerheads to every game, sometimes 3, because I like their aesthetics and style.
A single slug railgun is not reliable. its awesome when it hits, pens and explodes-but it fails me more often than not. (odds to instagib AV13 are once per 6.75 shots, assuming no cover, invul or whatnot that provides further protection, and not snap-shooting for any reason. even against AV10 is a mere once every 4.5 shots!) its simply not enough on a tank with a single shot that relies on instagibbing-as it cannot kill by hullpoints in any trustable timeframe even the cheapest rhino.
In short, its failing at killing tanks properly, and another anti-tank unit is required anyway even if you field 3 railheads.
Submmunition is only effective against sub-marine troopers, and these can be handled by alot of other stuff. they rarely gets their points back even against my friend's necrons and IG, who on paper provide the perfect target with lots of tanks and low armor troopers (the necron likes cryptek spam and warriors for cheaper troops)
Subs make a good backup when there are no tanks, but its NOT a primary designation worthy of a tank. its a backup option to a weapon that already fails its main purpose when said purpose is not even available.
The ion cannon is not useful against tanks, and is practically a MEQ/MC killer. problem is MCs are often either flying or featuring 2+ (or having T8 like wraithknight) making his "mc hunter" status not actually work, and MEQ killing is not exactly hard as even in the tau codex you got multiple units competing that title, along with every TEQ killer (IAtides and plasma suits for example) who can kill MEQ just as well, or even just peppering them with shots.
Both main cannons on the hammerheads do NOT get you anything done especially well that cannot be easily achieved by other units, often better.
They are not cheap enough to be considered budget choices, they are not tough enough to be considered a "durability choice" as they become paperweight if they jink, they are not fast enough to be considered a "mobile platform" opposed to broadsides, and are generally just not enough. in any context.
Their only asset is their ungodly range, an assent that is completely irrelevant on your 40k table because its not big enough, and deployment distance between armies is often half or less their range anyway.
In short, even if you remove the riptide from the game entirely, the hammerhead has NO place in serious lists. a single longstrike railhead is to be taken at best as longstrike improves its reliability by far with added BS and tank hunter, and even he is questionable.
Hammerheads nowdays are not good. and honestly they never were good. they are awesome thematically, and on the apoc table when 72" actually means anything they have some value, but on the regular table they are just poor choices no matter how you look at them.
Really? 12 shots, on average 2 Gets Hot. I've already proven that you'll suffer a wound from a Gets Hot less than 2 percent of the time.
So how does 60 shots (5 game turns) times 2% give you 3.33? And exactly how is 4 fewer shots and no Rending "negligible"? I mean - obviously Flyrants are doing barely over negligible damage...
Nova fails, on average, once or twice a game.
Over a 6 turn game, Nova will fail twice and from those two fails (assuming the Riptide has FNP) it will suffer 1.33 wounds.
Then on each of the 4 turns it has passed Nova and fired a nova-charged HBC it will, on average, get 2 rolls of Hot!
So now we have 8 wounds, 2+ armour then 5+ FNP which gives us another 0.88 wounds.
So a Riptide with FNP will, on average, take 2.22 wounds over a 6 turn game if it is attempting to nova charge its HBC every turn.
If the HBC Riptide doesn't have FNP (ie it's going Skyfire and Intercept) then, over 6 turns, it would take 3.33 wounds combined from gets hot and failing the Nova Charge.
Thank you for explaining. Your original statement wasn't clear you were including the novas.
You also failed to explain "negligible".
Boniface wrote: Still missed it. I don't mean compare the units, I mean people say 2+ is rubbish on something's but not others. That was it. My point was 2+ is 2+ all the time. The same tactic applies just the delivery method is different. Termies die to weight of fire, so will a riptide.
Sure - so will a Wraithknight. That's a a silly statement, however, when the weight of fire most armies have isn't very effective against it.
A 2+ on one model is not always the same as a 2+ on another model. A 2+ on a Grot, for example, wouldn't be worth much because it's so easy to generate wounds on them. A 2+ on a Riptide is valuable because it's harder to generate wounds.
That means 2 chances at missing. Aka I didn't get hot but I scattered and missed or I got hot had to save a wound (no biggy) but now my riptide is doing nothing. Pity I didn't nova for something good/different. Point is one can't have it all ways. It's a factor that comes into it. Nova is before shooting so it is possible to waste a nova charge or ability for no gain.
Yes, it's possible to miss. Just like any other Gets Hot weapon. Plasma Cannons can Get Hot and scatter too!
My point is saying that it can miss and Get Hot is just putting emphasis on Gets Hot - when it's a small chance of it happening.
I didn't mean you. I meant generally people always say yes but 3++, which is just a lie. 3++ is sometimes but a risk.
So you brought up the 3++ as if anyone in the thread was saying they always have it? O.o
I think it's just the medium of communication combined with the nuances of English and all that. You didn't so much ignore them as misunderstand my meaning. I'm happy to leave some of these points, I disagree about tanks, I think they're rubbish all the time, but that's just my opinion.
So you agree I didn't ignore anything? Because you originally said that I did.
And right now Hammerheads are rubbish because there's no reason to take them - the Riptide is harder to kill and has better firepower. Change one of those facts and poof - the Hammerhead becomes attractive.
Note that I said the Riptide is harder to kill; not that the Hammerhead is easy to kill.
Lol. I'm going to leave it as this: I'm defending the riptide because I don't think it's a completely broken just needs some amendment. My points still stand even if we disagree.
General comment.
One has to factor all the points in to get a true picture of the unit.
A riptide has the following traits.
Ws2
Bs3
S6
T6
W5
I2
A3
Ld9
Sv2+/5++
It moves 6"
I can jump 2-12"
It is freaking big (LoS and cover)
It can nova but has a risk to wound (no saves) about 1/3 of the time
It can take a HBC which gives 36" S6 ap4 x8 can be nova but that has it's own risks.
