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.

As one of the people who originally said that Riptides were fair (I never did say they were balanced, just fair) in games of at least 1500pts and run in moderation, this poll does not accurately reflect the conflict...

All that was said was, with all of the unbalanced options that exist in the game as it stands right now, Riptides are hardly an unfair option at a higher point threshold. Is that really such a contentious statement?

Their insane durability realy stands out. Wulfen at least can be denied fnp with str 8. Scatterbikes, although absurd can at least be forced to jink.

There are no options with riptide. It slags your list every turn until dead. With or without markerlights.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Really, you see Tactical Marines in every game against SM?

Gee, do you see many Battle Demi-Companies or any Core Space Marine formations?

Your point is a terrible one. I absolutely can say that because it's commonly taken, it's OP--but if you want further qualifiers to assuage your concerns about my point needing to be excused or to protect the feelings of people who got it for aesthetics or as a gift from a friend or loved one.

People running it solely for the rules are the ones who "commonly take it", and they're specifically the people I'm discussing here. So here's a disclaimer:

If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse. Pure and simple--you could easily run it with other options, but you CHOOSE to run it in the douchiest way possible. You CHOSE to run your army in such a way that it is not fun or interesting for the other player. You are a part of the reason why people look so unfavorably towards Tau players.

Clarification - I am not actively defending Tau players who take that loadout.

I am saying that by taking that point to a logical conclusion, seeing Tactical Space Marines in EVERY Space Marine list I have played against would be a hint they are OP. They are not, which creates a fallacy of that particular argument. Similarly with SoB. To my knowledge, they only have one Troops choice - Sisters of Battle. Same with Militarum Tempestus - only Tempestus Scions.

They are always seen, but not necessarily OP. I also acknowledged it's an extreme example, but nonetheless correct in arguing the point made for devil's advocate's sake.
If you wish to deny that I've always seen Tactical Marines when playing against Space Marines, then I'm sorry, but I've always seen them fielded.

pm713 wrote:
Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

This. Or, either attach point costs to Formations, or even branch out into 30k Rites of War.

Forcing everyone to use CAD is bad, seeing as it destroys narrative play and fluff-accurate battlefield teams.

Why would an Imperial Guard Armoured Company have Veterans or Infantry Platoons running around their feet?

Have you read the Imperial Guard Armoured Company list from FW?

They have veteran and infantry squads in Chimeras to secure ground after the initial advance. They're even a part of the Armoured Battlegroup list in Imperial Armour v2.0

I have. However, I would not be FORCED to take them. A true Armoured Battle Company, consisting of the ten Leman Russes as laid down in White Dwarf (I believe it was the issue after Spearhead was launched, detailing squadron painting and markings) would consist of that - ten Leman Russes.

Thus, that fluffy ideal of the ten Leman Russes is broken by forcing me to take infantry.

Why would a detachment of a Chapter's First Company have Tactical Squads or Scouts supporting it?

Again, have you read any lore? You talk about "destroying narrative play" and "fluff-accurate battlefield teams", but every example you give has actually been addressed before in the lore.

If you fluff the lore in a certain way. But then you're twisting something that doesn't HAVE to be there - unlike the CAD.

To use your First Company example, let's talk about the Raven Guard. Scout Teams infiltrate in ahead of time, First Company come down in Drop Pods after the enemy is sighted and engaged by the Scouts.
Tactical Squads come down in Drop Pods or emerge from cover as well to engage and support while the First Company launch an attack on the enemy warlord/master psyker/Hive Mind/Avatar/whatever.

But it's the First Company of a different Chapter. Where did I ever specify the actual Chapter?
This is the FIRST COMPANY. Alone. Just the First Company, as I said. The rest of the Chapter may be destroyed, operating in different regions, or the First may be simply deployed alone. I specified First Company alone, and you added extra elements. Not what I said.

Why would the charge of the Grey Knights Purifier Order be accompanied by Strike Squads?
Etc etc.

Why wouldn't the charge of the Purifier Order be accompanied by Strike Squads? It's not like the Strike Squads can't get there.

