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.

Traditio wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Let me guess, someone lost a few Space Marine squads to a Riptide recently?

If a 180 point riptide can kill more than a fully manned/upgraded tactical squad before being taken out itself, it's OP/undercosted.

That's not bias.

That's just basic math.

How long have you been playing 40k? Because equal points does not make the units equal. Take Genestealers for example, they cost 2 points more than a Space Marine, no one is saying that they are better. No one.

Traditio wrote:
Why wouldn't you use Mobile Suit Gundam: Riptide?

Because its horrendously overcosted for being a Flying Ironclad with a fancy gun.

Traditio wrote:
Why, on the other hand, are riptides an auto-take?

They arent, look at tournament lists.

[quote=Traditio 687525 8590299 nullMobile Suit Gundam: Riptide is basically balanced.

Traditio wrote:
Basically, if it's not OP and broken, it's not worth taking.

If your goal is to win games then you only take the best units. Units that are not the best option are not worth taking, regardless of whether you call them "weak" or "balanced but not overpowered enough for you". I'm really not sure why you seem to think you've discovered something new about how people build lists, but trying to portray everyone who follows that basic list-building rule as some kind of WAAC TFG is not really constructive.

The riptide is not "moderately good" for its points cost. If it regularly takes more than 180 points of devoted firepower to take it out, it's defensive capacity exceeds its points cost. If it regularly takes out more than 180 points of models before it dies, its offensive capacity exceeds its points cost.

This is actually a very poor balancing rule because it does not account at all for unit roles. A dedicated heavy infantry killer that costs 180 points should be able to kill way more than 180 points worth of heavy infantry before dying, because it certainly isn't going to take out 180 points of tanks/guardsmen/etc before dying. Similarly, a 150 point tank might take thousands of points worth of fire from anti-guardsmen units before dying by some fluke of the dice, but die in one shot from a 100 point anti-tank squad. You simply can not line up two units and declare "A can't kill B in 1-2 turns and costs the same therefore B is overpowered".

You don't take the riptide because it's OK. You take it because it's unbalanced and unfair.

Alternatively, the Riptide is balanced and fair, but some other units are weak and need buffing. Why are we setting the line for "balanced" at the particular power level that you have chosen? Setting the line for "balanced and fair" at the Riptide is an equally valid point of view.

And don't give me that nonsense about just liking the model. The tau players in this thread have basically admitted that the model has nothing to do with it. If it were the same cool looking model with an actually FAIR ruleset, it wouldn't see play.

Please don't make assumptions like this. The fact that people don't agree with you when you post your rules and declare "this is balanced, because it is" doesn't mean that they don't take Riptides because they like the model. You don't know what a particular player's motivations are for taking a model unless they have actually told you, so please stop speculating about those motivations as an attempt to portray Tau players as WAAC TFGs.

Peregrine wrote:If your goal is to win games then you only take the best units. Units that are not the best option are not worth taking, regardless of whether you call them "weak" or "balanced but not overpowered enough for you". I'm really not sure why you seem to think you've discovered something new about how people build lists, but trying to portray everyone who follows that basic list-building rule as some kind of WAAC TFG is not really constructive.

1. I wish to stress that in the first bolded section, you omitted a word, namely, "only." If we remove that word from the protasis of your conditional, then the apodosis doesn't follow from the protasis.

2. If you place the word "only" in the protasis, then I fail to see how painting such a person as "WAAC" isn't...so much "not constructive," as "not true." If your only goal is to win, then by definition, you are win at all costs. That's probably a tautology.

This is actually a very poor balancing rule because it does not account at all for unit roles. A dedicated heavy infantry killer that costs 180 points should be able to kill way more than 180 points worth of heavy infantry before dying, because it certainly isn't going to take out 180 points of tanks/guardsmen/etc before dying. Similarly, a 150 point tank might take thousands of points worth of fire from anti-guardsmen units before dying by some fluke of the dice, but die in one shot from a 100 point anti-tank squad. You simply can not line up two units and declare "A can't kill B in 1-2 turns and costs the same therefore B is overpowered".

I completely agree with what you are saying. If I only have imperial guardsmen with lasguns and you only have landraiders...

That said, that's not really what I meant. Presupposing two opposed TAC lists:

If the riptides kill more than 180 points worth of tactical marines before my (let us assume) lascannon devastator squad can kill that riptide, and this on a regular basis, then the riptide is inappropriately costed.

Again, no, I completely agree with the basic gist of this sentiment. The offensive "balancing" of a unit should be in comparison to what it's supposed to kill. The defensive "balancing" of a unit should be in comparison to what ordinarily can be expected to kill it.

For a riptide, that's lascannons.
For a wraithknight, that's krak missiles.
For a stormraven, that's flakk missiles.