It can take an IA which gives 3x S7 ap2 shots OR a pie plate at S8 ap2 which can get hot (counts as miss and possible wound) or can scatter and miss or hit. Nova too but really who is gonna bother for the most part.
Has a second weapon that varies but usually means getting close.
So in combat (as an example) it can be overrun instantly.
It has saves no different to a terminator, therefore if you drown it in wounds from weapons it's going to fail just as many saves. It is therefore as susceptible to Ap2 weapons as a terminator, 5++ doesn't mean much.
Feel no pain is an option that costs 35 points and I still think 5+ isn't very good.
Interceptor is cheap but means you have to hit the target with the same weapon detailed above. Therefore scattering onto own troops is possible, and it might get hot which means miss. Blasts can't be placed over friendly troops so it can't be used against things in close.
Point is it's not the Swiss army nuke people think it is.
Thank you for explaining. Your original statement wasn't clear you were including the novas.
You also failed to explain "negligible".
I was just clearing up the maths
Boomwolf made the original post about the damage of the HBC which you responded to
And I believe the negligible comment was referring to the Riptide against the IK I believe since S6 tends to have very poor odds of glancing AV13. Still keep hoping to roll a 7 some time.
And I still have no idea how the side facing really works on the thing due to it's width.
-Personal Teleporter: Makes it a Jump infantry meaning it moves 12 inches all the time, (already more maneuverable then the Riptide) and on top of that can make a 30 inch Shunt move once per game.
-Gatling Scilencer: S4 AP- Range: 24 Inches, Force. Not that scary except oh wait, get off a Psychic power and every one of these shots cause INSTANT DEATH!
-Is much Cheaper then a Riptide, 50pts. cheaper when compared to boths BASE costs and even with the above 2 upgrades its only 10pts. more then the base Riptide and lo and behold not only is it better in close combat, more maneuverable, has a higher strength and can cause instant death.
If what some of you are saying about the Riptide needs to be changed then clearly based on your arguments the same could be and should be said about the Dreadknight.
BoomWolf wrote: HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Why isn't it a threat?
Because its 3 BS3 S7 shots. odds are nothing will happen even if you are AV10 and do not jink. on average it will hit 1.5 times, of them 0.25 will glance, 0.75 will pen and 0.5 will whiff. a single hullpoint and perhaps a damage result. not worth jinking over.
If you are AV11 or got some other defensive boost (save for example) its even less likely to harm you.
its therefor not a threat.
BoomWolf wrote: And that overcharged HBC is 12 gets hot shots. It average it's 0.33 wounds from that alone.
HBC riptide that tries to overcharge every turn deals on average 3.33 select wounds in a game. And if he doesn't, he deals neglectible damage.
Really? 12 shots, on average 2 Gets Hot. I've already proven that you'll suffer a wound from a Gets Hot less than 2 percent of the time.
So how does 60 shots (5 game turns) times 2% give you 3.33? And exactly how is 4 fewer shots and no Rending "negligible"? I mean - obviously Flyrants are doing barely over negligible damage...
Nova fails, on average, once or twice a game.
I don't know how you "proved", but as stated-an average game lasts 6 turns.
Of them 2 will be NOVA fails, 2 wounds here.
4 will bet 12 shots of getting hot, of them 2 will get a 1, meanings 0.33 will hurt-4*0.33=1.33
1.33+2=3.33
And before you go "BUT FNP", FnP calculations are silly and you are doing pointless work. just ignore them and think of the FnP ability as a 50% increase in base W count and it will save you a lot of work. (so a FnP riptide as 7.5 effective wounds, and no FnP for the same math results)
Its still doing over a third of its own wounds to itself over a game. with the no-too-cheap FnP upgrade, and with firepower not as amazing as some would thing (basically 3 assault canons at BS3 whn nova works, and 2 non-rendeing ones when it doesnt)
Over a game its 48 S6AP4 rending shots and 16 S6AP4 shots, at BS 3 meaning half are going to miss, and not only you cannot control when the weaker profile shots up-you cannot predict it either.
Its not amazing firepower-and this is under the assumption that you leave it alone all game long and let it shoot-if you as much as come close to it with a semi-decent CC unit you WILL be disruption its shooting at least partly, and a shown it will hurt itself enough that its clearly within the killable range of ranged weaponry anyway, even if it did take FnP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "negligble" was referring to not overcharging the HBC
Under the assumption the HBC never overcharges, its less destructive than a dev squad with heavy bolters even when you count the secondary gun too (probably SMS)
And HBdevs are wildly considered worthless, and only worth even considering in IF armies. (bolter experts) where even there they are not very hot.
Thank you for explaining. Your original statement wasn't clear you were including the novas.
You also failed to explain "negligible".
I was just clearing up the maths
Boomwolf made the original post about the damage of the HBC which you responded to
And I believe the negligible comment was referring to the Riptide against the IK I believe since S6 tends to have very poor odds of glancing AV13. Still keep hoping to roll a 7 some time.
And I still have no idea how the side facing really works on the thing due to it's width.
Since the discussion was about AA and I'm pretty sure IKs don't fly...
gmaleron wrote:Good points Boniface lets compare it the Dreadknight shall we, since of course its Imperial its NOT overpowered:
Overall pretty similar. All else being equal the DK should cost more.
-Personal Teleporter: Makes it a Jump infantry meaning it moves 12 inches all the time, (already more maneuverable then the Riptide) and on top of that can make a 30 inch Shunt move once per game.
12 inches all the time is more maneuverable than an average of 13 to a max of 24 inches each turn, with the ability to jump that up to an average of 20 inches a turn? (not that anyone Novas for jump movement, but it's possible)
-Gatling Scilencer: S4 AP- Range: 24 Inches, Force. Not that scary except oh wait, get off a Psychic power and every one of these shots cause INSTANT DEATH!
A 24 inch range is very limited. It's S4 so even if it causes Instant Death it has to cause a wound first. And it's AP- meaning you get normal armor saves from it.
It's a good, balanced weapon. Similar to the HBC.