Because of the Purifier's superior mental capabilities and purity, leaving them as the only available forces to attack? Or because there were no Strike Squads, as they were in a different area of the battlefield/campaign/galaxy etc etc.

These examples, especially the First Company one, are being bent to fit. The First Company CAN deploy alone, evidenced by the Invasion of Thrax, where the First Company did deploy alone to raid the daemonically infested world. No Scouts or Tactical Marines present.

I should not HAVE to have a solid core of Troops, but my job should be made harder without them - hence why Scoring should only be for Troops choices.;

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, in a discussion using words, I'm using words to disagree with you.

You monster!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Really, you see Tactical Marines in every game against SM?

Gee, do you see many Battle Demi-Companies or any Core Space Marine formations?

Your point is a terrible one. I absolutely can say that because it's commonly taken, it's OP--but if you want further qualifiers to assuage your concerns about my point needing to be excused or to protect the feelings of people who got it for aesthetics or as a gift from a friend or loved one.

People running it solely for the rules are the ones who "commonly take it", and they're specifically the people I'm discussing here. So here's a disclaimer:

If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse. Pure and simple--you could easily run it with other options, but you CHOOSE to run it in the douchiest way possible. You CHOSE to run your army in such a way that it is not fun or interesting for the other player. You are a part of the reason why people look so unfavorably towards Tau players.

Clarification - I am not actively defending Tau players who take that loadout.

I am saying that by taking that point to a logical conclusion, seeing Tactical Space Marines in EVERY Space Marine list I have played against would be a hint they are OP. They are not, which creates a fallacy of that particular argument. Similarly with SoB. To my knowledge, they only have one Troops choice - Sisters of Battle. Same with Militarum Tempestus - only Tempestus Scions.

They are always seen, but no necessarily OP. I also acknowledged it's an extreme example, but nonetheless correct in arguing the point made for devil's advocate's sake.
If you wish to deny that I've always seen Tactical Marines when playing against Space Marines, then I'm sorry, but I've always seen them fielded.

Of course you've "always seen them fielded". Tactical Marines, as a unit, have been around longer than many 40k players. They're present in every starter set that Marines have been in; whether it's vanilla Marines or an off-shoot of the Marines(you can make the argument that Grey Hunters in Stormclaw aren't Tactical Marines and it's kinda true but they are the closest analogue that Space Wolves have). There's an element of ready availability to factor in here that you're overlooking with your insistence that you make a Devil's Advocate argument.

What sets include Riptides? The Retaliation Cadre boxed set and the Riptide boxed set. People have to go out of their way to obtain a Riptide while Tactical Marines are a tax unit in many boxed sets featuring Marines.

If you don't see Riptides all the time, great for you! That's not the case for many players. I know of 3 or 4 Tau players locally who I've had games against. Two of them had enough Riptides to field the Riptide Wing when it was still an Apocalypse Formation much less the thing it is now.

pm713 wrote:
Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

This. Or, either attach point costs to Formations, or even branch out into 30k Rites of War.

Forcing everyone to use CAD is bad, seeing as it destroys narrative play and fluff-accurate battlefield teams.

Why would an Imperial Guard Armoured Company have Veterans or Infantry Platoons running around their feet?

Have you read the Imperial Guard Armoured Company list from FW?

They have veteran and infantry squads in Chimeras to secure ground after the initial advance. They're even a part of the Armoured Battlegroup list in Imperial Armour v2.0

I have. However, I would not be FORCED to take them. A true Armoured Battle Company, consisting of the ten Leman Russes as laid down in White Dwarf (I believe it was the issue after Spearhead was launched, detailing squadron painting and markings) would consist of that - ten Leman Russes.

Thus, that fluffy ideal of the ten Leman Russes is broken by forcing me to take infantry.

I would suggest you look on page 242 and 243 of IA v2.0

An Armoured Regiment, of which an Armoured Company is a part, typically features mounted infantry squads as well as Leman Russ tanks.
Having no infantry support is the exception rather than the rule per the lore with Armoured Regiments over the years.