Alternatively, the Riptide is balanced and fair, but some other units are weak and need buffing. Why are we setting the line for "balanced" at the particular power level that you have chosen? Setting the line for "balanced and fair" at the Riptide is an equally valid point of view.

This is a simple rhetorical/verbal dispute. Regardless of where the emphasis is lain, we both agree that there is a clear imbalance.

Please don't make assumptions like this. The fact that people don't agree with you when you post your rules and declare "this is balanced, because it is" doesn't mean that they don't take Riptides because they like the model. You don't know what a particular player's motivations are for taking a model unless they have actually told you, so please stop speculating about those motivations as an attempt to portray Tau players as WAAC TFGs.

They've flat out admitted it. If they played riptides simply because they liked the model, then they would play riptides whether or not riptides had their current ruleset. They'd play riptides even if riptides were re-cast as Mobile Suits Gundam: Riptide.

If what determines whether or not Riptides see table top play is something other than the fact that the player likes that model, then they aren't playing riptides only because they like the model. That's a flat out tautology.

If "because I like the model" were the actual and sole reason people played the models they do, Avatars of Khaine would see much more widespread use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 raverrn wrote:
The new 30th anniversary SM can kill a Riptide in one round of shooting.

Good luck trying.

Traditio wrote:
1. I wish to stress that in the first bolded section, you omitted a word, namely, "only." If we remove that word from the protasis of your conditional, then the apodosis doesn't follow from the protasis.

2. If you place the word "only" in the protasis, then I fail to see how painting such a person as "WAAC" isn't...so much "not constructive," as "not true." If your only goal is to win, then by definition, you are win at all costs. That's probably a tautology.

Except by adding "only" the way you're talking about it you end up with an absolutely meaningless statement. I seriously doubt that anybody plays 40k for the sole reason of "I want to win", literally without caring at all about anything else. So interpreted this way you're talking about hypothetical list-building decisions by a nonexistent group, something that does not contribute at all to the discussion. The only way what you said makes any sense is if you interpret it to be a comment on people who primarily build their lists for winning games.

Of course I think we all know the real reason for trying to add that "only" into the argument: plausible deniability about calling any particular person in this thread a WAAC TFG.

If the riptides kill more than 180 points worth of tactical marines before my (let us assume) lascannon devastator squad can kill that riptide, and this on a regular basis, then the riptide is inappropriately costed.

But, again, this is a poor balancing model. You're assuming that the Riptide and lascannon squad are just standing around exchanging fire until one of them dies. What if the reason your lascannon squad fails to kill the Riptide is that I recognize the threat and make sure I keep LOS-blocking terrain between them as much as possible? What if I kill your lascannon squad before it can kill the Riptide? What if your lascannon squad has other priority targets to deal with? What if I lock it in combat with an expendable gun drone squad? What if my allied psykers force your lascannon squad to fire snap shots?

The game is way more complicated than your attempted analysis, and you need to consider that complexity.

For a riptide, that's lascannons.
For a wraithknight, that's krak missiles.
For a stormraven, that's flakk missiles.

This is a massively over-simplified analysis of the situation. Why is the benchmark unit for Riptides lascannons (specifically lascannon devastator squads) instead of Elysian plasma CCS or D-weapon Warhounds? Why is the benchmark unit for Stormravens flakk missiles instead of other aircraft? Etc.

This is a simple rhetorical/verbal dispute. Regardless of where the emphasis is lain, we both agree that there is a clear imbalance.

But your entire discussion here is about rhetorical arguments. You aren't just trying to suggest balancing changes between various units, you're trying to turn them into broader points about the "Tau and Eldar mentality". And if you're going to use "you take overpowered units because good units aren't enough for you" as a way to imply that people have moral flaws in how they play the game then you'd better have some justification behind those terms.

They've flat out admitted it. If they played riptides simply because they liked the model, then they would play riptides whether or not riptides had their current ruleset. They'd play riptides even if riptides were re-cast as Mobile Suits Gundam: Riptide.

Again, no. You don't get to declare "use my house rules or your claim for why you use the Riptide is wrong" and act like any criticism of your rules is somehow proof that they're lying about their motivations. Otherwise, by that argument, nobody just takes stuff because they like the model because nobody wants to use my house rules where their favorite model gains "you lose this game without even playing if this unit is in your army".

The new 30th anniversary SM can kill a Riptide in one round of shooting.

Good luck trying.

You do realize that it has instant-death AP 2 weapons, right? One unsaved wound and the Riptide is dead.

Peregrine wrote:Except by adding "only" the way you're talking about it you end up with an absolutely meaningless statement.

It's not meaningless. It's perfectly meaningful. It may be vacuous, but it's not meaningless.