-Is much Cheaper then a Riptide, 50pts. cheaper when compared to boths BASE costs and even with the above 2 upgrades its only 10pts. more then the base Riptide and lo and behold not only is it better in close combat, more maneuverable, has a higher strength and can cause instant death.
Yes, it's better in close combat - it should be (the whole Tau suck in CC thing). It isn't more maneuverable. It has the same Strength (except in CC).
If what some of you are saying about the Riptide needs to be changed then clearly based on your arguments the same could be and should be said about the Dreadknight.
Nope. And I've explained why. But clearly I'm an Impy Tau hater, despite solely playing Tyranids.
Ive said it before, Ill say it again. The best way to nerf Tau yet make them more Lore dependent and actually fit into the new Codecies (Alla Orks) is to make a Cast System much like Chapter tactics for them.
Aside from that, and having certain units becoming troops dependent / elite choices depending on your HQ from X Cast, the only other way to Balance Tau is to overhaul the Riptide, Overhaul Fire Warriors and Balance out their Markerlights rules.
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves, they may only be used to increase BS. Possibly adding a Twin Linked effect at 3 Marker Light Tokens. Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice... If Fire Warriors were given standard Bolter fire arms (str 4) with ap 5 at the range they had, I'd be alrighty with my currently shelved 11k Tau army... But every time I look at them and remember how easy it is to play even a BAD list with them, and still annihilate my veteran opponents, I cannot look at them as anything but grim-cheese to bring to a game, friendly or competitive.
Riptides are under costed, as much of the community agree on. However their Over Charged and Nova Charges need to be changed as well from my point of view. It only takes 1 lucky Direct Hit from a Nova Charged Large Blasted to wipe out an entire squad of Terminators. Not to mention the amount of Fire Power they can simply bring with the high intensity amount of shots they can field for the cost they currently are. If base, the Riptide was adjusted by 25-30 points, I'd be fine with it. The main reason I dont field them anymore, is because of their 2+ armor save however. The fact this "MECHANICAL" monstrosity is even considered a Monstrous Creature, baffles my mind both lore wise and game play wise. Tau for the better part of all existence, couldnt manufacture large mechanical weapons / bipedal tanks due to their Technologies (Lore wise) requiring a great deal of resources, which for the Tau, are extremely difficult to acquire due to how small of the galaxy they currently control. Lore aside, the damn thing should be a bloody Vehicle. AV14 front 12 side and 11 back. There is no reason this thing should have both T6, a 2+ save, have access to any form of FNP and be able to carry around enough fire power to table opponents during its first shooting phase. I hate my Riptides, and I spent a lot of time painting them.... The fact I see them as disgusting monstrosities brought to my beloved Tau, makes me pine for a time when playing Tau was actually considered difficult. Where if you WON with Tau, it was because you were a good General and not some "Sit back and relax while you blast your opponents off the board, counting how many turns it takes to wipe them" Quasimodo.
This also comes from a player who has played Eldar and realizes how ridiculous shooting in 40k has actually become. I have also shelved my nearly 3k Points of Eldar I now keep at my Cousins, possibly indefinitely simply because of the Wave Serpent. I could go about out right nerfing the damn thing in custom rules, but where does it stop after that? Why bother. Ill just keep playing my Daemons. The one army I actually enjoy playing now with Summoning from the Maelefic Tree bringing my every joy as a Daemons fan into fruition. Now if only they could Fix Daemon Princes from their eternal Sadness of being T5, with only 4 Wounds.
Since the discussion was about AA and I'm pretty sure IKs don't fly...
His post was two parts. The first part addressed against flyers and the second part was talking about failed Nova. I think it was referencing the IK discussion but at best it's about the damage output in general. Which even that at BS3 it's getting 8 S6 shots (why would you buff a HBC that failed to Nova). Against MEQ it's getting 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 1.11 failed saves. That is less than stellar on a nearly 200 point platform.
A 24 inch range is very limited.
But it's on a unit that can jump 12 inches. So really it's 36" range isn't it? And that is pretty significant considering the actual size of the table.
BoomWolf wrote: HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Why isn't it a threat?
Because its 3 BS3 S7 shots. odds are nothing will happen even if you are AV10 and do not jink. on average it will hit 1.5 times, of them 0.25 will glance, 0.75 will pen and 0.5 will whiff. a single hullpoint and perhaps a damage result. not worth jinking over.
If you are AV11 or got some other defensive boost (save for example) its even less likely to harm you.
its therefor not a threat.
And you ignored the Fusion Blasters. And if losing 2/3 of your hull points and potentially dying isn't a threat... I'm not sure how to respond to that.
And before you go "BUT FNP", FnP calculations are silly and you are doing pointless work. just ignore them and think of the FnP ability as a 50% increase in base W count and it will save you a lot of work. (so a FnP riptide as 7.5 effective wounds, and no FnP for the same math results)
Um. No they're not? Why are they silly? And why are you giving a 50% W increase instead of 33% because that's what FNP is?
Its still doing over a third of its own wounds to itself over a game. with the no-too-cheap FnP upgrade, and with firepower not as amazing as some would thing (basically 3 assault canons at BS3 whn nova works, and 2 non-rendeing ones when it doesnt)
Plus the other gun. I'm not sure how that's negligible.
Over a game its 48 S6AP4 rending shots and 16 S6AP4 shots, at BS 3 meaning half are going to miss, and not only you cannot control when the weaker profile shots up-you cannot predict it either.
Its not amazing firepower-and this is under the assumption that you leave it alone all game long and let it shoot-if you as much as come close to it with a semi-decent CC unit you WILL be disruption its shooting at least partly, and a shown it will hurt itself enough that its clearly within the killable range of ranged weaponry anyway, even if it did take FnP.
Wait - shots can miss? nowai.
The "negligble" was referring to not overcharging the HBC
Under the assumption the HBC never overcharges, its less destructive than a dev squad with heavy bolters even when you count the secondary gun too (probably SMS)
And HBdevs are wildly considered worthless, and only worth even considering in IF armies. (bolter experts) where even there they are not very hot.