I should not HAVE to have a solid core of Troops, but my job should be made harder without them - hence why Scoring should only be for Troops choices.;

Except that's not how it works. Scoring is done for every unit now, not just Troops. Troops in a CAD just do it better--or if they're part of a formation that gives them Objective Secured.

And not one person is arguing that you should "HAVE to have a solid core of Troops"--just that the Riptide is a stupidly underpriced piece of nonsense.

Martel732 wrote:
Why does anyone think grav is a solution when it has a 3++ 2/3 of the time?

Jancoran, none of my units can beat the Riptide in CC. Still think CC is a good idea? S6 AP2 kills marines real good. WS and init are garbage stats.

I uh... really dont think that is the case. You do indeed have units that can kill riptides in close combat. Lol.

 Wolfblade wrote:
I disagree, MT are a "complete army" by your standard of being able to use a CAD.

To be fair, I don't consider them a complete army either, they really should just be an alternate force org for an IG army

Why are skittari and harlies excluded because they simply lack an HQ choice? Would they be incomplete if one of their characters were moved to the HQ position? Then they'd fill all the requirements of a "full army" by being usable in a CAD. (i.e. troupe master, death jester or a ranger/vanguard alpha).

It's not about not just being able to fill a CAD, it's that these armies fundamentally are just a few units in size, lacking major critical capabilities, they're not entirely fleshed out forces. Things like Skitarii lacking any sort of transport and being composed mainly of just a couple variants of 3 or 4 different units, Harlequins basically just being an Elites unit with an FA unit or two and a couple characters, or the Inquisition just being Henchmen units and Inquisitors. These armies either just aren't fully fleshed out (Skitarii & AdMech) or really just aren't intended to be run by themselves (Harlequins, Inquisition, etc). They have limited capabilities and options that just don't function terribly well on their own, and really should be either reworked and fleshed out or just made as addendums to other army lists as opposed to distinct "armies" of their own, at least at the scale that 40k plays at.

What about sisters? They're an "army" despite being massively outdated and unsupported more or less.

Sisters have a full line of units covering every major capability and have no problems using a CAD.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Saying that the Riptide "isn't an autoinclude" is a joke. They've been an auto-include for almost two editions now, because really what are they really competing against?

On this note, I literally cannot recall seeing a single game involving a Tau army above 750pts or so that *didn't* have a Riptide since they came out in 2013.

To me, that is by far the largest indicator that something is wrong.

Much as I would agree with this, it's not completely accurate.

I see Tactical Marines in every game against SM I play. Does that Tacs OP?
Again, that point is taken to an awkward extreme, but it doesn't excuse your point - you can't just say that because it's commonly taken, it's necessarily OP. It may be very appealing to multiple players for many reasons - aesthetics, rules, theme, gift from a friend, etc etc.

Really, you see Tactical Marines in every game against SM?

Gee, do you see many Battle Demi-Companies or any Core Space Marine formations?

Your point is a terrible one. I absolutely can say that because it's commonly taken, it's OP--but if you want further qualifiers to assuage your concerns about my point needing to be excused or to protect the feelings of people who got it for aesthetics or as a gift from a friend or loved one.

People running it solely for the rules are the ones who "commonly take it", and they're specifically the people I'm discussing here. So here's a disclaimer:

If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse. Pure and simple--you could easily run it with other options, but you CHOOSE to run it in the douchiest way possible. You CHOSE to run your army in such a way that it is not fun or interesting for the other player. You are a part of the reason why people look so unfavorably towards Tau players.

Clarification - I am not actively defending Tau players who take that loadout.

I am saying that by taking that point to a logical conclusion, seeing Tactical Space Marines in EVERY Space Marine list I have played against would be a hint they are OP. They are not, which creates a fallacy of that particular argument. Similarly with SoB. To my knowledge, they only have one Troops choice - Sisters of Battle. Same with Militarum Tempestus - only Tempestus Scions.