If your sole goal in playing the game is to win, then you will spam the most OP garbage in the codex. I agree with this.

If, however, your primary goal is to win, but there are other limiting conditions/goals at work, then you might not.

I seriously doubt that anybody plays 40k for the sole reason of "I want to win", literally without caring at all about anything else.

Then your apodosis doesn't follow. It's not necessarily the case that you'll spam the most OP stuff in the codex.

Actually.

Don't you run an unbound ratling list?

So interpreted this way you're talking about hypothetical list-building decisions by a nonexistent group, something that does not contribute at all to the discussion. The only way what you said makes any sense is if you interpret it to be a comment on people who primarily build their lists for winning games.

Then the apodosis still doesn't follow. There could be secondary goals/limiting conditions which exclude spamming riptides or wraithknights/scatter bikes.

Of course I think we all know the real reason for trying to add that "only" into the argument: plausible deniability about calling any particular person in this thread a WAAC TFG.

If anyone in this thread, or outside of this thread, has winning as his sole goal in playing warhammer 40k, then by definition, he is WAAC. If he's chosen 40k to do it (a game not particularly balanced or suitable to really competitive play), then he's probably TFG, at least when it comes to competitive gaming.

I don't think that any of these propositions are controversial.

But, again, this is a poor balancing model. You're assuming that the Riptide and lascannon squad are just standing around exchanging fire until one of them dies. What if the reason your lascannon squad fails to kill the Riptide is that I recognize the threat and make sure I keep LOS-blocking terrain between them as much as possible? What if I kill your lascannon squad before it can kill the Riptide? What if your lascannon squad has other priority targets to deal with? What if I lock it in combat with an expendable gun drone squad? What if my allied psykers force your lascannon squad to fire snap shots?

The game is way more complicated than your attempted analysis, and you need to consider that complexity.

That's why statistics and laws of averages exist.

This is a massively over-simplified analysis of the situation. Why is the benchmark unit for Riptides lascannons (specifically lascannon devastator squads) instead of Elysian plasma CCS or D-weapon Warhounds? Why is the benchmark unit for Stormravens flakk missiles instead of other aircraft? Etc.

Because space marines. I would go on, but I don't really think I need to.

Just ponder these words:

Space marines.

But your entire discussion here is about rhetorical arguments. You aren't just trying to suggest balancing changes between various units, you're trying to turn them into broader points about the "Tau and Eldar mentality". And if you're going to use "you take overpowered units because good units aren't enough for you" as a way to imply that people have moral flaws in how they play the game then you'd better have some justification behind those terms.

Argumentatively, it doesn't matter if the RT is just fine and the tactical marine is underpowered, or the other way around. The fact remains that an imbalance exists and the Tau or Eldar player makes his selections specifically to exploit that imbalance.

Evidence?

This thread.

Again, no. You don't get to declare "use my house rules or your claim for why you use the Riptide is wrong" and act like any criticism of your rules is somehow proof that they're lying about their motivations. Otherwise, by that argument, nobody just takes stuff because they like the model because nobody wants to use my house rules where their favorite model gains "you lose this game without even playing if this unit is in your army".

You've misunderstood me. Let us assume a thought experiment: suppose that Mobile Suit Gundam: Riptide were the official codex entry. Suppose it were not a house rule.

Based on this thread, Tau wouldn't run it.

Why? Because it's not an invulnerable, unstoppable killing machine like the Riptide is. Because it actually has vulnerabilities. Because it's not OP.

You do realize that it has instant-death AP 2 weapons, right? One unsaved wound and the Riptide is dead.

With gets hot, 18 inch range and 5 strength.

As I said: Good luck.

Traditio wrote:


For a riptide, that's lascannons.
For a wraithknight, that's krak missiles.
For a stormraven, that's flakk missiles.

You have completely forgotten Grav here, which is the bane of the Wraithknight and Riptides existence. Also the Stormraven caves to Icarus Lascannons.

Also, before you proceed to imply that im a WAAC TFG, i play Sisters of Battle, Orks and CSM. I HAVE to take my best units to even remotely compete

Grimmor wrote:You have completely forgotten Grav here, which is the bane of the Wraithknight and Riptides existence. Also the Stormraven caves to Icarus Lascannons.

1. Grav is extremely short range.
2. Grav is a 6th edition innovation.
3. It's commonly agreed that grav is OP.

The standard should be the traditional "go to" that everyone is likely to have.

Furthermore, only space marines have grav.

Imperial guard have lascannons, missile launchers, etc.

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:You have completely forgotten Grav here, which is the bane of the Wraithknight and Riptides existence. Also the Stormraven caves to Icarus Lascannons.