Partially because HBdevs have to stand still to get any output at all. Maybe, just maybe, you should look at more than just damage output? Because 8 S6 shots isn't negligible. Carnifexes get 12 at the same BS (Yes, twin-linked) and are feared for it. And yours even has AP.
GoliothOnline wrote: Ive said it before, Ill say it again. The best way to nerf Tau yet make them more Lore dependent and actually fit into the new Codecies (Alla Orks) is to make a Cast System much like Chapter tactics for them.
Aside from that, and having certain units becoming troops dependent / elite choices depending on your HQ from X Cast, the only other way to Balance Tau is to overhaul the Riptide, Overhaul Fire Warriors and Balance out their Markerlights rules.
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves, they may only be used to increase BS. Possibly adding a Twin Linked effect at 3 Marker Light Tokens. Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice... If Fire Warriors were given standard Bolter fire arms (str 4) with ap 5 at the range they had, I'd be alrighty with my currently shelved 11k Tau army... But every time I look at them and remember how easy it is to play even a BAD list with them, and still annihilate my veteran opponents, I cannot look at them as anything but grim-cheese to bring to a game, friendly or competitive.
Pulse Rifles have always been S5, haven't they? They were in the previous two books and weren't a problem in the previous two books so why do they suddenly need to lose a point of strength?
And again, Markerlights have always been able to influence cover saves. Switch it back to its previous 1 mark = -1 to cover save system rather than a flat 2 marks = no cover save and, from what I've seen here, most of the complaints go away.
Oh, and can we switch firing Seeker Missiles by markerlight back to how it was, too? Having to fire them at the same target as the vehicle carrying them is against the fluff in so many ways.
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves
So remove one of the most iconic powers Tau have
Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice
And take away their standard iconic gun which is very strong in the fluff?
No offense but these are terrible ideas and really break a lot of what Tau have to keep them seperate from other armies. You want to make them IG vets with bolters and no special weapons.
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves
So remove one of the most iconic powers Tau have
Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice
And take away their standard iconic gun which is very strong in the fluff?
No offense but these are terrible ideas and really break a lot of what Tau have to keep them seperate from other armies. You want to make them IG vets with bolters and no special weapons.
GoliothOnline wrote: Ive said it before, Ill say it again. The best way to nerf Tau yet make them more Lore dependent and actually fit into the new Codecies (Alla Orks) is to make a Cast System much like Chapter tactics for them.
Aside from that, and having certain units becoming troops dependent / elite choices depending on your HQ from X Cast, the only other way to Balance Tau is to overhaul the Riptide, Overhaul Fire Warriors and Balance out their Markerlights rules.
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves, they may only be used to increase BS. Possibly adding a Twin Linked effect at 3 Marker Light Tokens. Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice... If Fire Warriors were given standard Bolter fire arms (str 4) with ap 5 at the range they had, I'd be alrighty with my currently shelved 11k Tau army... But every time I look at them and remember how easy it is to play even a BAD list with them, and still annihilate my veteran opponents, I cannot look at them as anything but grim-cheese to bring to a game, friendly or competitive.
Pulse Rifles have always been S5, haven't they? They were in the previous two books and weren't a problem in the previous two books so why do they suddenly need to lose a point of strength?
The big difference between now and then, is the fact these little mighty fire warriors can now En Mass, over watch. You don't quite know the dread of playing Tau and watching things disappear before they can even get to you, non tactically speaking, while sitting in the open, on an objective, and feeling like a complete piece of crap because of it being so easy... I hate my new Tau. The fact they are so cheap, means in comparison I could field nearly double the amount of Fire Warriors, with a suppressive range to fire from, which benefits far too easily from the rest of my army.
rigeld2 wrote: Carnifexes get 12 at the same BS (Yes, twin-linked) and are feared for it.
12 S6 shots 6 hit, 9 after re-roll,
8 S6 shots get 4 hits, no re-roll.
So... more than double the hits may have something to do with that.
Against flyers?
8 shots gets you 1.33 hits
12 shots twin-linked gets you 3.67 hits
Can you see the difference?
One such method, being that Markerlights can no longer remove Cover Saves
So remove one of the most iconic powers Tau have
Fire Warriors need Str 4 Weapons. Str 5 on something that prominent destroys too much of the basic core of the game on a model that is supposed to be a basic Troop choice
And take away their standard iconic gun which is very strong in the fluff?
No offense but these are terrible ideas and really break a lot of what Tau have to keep them seperate from other armies. You want to make them IG vets with bolters and no special weapons.
And no offense to you, but your comparing them to Vets lol...
A 9 point model that can out range just about any other troop choice in the game with no downside aside from being "Poor" in CC is no excuse for a Tau player (As Im assuming you are....I hope not though) to defend how ridiculous their basic troops are. 9 Stinkin points.
The big difference between now and then, is the fact these little mighty fire warriors can now En Mass, over watch
So then why not remove the overwatch ability? Why go straight to ruining what is good about Firewarriors?
You don't quite know the dread of playing Tau and watching things disappear before they can even get to you, non tactically speaking, while sitting in the open, on an objective, and feeling like a complete piece of crap because of it being so easy... I hate my new Tau.
I can't help but feel you're letting your own personal experience skew your opinion on balance.
The fact they are so cheap, means in comparison I could field nearly double the amount of Fire Warriors, with a suppressive range to fire from, which benefits far too easily from the rest of my army.
They always could benefit from markerlights and they are 1 point cheaper than last edition. I can not understand where you're coming from with this.
A 9 point model that can out range just about any other troop choice in the game
Because it fits the fluff and Tau playstyle. They have a 6" longer range gun and aren't geared towards close combat or allowed any special weapons.
with no downside aside from being "Poor" in CC is no excuse for a Tau player (As Im assuming you are....I hope not though) to defend how ridiculous their basic troops are. 9 Stinkin points.
