A few preliminary remarks:

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

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

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

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

3. On to the meat of the issue.

Riptides with Ion Accelerators and stimulant injectors produce:

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

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

To boot, it has 5 wounds.

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

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

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

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

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

My proposal is a 325 point riptide.

What say you, dakka forums?

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

Did I do this right?

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

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

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

G.A

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

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

so I put 250

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

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Did I do this right?

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

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

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

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

The game is not balanced at all it never will be

 Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

The game is not balanced at all it never will be

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

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

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

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

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

Here, I have to ask:

What rebalancing are you assuming?

Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter
Wraithknight
Scatterbike
Landraider

?

 Traditio wrote:

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

Here, I have to ask:

What rebalancing are you assuming?

Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter
Wraithknight
Scatterbike
Landraider

?

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

 Traditio wrote:


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

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

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

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

250 would be the closest to fair.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ld9 isn't bad either.

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

Assuming BS 4, it would take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noted.

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

How?

Assuming a marine is firing those lascannon shots:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Raiders were actually weaker in my mind

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

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

 Traditio wrote:
Appropriate prices for:

A tactical marine with bolter

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

Wraithknight

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

Scatterbike

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

Landraider

650 points. Land Raiders are scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

Ld9 isn't bad either.

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

And it has a maximum range of 18 inches.

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

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

Peregrine wrote:Peregrine's entire first posting

Peregrine:

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

I will say this, since this alone stood out:

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

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

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

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

They'd still prefer the riptide, though.

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

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

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

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

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

The School of Disgruntled Marines is at it again.

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

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

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

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

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

Landraider + crisis suits?

Landraider + fire warriors?

Landraider + kroot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Traditio wrote:

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

Landraider + crisis suits?

Landraider + fire warriors?

Landraider + kroot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Blacksails wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its right where it should be 225

pm713 wrote:A lot more people said it shouldn't cost that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691781.page

43% of all poll respondents voted "400 or more."

When I write "395," I'm being conservative in my evaluation of its points value.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Your opinion is duly noted.

Nonetheless, why don't you humor me:

Let us assume a 395 point wraithknight, and let us assume a riptide, as described, with absolutely no rules changes.

How would you price it?

Look at those goalposts fly.

I thoroughly enjoy how in one breath you can claim a bunch of the numbers are meaningless because of trolls, but in the next, claim its a perfectly valid and representative poll.

At least show some consistency.

 Blacksails wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy how in one breath you can claim a bunch of the numbers are meaningless because of trolls, but in the next, claim its a perfectly valid and representative poll.

At least show some consistency.

Oy vey.

Are you going to answer the question seriously or not?

I repeat the question:

Assume a 395 point wraithknight. How does the riptide, as described, compare to it?

You yourself made the WK the standard of comparison, Blacksails.

Are you going to acknowledge your total inconsistency?

Just out of curiosity. Why do you make so many complaints about xenos chese and never talk about all of the OP stuff imperial forces get.

The riptide is fine where it is. I would rather land-raiders be dropped to 180 points then riptides brought up to 250.

lusciifi wrote:
Just out of curiosity. Why do you make so many complaints about xenos chese and never talk about all of the OP stuff imperial forces get.

The riptide is fine where it is. I would rather land-raiders be dropped to 180 points then riptides brought up to 250.

In fairness he has referred to it a few times. Although I feel a double standard is present with it.

 Traditio wrote:
Lots of Mathshammer stuff

Sorry I just didn't want to quote your whole post.

I take your calculations into account, but that's all they are; calculations based on a game with a lot of chance in. You are probably tired of me saying it now, but this game hinges on chance dice rolls for most of it's actions, which means that not everyone is going to experience a lot of units in the game in the same way.

Guess I'm an anomaly then, or a "troll poll" if that's the term you prefer

So yes, you're right, but I don't think that matters. I mean, I prayed to the dice gods and cursed the WAAC TFG's before each battle anyway, so I was bound to pull out great wins

Have to say General that's a pretty silly idea. The dice gods are cruel and care little for your prayers. You need a sacrifice of some sort.

lusciifi wrote:
Just out of curiosity. Why do you make so many complaints about xenos chese and never talk about all of the OP stuff imperial forces get.

The riptide is fine where it is. I would rather land-raiders be dropped to 180 points then riptides brought up to 250.

What are you talking about? I complain about that stuff non-stop. Grav is a load of bull gak. Bikes are undercosted. Formations should never have existed (much less ones that confer free transports). Thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds are seriously undercosted. Librarius powers are ludicrous...and the ridiculous durability of certain models are just infuriating.

I could go on, and that's just the SM codex.

pm713 wrote:
Have to say General that's a pretty silly idea. The dice gods are cruel and care little for your prayers. You need a sacrifice of some sort.

Great idea! Let's start with this poll

Its almost as though this is the same OP who made a thread defending the GSF.

 Blacksails wrote:
Are you going to acknowledge your total inconsistency?

Quote me on the precise things about which you think I've been inconsistent. I have made, throughout the course of these threads, a number of different, mutually consistent points. If you think that they're inconsistent, then you've simply misunderstood me. I will enumerate them below and I challenge you to indicate the ones that you honestly think are probably false:

1. We cannot form too hasty a judgment on public opinion from early poll results due to the fact that the most early responses are likely to be the dakka members who keep track of my postings, have a negative opinion of me and wish to troll me.

2. Given 1, we can, furthermore, assume that the extreme outliers on any given poll I make, assuming they seriously stray from the medial results, and further assuming that they were made early on and by a very small number of people, can probably be disregarded.

We can safely ignore one guy who votes for a 10 point wraithknight. If 100 respondents out of 300 voted for a 10 point wraithknight, then we can't. Something is going on and we should look into that.

And you know what? That's just a good rule in general. Going back to the WK thread, a very small number of people voted for ridiculous cheap wraithknights, and a very small number of people voted for ridiculously expensive wraithknights.

When looking for a reasonable number, we can throw both of those results out as extreme, unreasonable outlier results.

3. Nonetheless, the number of such results is relatively small and are easily outweighed in the final poll results, assuming enough responses are given over a long enough period of time. We can disregard the first hour 7/1 split because of various skewing factors. We can't disregard the final 200/150 result. 350 people don't give enough of a feth about me or what I say to devote themselves to trolling my polls.

This allows me to say that public opinion declares the following:

1. Wraithknights should cost a minimum of 395 points.
2. The mere existence of SHVs and GMCs in non-apocalypse games is extremely controversial, though a slight majority are basically fine with it.
3. Whether or not riptdes are fair is highly disputed, and there's roughly an even split on the matter in public opinion.
4. Bikes should cost more.

Which of these points do you wish to disagree with?

In fact, further consider the fact that the results of my polls basically correspond to what you actually see in discussion threads.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its almost as though this is the same OP who made a thread defending the GSF.

And Tyranids are OP. Don't forget that.

 Traditio wrote:

lusciifi wrote:
Just out of curiosity. Why do you make so many complaints about xenos chese and never talk about all of the OP stuff imperial forces get.

The riptide is fine where it is. I would rather land-raiders be dropped to 180 points then riptides brought up to 250.

What are you talking about? I complain about that stuff non-stop. Grav is a load of bull gak. Bikes are undercosted. Formations should never have existed (much less ones that confer free transports). Thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds are seriously undercosted. Librarius powers are ludicrous...and the ridiculous durability of certain models are just infuriating.

I could go on, and that's just the SM codex.

Well that's the problem. Theres so much imbalance at this point that you cant really single riptides out as much as you do. In the current environment of competitive 40k riptides are not head and shoulders above the rest.

Bottom line. When you say what should the cost of a riptide be in a balanced 40k there's no way to awnser that. We could just as easly solve the issue by keeping the riptide at the same cost and making land-raiders 180 points, tac marines 10 and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I will say is the riptide wing should go away or it should cost an extra 100 points.

pm713 wrote:And Tyranids are OP. Don't forget that.

Yes. Because I'm not human. I'm never prone to error. And my opinions never change.

Right?

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:A lot more people said it shouldn't cost that.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691781.page

43% of all poll respondents voted "400 or more."

When I write "395," I'm being conservative in my evaluation of its points value.

Which means 57% thought it should cost less than 400 points.

Oh wait, I forgot. 30% of the voters were trolling that poll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Have to say General that's a pretty silly idea. The dice gods are cruel and care little for your prayers. You need a sacrifice of some sort.

Great idea! Let's start with this poll

So a "What should I sacrifice to appease the dice gods?"

I don't think it will work. Trolls will clearly vote for the "The Dice Gods do not exist, Heretic." option. We could always discount those votes though. Especially if the trend starts coming up as "{insert name here}'s first child".

Traditio, you can't make a poll, immediately dismiss its first findings, then decide later that the numbers are 'good enough' for your argument, which are also largely made up to suit your own needs.

Happyjew wrote:Which means 57% thought it should cost less than 400 points.

Oh wait, I forgot. 30% of the voters were trolling that poll.

Let us assume that absolutely 0 poll respondents were trolls.

The fact remains that 47% voted for a 400 point or higher wraithknight. Roughly 70% voted for a wraithknight that's 350 points or higher.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:And Tyranids are OP. Don't forget that.

Yes. Because I'm not human. I'm never prone to error. And my opinions never change.

Right?

It certainly hurts your credentials when it comes to trying to balance stuff, seeing as it was obvious and common knowledge Nids have been bottom barrel for some time now.

 Blacksails wrote:
Traditio, you can't make a poll, immediately dismiss its first findings, then decide later that the numbers are 'good enough' for your argument, which are also largely made up to suit your own needs.

Again, I ask you:

Which of my polls do you think obtained a final result that differs from actual public opinion as evidenced in average dakka discussions?

And I ask you again, why is that you only decide the poll is sufficiently good enough or not troll filled when it becomes convenient for you to twist some arbitrary numbers.

Does public opinion actually matter in the first place. I would say the majority of people out there have no idea how to balance the game. People are wrong about game balance all the time.

Real world statistics would be a better option but I know you don't want to look at tournament results and we dont have a large sample size of casual game results to look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you dont like playing against riptide spam just talk to your opponent before hand about how competitive you want your game to be. Most people are willing to adjust their lists to have a more even game. I know I for one have a terrible time when the game is one sided in either players favor.

lusciifi wrote:
Does public opinion actually matter in the first place. I would say the majority of people out there have no idea how to balance the game. People are wrong about game balance all the time.

Real world statistics would be a better option but I know you don't want to look at tournament results and we dont have a large sample size of casual game results to look at.

