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

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.