1. Grav is extremely short range.
2. Grav is a 6th edition innovation.
3. It's commonly agreed that grav is OP.

The standard should be the traditional "go to" that everyone is likely to have.

Furthermore, only space marines have grav.

Imperial guard have lascannons, missile launchers, etc.

1. My Kataphrons 36" Heavy Grav Cannons disagree
2. You mean like the Riptide?
3. Its commonly argued

Not everyone has Lascannons or Krak Missiles or their equivalents

False. Ad Mech has it as well, and as such any Imperial Army can have it because of Armies of the Imperium

And your point here is......

Grimmor wrote:1. My Kataphrons 36" Heavy Grav Cannons disagree

Those don't exist in the vanilla marines codex.

2. You mean like the Riptide?

This is just a pay to win argument. I shouldn't have to buy the new shiny to have to deal with the new shiny. The new shiny should be balanced relative to what's already present in the game.

3. Its commonly argued

What percent you think I'd get if I put up a poll: "Grav is OP: True or false"?

What percent you think would say "True"?

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:1. My Kataphrons 36" Heavy Grav Cannons disagree

Those don't exist in the vanilla marines codex.

2. You mean like the Riptide?

This is just a pay to win argument. I shouldn't have to buy the new shiny to have to deal with the new shiny. The new shiny should be balanced relative to what's already present in the game.

3. Its commonly argued

What percent you think I'd get if I put up a poll: "Grav is OP: True or false"?

What percent you think would say "True"?

Oh, i didnt realize that i was arguing "Vanilla Marines" i was arguing in general.

Then bring more Plasma. Also, you had to buy the models in the first place, so pay to win doesnt translate properly to Warhammer as we are paying to play the game in the first place.

Idk, and, frankly, I dont care. Its entirely hypothetical and, as such, would add nothing.

Traditio wrote:
It's not meaningless. It's perfectly meaningful. It may be vacuous, but it's not meaningless.

It's meaningless, because a sentence about a nonexistent group of people is about as relevant to this discussion as typing "GFHWGJVNIOREJVO:IRJ$FP(*$JEEIOGVFJREOIMHGBLREHGLKREHREH". So no, you don't get to try to weasel your way out of what you said by limiting it to a nonexistent and hypothetical group instead of the conventional interpretation (which refers to a group that actually exists).

But that's all I'm going to say on this little tangent. Your words are there, as is my response. Going in additional circles over increasingly precise nitpicks over single words is not going to improve the situation.

Don't you run an unbound ratling list?

No. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

That's why statistics and laws of averages exist.

No, the law of averages has absolutely nothing to do with this situation because things like "I put my Riptide behind LOS blocking terrain so your lascannons can't shoot at it" are not random events.

Because space marines. I would go on, but I don't really think I need to.

Just ponder these words:

Space marines.

Why are we only considering space marines? Perhaps there's a rock/paper/scissors kind of balancing going on, where space marines are weak against Tau but good against some other army. In this case you would expect that space marines would struggle to deal with a Riptide.

And even just considering space marines your benchmark units are extremely limited. Why aren't you considering drop pod command squads with plasma? Or a skyhammer force to lock the Riptide in assault? Or Storm Talons for AA against Storm Ravens?

Argumentatively, it doesn't matter if the RT is just fine and the tactical marine is underpowered, or the other way around. The fact remains that an imbalance exists and the Tau or Eldar player makes his selections specifically to exploit that imbalance.

Evidence?

This thread.

Except is isn't evidence that the Tau/Eldar player is making their selections specifically to exploit the imbalance. The fact that a player does not want to use the house rules that you came up with does not tell you anything about their motivation for taking a particular unit, so please stop assuming that it does.

You've misunderstood me. Let us assume a thought experiment: suppose that Mobile Suit Gundam: Riptide were the official codex entry. Suppose it were not a house rule.

Based on this thread, Tau wouldn't run it.

There is a huge difference between "I don't want to use your house rules" and "I wouldn't use those rules if they were the official ones". Please do not use them interchangeably.

Peregrine wrote:But that's all I'm going to say on this little tangent. Your words are there, as is my response. Going in additional circles over increasingly precise nitpicks over single words is not going to improve the situation.

The point stands: even if we go with the intended sense "if your primary goal is to win," etc., then it's still false.

There could be other limiting goals/factors.

No. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

[sing-song]Liar, liar, pants on fire![/sing-song]

I quote!

"So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?" Peregrine at: 2015/05/06 19:48:35.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/647319.page#7813559

No, the law of averages has absolutely nothing to do with this situation because things like "I put my Riptide behind LOS blocking terrain so your lascannons can't shoot at it" are not random events.

That's a good point. The problem with this point is that it kills a lot of math-hammer pretty quickly.