This is the real answer ultimately. Without justification, a poll number doesn't mean a whole lot. There's no context to the people voting. There's a reason real game companies have proper test groups that have to justify their reasons with essays and game data.

 Blacksails wrote:
And I ask you again, why is that you only decide the poll is sufficiently good enough or not troll filled when it becomes convenient for you to twist some arbitrary numbers.

Blacksails:

Literally all that I've said, that you've misconstrued as per above, is "let's wait and see until the numbers are in."

Currently, the poll results are in my favor. Do I think that they are representative of total dakka opinion?

No. Less than 25 people have responded so far.

And what you've misconstrued is that I'm referencing your previous poll you've trotted out where you dismissed it as being ruined by trolls until the numbers came out the way you felt was good enough.

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
And I ask you again, why is that you only decide the poll is sufficiently good enough or not troll filled when it becomes convenient for you to twist some arbitrary numbers.

Blacksails:

Literally all that I've said, that you've misconstrued as per above, is "let's wait and see until the numbers are in."

Currently, the poll results are in my favor. Do I think that they are representative of total dakka opinion?

No. Less than 25 people have responded so far.

How are they in your favour? Two people have agreed. The most common vote is to keep it as is. In fact almost everyone disagrees with you.

 Blacksails wrote:
And what you've misconstrued is that I'm referencing your previous poll you've trotted out where you dismissed it as being ruined by trolls until the numbers came out the way you felt was good enough.

Oy vey. That's enough for this derail.

The topic of the OP is as I've outlined. If you wish to discuss it, then discuss it. If not, then nobody is forcing you to participate in a thread, the legitimacy of which you don't acknowledge.

I've outlined my criterion as follows in the OP:

I am assuming a 395 point wraithknight.

You subsequently have asserted that we should balance the riptide against the wraithknight.

At this point, it's up to you either:

1. To make a reasonable points proposal for the riptide as outlined.

2. Recuse yourself from the discussion.

pm713 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
And I ask you again, why is that you only decide the poll is sufficiently good enough or not troll filled when it becomes convenient for you to twist some arbitrary numbers.

Blacksails:

Literally all that I've said, that you've misconstrued as per above, is "let's wait and see until the numbers are in."

Currently, the poll results are in my favor. Do I think that they are representative of total dakka opinion?

No. Less than 25 people have responded so far.

How are they in your favour? Two people have agreed. The most common vote is to keep it as is. In fact almost everyone disagrees with you.

Well, 41% of the votes don't count, because the posters are Eldar/Tau trolls who don't want their units nerfed. Without them the trend points to the fact that almost everyone still disagrees.

pm713 wrote:How are they in your favour? Two people have agreed. The most common vote is to keep it as is. In fact almost everyone disagrees with you.

39% has voted for "as is or less."

Roughly 60% has voted for "more expensive." 48% has voted for 275 or higher.

I mean, it's not 325, but it's hardly reasonable to expect everybody to draw the line at precisely the point that I have. If we disregard the outliers (less than 220 and more than 400), the results are slightly more in my favor.

I am pleased to note that, while my opinion is currently not supported by public opinion, it's pretty close to the median answers.

I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220), we see how the values between them are completely equal on both ends. 3/4/3. We can't use these results to say "More people are in favour of X" because they counter one another.

So, that leads us to the actual results of 220 vs 325. Oh. 7 compared to 2. That should tip this in favour of 220 surely?

Your maths on the results are a little biased. You show that two results are capable of forming a significant minority compared to EVERY OTHER CATEGORY. Those adjacent two would beat nearly every other adjacent pair.
And if we look at the mode, 220 is EASILY the best result.

Still - I forget, this is full of trolls and WAAC TFGs who don't want their Riptides nerfed. I'm sure when the notTroll results come in it'll be more correct.

Need a new poll to dispense with the troll votes. They skew the poll results.

 Traditio wrote:


I am pleased to note that, while my opinion is currently not supported by public opinion, it's pretty close to the median answers.

Can I ask now that you have obtained the results you wanted, what you actually want to do or make of these results?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

By "in my favor," I simply meant "in favor of a points increase."

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220),

Taking all responses into account, the "median" result is 275.

That said, in answer to GA:

25 people or less have responded. We don't have enough data.

Assuming you re balance everything then the points cost would be unknown as we dont know how you re balanced all the points as well as what its scaled on.

im gona stick my vote int 400+ as there is no option for a no confidence vote.

 Traditio wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm sorry? How can you claim that more things are in favour of 325 as a points value than 220?

By "in my favor," I simply meant "in favor of a points increase."

If we look at 220 and 325 as our upper and lower ranges (because otherwise, it is a LANDSLIDE in favour of 220),

Taking all responses into account, the "median" result is 275.

That said, in answer to GA:

25 people or less have responded. We don't have enough data.

And with 29 votes (at this time)
The mean is 310. Due to the first and last results being undefined, they cannot be used. As such the next results (220 and 400) can be used to get an idea of the mean.
The mode is still 220
The Median is 250.

The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

Yes, but the results are tainted by trolls, so we cannot count all of the <220 or 220 votes.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

Yes, but the results are tainted by trolls, so we cannot count all of the <220 or 220 votes.

Clearly, but I'm obviously misconstruing what Traditio intended. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten us further with some clever number manipulation.

But of course, it must be reminded that the singular best way to ever balance something is to run a random poll to any and all people with zero justification or explanations why. Its why everyone does it and it always makes sense. Totally.

I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

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

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm obviously misconstruing what Traditio intended. I'm sure he'll be along to enlighten us further with some clever number manipulation.

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

Yeah, so on a serious note, there was a time when the big bad battle tanks of the game were Russes and Preds, with only Land Raiders and Monoliths being massive AV14 vehicles made of feth you-ium. Those vehicles also didn't have particularly awe inspiring weaponry and were mostly priced accordingly.

The power creep in the game is real and has only accelerated, from my perspective anyways. If I was in control of the game, I'd be looking to bring the nerf hammer down hard on all the so-called 7.5Ed codices and then re-tool the weakest ones up a little. I'd probably also do away with a number of game additions, like Lords of War, but that's neither here nor there.

In specifics to the Riptide, two editions ago had someone proposed an MC with that profile/abilities, it would have been laughed out of the forum. While there's theoretically a point cost that matches its abilities, it only accelerates the power creep as then you have to match basic weaponry to the increase in damage resilience. As it stands, basic infantry already leave much to be desired in the face of the ever growing number of MCs, SHVs, and GCs. The ultimate solution is widespread and would involve lots of nerfing and re-writing of core rules. With regards to this one unit, taking some basic steps like removing the FnP option, toning down the invul, and scraping a wound off or dropping the armour down a notch would bring in to reasonable durability while maintaining its mobility and firepower. At that point, Tau players would be genuinely concerned about fast, flanking, or deep striking units that can threaten their mobile firebase.

The bonus side effect is that other elite and heavy support choices might look more appealing in comparison.

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

Did I do this right?

Yup, classic Traditio response there.

Tho what's amusing is that fully half of the voters voted 220. OR LESS. That's a lot of "trolling".

With the players voting to reduce points being significantly higher than those wanting 400+ points, one must conclude the the Riptide is currently overcosted and should be repriced at something like 175 pts. Maybe 180 pts. That would be fair.

Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

I'd go for lowering armour over removing a wound.

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't math very well.

At this point, here are the results:

Less than 220 points: 5
220 points: 11
250 points: 4
275 points: 4
300 points: 4
325 points: 2
350 points: 2
375 points: 0
400 points: 0
More than 400 points: 3

Total number of votes: 35

This means that 16 people have voted for 220 points or less and 19 people have voted for 250 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 250 points or more, 15 people voted for 275 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 275 points or more, 11 people voted for 300 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 300 points or more, 7 people voted for 325 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 5 people voted for 350 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 3 people voted for 400 points or more.

The only sense in which "220 points" is the "majority" is that the largest number of people voted for that particular option in particular.

If I were a business man conducting a survey to determine what people are willing to pay for my jewelry, and I only had 15 in stock, I wouldn't set the price at 220 dollars per piece.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

FNP + 1 wound = 80 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

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

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

Even if all of that is true, that doesn't make the question "Given the fact that the riptide in its current form exists, what is the thing actually worth in terms of points value" any less legitimate.

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

I said that to circumvent the "But we need this OP bullgak to counter other OP bullgak" argument. For practical balancing purposes, you don't actually have to know the costs, etc. for everything else. You just need the comparable models.

With the 395 point wraithknight, we already basically have that.

What is a riptide, in its current form, worth relative to a 395 point wraithknight?

I'll wager a mathematical guess based on the current proportions, assuming, of course, that the riptide is already balanced relative to a wraithknight (a reasonable assumption, I assume).

Currently, the ratio is 220:295. Assuming a 395 point wraithknight, we can reason as follows:

As 220 is to 295, so too is x to 395. This means that x/395 = 220/295. This gives us an x which is roughly equal to 295.

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

 Traditio wrote:

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The majority of the vote says 250 or less.

In your last poll you were happy with a majority or less to base a point value on, so surely having a majority being 250 or less is enough support to go with that option.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't math very well.

At this point, here are the results:

Less than 220 points: 5
220 points: 11
250 points: 4
275 points: 4
300 points: 4
325 points: 2
350 points: 2
375 points: 0
400 points: 0
More than 400 points: 3

Total number of votes: 35

This means that 16 people have voted for 220 points or less and 19 people have voted for 250 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 250 points or more, 15 people voted for 275 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 275 points or more, 11 people voted for 300 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 300 points or more, 7 people voted for 325 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 5 people voted for 350 points or more.

Of the people who voted for 325 points or more, 3 people voted for 400 points or more.

The only sense in which "220 points" is the "majority" is that the largest number of people voted for that particular option in particular.

If I were a business man conducting a survey to determine what people are willing to pay for my jewelry, and I only had 15 in stock, I wouldn't set the price at 220 dollars per piece.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't read very well.

The quoted post said a majority of voters said 250 or less.
Out of (now) 36 votes, 21 votes are for 250 points , 220 points or less than 220 points. No one has said that 220 was the majority. I claimed the mode (you know, the number that shows up the most often) was (and is) 220.

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes. I only know one Tau player, and I have no intention of ever playing against him 1 v 1. He has both a storm surge and a riptide and refuses to play 1 v 1 games without them. I also only know one eldar player, and he's a power gamer who would never even dream, even at my request, of nerfing himself.