They have plenty of downsides. Poor leadership/unit count, they have no special weapons, a lackluster transport, and BS3 base.
I am a Tau player, don't know why you hope I'm not, but they were like this in 6th before the update and they were far from tearing up the field. I think you are playing bad opponents because you're talking about a unit that shoots equal to a MEQ against MEQ without the other benefits of being a MEQ.
The big difference between now and then, is the fact these little mighty fire warriors can now En Mass, over watch. You don't quite know the dread of playing Tau and watching things disappear before they can even get to you, non tactically speaking, while sitting in the open, on an objective, and feeling like a complete piece of crap because of it being so easy... I hate my new Tau. The fact they are so cheap, means in comparison I could field nearly double the amount of Fire Warriors, with a suppressive range to fire from, which benefits far too easily from the rest of my army.
Yeah, if you're assaulting a solid bastion of fire warriors with a single unit then it's suicide as it should be.
Even if you had 6 units of 12 Fire Warriors all within 6 inches of each other and through some weird geometry all within rapid fire range of a unit of space marines then the combined overwatch would only cause 5.33 casualties. 144 shots only killing 5 Space Marines is not overpowering.
The trick is to assault with multiple units at once and carrying out these assaults in a tactical order. Assaulting in an order which means the Tau player has to choose whether to:
1) overwatch a weak unit or 2) hold off overwatch for when the dangerous scary unit assaults.
If they choose option 1 then that Fire Warrior unit may not get assaulted thanks to overwatch casualties but they won't be able to provide supporting fire against the big scary unit. If they choose option 2 then they have to rely on the weak unit not making it into assault as if they get locked in combat they can't use supporting fire against the big scary unit.
The big difference between now and then, is the fact these little mighty fire warriors can now En Mass, over watch
So then why not remove the overwatch ability? Why go straight to ruining what is good about Firewarriors?
You don't quite know the dread of playing Tau and watching things disappear before they can even get to you, non tactically speaking, while sitting in the open, on an objective, and feeling like a complete piece of crap because of it being so easy... I hate my new Tau.
I can't help but feel you're letting your own personal experience skew your opinion on balance.
The fact they are so cheap, means in comparison I could field nearly double the amount of Fire Warriors, with a suppressive range to fire from, which benefits far too easily from the rest of my army.
They always could benefit from markerlights and they are 1 point cheaper than last edition. I can not understand where you're coming from with this.
That IS the point though. My personal Experience is exactly WHY I hate my Tau, my experiences with them, are exactly why I can say the things I do. How else could I? If I had 0 experience in playing the army, and didnt have the many hundreds of games under my belt, It would be entirely different... But I do, and the games are all the same. Same outcomes even with different match ups. 1 Point on a fire warrior makes all the difference, them losing an "Iconic" weapon? In who's eyes? The Pulse Rifle is still fantastic, even on paper with only str 4. The range is the problem, and that is what made it Iconic. If you want to keep the range, sacrifice the Strength. Hell, now that I say that, Id rather a Pulse Rifle with 2 stats, 1 for str 4 at 30" and the other at str 5 within 15".... but hell Ive already gotten myself into one of those downer moods just looking at my Tau again.... So Im not going to bother.
That IS the point though. My personal Experience is exactly WHY I hate my Tau, my experiences with them, are exactly why I can say the things I do. How else could I? If I had 0 experience in playing the army, and didnt have the many hundreds of games under my belt, It would be entirely different... But I do, and the games are all the same. Same outcomes even with different match ups. 1 Point on a fire warrior makes all the difference, them losing an "Iconic" weapon? In who's eyes? The Pulse Rifle is still fantastic, even on paper with only str 4. The range is the problem, and that is what made it Iconic. If you want to keep the range, sacrifice the Strength. Hell, now that I say that, Id rather a Pulse Rifle with 2 stats, 1 for str 4 at 30" and the other at str 5 within 15".... but hell Ive already gotten myself into one of those downer moods just looking at my Tau again.... So Im not going to bother.
Why is an extra 6" range that problematic? It's only 6".
If my Fire Warriors can shoot a unit of Space Marines at 30" then that unit of Space Marines can move forwards 6" and return fire against me. An extra 6" hardly makes the Tau untouchable.
Now, if they had the Eldar shoot then run ability... then they would be broken with 30" guns.
That IS the point though. My personal Experience is exactly WHY I hate my Tau, my experiences with them, are exactly why I can say the things I do. How else could I?
By realizing that just because YOU don't have fun with them doesn't meant that OTHER people CAN'T have fun with them. You have a bias and it's affecting your judgement on balance. You want to skew balance to satiate a bias and this is AGAINST the majority of other players.
1 Point on a fire warrior makes all the difference
So 10 point FW in early 6th is an uphill fight with Tau on the lower end of the army tiers.
9 points however and it's tearing apart every army on the table. Can you see that there is something wrong with this statement?
them losing an "Iconic" weapon? In who's eyes?
People that aren't you, so you apparently don't care about them.
The Pulse Rifle is still fantastic, even on paper with only str 4.
Then it's a bolter with a bit longer range. That's not fantastic at all.
That IS the point though. My personal Experience is exactly WHY I hate my Tau, my experiences with them, are exactly why I can say the things I do. How else could I? If I had 0 experience in playing the army, and didnt have the many hundreds of games under my belt, It would be entirely different... But I do, and the games are all the same. Same outcomes even with different match ups. 1 Point on a fire warrior makes all the difference, them losing an "Iconic" weapon? In who's eyes? The Pulse Rifle is still fantastic, even on paper with only str 4. The range is the problem, and that is what made it Iconic. If you want to keep the range, sacrifice the Strength. Hell, now that I say that, Id rather a Pulse Rifle with 2 stats, 1 for str 4 at 30" and the other at str 5 within 15".... but hell Ive already gotten myself into one of those downer moods just looking at my Tau again.... So Im not going to bother.
Why is an extra 6" range that problematic? It's only 6".