I suppose the answer to this is that this is the sort of thing that should be calculated based on averages obtained in actual play-testing under normal player circumstances.

As a general rule, battle focus should come with an EXTREMELY heavy points tax, if it should even be part of the game at all (I don't think it should be).

Why are we only considering space marines?

They're the "standard," most popular, most widely purchased 40k army.

They're also the army that pretty much everyone builds their lists around. That's why people spam AP 3 and AP 2 weapons: to kill marines.

Perhaps there's a rock/paper/scissors kind of balancing going on, where space marines are weak against Tau but good against some other army. In this case you would expect that space marines would struggle to deal with a Riptide.

That shouldn't exist between codices.

And even just considering space marines your benchmark units are extremely limited. Why aren't you considering drop pod command squads with plasma?

I shouldn't have to use drop pods. Those are not the only dedicated transport in the codex. That is not the only play style that should be viable.

And frankly, I'm just not a fan of drop pods.

Or a skyhammer force to lock the Riptide in assault?

The strikeforce that's actually in the space marines codex is the gladius strike force, and its chief instance is the battle company. If the win cannot be obtained with a standard, well-balanced battle company, then nerfs need to be made.

Or Storm Talons for AA against Storm Ravens?

A battle company tells me I have to take the following:

6 tactical squads
2 assault squads (or equivalents)
2 devastator squads (or equivalents)

The devastator squads are obviously the squads that should be dealing with stormravens. To do that, they need flakk missile launchers.

Except is isn't evidence that the Tau/Eldar player is making their selections specifically to exploit the imbalance. The fact that a player does not want to use the house rules that you came up with does not tell you anything about their motivation for taking a particular unit, so please stop assuming that it does.

See below.

There is a huge difference between "I don't want to use your house rules" and "I wouldn't use those rules if they were the official ones". Please do not use them interchangeably.

The way that I've read the responses is in the sense of the latter. The Tau players in this thread have basically said: "I would not use the riptide in those circumstances."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimmor wrote:Then bring more Plasma.

Plasma cannons are 36 inch range and are heavy 1, blast.

Plasma guns are 24 inch range.

What exactly are you expecting me to do to a riptide with a plasma gun or plasma cannon?

Traditio wrote:
They're the "standard," most popular, most widely purchased 40k army.

They're also the army that pretty much everyone builds their lists around. That's why people spam AP 3 and AP 2 weapons: to kill marines

Firstly, since GW doesnt release their sales figures, this is pure speculation. Secondly this is true.....if we were talking about 5th edition, which was all Marines all the time, except for Leafblower Guard. Now you build around dealing with Scatbikes.

Traditio wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimmor wrote:Then bring more Plasma.

Plasma cannons are 36 inch range and are heavy 1, blast.

Plasma guns are 24 inch range.

What exactly are you expecting me to do to a riptide with a plasma gun or plasma cannon?

Firstly, im not expecting you to take a Plasma cannon as Small Blasts suck. Secondly im expecting you to actually move your frelling units forward. Space Marines get free Rhinos and Razorbacks, use them! Combined with Kahn you can fire be virtually in your opponents DZ on turn 1, so you can totally be within 24" of the Riptide.

Traditio wrote:
Liar, liar, pants on fire!

I quote!

"So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?" Peregrine at: 2015/05/06 19:48:35.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/420/647319.page#7813559

...

Do you really not understand that the unbound ratling list was hypothetical?

That's a good point. The problem with this point is that it kills a lot of math-hammer pretty quickly.

Well yes, of course it kills a lot of math-hammer. There's a lot of bad math-hammer that vastly overstates the value of its calculations. Math can tell you what happens for a given set of die rolls, it can't tell you everything you need to know about balancing a unit.

I suppose the answer to this is that this is the sort of thing that should be calculated based on averages obtained in actual play-testing under normal player circumstances.

Exactly. And that kind of playtesting is far beyond the scope of what you have done here.

They're the "standard," most popular, most widely purchased 40k army.

They're also the army that pretty much everyone builds their lists around. That's why people spam AP 3 and AP 2 weapons: to kill marines.

So what? Being popular doesn't mean that they're the only army. It's entirely acceptable for marines to have weaknesses, they don't have to be good at everything just because lots of people buy them.

That shouldn't exist between codices.

Why not?

I shouldn't have to use drop pods. Those are not the only dedicated transport in the codex. That is not the only play style that should be viable.

And frankly, I'm just not a fan of drop pods.

Ok, fine, don't use drop pods. But don't complain that you are losing games as a result. You don't get to say "I don't want to use any of the tools available to me" and demand that you get additional tools to replace them. It's like insisting that your bolter marines should be able to shoot Land Raiders to death, because you aren't a fan of melta weapons.