I do sometimes play on vassal, but I'm not one to start proposing house rules just willy nilly.

So I'll likely never actually see the benefits of any house rules like these.

I'll simply continue on in my merry habit of simply refusing games against tau and eldar players.

However, here on dakka fora, things like these are hotly debated, and we currently have a thread, in the proposed rules forum, on how to balance the riptide.

This thread is, in large measure, a complement to that thread.

Before any suggestions are made to balance the thing, we should at least know how much it's actually worth now.

Not to mention that I just like having data like this at my disposal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:At this point, I'm beginning to think that at least certain members on dakka fora just can't read very well.

The quoted post said a majority of voters said 250 or less.

In this case, you are correct.

I misread what he said.

Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

 CrownAxe wrote:
Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

Quote me as saying something like this.

Hint: I haven't.

Furthermore: if your only intent in posting in this thread is to troll me, don't you have other things to do?

So essentially you're making a poll to prove a point to two people who you believe to be WAAC TFG's?

Who cares mate, you're not playing them and never will by your own admission

And if it's the numbers that satisfy you, I doubt you're ever going to collect reliable data here when most people's experience of the Riptide vary wildly. Call some of the voters trolls all you like/need to, but some of those anomalies are likely to not be anomalies at all

 General Annoyance wrote:
So essentially you're making a poll to prove a point to two people who you believe to be WAAC TFG's?

Who cares mate, you're not playing them and never will by your own admission

And if it's the numbers that satisfy you, I doubt you're ever going to collect reliable data here when most people's experience of the Riptide vary wildly. Call some of the voters trolls all you like/need to, but some of those anomalies are likely to not be anomalies at all

As I said, it's not useful to me for any gaming purposes (but again, it's nice to have the data at my disposal for argumentative purposes).

But who knows? Maybe people who are more open to house rules will find the poll useful.

There's even the (extremely remote) off chance that a GW CEO might stumble on it some day. Who knows?

Edit:

Furthermore, I am sure that there are Tau players on dakka who are reading this thread who play in casual settings, but still want to use their riptides without seeming like complete donkey caves. They can use the poll to calculate points cost totals for their armies.

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Well your data shows that a strong minority don't think the Riptide needs a nerf. So that means that it doesn't need a nerf

Quote me as saying something like this.

Hint: I haven't.

Furthermore: if your only intent in posting in this thread is to troll me, don't you have other things to do?

Does this count?

 Traditio wrote:
YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

Happyjew wrote:Does this count?

No. Not when properly understood, given the rhetorical context.

 Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

 Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I got two things to say:

(1) Let's go back to what Blacksails said on Page 1:

 Blacksails wrote:
...I'm far more in the camp of bringing down their stats/abilities to match their point cost.

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

This. I reckon Riptides need to be toned down rather than appropriately costed for what it currently is. Take the following example:

If I have a weapon with Range 36", Strength 10, AP 1, Assault 18, which can be equipped to a Knight. Now as ridiculous as this weapon is, there's probably an appropriate points cost; but nobody is going to want this weapon in the game - they'd rather see it toned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. I feel the same about the Riptide (obviously it's not as ridiculous as my aforementioned weapon, but it highlights my point) - it should be toned done rather than appropriately costed for what it is.

Even if all of that is true, that doesn't make the question "Given the fact that the riptide in its current form exists, what is the thing actually worth in terms of points value" any less legitimate.

I'm not saying that it's illegitimate, but instead saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide as it currently stands is - to my mind - the inferior option. Why should you appropriately cost something when you can truly balance it?

 Traditio wrote:

(2) You're second assumption (that everything else in the game is balanced) is a very tall order and a very unreasonable assumption.

Mainly because you'd have to make so many changes to the game as a whole as well as every unit and set of rules to balance it. And the thing is that none of us know what that looks like, so making this assumption is not only unreasonable, but not an appropriate basis to be making any changes to anything.

I said that to circumvent the "But we need this OP bullgak to counter other OP bullgak" argument. For practical balancing purposes, you don't actually have to know the costs, etc. for everything else. You just need the comparable models.

With the 395 point wraithknight, we already basically have that.

If we're looking at appropriately costing something, comparing it to a single unit or a small sub-set of units is still inappropriate as a whole. You need to be able to look at the effectiveness of the unit compare with the game as a whole as well as comparing it to 'similar' units. So you're still missing a lot of data. Having a 396-Point Wraithknight isn't going to cut it.

 Traditio wrote:

You give Traditio too much credit. He will neither enlighten us nor be clever with the numbers manipulation.

I imagine that at least some of you in this thread have probably reported me, at least once, for being impolite or for trolling. Shame on you if you have.

Not that I'm claiming one way or the other in terms of reporting you (because whether or not I have really doesn't matter), why are you trying to shame people for this? It has generally been my experience that if people report others for any reason (whether it be this forum or anything else), they genuinely believe that something is not right and something should be done (regardless of whether or not something is actually done about it); and there is no shame in that.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

What about it? Use words.

 Traditio wrote:

As I said, it's not useful to me for any gaming purposes (but again, it's nice to have the data at my disposal for argumentative purposes)

You don't think this data won't be skewed a little by individual experience then? I think such data is highly subjective given not only the nature of the game you're asking them about but the experiences people have had with their communities and friends. I for one went to a very large club up to 6th ed, then sat and painted in solitude with no club in the country I moved to while 7th ed came around and butchered a lot of 40k groups; I'm pretty certain my experiences will not match many others, nor will theirs match the next 40k gamer. Of course you'll have a majority, but a majority does not always equal the truth, especially in a game full of chances.

There's even the (extremely remote) off chance that a GW CEO might stumble on it some day. Who knows?

Just don't hold your breath on that one, friend

G.A

IllumiNini wrote:I'm not saying that it's illegitimate, but instead saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide as it currently stands is - to my mind - the inferior option. Why should you appropriately cost something when you can truly balance it?

1. At this point, you are engaging in a thread derail. The thread's not about balancing the riptide. There's another thread devoted to that. This thread is about what the current riptide is actually worth.

2. They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both. In fact, if you know what the riptide is currently actually worth, want to end up with a 220 point model and you know the value of the various special rules and such, that actually makes it easier to actually balance.

If the riptide is currently worth 300 points, and you want to make it 220 points, then you need to strip 80 points worth of stuff from it.

If we're looking at appropriately costing something, comparing it to a single unit or a small sub-set of units is still inappropriate as a whole. You need to be able to look at the effectiveness of the unit compare with the game as a whole as well as comparing it to 'similar' units. So you're still missing a lot of data. Having a 396-Point Wraithknight isn't going to cut it.

I disagree. Balance is relative. Points costs are a numerical standard of comparison. If x costs 10 points and y costs 100 points, then assuming perfect balance, we should be able to say that y is 10 times more useful than x.

In the case of the wraithknight and the riptide, we are already in a privileged position:

1. The wraithknight and riptide have similar tactical roles and are otherwise similar units (with the exception that one has "gargantuan" in the statline and the other one doesn't).
2. We already know that the wraithknight and riptide are well balanced in comparison to each oher.
3. We already know the current costs of a wraithknight and a riptide.
4. We already know what a wraithknight should actually cost.

This gives us enough information to reason by mathematical proportions. If we can compare a riptide to a wraithknight, and if the ratio which obtains between 220 and 295 is fair, then it follows that the ratio which obtains between 295 and 395 is fair.

Not that I'm claiming one way or the other in terms of reporting you (because whether or not I have really doesn't matter), why are you trying to shame people for this? It has generally been my experience that if people report others for any reason (whether it be this forum or anything else), they genuinely believe that something is not right and something should be done (regardless of whether or not something is actually done about it); and there is no shame in that.

You're doing the exact same thing. You don't like it when people are impolite to you, troll you, spam and derail your threads? Then maybe you shouldn't be doing the exact same thing to other people. Just pointing that out.

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes.

so just trolling ?

kambien wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes.

so just trolling ?

No.

kambien wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes.

so just trolling ?

Not trolling, but of questionable value in the long run

 General Annoyance wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Not one of them, but still really, really confused to what the whole point of this exercise is

For me personally, it's completely useless for all practical purposes.

so just trolling ?

Not trolling, but of questionable value in the long run

Y'know, for all the trolling of which I'm being accused in this thread, there's sure a whole lot of trolling going on...by people who aren't myself.

 Traditio wrote:


Y'know, for all the trolling of which I'm being accused in this thread, there's sure a whole lot of trolling going on...by people who aren't myself.

Welcome to DakkaDakka, the community wide Mexican standoff of people accusing eachother of being trolls

But hey, at least we aren't on Reddit

Something of value though; why not simply consider removing certain powers and stats a Riptide has as house rules if they are of bother to you? Say, for instance, decreasing the potency of nova charging, or increasing the risk of nova charging, decreasing wounds and toughness and whatnot. Hell turn it into a walker type like it should have been in the first place; I'd be up for fighting a 12 all round jet pack walker

 Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:I'm not saying that it's illegitimate, but instead saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide as it currently stands is - to my mind - the inferior option. Why should you appropriately cost something when you can truly balance it?

1. At this point, you are engaging in a thread derail. The thread's not about balancing the riptide. There's another thread devoted to that. This thread is about what the current riptide is actually worth.

I'm not derailing the thread. I'm simply saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide is an inferior method when you consider the fact that balancing the unit as a whole is a better option. That's not derailing the thread, that's addressing the point in question. If I were to attempt to derail the thread, I'd be going into specifics as to how exactly I'd go about balancing the Riptide (which I'm not going to do).

 Traditio wrote:
2. They're not mutually exclusive. You can do both.

Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but why would you settle for simply applying an appropriate cost when you can balance it as well?

 Traditio wrote:

If we're looking at appropriately costing something, comparing it to a single unit or a small sub-set of units is still inappropriate as a whole. You need to be able to look at the effectiveness of the unit compare with the game as a whole as well as comparing it to 'similar' units. So you're still missing a lot of data. Having a 396-Point Wraithknight isn't going to cut it.

I disagree. Balance is relative. Points costs are a numerical standard of comparison.

Yes, to a extent: Balance is Relative. But to balance any set of units, you need a starting point for each unit that is independent of all others. For example, you can't balance a Riptide against a Wraithknight if neither of them have a points cost (which is calculated independent of each other) to begin with. Now, given my stance on balancing the Riptide as well as the fact that the Wraithknight doesn't actually cost 395 Points, this line of inquiry is pointless (at least for me).