They are always seen, but no necessarily OP. I also acknowledged it's an extreme example, but nonetheless correct in arguing the point made for devil's advocate's sake.
If you wish to deny that I've always seen Tactical Marines when playing against Space Marines, then I'm sorry, but I've always seen them fielded.

Of course you've "always seen them fielded". Tactical Marines, as a unit, have been around longer than many 40k players. They're present in every starter set that Marines have been in; whether it's vanilla Marines or an off-shoot of the Marines(you can make the argument that Grey Hunters in Stormclaw aren't Tactical Marines and it's kinda true but they are the closest analogue that Space Wolves have). There's an element of ready availability to factor in here that you're overlooking with your insistence that you make a Devil's Advocate argument.

What sets include Riptides? The Retaliation Cadre boxed set and the Riptide boxed set. People have to go out of their way to obtain a Riptide while Tactical Marines are a tax unit in many boxed sets featuring Marines.

If you don't see Riptides all the time, great for you! That's not the case for many players. I know of 3 or 4 Tau players locally who I've had games against. Two of them had enough Riptides to field the Riptide Wing when it was still an Apocalypse Formation much less the thing it is now.

I can concede the point on Tactical Marines, but still contest Sisters of Battle and Militarum Tempestus. A unit frequently seen does not ALWAYS (emphasis always) mean it is OP. That was my entire premise, that just because a unit is frequently seen doesn't make it instantly broken.

pm713 wrote:
Why not fix the formations and alternate foc's rather than removing them? As I said only having CAD's becomes a bit boring.

This. Or, either attach point costs to Formations, or even branch out into 30k Rites of War.

Forcing everyone to use CAD is bad, seeing as it destroys narrative play and fluff-accurate battlefield teams.

Why would an Imperial Guard Armoured Company have Veterans or Infantry Platoons running around their feet?

Have you read the Imperial Guard Armoured Company list from FW?

They have veteran and infantry squads in Chimeras to secure ground after the initial advance. They're even a part of the Armoured Battlegroup list in Imperial Armour v2.0

I have. However, I would not be FORCED to take them. A true Armoured Battle Company, consisting of the ten Leman Russes as laid down in White Dwarf (I believe it was the issue after Spearhead was launched, detailing squadron painting and markings) would consist of that - ten Leman Russes.

Thus, that fluffy ideal of the ten Leman Russes is broken by forcing me to take infantry.

I would suggest you look on page 242 and 243 of IA v2.0

An Armoured Regiment, of which an Armoured Company is a part, typically features mounted infantry squads as well as Leman Russ tanks.
Having no infantry support is the exception rather than the rule per the lore with Armoured Regiments over the years.

Riptide with HBC is fine
Riptide with IA, EWO, Stims is not
Riptide wing is not fine

Where's the line or the points that would make them fine? Not sure, but AI & EWO at 20 points each might actually involve a choice rather than the no-brainer that it is now.

Alternatively, change the IA to match the profile of the Ion Cannon on the hammerhead, but the nova option changes it from AP3 to AP2. Would still counter marines hard but at least there'd be some defence against it or involve an actual risk to aquire that AP2.

I'm not sure if any reasonable amount of points would make the riptide wing acceptable.

But then again, that's not the point of the poll/thread/rant is it?

The problem with this poll is EVERYTHING is unbalanced. It's not like 40k has a bunch of units that are roughly balanced against each other then a couple of outliers which are OP or UP. It's a broad spectrum and the point you take as your reference determines whether something is OP or UP.

Whether the poll swings slightly one way or the other, at this point it's nearly split with over 200 respondents.

In the context of the thread that spawned this one, my conclusion is:

It's not the players fault they have a bad game because the rules are unbalanced because it's not a trivial matter to balance the rules, GW needs to supply well written rules so that gamers have a good point of reference when they can't agree on what sort of game they want to play when they encounter argumentative opponents.

Sure, you can just turn down an opponent for being a douche who wants you to remove X unit because they can't beat you or being a douche who wants you to beef up your army beyond what is physically possible without simply changing armies entirely..... but I think players turning each other down is rarely even *good* for the overall health of a game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
I disagree, MT are a "complete army" by your standard of being able to use a CAD.