If my Fire Warriors can shoot a unit of Space Marines at 30" then that unit of Space Marines can move forwards 6" and return fire against me. An extra 6" hardly makes the Tau untouchable.
Now, if they had the Eldar shoot then run ability... then they would be broken with 30" guns.
It also has to do with Rapid Fire, don't forget. at 30" range, Rapide Fire has an effective range of 15". 6" is still half a foot, and makes ALL the difference, especially with advancing armies of any sort.
It also has to do with Rapid Fire, don't forget. at 30" range, Rapide Fire has an effective range of 15". 6" is still half a foot, and makes ALL the difference, especially with advancing armies of any sort.
Right, I can rapid fire from a whole 3" extra distance. Again, hardly game breaking.
That IS the point though. My personal Experience is exactly WHY I hate my Tau, my experiences with them, are exactly why I can say the things I do. How else could I?
By realizing that just because YOU don't have fun with them doesn't meant that OTHER people CAN'T have fun with them. You have a bias and it's affecting your judgement on balance. You want to skew balance to satiate a bias and this is AGAINST the majority of other players.
1 Point on a fire warrior makes all the difference
So 10 point FW in early 6th is an uphill fight with Tau on the lower end of the army tiers.
9 points however and it's tearing apart every army on the table. Can you see that there is something wrong with this statement?
them losing an "Iconic" weapon? In who's eyes?
People that aren't you, so you apparently don't care about them.
The Pulse Rifle is still fantastic, even on paper with only str 4.
Then it's a bolter with a bit longer range. That's not fantastic at all.
Again, I'm done arguing. Ive put my statement in, I'm happy with my logic. You don't have to be, you have that right. If everyone DID enjoy playing against and playing Tau, there wouldn't have been 20 pages of this exact thread coming with hammer and nails.... Im leaving it at that.
It also has to do with Rapid Fire, don't forget. at 30" range, Rapide Fire has an effective range of 15". 6" is still half a foot, and makes ALL the difference, especially with advancing armies of any sort.
So rapid fire increasing by 3" for FW is what gets to you? Are you forgetting those advancing armies will be closing distance with their weapons as well?
GoliothOnline wrote: If everyone DID enjoy playing against and playing Tau, there wouldn't have been 20 pages of this exact thread coming with hammer and nails.... Im leaving it at that.
Look at the last 20 pages and tell me how many posts are about FW being far too hard to kill and how they kill too much.
They have the same stat line and same gun as they did in the previous codex that was on the low end of the scale through 5th and pre-update 6th. The point cost changed by 1 while unit size remained the same. You want to fix something that isn't a problem. You want to take away the iconic gun and replace it with bolters. Those aren't fixes. Your win/loss record does not matter when it comes to ruining what are some of the iconic/staples to Tau and what MANY enjoy about the game.
BoomWolf wrote: HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Why isn't it a threat?
Because its 3 BS3 S7 shots. odds are nothing will happen even if you are AV10 and do not jink. on average it will hit 1.5 times, of them 0.25 will glance, 0.75 will pen and 0.5 will whiff. a single hullpoint and perhaps a damage result. not worth jinking over.
If you are AV11 or got some other defensive boost (save for example) its even less likely to harm you.
its therefor not a threat.
And you ignored the Fusion Blasters. And if losing 2/3 of your hull points and potentially dying isn't a threat... I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Because fusions got short range, if he someone intercepted with these its your fault. I am simplfiying things.
How 1 hull point is 2/3 of anything baffles me. you are losing 1 hull point from him if you are outside fusion range, and even inside it-odds are you won't die.
That is not a jink threat. a jink threat is something that is going to kill you unless you jink.
And before you go "BUT FNP", FnP calculations are silly and you are doing pointless work. just ignore them and think of the FnP ability as a 50% increase in base W count and it will save you a lot of work. (so a FnP riptide as 7.5 effective wounds, and no FnP for the same math results)
Um. No they're not? Why are they silly? And why are you giving a 50% W increase instead of 33% because that's what FNP is?
Calculate how many bolter shots it take to kill a marine, and how many it takes to kill a marine with FnP, than return to me.
The fact you argue about statistics and power level when you seem to have low familiarty with how the calculations even work troubles me.
Its still doing over a third of its own wounds to itself over a game. with the no-too-cheap FnP upgrade, and with firepower not as amazing as some would thing (basically 3 assault canons at BS3 whn nova works, and 2 non-rendeing ones when it doesnt)
Plus the other gun. I'm not sure how that's negligible.
He must you mix two things? negligible WITHOUT nova. not with it. with it its decent firepower-but not as durable.
Over a game its 48 S6AP4 rending shots and 16 S6AP4 shots, at BS 3 meaning half are going to miss, and not only you cannot control when the weaker profile shots up-you cannot predict it either.
Its not amazing firepower-and this is under the assumption that you leave it alone all game long and let it shoot-if you as much as come close to it with a semi-decent CC unit you WILL be disruption its shooting at least partly, and a shown it will hurt itself enough that its clearly within the killable range of ranged weaponry anyway, even if it did take FnP.
Wait - shots can miss? nowai.
Sarcasam gets you nowhere. sure evryone misses-but some miss more. BS3 vs the commonly used BS4 is a big difference when multi-shot units are involved.
The "negligble" was referring to not overcharging the HBC
Under the assumption the HBC never overcharges, its less destructive than a dev squad with heavy bolters even when you count the secondary gun too (probably SMS)
And HBdevs are wildly considered worthless, and only worth even considering in IF armies. (bolter experts) where even there they are not very hot.
Partially because HBdevs have to stand still to get any output at all. Maybe, just maybe, you should look at more than just damage output? Because 8 S6 shots isn't negligible. Carnifexes get 12 at the same BS (Yes, twin-linked) and are feared for it. And yours even has AP.
Said dev marines also cost less than 66% of base riptide. for every two base riptides-you could have gotten three HBdev squads, and have points left over.
Who outshoot the non-nova riptide each, and between the higher wound count and the spared are not far behind on durability, even though they are less mobile.