The strikeforce that's actually in the space marines codex is the gladius strike force, and its chief instance is the battle company. If the win cannot be obtained with a standard, well-balanced battle company, then nerfs need to be made.

Why does it matter what is in the codex? It has been a long time since a codex has contained all of an army's rules. The skyhammer formation is available to you, the fact that you might refuse to use it is irrelevant for balancing purposes.

A battle company tells me I have to take the following:

6 tactical squads
2 assault squads (or equivalents)
2 devastator squads (or equivalents)

The devastator squads are obviously the squads that should be dealing with stormravens. To do that, they need flakk missile launchers.

I see nothing in the rules that says "devastators must deal with Storm Ravens" or "you can not take AA units in addition to the minimum squads required for a battle company". If you choose to limit your army to those squads then that's your choice to make, but you don't get to complain that your self-imposed restrictions don't leave you with a very good army.

The way that I've read the responses is in the sense of the latter. The Tau players in this thread have basically said: "I would not use the riptide in those circumstances."

Could you provide a quote of them saying this?

Grimmor wrote:Firstly, im not expecting you to take a Plasma cannon as Small Blasts suck. Secondly im expecting you to actually move your frelling units forward. Space Marines get free Rhinos and Razorbacks, use them! Combined with Kahn you can fire be virtually in your opponents DZ on turn 1, so you can totally be within 24" of the Riptide.

1. Your comments presuppose I play white scars. I don't. I shouldn't have to.

2. Riptides have up to a 72 inch range. Do you know how many more inches 72 inches is than 24 inches?

I'll give you a hint:

It's 48 inches.

Well, that was more of a straight up answer than a hint.

Traditio wrote:
2. Riptides have up to a 72 inch range. Do you know how many more inches 72 inches is than 24 inches?

It's also difficult to use the full range of a 72" weapon on a 6x4 table. Deployment zones are only 24" apart and 12" deep (in the most common setup method), putting the Riptide a maximum of ~34" away if you deploy directly across from it at the front edge of your deployment zone. And even if the Riptide is deployed away from your anti-Riptide units along the long axis of the table there should be LOS blocking terrain making it difficult to get those long-range shots. And, if you're willing to split up your forces to box in the Riptide, deploying away from one anti-Riptide unit just brings it closer to a different anti-Riptide unit. In actual gameplay on a table with sufficient terrain having weapon ranges over 48" tends to have rather limited value.

And then of course there's flyers and drop pods, which can deliver a squad to a target anywhere on the table, if your self-imposed limits on army construction don't exclude them.

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:Firstly, im not expecting you to take a Plasma cannon as Small Blasts suck. Secondly im expecting you to actually move your frelling units forward. Space Marines get free Rhinos and Razorbacks, use them! Combined with Kahn you can fire be virtually in your opponents DZ on turn 1, so you can totally be within 24" of the Riptide.

1. Your comments presuppose I play white scars. I don't. I shouldn't have to.

2. Riptides have up to a 72 inch range. Do you know how many more inches 72 inches is than 24 inches?

I'll give you a hint:

It's 48 inches.

Well, that was more of a straight up answer than a hint.

Ya, except that unless you are deploying longways across from each other (which none of the deployment styles do) you arent going to be 72 inches away. No mans land in 40k is 24", with another 12" for your DZ, unless your doing Corners, and that gets weird. On top of this you should have LOS blocking terrain to hide behind, use it.

Also, i have no frelling clue what chapter you play, im just throwing out what you can do. Roll on Strategic for Master of Ambush, use Drop Pods (i know you dont like them, but that doesnt stop them from being there) get some Outflank, sick a Stormraven on it, use a Warhound Titan use Invisible Vanguard Vets, use Invisible Assault Centurions, use Invisible Sternguard, punch it with some Dreadnaughts.

Ninja'd by the Falcon

Peregrine wrote:Do you really not understand that the unbound ratling list was hypothetical?

Honestly?

I legit thought you played an unbound ratling army. I thought that you were some really cool hipster guy who liked playing a really quirky army.

I was legit surprised when I went to your painting thread and saw something other than ratlings.

Exactly. And that kind of playtesting is far beyond the scope of what you have done here.

Note, however, that this point actually works in my favor. You said: "But what if the lascannons aren't killing it because the riptide can jump-shoot-jump?"

Then they should be even more expensive, or else, nerfed. No more j-s-j for riptides.

So what? Being popular doesn't mean that they're the only army. It's entirely acceptable for marines to have weaknesses, they don't have to be good at everything just because lots of people buy them.

I completely agree with this. But for balance purposes, you have to set the standard somewhere. Might as well be marines.

Why not?

I won't even bother answering this. The truth of the proposition "you shouldn't start off at a disadvantage simply because you bought this codex" should be patently obvious.