To be fair, I don't consider them a complete army either, they really should just be an alternate force org for an IG army

An alt force org chart... like a formation basically is?

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's not about not just being able to fill a CAD, it's that these armies fundamentally are just a few units in size, lacking major critical capabilities, they're not entirely fleshed out forces. Things like Skitarii lacking any sort of transport and being composed mainly of just a couple variants of 3 or 4 different units, Harlequins basically just being an Elites unit with an FA unit or two and a couple characters, or the Inquisition just being Henchmen units and Inquisitors. These armies either just aren't fully fleshed out (Skitarii & AdMech) or really just aren't intended to be run by themselves (Harlequins, Inquisition, etc). They have limited capabilities and options that just don't function terribly well on their own, and really should be either reworked and fleshed out or just made as addendums to other army lists as opposed to distinct "armies" of their own, at least at the scale that 40k plays at.

See, I disagree there, admech by itself isn't bad (troops literally have 6 shot grav cannons and the kastelans are pretty damn tanky and murder MEQ), and skitarii might be squishy, but have pretty decent damage output (especially vanguard or onagers vs flying targets/groups of 3 with neutron lasers). Saying what is and isn't a complete army is pretty arbitrary. Ad mech and skitarii should have been one codex, sure. That however doesn't stop them from working by themselves. Harlies and MT were the only armies meant to be actual allies only armies, but that doesn't stop them from being played as a full army, especially with the all formations harlies have (unless those are meant to simply be "alt force org" charts for them.)

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sisters have a full line of units covering every major capability and have no problems using a CAD.

So do admech, and minus an HQ, so do skitarii. They have atleast one unit for each slot, and are capable with dealing anything they face pretty much. Lets not forget admech/skitarii are plastic while sisters are still metal and pretty much completely unsupported anymore. The only reason they haven't been squatted is that even GW knows that would be a major shitstorm for them.

 Jancoran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why does anyone think grav is a solution when it has a 3++ 2/3 of the time?

Jancoran, none of my units can beat the Riptide in CC. Still think CC is a good idea? S6 AP2 kills marines real good. WS and init are garbage stats.

I uh... really dont think that is the case. You do indeed have units that can kill riptides in close combat. Lol.

Do the math. Look very closely at BA units. They are quite poor at assault in 7th ed. S6 AP2 murders every unit type I have available because GW decided that MCs had to be gods of CC. We aren't SW. We don't get nice things.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse.

Well, that, or they're a casual player who has seen those options in their codex and thought they looked good, without doing the maths to determine just how good, and/or without any baseline with which to determine how overpowered something should be before they should feel honour-bound to not take it in a list.


Seriously, I like hyperbole as much as the next hundred billion guys, but suggesting that everyone who takes a powerful unit can only possibly be doing so because they want to win at all costs is just absurd.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse.

Well, that, or they're a casual player who has seen those options in their codex and thought they looked good, without doing the maths to determine just how good, and/or without any baseline with which to determine how overpowered something should be before they should feel honour-bound to not take it in a list.


Seriously, I like hyperbole as much as the next hundred billion guys, but suggesting that everyone who takes a powerful unit can only possibly be doing so because they want to win at all costs is just absurd.

What, like people take units because they look cool? I thought it was all about doing research and making sure you don't bring things that might live through a game.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If someone takes a Riptide OR more than one Riptide and they equip it with an Ion Accelerator and they outfit it with Stimulant Injectors and/or they outfit it with an Early Warning Override, they're a WAAC player or have no interest in actually playing the game; just removing enemy models en masse.

Well, that, or they're a casual player who has seen those options in their codex and thought they looked good, without doing the maths to determine just how good, and/or without any baseline with which to determine how overpowered something should be before they should feel honour-bound to not take it in a list.


Seriously, I like hyperbole as much as the next hundred billion guys, but suggesting that everyone who takes a powerful unit can only possibly be doing so because they want to win at all costs is just absurd.