And yet, its a firepower comparison to a wildly considered worthless unit. and worthless DUE to its firepower. for that very same reason tank-mounted HB are always replaced with HF if its a free trade. nobody ever field HB, in any form, unless its attached to something else they want and there is no viable replacement. (aside pask, but named HQs are hardly the way to classify weapons worth)
As for dakkafex-first, they are not "feared" they are considered "passable", at best. second, they land far more shots that a non-NOVAed riptide, and equal when he does nova, the AP is rarely relevant, and the fex is cheaper, featuring superior CC stats, and is fearless. so it has his own perks.
While I wont say the riptide ISNT a better unit-its not very far. and the dakkafex isnt great to begin with.
The firepower of most Astartes lists doesn't become a thing until 18". As I said before, marines pretty much lose this firepower contest everytime. The straggling survivors can't generate enough HTH wounds to compete anymore.
Yeah, if you're assaulting a solid bastion of fire warriors with a single unit then it's suicide as it should be.
Sorry, but assaulting fire warriors with a melee unit certainly shouldn't be suicide.
Tau are supposed to be weak in combat. Being weak in combat with the ability to vaporise anything that tries to assault them is not being weak in combat.
If they're going to have that degree of melee defence, then they should be receiving no other bonuses as a result of being 'weak in melee'.
Yeah, if you're assaulting a solid bastion of fire warriors with a single unit then it's suicide as it should be.
Sorry, but assaulting fire warriors with a melee unit certainly shouldn't be suicide.
Tau are supposed to be weak in combat. Being weak in combat with the ability to vaporise anything that tries to assault them is not being weak in combat.
If they're going to have that degree of melee defence, then they should be receiving no other bonuses as a result of being 'weak in melee'.
Except they don't have the ability to vaporise anything that tries to assault them unless you're feeding a bunker of several units of fire warriors individual assault units every turn.
If you use tactics to force them to split their fire, as I suggested above, then you can break their cohesion. For each unit that is locked in combat, even if it is a single model from a suicide distraction unit that makes it into base contact, then the overall overwatch power is reduced.
Im not taking things personally, I only pointed out the double standard Imperial players in particular (as most of the Riptide Comparisons are against Marine units on here) that is being used in regards to the Riptide, never said anyone specifically nor was it meant to be.
No, not at all. Even after their new codex, they are south of mediocre. No power builds. No exploitable combos. No truly powerful characters. No grav cents. No stormtalons. No TFCs.
They were outright unplayable before. Now they are just poor. The BA still stack up very unfavorably against Tau and Eldar.
Martel732 wrote: No, not at all. Even after their new codex, they are south of mediocre. No power builds. No exploitable combos. No truly powerful characters. No grav cents. No stormtalons. No TFCs.
They were outright unplayable before. Now they are just poor.
GW design philosophy seems to be to try and combine all of the IoM into a single army but sell as many books for it as possible. I've seen some decent formations for them, but it's not really covering up for the problems with the codex from what I've seen.
Martel732 wrote: No, not at all. Even after their new codex, they are south of mediocre. No power builds. No exploitable combos. No truly powerful characters. No grav cents. No stormtalons. No TFCs.
They were outright unplayable before. Now they are just poor. The BA still stack up very unfavorably against Tau and Eldar.
What about Chapter Master Dante and Gabriel Seth ? And for that matter Metaphiston. Also I was surprised they didn't get assault centurions at least.
I would not be quick to say they got no powerbuilds.
It took three months for the buffmander to appear, despite how obvious he looks now in retrospective.
Truly good combos are often the ones you don't see straight away, because they come from unintended inner works.
Bet you didn't know you can do a T1 dreadnaught charge from a drop pod if you say they got no explotiable combos.
(yep. charging, from DS, on turn 1. totally doable with the right formations)
The BA as solid as it gets now.
Their core units are solid, they got interesting options (HF in troops, fast tanks, etc) and can do some awesome things
They lack overpowered gak. and that's a good thing.
If all overpowered gak would be fixed (HYMP+IA, gravcents, serpents, flyrants, nightscythe/annibarge, etc) they will be fair game for top spots.
The standard marine book still would stomp a mudhole in the BA so far you'd never find the BA corpses. The Tiggystar will leave no BA surviving.
And, yes, I know about the dreadnought gimmick. The tax to be able to do that is crippling, imo.
That's the difference between BA and Tau. Tau have fearsome weapons that work in a general sense. BA have gimmicks that are marginally useful in a general sense.
Martel732 wrote: No, not at all. Even after their new codex, they are south of mediocre. No power builds. No exploitable combos. No truly powerful characters. No grav cents. No stormtalons. No TFCs.
They were outright unplayable before. Now they are just poor. The BA still stack up very unfavorably against Tau and Eldar.
What about Chapter Master Dante and Gabriel Seth ? And for that matter Metaphiston. Also I was surprised they didn't get assault centurions at least.
Seth is a still a useless tool, just as he always was. Dante is finally where he needed to be 20 years ago, but is now a LoW. I like the new Mephiston better, actually, but it doesn't change the fact that Tau are going to shoot BA off the table with little effort.
Yes, codex marines are stronger.
But that's because grav centurions are one of the "overpowered gak" that needs to be fixed along with the IA riptide, HYMP broadsides, etc.
Plus, they got plenty of strong units like the DC and the golden boys.
I don't think we've seen the full glory of the new BA yet. I suspect they will be taking some names in upcoming turnies. they wont be able to beat the madness of WS spam and centurionstar on a constant basis-because these things are OP gak, but they will show presence.
So if we take all the best units out of the game, none of which are BA units, of course, BA become decent. In that case, they've been decent for 20 years. Isn't needing a handicap like that the definition of bad?
One such unit is the Riptide. Which has quite a few ardent defenders on here. I personally get sick of picking my models up with a squeegee after a Tau turn.
Martel732 wrote: The standard marine book still would stomp a mudhole in the BA so far you'd never find the BA corpses. The Tiggystar will leave no BA surviving.