 Traditio wrote:

Not that I'm claiming one way or the other in terms of reporting you (because whether or not I have really doesn't matter), why are you trying to shame people for this? It has generally been my experience that if people report others for any reason (whether it be this forum or anything else), they genuinely believe that something is not right and something should be done (regardless of whether or not something is actually done about it); and there is no shame in that.

You're doing the exact same thing. You don't like it when people are impolite to you, troll you, spam and derail your threads? Then maybe you shouldn't be doing the exact same thing to other people. Just pointing that out.

-- I'm not trying to derail your thread. I have offered up a relevant opinion on the topic as well as made additional comments on other content within the thread.
-- I'm not trying to troll or spam your thread. Don't believe me? Not my fault and not my problem.
-- You think I'm being impolite? Feel free to send me a polite PM highlighting exactly what you thought was impolite along with a request to stop. Feel this is not enough? Feel free to report me to a moderator and/or add me to your ignore list.
-- This has nothing to do with you saying "Shame on You" to all those who have reported you and this thread.

Assuming perfect balance, the riptide should cost what it does now, because I'm assuming that all other units are perfectly balanced with the Riptide as the baseline.

IllumiNini wrote:I'm not derailing the thread. I'm simply saying that trying to appropriately cost the Riptide is an inferior method when you consider the fact that balancing the unit as a whole is a better option.

As I said, you want a different thread. Jade_Angel already has a thread on that.

Yes, to a extent: Balance is Relative. But to balance any set of units, you need a starting point for each unit that is independent of all others.

All that you need is:

1. An agreed upon ratio between two units.
2. An agreed upon points cost for one of the two.

This is why it's so easy for various threads like this to go off the rails, and why it's so easy for Peregrine to troll me and say things like: "Maybe the Landraider should be cheaper and the riptide should stay the same!" "Maybe your opponents play balanced lists, and your army is under powered!"

It's all relative.

The thing to do is to take a given unit (whether arbitrarily taken or not), assign it a value and then start comparing other things in relationship to it.

It's like inches. when you think about it, the decision of whether to use the centimeter or the inch as a measure of minute distances is completely arbitrary.

All that's important is that you pick a unit and you assign it a value. Once you have your unit, you can start measuring other things.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the wraithknight costs 100 points or 400 points, just so long as everything else stands in a balanced proportion or relationship to it.

If a wraithknight costs 400 points, then a tactical marine needs to cost 14 and a riptide needs to cost roughly 300. If a wraithknight costs 100 points, then a tactical marine needs to cost 3.5 ppm and a riptide needs to cost 74.

It's not the numbers that are important; it's the proportions.

For example, you can't balance a Riptide against a Wraithknight if neither of them have a points cost (which is calculated independent of each other) to begin with.

We already have a "known" fair points cost for the wraithknight. The commonly agreed upon "fair" points cost is 395 or higher. Even Galef has admitted that the fair points cost for a Wraithknight is roughly 400...he just doesn't want to pay the fair points cost.

-- I'm not trying to derail your thread. I have offered up a relevant opinion on the topic as well as made additional comments on other content within the thread.
-- I'm not trying to troll or spam your thread. Don't believe me? Not my fault and not my problem.
-- You think I'm being impolite? Feel free to send me a polite PM highlighting exactly what you thought was impolite along with a request to stop. Feel this is not enough? Feel free to report me to a moderator and/or add me to your ignore list.
-- This has nothing to do with you saying "Shame on You" to all those who have reported you and this thread.

Review the precise posting to which I was responding.

Nuff said about that.

[/derail]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
Assuming perfect balance, the riptide should cost what it does now, because I'm assuming that all other units are perfectly balanced with the Riptide as the baseline.

I already specified in the OP that I'm assuming a 395 point wraithknight.

 Traditio wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Assuming perfect balance, the riptide should cost what it does now, because I'm assuming that all other units are perfectly balanced with the Riptide as the baseline.

I already specified in the OP that I'm assuming a 395 point wraithknight.

What are we supposed to do with that information?
You can't balance rock knowing only scissors.

Trasvi wrote:What are we supposed to do with that information?
You can't balance rock knowing only scissors.

Are the riptide and wraithknight sufficiently comparable that if you know the points cost of the one, you can reason to what the other is worth based on how good it is in comparison to that other?

I say "yes."

 Traditio wrote:

Trasvi wrote:What are we supposed to do with that information?
You can't balance rock knowing only scissors.

Are the riptide and wraithknight sufficiently comparable that if you know the points cost of the one, you can reason to what the other is worth based on how good it is in comparison to that other?

I say "yes."

And you are wrong

CrownAxe wrote:And you are wrong

Then you aren't disagreeing just with me. You're disagreeing with Black Sails. He's the one who initially suggested it.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:And you are wrong

Then you aren't disagreeing just with me. You're disagreeing with Black Sails. He's the one who initially suggested it.

And? Why does it matter that i disagree with more people then just you.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is a troll Tradito.

"Assuming all point costs are invalidated, what should Riptides cost?"

Is this seriously a question?

They should cost whatever is fair in the magical undefined fairyland of your 40k reprice.

 raverrn wrote:
"Assuming all point costs are invalidated, what should Riptides cost?"

Is this seriously a question?

No, it isn't. You literally just made it up out of thin air and then asked if it's seriously a question.

I just witnessed it. Review the thread. Up until this page, nobody asked the question, and then, out of the blue, you came in and asked it, presumably out of thin air.

They should cost whatever is fair in the magical undefined fairyland of your 40k reprice.

Except, it's not undefined. I've already specified a 395 point wraithknight. I'll further assume a 250 point land raider and a 14 ppm tactical marine.

I'll even be daring and assume 20 ppm for lascannon upgrades to tactical and devastator marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:And? Why does it matter that i disagree with more people then just you.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is a troll Tradito.

Since you're posting in the thread, mind answering the question of the thread?

What should a riptide cost, assuming the entire game were balanced, under the points cost assumptions that I've made?

Once you've given that number, please explain how you came up with it.

 Traditio wrote:

No, it isn't. You literally just made it up out of thin air and then asked if it's seriously a question.

I just witnessed it. Review the thread. Up until this page, nobody asked the question, and then, out of the blue, you came in and asked it, presumably out of thin air.

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

Your thread, man.

Except, it's not undefined. I've already specified a 395 point wraithknight. I'll further assume a 250 point land raider and a 14 ppm tactical marine.

I'll even be daring and assume 20 ppm for lascannon upgrades to tactical and devastator marines.

That's three out of 200+ units and 500+ upgrades.

raverrn wrote:That's three out of 200+ units and 500+ upgrades.

Are a riptide and a wraithknight sufficiently comparable to each other?

What about a riptide and an Imperial Knight?

If the answer to both is "no," then please point to something that the vast majority of people (70% or more) agree is appropriately costed and does not have OP rules, which you think is comparable to a riptide.

If you can't, then maybe the riptide doesn't belong in the game.

 Traditio wrote:

raverrn wrote:That's three out of 200+ units and 500+ upgrades.

Are a riptide and a wraithknight sufficiently comparable to each other?

What about a riptide and an Imperial Knight?

If the answer to both is "no," then please point to something that the vast majority of people (70% or more) agree is appropriately costed and does not have OP rules, which you think is comparable to a riptide.

If you can't, then maybe the riptide doesn't belong in the game.

You said every other model in the game is changed. What the Riptide's price is is absolutely irrelevant under those circumstances.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:And? Why does it matter that i disagree with more people then just you.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is a troll Tradito.

Since you're posting in the thread, mind answering the question of the thread?

What should a riptide cost, assuming the entire game were balanced, under the points cost assumptions that I've made?

Once you've given that number, please explain how you came up with it.

Assuming the whole game is balanced is pointless because you can be balanced and different point costs on the same unit

i voted 250 but as far as im concerned thats because FNP should be a more expensive upgrade for the riptide, the Ion Accelerator isn't actually that good for 220 points

raverrn wrote:You said every other model in the game is changed. What the Riptide's price is is absolutely irrelevant under those circumstances.

I didn't say that every other model in the game is changed. Reread the bit you quoted. You won't find me actually saying that.

I further specified a 395 point wraithknight and unchanged imperial knights.

Once again, I ask:

Is a riptide sufficiently comparable to either one of those?

If it is not, then point to something which is, which is not considered to be imbalanced by the vast majority of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:i voted 250 but as far as im concerned thats because FNP should be a more expensive upgrade for the riptide, the Ion Accelerator isn't actually that good for 220 points

Riptide (as described) = landraider.

Why?

 Traditio wrote:

Trasvi wrote:What are we supposed to do with that information?
You can't balance rock knowing only scissors.

Are the riptide and wraithknight sufficiently comparable that if you know the points cost of the one, you can reason to what the other is worth based on how good it is in comparison to that other?

I say "yes."

How good it is at what? What targets exist in the game at what price points? What counters exist in the game at what price points?

Let's say for the sake of argument that, in terms of capabilities, the wraith knight is strictly superior to a riptide. It does everything a riptide does, often better, and it does other things as well. I think that's close enough to true.

You can't price those extra capabilities without knowing other things. How good is stomp? How good is resistance to poison or Instant death? How necessary is Strength D? How likely is it for the riptide to get marker light support or the wraith knight to get blessings? Which leads to how durable / costly are marker light sources?

 Traditio wrote:

raverrn wrote:You said every other model in the game is changed. What the Riptide's price is is absolutely irrelevant under those circumstances.

I didn't say that every other model in the game is changed. Reread the bit you quoted. You won't find me actually saying that.

I further specified a 395 point wraithknight and unchanged imperial knights.

Once again, I ask:

Is a riptide sufficiently comparable to either one of those?

If it is not, then point to something which is, which is not considered to be imbalanced by the vast majority of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:i voted 250 but as far as im concerned thats because FNP should be a more expensive upgrade for the riptide, the Ion Accelerator isn't actually that good for 220 points

Riptide (as described) = landraider.

Why?

Well they aren't equal because the Land raider isn't a balanced unit, its an underpowered unit and should cost less then 250

 Traditio wrote:

I didn't say that every other model in the game is changed.

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

Emphasis mine, words yours.

 Traditio wrote:

raverrn wrote:You said every other model in the game is changed. What the Riptide's price is is absolutely irrelevant under those circumstances.

I didn't say that every other model in the game is changed. ...You won't find me actually saying that.

You might not have said it explicitly, but you effectively said it. How else do you re-price and re-balance an entire gaming system's worth of units, upgrades, Special Rules, etc. without changing them?