Sure there's an element of hyperbole to it, but once again it's not a question of "taking a powerful unit" but that specific build.

If Stimulant Injectors and Early Warning Overrides were things that had actual bits for the model and someone took them because they "thought they looked good", I'd be a bit more forgiving. But they're upgrades that don't have to be modeled and seemingly got thrown in as an afterthought in Tau Empire.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Sure there's an element of hyperbole to it, but once again it's not a question of "taking a powerful unit" but that specific build..

If that specific build is available, then people are going to take it without having any idea how it compares to everything else in the game.

Not everyone does Math-hammer, or spends time on the internet insisting that everyone else should play the game their way... A lot of players just buy a codex, and choose what they think will make a good army.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Sure there's an element of hyperbole to it, but once again it's not a question of "taking a powerful unit" but that specific build..

If that specific build is available, then people are going to take it without having any idea how it compares to everything else in the game.

If that were true, you'd see some HBC builds.

You just don't really see those though, beyond maybe someone who bought a Riptide second hand or who has magnetized their Riptides.

Not everyone does Math-hammer, or spends time on the internet insisting that everyone else should play the game their way... A lot of players just buy a codex, and choose what they think will make a good army.

Not everyone does mathhammer, but you don't need to mathhammer when you can find ready-made lists out there pretty easily.

The days of people just buying a codex and picking things at random are long gone with the ease at which information is out there regarding 40k/AoS.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The days of people just buying a codex and picking things at random are long gone with the ease at which information is out there regarding 40k/AoS.

I dunno about that. Still see plenty of people oblivious as to why they're losing and you look at their collection and see they've taken a bunch of pyrovores or grenadiers with grenade launchers or something silly like that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

If that were true, you'd see some HBC builds.

You just don't really see those though, beyond maybe someone who bought a Riptide second hand or who has magnetized their Riptides..

A quick search for HBC in the Army List section seems to bring up a few.

Not everyone does mathhammer, but you don't need to mathhammer when you can find ready-made lists out there pretty easily.

The days of people just buying a codex and picking things at random are long gone with the ease at which information is out there regarding 40k/AoS.

I suspect that you overestimate how many people go online for hobby information.

And that's still beside the point. You can't just slap derogatory labels on someone who takes a single unit you don't approve of without any sort of background, or any information on what else is in their list. That way lies madness.

There are still plenty of us building lists based on what we want to field rather than on what makes the most overpowered list... and sometimes, what we want to field turns out to be a powerful unit. That doesn't change the reason for taking it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Sure there's an element of hyperbole to it, but once again it's not a question of "taking a powerful unit" but that specific build..

If that specific build is available, then people are going to take it without having any idea how it compares to everything else in the game.

If that were true, you'd see some HBC builds.

You just don't really see those though, beyond maybe someone who bought a Riptide second hand or who has magnetized their Riptides.

Actually thanks to Riptide Wing formation you totally see HBC now

As I suspected would happen, the gap is closing.

Currently, the vote is 52 percent for "yes" and 48 percent for "no."

Again, accounting for things like standard deviation, etc., at the current moment, it's a virtual tie, with the general tendency trending towards my favor.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The days of people just buying a codex and picking things at random are long gone with the ease at which information is out there regarding 40k/AoS.

I dunno about that. Still see plenty of people oblivious as to why they're losing and you look at their collection and see they've taken a bunch of pyrovores or grenadiers with grenade launchers or something silly like that.

Stop looking at my collection and laughing.

And I actually (seriously) prefer the HBC on my Riptide.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, accounting for things like standard deviation, etc., at the current moment, it's a virtual tie, with the general tendency trending towards my favor.

Only you could ever look at a poll at a virtual tie and say it's "trending in your favor".

I think it was all the troll bots that got on and voted for you that did it. Or something like that. From what I've heard from you, they're really common.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, accounting for things like standard deviation, etc., at the current moment, it's a virtual tie, with the general tendency trending towards my favor.

For the sake of our understanding, would you like to clarify exactly how you accounted for thing such as Standard Deviation? What exactly was your mathematical process? EDIT: Also, how have you accounted for the people that have obviously trolled your poll?