Ok, fine, don't use drop pods. But don't complain that you are losing games as a result. You don't get to say "I don't want to use any of the tools available to me" and demand that you get additional tools to replace them. It's like insisting that your bolter marines should be able to shoot Land Raiders to death, because you aren't a fan of melta weapons.

This is essentially the same thing as saying that one (or perhaps only a very small number) of army compositions in any given codex should be viable.

Disagree. Patently false.

All common play-styles/army compositions within a codex should be equally viable.

So do I answer likewise for the remainder of this discussion.

Could you provide a quote of them saying this?

Captain Joystick conceivably could be read as saying this on page one:

"Because its offensive and defensive capacity fall woefully short of its cripplingly high points cost, which it's author has confirmed was their intention when writing the rules."

Likewise can the comment of Jade_Angel be so read on page 1:

"I quibble with calling it a nerf because it's so large a shift that it's more like a straight-across delete-and-redo, but if the goal was to create a "look, consider and reject" unit, mission accomplished."

Ultimately, though, whether or not they intended their words to be understood in this sense...only they can answer that.

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:Firstly, im not expecting you to take a Plasma cannon as Small Blasts suck. Secondly im expecting you to actually move your frelling units forward. Space Marines get free Rhinos and Razorbacks, use them! Combined with Kahn you can fire be virtually in your opponents DZ on turn 1, so you can totally be within 24" of the Riptide.

1. Your comments presuppose I play white scars. I don't. I shouldn't have to.

2. Riptides have up to a 72 inch range. Do you know how many more inches 72 inches is than 24 inches?

I'll give you a hint:

It's 48 inches.

Well, that was more of a straight up answer than a hint.

By that logic Devestators don't even work because riptides just stay out of their range

CrownAxe wrote:By that logic Devestators don't even work because riptides just stay out of their range

I completely agree.

Therefore, riptides should be nerfed.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:By that logic Devestators don't even work because riptides just stay out of their range

I completely agree.

Therefore, riptides should be nerfed.

Or you could move your units. I hear they have an entire phase for that now.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:By that logic Devestators don't even work because riptides just stay out of their range

I completely agree.

Therefore, riptides should be nerfed.

Or you could use a unit that can actually deal with riptides

CrownAxe wrote:Or you could use a unit that can actually deal with riptides

If assault marines, tactical marines and devastator marines in rhinos can't handle riptides, the problem is with riptides, not with the assaults, tacticals and devastators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimmor wrote:Or you could move your units. I hear they have an entire phase for that now.

Let's assume I move my units. I start out in my rhinos and I equip my tactical marines with plasma guns. I'm not using white scars chapter tactics.

How many points of tactical marines and rhinos do you think the riptide is going to take out before I plasma him to death?

Note also that riptides can move 12 inches in the movement phase and then, I believe, move more in the shooting phase.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Or you could use a unit that can actually deal with riptides

If assault marines, tactical marines and devastator marines in rhinos can't handle riptides, the problem is with riptides, not with the assaults, tacticals and devastators.

No the problem is you keep insisting on playing 7ed with 5ed rules from an edition that was over seven years ago

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Or you could use a unit that can actually deal with riptides

If assault marines, tactical marines and devastator marines in rhinos can't handle riptides, the problem is with riptides, not with the assaults, tacticals and devastators.

They can, you just dont want to use Grav or Plasma, which can both deal with Riptides. Combat squad them up and you have to many units rushing it for it to take out. Done.

Wow that was hard.

 CrownAxe wrote:
No the problem is you keep insisting on playing 7ed with 5ed rules from an edition that was over seven years ago

This would be the simplest solution.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Let's assume I move my units. I start out in my rhinos and I equip my tactical marines with plasma guns. I'm not using white scars chapter tactics.

How many points of tactical marines and rhinos do you think the riptide is going to take out before I plasma him to death?

Note also that riptides can move 12 inches in the movement phase and then, I believe, move more in the shooting phase.

Are you in Combat Squads? Did you disembark into cover? Are you getting your Rhinos for free? (heres a hint, you should be) Have you deployed in such a way as to make it hard to move the Riptide around? Is the Riptide the biggest threat? Are you supporting your squads with Librarians (Hint: you should be)

Grimmor wrote:They can, you just dont want to use Grav or Plasma, which can both deal with Riptides. Combat squad them up and you have to many units rushing it for it to take out. Done.

Let's assume I used grav or plasma. I wish to reiterate the fact that riptides are jet pack monstrous creatures and can fire at a range of 72 inches.

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:They can, you just dont want to use Grav or Plasma, which can both deal with Riptides. Combat squad them up and you have to many units rushing it for it to take out. Done.