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:i voted 250 but as far as im concerned thats because FNP should be a more expensive upgrade for the riptide, the Ion Accelerator isn't actually that good for 220 points

Riptide (as described) = landraider.

Why?

You might want to be a little better with your words and specificity. That's only a points equality. Saying Riptide (As Described) = Landraider implies a lot more than you might want it to. Plus, as CrownAxe said, "...Land raider isn't a balanced unit, its an underpowered unit and should cost less then 250".

CrownAxe wrote:Well they aren't equal because the Land raider isn't a balanced unit, its an underpowered unit and should cost less then 250

The land raider is "underpowered" in comparison to OP units like the wraithknight, riptide, etc.

If those things were nerfed, the land raider would be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

raverrn wrote:

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

Emphasis mine, words yours.

I further specified that IKs would basically remain the same.

Nonetheless, I will admit that I could have picked my words better.

At any rate, I extend my challenge one final time. If you continue this little quibble, I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Are IKs and wraithknights comparable?

If they are not, then point to something (which is not overpowered or underpriced) which is.

If you want to engage in the discussion, then engage in the discussion.

If you don't actually want to engage in the discussion, and are only here to disparage the legitimacy of the discussion in the first place, then perhaps this isn't the thread for you.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Well they aren't equal because the Land raider isn't a balanced unit, its an underpowered unit and should cost less then 250

The land raider is "underpowered" in comparison to OP units like the wraithknight, riptide, etc.

If those things were nerfed, the land raider would be fine.

No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.


The Land Raider was bad before Riptides and Wraithknights even existed

 Traditio wrote:

I further specified a 395 point wraithknight and unchanged imperial knights.

Once again, I ask:

Is a riptide sufficiently comparable to either one of those?

If it is not, then point to something which is, which is not considered to be imbalanced by the vast majority of people.

No, a riptide is not comparable to either of those. It lacks key defining features: immunity to small arms fire, immunity to instant death, D weapons, stomps, movement speed, fearless.

A riptide would be better compared to a squad of Crisis suits or an Ion Hammerhead. Maybe a Dakkafex or Leman Russ.

CrownAxe wrote:No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.

It's not durable compared to what? In relationship to what weapons?

It's immune to all S7 and inferior shooting.

S8 glances it on 6s.

S9 glances it on 5s.

It would take, on average, 18 lascannon shots at BS4 to glance it to death. Even if you take into account the possibility that a lascannon could one shot it:

2/3 X 1/3 = 2/9 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 to hit

A lascannon fired at BS 4 has a 1/9 chance of dealing a penetrating hit to a landraider. Assuming it deals that penetrating hit, it has a 1/6 chance of causing an Explodes! result.

1/9 X 1/6 = 1/54. It would take 54 lascannon shots, on average, to one-shot a landraider.

Yes, grav cannons can make short work of landraiders, but grav is commonly admitted to be a stupid, OP rule.

Traditio, if you don't see how a model with D-strength weapons, Stomp attacks and the speed to employ them should cost more than a Riptide, maybe pricing units just isn't your thing?

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, if you don't see how a model with D-strength weapons, Stomp attacks and the speed to employ them should cost more than a Riptide, maybe pricing units just isn't your thing?

Have you actually been reading my posts? All of your posts in this thread indicate either an inability or unwillingness to comprehend the words that I've typed.

Nowhere in this thread have I suggested that a riptide should be of equal or greater points cost in comparison to a wraithknight.

If you're referring to my suggesting that the cheapest IK should be points equivalent to a riptide, then:

1. I'll note that the shooty IKs would still be more expensive

and

2. I've later re-evaluated my assessment of what a riptide should cost.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.

It's not durable compared to what? In relationship to what weapons?

It's immune to all S7 and inferior shooting.

S8 glances it on 6s.

S9 glances it on 5s.

It would take, on average, 18 lascannon shots at BS4 to glance it to death. Even if you take into account the possibility that a lascannon could one shot it:

2/3 X 1/3 = 2/9 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 to hit

A lascannon fired at BS 4 has a 1/9 chance of dealing penetrating hit to a landraider. Assuming it deals that penetrating hit, it has a 1/6 chance of causing an Explodes! result.

1/9 X 1/6 = 1/54. It would take 54 lascannon shots, on average, to one-shot a landraider.

Yes, grav cannons can make short work of landraiders, but grav is commonly admitted to be a stupid, OP rule.

Lascannons aren't the only thing in the game that shoot at vehicles, you know that right? You didn't even mention Melta, or Haywire, or Gauss, or Armorbane, or Ordnance weapons or the myriad of S10 ap2 CC attacks in the game. Every well made army has the weapons in its list that can easily handle AV14. And you don't need to explode it, Immobilizing it or Stunnning it also makes it useless.

Also Grav was invented after the Riptide was made, so Land Raiders were bad before Grav existed too.

 Traditio wrote:
2. I've later re-evaluated my assessment of what a riptide should cost.

In the game as-is, or in the totally changed one?

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
2. I've later re-evaluated my assessment of what a riptide should cost.

In the game as-is, or in the totally changed one?

As is.

That's why I keep asking you if the riptide and the wraithknight are comparable.

If you tell me that a wraithknight and riptide are comparable, and, furthermore, that they are balanced in relationship to each other, then you'll have to agree with me when I tell you that a riptide, as described, should cost 295 points, under the assumption that a wraithknight should cost 395.

If a riptide should basically cost 3/4 what a wraithknight costs, then that is the fair cost of a riptide, assuming stimulant injectors and ion accelerator.

 Traditio wrote:

If you tell me that a wraithknight and riptide are comparable, and, furthermore, that they are balanced in relationship to each other, then you'll have to agree with me when I tell you that a riptide, as described, should cost 295 points, under the assumption that a wraithknight should cost 395.

They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

raverrn wrote:They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

That doesn't make them not comparable. It means that a wraithknight has stuff that a riptide doesn't, i.e., meaning that a wraithknight is better (at least in those respects) and therefore should cost more than a riptide.

It doesn't in and of itself mean that a riptide and wraithknight aren't comparable.

A wraithknight has those things, a better statline, etc. Therefore, it should cost 100 points more than the riptide.

Saying that you can't compare a wraithknight and a riptide is like saying that you can't compare a tactical marine to a space marine bike.

The bike has more stuff and performs better than a tactical. Therefore, it should cost more (by 10 points, say I).

But fine, let us assume that a wraithknight and riptide aren't comparable. Against what can a riptide be compared?

Name something that at least 70% of people would agree is neither undercosted nor overpowered.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.

It's not durable compared to what? In relationship to what weapons?

It's immune to all S7 and inferior shooting.

S8 glances it on 6s.

S9 glances it on 5s.

It would take, on average, 18 lascannon shots at BS4 to glance it to death. Even if you take into account the possibility that a lascannon could one shot it:

2/3 X 1/3 = 2/9 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 to hit

A lascannon fired at BS 4 has a 1/9 chance of dealing a penetrating hit to a landraider. Assuming it deals that penetrating hit, it has a 1/6 chance of causing an Explodes! result.

1/9 X 1/6 = 1/54. It would take 54 lascannon shots, on average, to one-shot a landraider.

Yes, grav cannons can make short work of landraiders, but grav is commonly admitted to be a stupid, OP rule.

If you want a game where a Lascannon is the be-all and end-all of antitank weapons, you need to completely redo 40k base mechanics.

So you're just going to ignore my post Tradito?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So you're just going to ignore my post Tradito?

I'm still pondering it. I fully intend to get around to it later on.

 Traditio wrote:

raverrn wrote:They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

That doesn't make them not comparable. It means that a wraithknight has stuff that a riptide doesn't, i.e., meaning that a wraithknight is better (at least in those respects) and therefore should cost more than a riptide.

It doesn't in and of itself mean that a riptide and wraithknight aren't comparable.

A wraithknight has those things, a better statline, etc. Therefore, it should cost 100 points more than the riptide.

Saying that you can't compare a wraithknight and a riptide is like saying that you can't compare a tactical marine to a space marine bike.

The bike has more stuff and performs better than a tactical. Therefore, it should cost more (by 10 points, say I).

But fine, let us assume that a wraithknight and riptide aren't comparable. Against what can a riptide be compared?

Name something that at least 70% of people would agree is neither undercosted nor overpowered.

The bike does all the things a marine does, but better. How much is +1 Toughness worth? Your initial thought would be that it is worth something... But it actually depends on the weaponry available in game. If all that exists is poison and S7 then T5 is useless. So we need to price T5 relative to the prevalence of those weapons (or more likely, price those weapons relative to T5).
We can see simple formulaic thinking creating bad units all over the place because it doesn't take in to consideration the whole game. Eg, any multi-wound T4 creature. Any combat model limited to 6" movement. You could pile on other stats as much as you want but a A10 model with standard infantry movement is barely worth more than an A1 model.

In addition, ulthe wraith knight has additional capabilities over a riptide. Not just "better than", but "you can't do this at all". So while you could potentially come up with a cost for T8 vs T6 (even though that cost presupposes/determines all weapons and their costs), you can't put a price on Stomp with the existing points of reference.

Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Why?

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

 Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

FNP + 1 wound = 80 points?

Easily. An FNP'd 5 wound Riptide effectively had 7.5 wounds, by dropping a wound and disallowing FNP, you cut the average number of shots required by to kill a Riptide by nearly 50%, but the Riptide remains a very strong tough unit with T6 W4 Sv2+/5++/3++, retaining firepower equal to a heavy battle tank but with greater mobility and utility, and priced accordingly, just not astoundingly more resilient for no good reason.

Vaktathi wrote: Easily. An FNP'd 5 wound Riptide effectively had 7.5 wounds

I think you're overestimating feel no pain. A feel no pain saves an otherwise unsaved wound on a 5+ roll. It increases effective durability by 1/3, not by 1/2.

5/1 X 4/3 = 20/3, or 6 2/3.

You're overestimating durability by 3/4s of a wound.

Unless my maths are just wrong.

I'm not sure how much this affects your points cost evaluation, even if I'm right, though.

by dropping a wound and disallowing FNP, you cut the average number of shots required by to kill a Riptide by nearly 50%

It would be 4 wounds vs. 6.6 (repeating).

Let's do the math:

300 is to 6.6 (repeating) as x is to 4

X in this case comes out to be roughly 181.

That is assuming that each wound has exactly the same value and doesn't render diminishing returns with the addition of each several wound (likely a false premise).

At least at first glance, what you are saying seems to be about right. 1 wound + FNP could make an 80 point difference.