And, yes, I know about the dreadnought gimmick. The tax to be able to do that is crippling, imo.
That's the difference between BA and Tau. Tau have fearsome weapons that work in a general sense. BA have gimmicks that are marginally useful in a general sense.
Martel732 wrote: No, not at all. Even after their new codex, they are south of mediocre. No power builds. No exploitable combos. No truly powerful characters. No grav cents. No stormtalons. No TFCs.
They were outright unplayable before. Now they are just poor. The BA still stack up very unfavorably against Tau and Eldar.
What about Chapter Master Dante and Gabriel Seth ? And for that matter Metaphiston. Also I was surprised they didn't get assault centurions at least.
Seth is a still a useless tool, just as he always was. Dante is finally where he needed to be 20 years ago, but is now a LoW. I like the new Mephiston better, actually, but it doesn't change the fact that Tau are going to shoot BA off the table with little effort.
You could always just allie in the things to fill any gaps you have in your force. Also is Seth bad because he's only got a melee weapon or is it something else ?
No, because the "best units in the game" are the select few who are bad in the "positive" way-aka too strong.
Its not that BA needs a buff, but that a selecet few units/guns/options needs a nerf.
VS the majorety of the game, BA stands proudly as fine-just like the rest of the 7th/late 6th armies (and in a way, the earliest 6th)
BA works perfectly fine and in balance with everyone if your environment is GK, IG, SoB, nids, SW, orks, CSM, DE and minor factions (DA are behind that line unfortunatly)
The codex marines, eldar, IK, daemons, necrons, and tau are ABOVE the majority. some more than others, and even then-only specific units/build are the reason for them being over the center in most cases.
They are the ones that needs to be brought down. not the others brought up to their level-as this is the essence of power creep.
The issue is not in the BA, but in the top-lists being dominated by highly specific mistakes. so specific that I can point out the line in each codex that has one that creates the issue to begin with.
A common mistake people make when they say their stuff are too weak-you need to compare to the working majority, not the dominating minority.
The current problem of the game balance comes directly from a wave of power creep that began with daemons, and ended with space marines-each having a signature or two of units/weapons/relics who are absurdly good, and derailing the entire rest of the codex with them.
You say one such problem is the riptide, what most so-called defenders say is that you got it wrong and it issue is not really the riptide, but even more spesific-the ion accelerator. (the HYMP is a seperate problem), the ion accelerator can be fixed to be fair with as simple edit as removing the non-NOVA blast options. so it has to overcharge in order to blast, blocking off other NOVA options-and increasing risk when you want to blast (also occasional fail at blasting) reduced range on top of it will also be fair.
Seth's got a melee weapon, and isn't good in melee. Bad combo, there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BoomWolf wrote: No, because the "best units in the game" are the select few who are bad in the "positive" way-aka too strong.
Its not that BA needs a buff, but that a selecet few units/guns/options needs a nerf.
VS the majorety of the game, BA stands proudly as fine-just like the rest of the 7th/late 6th armies (and in a way, the earliest 6th)
BA works perfectly fine and in balance with everyone if your environment is GK, IG, SoB, nids, SW, orks, CSM, DE and minor factions (DA are behind that line unfortunatly)
The codex marines, eldar, IK, daemons, necrons, and tau are ABOVE the majority. some more than others, and even then-only specific units/build are the reason for them being over the center in most cases.
They are the ones that needs to be brought down. not the others brought up to their level-as this is the essence of power creep.
The issue is not in the BA, but in the top-lists being dominated by highly specific mistakes. so specific that I can point out the line in each codex that has one that creates the issue to begin with.
A common mistake people make when they say their stuff are too weak-you need to compare to the working majority, not the dominating minority.
The current problem of the game balance comes directly from a wave of power creep that began with daemons, and ended with space marines-each having a signature or two of units/weapons/relics who are absurdly good, and derailing the entire rest of the codex with them.
Maybe, but the dominating minority IS the working majority in practice. Because people want to win.
In the turny scene maybe. but many people do not play like that when they play casual, or friendly.
I play tau. purely tau.
I do not use buffmanders, I field only HBC riptides, I field no broadsides (HYMP is OP, HRR is not viable), and I do field hammerheads who are just bad-but are cool.
The fact the dominating minority is a bad thing is never argued against-its a FACT.
But the method some want to take of buffing up the rest is what led us to this scenario to begin with. each new release kept buffing up stuff to keep up with the top, and every now and then it was too much and than everyone had to be further increased in power to match the NEW top-it was a neverending cycle.
Proper balance is achieved by only buffing what is really, REALLY behind. the things that are never viable, virtual non-existent choices-and NERFING the things that are too good. GW seems to have finally grasped this and are working in that direction.
It will take it a while to finish the cycle and fix the problem that we currently have (at least 7 codecies-the issue 5, CSM and DA, and than IK-but that can be done without a release) but doing it this way will result in the end in a better game than continuous creeping would have gotten us. and I'm willing to wait for getting that.
Not to mention creeping makes the game more expensive and less accessible. with power levels rising you need to keep pumping out bigger and stronger stuff, and dropping point costs of the lower end units. resulting in more numerous and expensive model count for the same army sizes.
gmaleron wrote: ^ +1, you could easily take allies and keep it fluff to fill what your army needs.
Come to think of it, Darnath Lysander owes Tycho a favor according to the Sentinels of Terra. So imperial fists allies could be considered for lore purposes.
in the face (especially in the Farsight supplement, where he's looking more and more like the valiant hero instead of the traitor turning his back on the Empire like before). The point is though, you never see that with any other army. When people criticize Tau they aren't just doing it for the sake of game balance, they're doing it because of the appearance of the models, or the fluff they personally don't like or find "boring" (And glorious Spehss Mahreens constantly overcoming everything you throw at them because Spehss Mahreens is interesting? Maybe if you're 12...), or some other nonsense factor that has no bearing on the game and is entirely up to opinion, and making it awful god damn personal while they're at it.