Also, how does a "Virtual Tie" (either imagined by you or an actual fact) indicate a 'Trend in Your Favour'?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I dunno about that. Still see plenty of people oblivious as to why they're losing and you look at their collection and see they've taken a bunch of pyrovores or grenadiers with grenade launchers or something silly like that.

Keep off my pyrovores. When combined with a promethium relay, they actually are fairly terrifying.



Anyhow, back on subject. I have no experience with Tau, as I have never actually had a Tau player in my meta, but honestly, I don't begrudge the Riptide it's station. I will admit that it seems rediculous from everything I know about it, but it really seems like it is a product of poor development.

Even when he loses a poll he tries to make it sound llke a win.

 Stormonu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The days of people just buying a codex and picking things at random are long gone with the ease at which information is out there regarding 40k/AoS.

I dunno about that. Still see plenty of people oblivious as to why they're losing and you look at their collection and see they've taken a bunch of pyrovores or grenadiers with grenade launchers or something silly like that.

Stop looking at my collection and laughing.

And I actually (seriously) prefer the HBC on my Riptide.

Its pretty convincing as a weapon I would have at least one in a Riptide Wing, but I faced two of them at the BAO and they were ALL kitted out for HBC because despite the firepower of the Accelerator, that HBC is going to hit a lot of times and the bet there is that cover is plentiful enough to negate AP enough of the time. They want more hits and more opportunities rather than less hit and better quality ops.

Thats beside the point. But I can definitely attest to the power of the HBC's in general. Kinda the same reason a lot of people ike the Ion Raker more. People will accept forcing the enemy to roll more often intead of going for the haymaker.

Christ the sheer amount of personal attacks I'm seeing in this thread is disgusting. He isn't calling all Tau players donkey-caves or WAACs, he is just trying to get a point across about a damn unit. The fact the board is so vitriolic of a discussion is self-defeating, put him on the ignore list if you want but don't think you calling him names defeats an argument on it's own.

People wonder why certain factions are hated.

EDIT: Also Traditio quit trying to fething antagonize them, FFS I'm the one who is supposed to hate Tau here.

IllumiNini wrote:For the sake of our understanding, would you like to clarify exactly how you accounted for thing such as Standard Deviation? What exactly was your mathematical process?

I don't actually know how to calculate standard deviation (though, somehow, I did it as an undergrad in an intro to biology lab). However, if you consider the fact that we are dealing with a 48-52 split and a relatively small sample size, something like standard deviation indicates that the poll is much less of a loss on my part and could be anywhere from a more sizeable loss on my part to a narrow victory on my part.

EDIT: Also, how have you accounted for the people that have obviously trolled your poll?

It works out in my favor. Those guys obviously all voted "yes."

Also, how does a "Virtual Tie" (either imagined by you or an actual fact) indicate a 'Trend in Your Favour'?

That's how the poll is moving. It started out as a 20/80 split against my favor to roughly a 45/55 split earlier today, and is currently hovering at around a 48/52 split.

Assuming trends continue, the poll will end up in my favor.

 Quickjager wrote:
Christ the sheer amount of personal attacks I'm seeing in this thread is disgusting. He isn't calling all Tau players donkey-caves or WAACs, he is just trying to get a point across about a damn unit. The fact the board is so vitriolic of a discussion is self-defeating, put him on the ignore list if you want but don't think you calling him names defeats an argument on it's own.

People wonder why certain factions are hated.

EDIT: Also Traditio quit trying to fething antagonize them, FFS I'm the one who is supposed to hate Tau here.

TBF, he HAS called ALL Tau players WAAC TFGs before. And made many pointless polls that he tries to twist the results to serve whatever point he wants to make.

 Traditio wrote:

EDIT: Also, how have you accounted for the people that have obviously trolled your poll?

It works out in my favor. Those guys obviously all voted "yes."
.

So wait, you're willing to question the integrity of a poll if trolls are against you, but not if they're for you?