Nonetheless, a doubt remains:

Wouldn't it still be more durable, for all practical purposes, than a landraider while having better fire power?

2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 1/4 = 8/108 = 4/52 = 2/26 = 1/13

It would take 13 lascannon shots to take it down, assuming that it doesn't nova its invuln.

If it novas:

2/3 X 1/3 X 2/3 X 1/4 = 4/108 = 2/52 = 1/26

And again, that's "72" in the range part of the statline for the IA. For all practical purposes, it's much more durable than the landraider simply because of the fact that it can stay out of range of...pretty much everything.

Even then, shouldn't it still cost as much as a landraider?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

raverrn wrote:Why?

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

Do you not see the problem with just assuming that durability is directly proportional to the number of Las cannon shots something needs to die?

I can't remember the last time I killed a riptide by taking all its wounds one by one. Much more common for me is:
- tactical 6 on stomp
- tactical 6 on D-weapon
- instant death weapon
And my favourite
- beat it by 1 in combat and run it down. Especially easy if you can multi charge it and some squishier friends

 Traditio wrote:


Then you aren't disagreeing just with me. You're disagreeing with Black Sails. He's the one who initially suggested it.

Lets get a few things straight here.

You've spelled my name correctly before, I'd appreciate if the trend continued.

I'm honoured you're using me as some sort of benchmark for balance knowledge, holding me up on a pedestal like that. I'm touched.

I could be super snarky about this, but it should be noted that when I mentioned the WK is to mostly illustrate how pants on head silly comparisons to a Land Raider are, and then picked an example of a unit that was closer in comparability for a number of reasons. It does not automatically follow that the point costs of one can derive the point cost of the other in a vacuum, the same way you can't use a Land Raider for deriving point values of a Riptide. So no one is disagreeing with me, its just that you took a very specific, narrow reading of something I wrote and twisted it sufficiently to throw back at people. I ask you kindly not to do that.

And stop comparing Land Raiders to Riptides. It only shows a lack of understanding.

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Note well that an Imperial Knight has the exact same Stomp ability, carries a S(D) sword *and* drops 2x S8 AP3 pie plates at vastly longer range, along with taking a few S8 AP3 pot shots coming in.

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

It's a hallmark of these troll polls to imply that different armies should pretty much only differ artistically. Weaponry should be the same. It can have different names, but functionally should be the same.

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

Dakkafexes and Dreadknights likely don't fit my second criterion (widely considered balanced/fair by at least 70% of people).

The dual twin-linked brain devourers are part of what goes into making the consummately OP dakka flyrant.

And whereas Gray Knights aren't as complained about now as a bunch of other things, dual dreadknights are still basically auto-takes in common gray knights builds. Comparing it to a dreadknight would fit my second criterion as much as comparing it to a heldrake...in other words, not at all.

And are ionheads commonly considered fair/balanced? If I started a poll right now, would no more than 30 percent of respondents complain about it?

And comparing it to a crisis suit or a leeman russ is as fair as my comparing it to a wraithknight. Why is it any more fair to compare it to an infantry unit or a tank than to a GMC?

In the case of the wraithknight, I'll claim that it has at least one build that includes shield (conferring a 5+ invuln) and a cannon that fires blasts at range. And feel no pain to boot.

Here's an easy solution to the problem:

Does anybody remember the points cost for a wraithknight in 6th edition?

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.

Haven't you attempted to compare dreads to riptides? And Riptides to land raiders? (and by that logic, dreads to LRs)

And dreadknights only stand out because they're the only MCs any SM get, and because they're one of the few good units GK get.

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

 Traditio wrote:

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

You can't. What you are trying to do is folly.

No other model in the game does what the Riptide does. No other model in the game combines:

1) Durability - Nobody will argue the Riptide is anything but a hard target. While there are a few golden bullets, players can expect Riptides to soak a LOT of firepower.
2) Mobility - Not the same thing as speed. While they can't make a 20" move-charge like a SHV can, Riptides ignore the slowdown from difficult terrain, have several neat tricks the jetpack move offers, and can push the limit to move huge distances at a cost.
3) Anemic CC potential - 3 WS2 attacks means almost any fight is going to be a long one. The durable aspect means it won't LOSE a combat to most targets, but it also won't be shooting for quite a while. And when it does lose, I2 means it's probably gone.
4) Ranged output dependent on Markerlights and range- Without at least 3 markers the Riptide simply isn't reliable. The large blasts mitigates the BS issue somewhat, but Gets Hot turns that into a crapshoot all the same. And, by the way, the dichotomy of how tough the Riptide is and how fragile every Markerlight unit is is probably one of GW's triumphs in balance. (unintentional though it probably is). It's no accident the dependable weapons on the chassis - the secondaries - are significantly shorter in range to make up for it.

So no, there really isn't another tough, mobile, vulnerable to CC, high damage but only when buffed MC we can compare the Riptide to. The closest you can probably get is a double devourer flyrant - with the hard-to-hit modifier it's pretty darn tough, and the mobility of both are pretty close. But the flyrant is almost immune to being locked in CC, and is a monster even if he is! Also between templates, twin-links and Vector Strikes the flyrant's damage output is rock-solid regardless of the support the rest of your army provides, and is in fact a force multiplier for them instead of the other way around.

Wolfblade wrote:If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

In principle, everything in the game can be compared to everything else in the game. That's why they can all be measured by a single common measure, i.e., the points cost.

What you're paying for is a set of rules, a stat-line, which, when combined, lend itself to a given battlefield role. In principle, a riptide can be compared to a landraider, to a wraithknight, to a cultist, to a tactical marine, or practically anything else.

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

They only "suck" assuming that things like scatter bikes,wraithknights, etc. exist. When properly supported by the rest of the army, dakka fexes can do some damage. My usual opponent runs two, and the only reason they don't regularly deal more damage is because I build a rhino wall (a rhino wall I pay for, mind you; no, I don't generally use the battle company, even though I have the models for it and run essentially the same army without it) in the middle of the map early on in the game.

For its points cost, a dakkafex isn't bad. It's 140 points for a T6, 3+ save, multiwound MC which can fire 12 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range.

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Point costs aren't used for measuring units, they are used to restrict how much you can take in your army. They aren't meant to be used in comparison to each other

There is a reason you can't compare a Space Marine to just a Plasma Gun (even though both cost 15 points)

 Traditio wrote:

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Did you include the effects of Instinctive Behavior in this comparison? What about the general superiority of the Drop Pod as a means of deployment? What about the armies they're in? Does the glut of SM powers make the dreadnought more valuable? The easy access to Shrouded or FnP from Tyranids? Were they still at parity when Dreadnoughts only had two attacks in CC?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Point costs aren't used for measuring units, they are used to restrict how much you can take in your army. They aren't meant to be used in comparison to each other

Warhammer BRB, 4th edition, p. 13:

"Points Values

Generally, you'll find characteristic profiles come with one other piece of information- the points value per model. This represents the relative battlefield value of the creature in question. Points values are an abstract calculation which take into account a huge number of different factors including characteristics, different races' overall strengths and weaknesses, basic weapons, unit size, rarity and so forth.

For comparison, space marines are worth 15 points and termagaunts 7. This means space marines can be outnumbered by termagants by at least two to one and still have an even chance of winning."

There is a reason you can't compare a Space Marine to just a Plasma Gun (even though both cost 15 points)

But you can compare a space marine to a termagant, just as you can compare a plasma gun to a heavy bolter.

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Did you include the effects of Instinctive Behavior in this comparison? What about the general superiority of the Drop Pod as a means of deployment? What about the armies they're in? Does the glut of SM powers make the dreadnought more valuable? The easy access to Shrouded or FnP from Tyranids? Were they still at parity when Dreadnoughts only had two attacks in CC?

This, in a nutshell.

The points cost of a unit isn't just about the effectiveness of that unit in a vacuum... because you don't field that unit in a vacuum. The army that you field it in affects the value of the unit. So no, you can't just compare Unit X from this army and Unit Y from that army one-for-one and expect it to mean anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or,in other words:

 Traditio wrote:

"Points Values

Generally, you'll find characteristic profiles come with one other piece of information- the points value per model. This represents the relative battlefield value of the creature in question. Points values are an abstract calculation which take into account a huge number of different factors including characteristics, different races' overall strengths and weaknesses, basic weapons, unit size, rarity and so forth.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

In principle, everything in the game can be compared to everything else in the game. That's why they can all be measured by a single common measure, i.e., the points cost.

What you're paying for is a set of rules, a stat-line, which, when combined, lend itself to a given battlefield role. In principle, a riptide can be compared to a landraider, to a wraithknight, to a cultist, to a tactical marine, or practically anything else.

You replied to your own post... and are arguing against yourself. My reply to what you originally posted was "Haven't you attempted to compare dreads to riptides? And Riptides to land raiders? (and by that logic, dreads to LRs)"

 Traditio wrote:

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

They only "suck" assuming that things like scatter bikes,wraithknights, etc. exist. When properly supported by the rest of the army, dakka fexes can do some damage. My usual opponent runs two, and the only reason they don't regularly deal more damage is because I build a rhino wall (a rhino wall I pay for, mind you; no, I don't generally use the battle company, even though I have the models for it and run essentially the same army without it) in the middle of the map early on in the game.

For its points cost, a dakkafex isn't bad. It's 140 points for a T6, 3+ save, multiwound MC which can fire 12 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range.

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Dakka fexes are actually 150pt, being only T6 with 4 wounds, no invul save, and 3+ armor. It takes 9 plasma gun/7.2 melta shots/21.6 hellfire bolter shots to deal 4 wounds to them, meaning dropping a 5man sternguard with combi plas is a pretty good way of killing them. A pyschic shriek has a decent chance of killing one in one go (10.5 wounds on average, meaning 50% of the time it dies from the first shriek, or has one wound left)

And a melee dread destroys a carni in CQC despite being 20 points cheaper (2.77 wounds with two melee arms, not counting any charge bonus, carni strikes back with 3 attacks for one pen or glance). Shooting wise, carni will kill the dread first if they start 24" away, but will also cost anywhere from 40pt (MM and ML) to 20pt more expensive still. So no, I'm not comparing dakkafexes to "OP" things. Not to mention the 'fex is stuck walking across the board opening it up to attack from everything with maybe just a cover save.

And of course, this isn't counting any SM chapter tactics, drop pod use, etc.

As for a marine vs 2 termies, marine deals .88 wounds to the .5 from the gaunts. More damage is done before the gaunts ever get in range however.