Let's assume I used grav or plasma. I wish to reiterate the fact that riptides are jet pack monstrous creatures and can fire at a range of 72 inches.

Gate of Infinity and Drop Pods

Grimmor wrote:Are you in Combat Squads? Did you disembark into cover? Are you getting your Rhinos for free? (heres a hint, you should be) Have you deployed in such a way as to make it hard to move the Riptide around? Is the Riptide the biggest threat? Are you supporting your squads with Librarians (Hint: you should be)

1. Librarians shouldn't be an auto-take. They are one HQ choice out of several, and in a battle company, they are only an auxillary choice. My list shouldn't be less viable simply because I don't like witches. Cf. black templars.

2. Averages. Give me averages. How many points worth of models do you expect the riptide to take out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Gate of Infinity and Drop Pods

If there is one, and precisely one, way to deal with a riptide effectively, then I shouldn't have to use that one and precisely one tactic. The riptide should be nerfed.

Simple as that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, Peregrine, back to the "I take this model because it looks cool" thing:

When's the last time you saw an Avatar of Khaine on the tabletop?

Hm?

Traditio wrote:
Note, however, that this point actually works in my favor. You said: "But what if the lascannons aren't killing it because the riptide can jump-shoot-jump?"

Then they should be even more expensive, or else, nerfed. No more j-s-j for riptides.

I said no such thing, please don't put words in my mouth. None of my hypothetical explanations for why the lascannons fail to kill it had anything to do with JSJ.

I completely agree with this. But for balance purposes, you have to set the standard somewhere. Might as well be marines.

That's your personal opinion though. It doesn't mean that a specific marine unit should be the benchmark for every balance comparison.

I won't even bother answering this. The truth of the proposition "you shouldn't start off at a disadvantage simply because you bought this codex" should be patently obvious.

Except you aren't at a disadvantage, on average. Maybe marines are weak against Tau, but strong against Eldar, and the end result is that you win about 50% of your games. Marines are still balanced, even though an individual game might favor one player over the other.

And I'll note that I'm not actually advocating this kind of R/P/S approach to codex balance, I'm just pointing out that it's a valid approach. You can't just claim that marines are weak in one particular matchup and use it as proof that the marine codex as a whole need fixing.

This is essentially the same thing as saying that one (or perhaps only a very small number) of army compositions in any given codex should be viable.

Disagree. Patently false.

All common play-styles/army compositions within a codex should be equally viable.

So do I answer likewise for the remainder of this discussion.

Except no, it's not the same as saying that only one play style should be valid, at least not any more so than your "use flakk missiles for AA" argument is limiting the codex to one play style. A codex should have a wide variety of viable builds, but you can't come into a balance discussion, declare that you are not willing to use most of the tools you have available, and demand that your particular army list needs to be buffed so you don't have to change anything about it.

And I will also dispute the idea that your chosen army list is at all common. Your choice of nothing but "6 tactical squads, 2 assault squads, 2 devastator squads" is not at all typical. Most people are open to using things like drop pods and flyers, and don't expect flakk missile devastators to be their only AA option.

Ultimately, though, whether or not they intended their words to be understood in this sense...only they can answer that.

That's funny, because you sure seem to be making a lot of posts declaring their intent for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
1. Librarians shouldn't be an auto-take. They are one HQ choice out of several, and in a battle company, they are only an auxillary choice. My list shouldn't be less viable simply because I don't like witches. Cf. black templars.

The problem here is that any time someone suggests a unit that is not already contained in your army you respond with "I shouldn't have to take that". Fine, you shouldn't have to take that one particular unit, but you have to take something. You can't just declare that you aren't willing to change anything about your army even when you struggle to win games, and expect everyone else to accept your house rules to nerf their armies to give you a chance.

If there is one, and precisely one, way to deal with a riptide effectively, then I shouldn't have to use that one and precisely one tactic. The riptide should be nerfed.

Except there isn't "one and precisely one" way. That quote alone named two different ways to deal with the Riptide.

BTW, Peregrine, back to the "I take this model because it looks cool" thing:

When's the last time you saw an Avatar of Khaine on the tabletop?

Hm?

What does that have to do with discussion of taking the Riptide because it looks cool? The Avatar is not a Riptide model.

Traditio wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Gate of Infinity and Drop Pods

If there is one, and precisely one, way to deal with a riptide effectively, then I shouldn't have to use that one and precisely one tactic. The riptide should be nerfed.

Simple as that.

Well first of all I gave you 2 ways, and thats not all of them. You can also take Bikes (since they move 12 and can turbo boost), you can deploy out of a flyer like the storm raven. That's 4 ways to deliver grav/plasma upon the riptide.

And if you want the average amount a riptide will kill a turn its probably only 3 models a turn