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

Dakkafexes and Dreadknights likely don't fit my second criterion (widely considered balanced/fair by at least 70% of people).

The dual twin-linked brain devourers are part of what goes into making the consummately OP dakka flyrant.

And whereas Gray Knights aren't as complained about now as a bunch of other things, dual dreadknights are still basically auto-takes in common gray knights builds. Comparing it to a dreadknight would fit my second criterion as much as comparing it to a heldrake...in other words, not at all.

And are ionheads commonly considered fair/balanced? If I started a poll right now, would no more than 30 percent of respondents complain about it?

And comparing it to a crisis suit or a leeman russ is as fair as my comparing it to a wraithknight. Why is it any more fair to compare it to an infantry unit or a tank than to a GMC?

No unit in the game does exactly what the Riptide does. You're right. But we can compare it to some other options in the game, even if it is to say that the Riptide is better/worse/whatever.

The reason that comparing to a Wraithknight is a bad idea is that the comparison to a GMC introduces some entirely new capabilities. It is nearly completely immune to all of the weaknesses of a Riptide. The additions of T8 and the gamut of GMC rules transform the Wraithknight in to an incredibly powerful model that doesn't fear any phase of the game, and can trivially deal with targets that a Riptide has no way of combating.

Some of the options I posted:
Crisis Suits. They're the best comparison for a riptide, because if riptides didn't exist, Tau players would probably fill up their points with Crisis suits. They have roughly the same purpose as a Riptide, can be configured in similar ways, and have roughly the same types of units they find hard to deal with. A unit of 4 Crisis suits with Plasma Rifles and Interceptor retains most of the important damage-dealing characteristics of a Riptide and costs in the same ballpark. And if people really whinge about crisis suits being overpowered they need to find a different game to play.
So how do they compare to a Riptide?
8 Plasma shots at 24", 16 at 12", vs the Riptide's 3 Plasma / Plasma Blast at 60". Jet Packs. Can gain all of the same markerlight buffs so we can essentially discount that aspect of the riptide. But they're 4x W2 T4 SV3 compared to riptides T6 W5 SV2/5. In combat (lol) the Riptide has 1/4 of the attacks but at AP2, so they're actually pretty even there.
Even under the best circumstances I'd only wager on 4 hits from the Riptides' blast weapon (and then you have the 1 turn per game where it gets hot, and the 1 turn per game where it scatters off target and hits nothing), whereas the Crisis should be getting that at 24", doubling it at 12", and getting a far higher benefit from +BS markerlights. But the Crisis can be taken out easily with Lascannons and Krak missiles, and every model they lose reduces their damage output significantly. Crisis are also a bit more risky to use as to maximise their damage they need to be close to the opponent.

Here's an easy solution to the problem:

Does anybody remember the points cost for a wraithknight in 6th edition?

The Wraithknight was already very powerful, even undercosted, in 6th edition, before it became a GMC.

Trasvi wrote:

Crisis Suits. They're the best comparison for a riptide, because if riptides didn't exist, Tau players would probably fill up their points with Crisis suits.

In a competitive environment definitely not. There's a reaosn nobody runs them outside of OS singletons.

[They have roughly the same purpose as a Riptide,

Absolutely not.

can be configured in similar ways,

In a vague sense.

and have roughly the same types of units they find hard to deal with.

This is probably true, but only for wildly different equipment sets.

A unit of 4 Crisis suits with Plasma Rifles and Interceptor retains most of the important damage-dealing characteristics of a Riptide

Not true and also dealing damage isn't why people take Riptides in the first place.

8 Plasma shots at 24", 16 at 12", vs the Riptide's 3 Plasma / Plasma Blast at 60"

Forgetting the Riptide secondary, and probably the most important part of the IA in S8. That's a pretty important breakpoint and one of the very few reasons to take it over the HBC. If anything Fusion Blasters are a better comparison.

Jet Packs

Without the ability to ignore terrain, move 4d6" or the general nonchalance toward getting cover saves and proximity to the enemy.

But they're 4x W2 T4 SV3 compared to riptides T6 W5 SV2/5.

Not in the least comparable.

In combat (lol) the Riptide has 1/4 of the attacks but at AP2, so they're actually pretty even there.

Wait what?
You also forget the Crisis Suit's enhanced ability to deep strike (via smaller bases and disposable nature, their ability to benefit from CnC, MSS and Puretide, and the absolute most important aspect in Objective Secured. Crisis Suits don't exist in the same UNIVERSE as Riptides.

So, having been over two days, can we call it? Single highest vote option is 220 at 37%.

Or would you like to combine all the other numbers, and discount all the "troll" votes for 220 or less to claim a victory/numbers support you? Or are you a strong minority with 325 having 4% of the votes? Or did trolls ruin the poll thus making it worthless (unlike all the OTHER polls trolls ruined)

If we are assuming ideal balance, it should 220 points.

Because ideally all the units in the game would be performing at a level respectable to their current points cost.

Without giving us an in depth breakdown of how this 'ideal balance' works in terms of other units, changes to existing core rules and other things it's hopeless.

In my ideal balance I would allow charging from reserves (but not deepstrike) so the cost of gaining interceptor would be buffed so need an increase in points. However fnp would be cheaper because in my ideal balance it would be standard 6+ with certain units boosting it to 5+.

Saying things like ideal balance is subjective to every person, such as how subjectively you feel that riptides are op and undercosted, but in my meta I seem to find them easy to take down with certain plays.

Your opening idea is flawed in it's early stages by not giving enough of a reference to what this magical 'ideal balance' is, and so it is left to everyone to believe in their own version of balance.

The Riptide sucks up way too much firepower for a 220 pt model. Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price. That means it's too cheap. It doesn't matter how many people vote 220 pts. They are wrong.

Martel, if we are assuming that every unit is balanced points-wise, who's to say that the Riptide is not where it should be, or more expensive? For all we know, the Riptide is correct and everything else is over/under priced.

Martel732 wrote:
The Riptide sucks up way too much firepower for a 220 pt model. Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price. That means it's too cheap. It doesn't matter how many people vote 220 pts. They are wrong.

Ah, but we're assuming everything else has been balanced, so why couldn't 220 be the proper price?

 Wolfblade wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Riptide sucks up way too much firepower for a 220 pt model. Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price. That means it's too cheap. It doesn't matter how many people vote 220 pts. They are wrong.

Ah, but we're assuming everything else has been balanced, so why couldn't 220 be the proper price?

Because it's auto-take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Martel, if we are assuming that every unit is balanced points-wise, who's to say that the Riptide is not where it should be, or more expensive? For all we know, the Riptide is correct and everything else is over/under priced.

That's the other possibility, but requires a lot more work. However, if Riptide is correct, then marines become 6 pt models and guardsmen and Orks become 2 pts or something like that.

220 at most.

Half the votes are for 220 or less. That means that the price should actually go down.

Martel732 wrote:
Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price.

Counterpoint: This isn't true.

Martel732 wrote:
That's the other possibility, but requires a lot more work. However, if Riptide is correct, then marines become 6 pt models and guardsmen and Orks become 2 pts or something like that.

Or they all become more powerful to try and promote a more balanced, infantry based game style than what we currently have going.

I'd love a switch back to that kind of play, and maybe making marines better for their points cost is needed. More faction specific rules to make bringing large amounts of troops better while still retaining the price costs.

By keeping the riptide as is and buffing up basic troops we could get a much more tactical and balanced game through having proper firefight like engagement rather than my guys stand here and shoot.

Start by only making troops scoring again, but some special units gain objective secured. That way you need troops to win. Remove the tabling aspect as well. Make it so the game ends when one side is completely wiped out but still be based on points, with the remaining side gaining some points for wiping out the enemy. Sure you killed all my guys but they were running around synchronizing target coordinates for a massive orbital strike.

We can have a game where there are strong and powerful things, but with a much greater tactical aspect to it. Minor changes can have huge impacts on meta and other units balance, both internal and external.

 raverrn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price.

Counterpoint: This isn't true.

Riptides are indeed an auto-take. Maybe not to you, but the body of Tau lists fielded says otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's the other possibility, but requires a lot more work. However, if Riptide is correct, then marines become 6 pt models and guardsmen and Orks become 2 pts or something like that.

Or they all become more powerful to try and promote a more balanced, infantry based game style than what we currently have going.

I'd love a switch back to that kind of play, and maybe making marines better for their points cost is needed. More faction specific rules to make bringing large amounts of troops better while still retaining the price costs.

By keeping the riptide as is and buffing up basic troops we could get a much more tactical and balanced game through having proper firefight like engagement rather than my guys stand here and shoot.

Start by only making troops scoring again, but some special units gain objective secured. That way you need troops to win. Remove the tabling aspect as well. Make it so the game ends when one side is completely wiped out but still be based on points, with the remaining side gaining some points for wiping out the enemy. Sure you killed all my guys but they were running around synchronizing target coordinates for a massive orbital strike.

We can have a game where there are strong and powerful things, but with a much greater tactical aspect to it. Minor changes can have huge impacts on meta and other units balance, both internal and external.

Maybe. But the psychological aspect of being tabled would still be pretty strong. No one likes losing all their dudes.

Martel732 wrote:

Riptides are indeed an auto-take. Maybe not to you, but the body of Tau lists fielded says otherwise.

Riptides emphatically not an auto-take. Maybe to you, but the body of Tau lists fielded says otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll tell you what, I'm feeling generous, instead of just pointing out that you've got exactly zero support for your accusation, I'll go one better and disprove it. I just went to ATT and took the first ten lists from their list-building section. Out of 128 units, 11 were Riptides. That's 1/12 from a codex with only 18 or so units, that's closer to exactly average than an auto-take.

In case you're wondering, fully half the armies had no Riptides, and two out of the ten had a 3-unit Riptide wing.

So...troll harder?

Martel732 wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Also, it's an auto-take at it's current price.

Counterpoint: This isn't true.

Riptides are indeed an auto-take. Maybe not to you, but the body of Tau lists fielded says otherwise.

If anything, the stormsurge is the true auto take. Interceptor, 4 D missiles, 48" S5 AP5 4D6 shots, and a TL flamer (or airburst frag launcher/burst cannon for 5pt more), a TL SMS system (another S5 AP5 shots) S10 AP2 Ordinance large blast with a 3+/4++/5+++ on a T6 W8, stomps, AND can fire everything twice after it anchors, and each time at different targets, all for 430 to 435 points, and has a nice formation that allows 2 squads of them, a ghostkeel squad and when 2 units target one squad, that squad cannot run/flat out, and halves any charge results. Also rerolls all failed to hits while targeting a unit within 12" of a ghostkeel. Only thing better would be a tau'nar, but iirc the ITC scene has those banned.

 Wolfblade wrote:
So, having been over two days, can we call it? Single highest vote option is 220 at 37%.

Or would you like to combine all the other numbers, and discount all the "troll" votes for 220 or less to claim a victory/numbers support you? Or are you a strong minority with 325 having 4% of the votes? Or did trolls ruin the poll thus making it worthless (unlike all the OTHER polls trolls ruined)

If you want to call it now, then the results are as follows:

Less than 220 points (the current price): 10
220 points (the current price): 27
250 points: 8
275 points: 8
300 points: 11
325 points: 4
350 points: 2
375 points: 1
400 points: 2
More than 400 points: 7

Total number of poll respondents is 80 people.

Assuming no votes are discounted: 37 people voted for the riptide either to stay the same price or become cheaper, whereas 43 people voted for a price increase.

Assuming the extreme votes (highest and lowest options) are discounted, the total number of respondents is 63 people.

Assuming we discount the extreme opinions (a price reduction and an increase to over 400 points), then the results are 27 people voting for the status quo compared to 36 people voting for a price increase.

Assuming no votes are discounted, the price that most people would be least dissatisfied with would be 250 points. It carries 8 votes, with 35 votes being for a higher price and 37 votes being for a lower price.

Assuming the extreme votes are discounted, the price that most people would be least dissatisfied with would still be 250 votes. It would still carry 8 votes, with 27 votes for less and 28 votes for more.

Assuming no votes are discounted, among the poll respondents who want a higher price, the price that the majority would be least dissatisfied with is 300 points,which carries 11 votes, with 16 voting for less and 16 voting for more.

Assuming the extreme votes are discounted, among the poll respondents who want a higher price, the price that the majority would be least dissatisfied with is still 300 points, which carries 11 votes, with 16 voting for less and 9 voting for more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Long story short:

The riptide should not exist in this game, and no matter what its price is, most people are going to be angry about it.

If you increase its cost to 300 points, non Tau players will be happy with that price, and Tau players will raeg.

If you increase its points to 250 points, practically nobody will be happy. Tau players will raeg just as hard as non-Tau players.

And if you keep its price the same, Tau players will be happy, and everybody else will raeg.

The simple answer:

Remove the unit from the game.

Or even better?

#SquatTheTau

 Traditio wrote:
Assuming the extreme votes (highest and lowest options) are discounted, the total number of respondents is 63 people.

Ah yes, more dishonest manipulation of poll information. You can't just throw out all the people who voted for the "extremes" as if they're equal. You've put all of the "cheaper than current" votes into a single category and spread out all of the "more expensive" votes across a wide range of categories. You can't throw out the extremes unless you have the same number of options on both sides. So, "less than 220" would have to be broken up into at least ~100 points worth of options, with the "extreme" one being "less than 100" points. As it is you group someone who thinks it should be 210 points in with someone who thinks it should be 75 points and call them both "extreme".

Assuming no votes are discounted, the price that most people would be least dissatisfied with would be 250 points. It carries 8 votes, with 35 votes being for a higher price and 37 votes being for a lower price.

IOW, no significant change in price. A ~10% increase in price is hardly the kind of issue that justifies your level of outrage about the Riptide. I think we can safely call this poll a defeat for you.

Or even better?

#SquatTheTau

And here we come to your real position: you aren't interested in honest discussion of balance issues, you just want to create some "statistics" to support your crusade against the Tau and Tau players.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. But the psychological aspect of being tabled would still be pretty strong. No one likes losing all their dudes.

I might be slightly biased on this playing Guard and its not really a victory for me if at least two platoons died.

I think your being paranoid Peregrine. Traditio doesn't need to create the statistics he'll just twist the existing ones.

By the way where you said "Tau and Tau" did you mean "Tau and Eldar"?

 Traditio wrote:
snip

What is with your hate fetish with tau? I mean really, you don't whine about eldar nearly as much, you BARELY whine about SM. I don't think I've ever seen you more than mention 'crons. But tau? You literally rage against them in almost any thread going so far as to get you a 3 day ban once. You hate tau so much, you'd want to effectively ruin the game for a whole faction of players just because their army does something better than yours. (and yes, you'd ruin the game for them, by forcing them to buy another entirely new army).

And why even have the "extreme" options if you're just going to toss them out? (which, by the way you can't do and still claim a valid poll. The poll numbers are very even, even more so than other polls where you claim the losing side has to be considered. Therefore, you have to consider both sides, which is literally going with what you have said before)

And again, the HIGHEST voted option is 220pts, which is the clear winner, beating any other option by 1.5 times roughly at worst,. The "least dissatisfied" would be 220. And there's clearly not enough votes to call for the riptide to be removed, the opinions are roughly equal on both sides

I also see you went with the "discount the troll vote" option, which conveniently helps you by eliminating more votes against you than for you. Very subtle. Much clever.

And again, not EVERY other player will rage. Not JUST tau players are fine with the current price, you need to stop lumping everyone into one of two categories: "Tau", and "non tau players who hate all tau just like me".

IOW, Your polls suck, they have an incredibly clear bias and agenda, with no intention of gathering honest data, but rather supporting whatever you want it to, which you'll then twist to your view, no matter what the poll ACTUALLY says. Also, you hate tau more than anything else.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think we can safely call this poll a defeat for you.

It's not a defeat for Traditio, because the point of their polls isn't to create discussion about what a more balanced game and more balanced codices would look like. Instead, each one looks at a single "problem" model in isolation, and calls into question the idea that people should be allowed to field them at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
And here we come to your real position: you aren't interested in honest discussion of balance issues, you just want to create some "statistics" to support your crusade against the Tau and Tau players.

If you'll recall from one of their earlier performances, Traditio is a philosophy major, not a statistician or sociologist. The point of these polls isn't to gain useful and actionable numbers, it's to get people to argue, and to push the tone of sitewide discussion closer to #SquatThe Tau. A hashtag which would have fit in nicely with the rest of the hate speech in their earlier, banned sig, because while it sounds (and is) silly the point is the same: To portray other people as illegitimate, and make them feel unwelcome and drive them away.

Are the mods really okay with this level of sustained trolling?

pm713 wrote:
By the way where you said "Tau and Tau" did you mean "Tau and Eldar"?

I mean Tau (the army) and Tau players. Traditio wants the army gone, but he also has a bizarre vendetta against Tau players, who he sees as the worst kind of WAAC TFGs with severe mental problems.

I can't help but be very curious about this previous sig. I assume that the current one is a form of protest against its ban?

If they didn't ban him for trying to tell them what to do I doubt they'll actually ban him at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
By the way where you said "Tau and Tau" did you mean "Tau and Eldar"?

I mean Tau (the army) and Tau players. Traditio wants the army gone, but he also has a bizarre vendetta against Tau players, who he sees as the worst kind of WAAC TFGs with severe mental problems.

Ah that also makes sense.

 Jewelfox wrote:
If you'll recall from one of their earlier performances, Traditio is a philosophy major, not a statistician or sociologist. The point of these polls isn't to gain useful and actionable numbers, it's to get people to argue, and to push the tone of sitewide discussion closer to #SquatThe Tau. A hashtag which would have fit in nicely with the rest of the hate speech in their earlier, banned sig, because while it sounds (and is) silly the point is the same: To portray other people as illegitimate, and make them feel unwelcome and drive them away.

Nah, Traditio is a philosophy teacher* and certainly loves his anti-Tau crusade, but he's looking for numbers. He's very much a fan of quoting numbers from his polls in his various balance arguments. This poll is obviously flawed and dishonest, but it's a safe bet that his anti-Riptide posts are going to start including "2500% of all people want Riptides to be more expensive because my poll said so". It's the kind of bad argument from statistics that nobody should be persuaded by, but the sad truth is if you can manufacture a number to go with your claim people will listen to it without checking the source.

*And not a very good one, as demonstrated by his complaining over how persecuted he is because his school won't let him teach his "brilliant" moral argument for why sodomy is wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jewelfox wrote:
If you'll recall from one of their earlier performances, Traditio is a philosophy major, not a statistician or sociologist. The point of these polls isn't to gain useful and actionable numbers, it's to get people to argue, and to push the tone of sitewide discussion closer to #SquatThe Tau. A hashtag which would have fit in nicely with the rest of the hate speech in their earlier, banned sig, because while it sounds (and is) silly the point is the same: To portray other people as illegitimate, and make them feel unwelcome and drive them away.

Nah, Traditio is a philosophy teacher* and certainly loves his anti-Tau crusade, but he's looking for numbers. He's very much a fan of quoting numbers from his polls in his various balance arguments. This poll is obviously flawed and dishonest, but it's a safe bet that his anti-Riptide posts are going to start including "2500% of all people want Riptides to be more expensive because my poll said so". It's the kind of bad argument from statistics that nobody should be persuaded by, but the sad truth is if you can manufacture a number to go with your claim people will listen to it without checking the source.

*And not a very good one, as demonstrated by his complaining over how persecuted he is because his school won't let him teach his "brilliant" moral argument for why sodomy is wrong.

Where exactly does this come from? The origins of Traditio's worldview must be an interesting thing to look at.

Search his posts through his profile, but select the off topic posts only.

Entertaining stuff.

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

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

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

I ask that you please abstain from ever posting on Dakka again, but we can't always get what we want.

Assuming the game is balanced is a LOT to assume. It's like saying "assuming world hunger wasn't a thing, would everyone pick the Big Mac?"

 Blacksails wrote:
Search his posts through his profile, but select the off topic posts only.

Entertaining stuff.

Entertaining is certainly one word for it.

pm713 wrote:
Where exactly does this come from? The origins of Traditio's worldview must be an interesting thing to look at.

Some of it is from the OT section (which he is currently banned from, a fairly impressive feat given how many people get into arguments there without getting banned). Some of it is from his posts in various balance threads, such as his "there is no legitimate reason to buy a knight, if you bought one to paint you should have spent that money on feeding starving people and should feel bad about your sins" argument, or his poll on "Tau and Eldar players: have you been diagnosed as sociopaths". Some of it, such as the "I CAN'T TEACH MY ANTI-SODOMY ARGUMENT" bit, come from discussions by PM.

Disagreeing with someone's world view doesn't suddenly make the forum rules no longer apply folks.


This thread would seem to have run its course.