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.

hey guys, here is what i came up to solve the problem (IMHO)

1) What about you throw a dice for every unit in the transport exploding; on a 5 or 6 that units receives a wound without an armor save; This would affect MEQ and GEQ equally (point wise), while still providing an invul save/have lesser impact on multiple wounds point-heavy guys (such as termi/ HQ/Nobs).

2) Plus, to this rule, if a unit is forced to get out of a transport in the enemy turn (so due to an explosion/wreck etc... made by an enemy fire/cc), all enemy units being at 2 inches of the former vehicle can decide to move till 6 inches to engage the outcomming unit in CC, even if the unit is out of LOS (due to a wreck blocking LOS of the outcomming unit, to prevent any exploit).

3) If there are no enemy units willing to engage the outcomming unit, or this happens outside the enemy turn (example getting wrecked while missing your dangerous test as a fast skimmer), the outcomming unit can move maximum 3 inches in any direction and after that is considered to be "to the ground" (pinned) till the end of the upcomming turn (or enemyturn if it happens during your turn).

Those 3 rules would solve the transport problem while still making them attractive.

EDIT: After thinking about it I think it's better to wound on a 6 instead of 5+, considering there is already the auto-pin.

SevenToxy wrote:hey guys, here is what i came up to solve the problem (IMHO)

1) What about you throw a dice for every unit in the transport exploding; on a 5 or 6 that units receives a wound without an armor save; This would affect MEQ and GEQ equally (point wise), while still providing an invul save/have lesser impact on multiple wounds point-heavy guys (such as termi/ HQ/Nobs).

Losing 1/3 of a Tactical Squad is not equal points-wise to losing 1/3 of a Veteran squad.

I'd rather have the explosion always wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness and force successful armour saves to be rerolled. That way you'd still punish MEQ and TEQ more than GEQ but not completely nullify the armour save which MEQ pays for. After all, if a tactical marine was just as likely as an Ork boy to live after having his transport exploded, what sane marine player would take transports other than Land Raiders?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Losing 1/3 of a Tactical Squad is not equal points-wise to losing 1/3 of a Veteran squad.

Well I'm sorry but it is: if we can say 3 IG are equal to 1 SM (5x3 points = 15 point sm) losing 1/3 of a guardsman unit= losing 1/3 of a sm unit; You will lose 1/3 of the unit cost and this for all army's (except if you have an invul/multiple-wounds. This is the same for vets point-wise.

µand for landraiders: there av 14 is meant to protect them, so an enemy who can explode a landraider has put so many units on this task that he "needs" form of reward for doing so (meaning 1/4 of the termi dies).

This will also prevent from rushing mindlesly in the enemy heavy-melta army;

Though I could conceive that every assault-vehicle/open-topped can ignore the auto-pin when destroyed; i think that would balance it so that termi are not to much nerfed.

Also don't forget that msot of the time sm use 5 unit squads while GEQ uses 10 unit squads.

Well I'm sorry but it is: if we can say 3 IG are equal to 1 SM (5x3 points = 15 point sm) losing 1/3 of a guardsman unit= losing 1/3 of a sm unit; You will lose 1/3 of the unit cost and this for all army's (except if you have an invul/multiple-wounds. This is the same for vets point-wise.

So.. 3 guardsmen die = 3 space marines die from what you are saying, this does not have an equilibrium cost measurement here.

µand for landraiders: there av 14 is meant to protect them, so an enemy who can explode a landraider has put so many units on this task that he "needs" form of reward for doing so (meaning 1/4 of the termi dies).

What sort of logic is this?

3 ideas each more terrible than the last.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So.. 3 guardsmen die = 3 space marines die from what you are saying, this does not have an equilibrium cost measurement here.

µand for landraiders: there av 14 is meant to protect them, so an enemy who can explode a landraider has put so many units on this task that he "needs" form of reward for doing so (meaning 1/4 of the termi dies).

What sort of logic is this?

Not 3 gm=3 sm but you will lose 1/3 of your unit points in the vehicle, may you play ork/guardsman/sm 100 points stays 100 points.

Well a landraider is one of the most difficult transports to kill, meaning that if your enemy is able to do so he should be rewarded, now it's such a nobrainer even if you kill the landraider thet termi comes out of it and you most probably lose a big chunk of your army. Termis (in landraiders) shouldn't be the unstoppable unit it sometimes it (look at gk).

SevenToxy wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So.. 3 guardsmen die = 3 space marines die from what you are saying, this does not have an equilibrium cost measurement here.

µand for landraiders: there av 14 is meant to protect them, so an enemy who can explode a landraider has put so many units on this task that he "needs" form of reward for doing so (meaning 1/4 of the termi dies).

What sort of logic is this?

Not 3 gm=3 sm but you will lose 1/3 of your unit points in the vehicle, may you play ork/guardsman/sm 100 points stays 100 points.

Well a landraider is one of the most difficult transports to kill, meaning that if your enemy is able to do so he should be rewarded, now it's such a nobrainer even if you kill the landraider thet termi comes out of it and you most probably lose a big chunk of your army. Termis (in landraiders) shouldn't be the unstoppable unit it sometimes it (look at gk).

Rolling a 5/6 on a dice means the equal points cost scenario won't happen, as you'll lose the same amount of MEQ as you do GEQ, 10 rolls of the dice still will kill a good deal of points.

Also gray knights don't have landraiders.

Corrode wrote:3 ideas each more terrible than the last.

Care to explain why? Instead of flaming with no arguments?

1) Solving problem for the GEQ/MEQ difference AND making it more punishable to have your transport destroyed. Also this balances the ability to be imune to light-fire while being transported.
2) Have you ever played Tyranids/deamons? Ofcourse not they're the bottom tier, due to MC being not enough powerfull and their greatest problem is they have to get close to destroy a 35pts transport vehicle, following turn they will be shot to death.
3) This gives time to your enemy to react; games being played on a 24 inches no-man's land should give the ability to the player to react to a rushing army, especially if he destroyed the means of those swooping advances. Nowadays it's: "oh you destroyed my 35pts transport, such a shame let's see how well you do with my army being in CC to you".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Well a landraider is one of the most difficult transports to kill, meaning that if your enemy is able to do so he should be rewarded, now it's such a nobrainer even if you kill the landraider thet termi comes out of it and you most probably lose a big chunk of your army. Termis (in landraiders) shouldn't be the unstoppable unit it sometimes it (look at gk).

Rolling a 5/6 on a dice means the equal points cost scenario won't happen, as you'll lose the same amount of MEQ as you do GEQ, 10 rolls of the dice still will kill a good deal of points.

Also gray knights don't have landraiders.

First of all GK do have landraiders page 36/95 of the grey knight codex.

Ofc its the same punishment to MEQ than GEQ, but GEQ for the same points should have more transports/units aboard it. Imagine you could stomp guardsmen into rhinos: For the same point in SM as Guardsmen you will lose the same point also, if all of the rhinos would be destroyed.

Don't look into 1 unit being destroyed compared to 1 other: compare to an army: POINT WISE YOU LOSE THE SAME!

Ofc its the same punishment to MEQ than GEQ, but GEQ for the same points should have more transports/units aboard it. Imagine you could stomp guardsmen into rhinos: For the same point in SM as Guardsmen you will lose the same point also, if all of the rhinos would be destroyed.

I don't know why you'd want to push guardsmen into rhino's, for about 20 points more you get an AV12 front, with a better main weapon (multi-laser) with HB/HF sponsons, and you can fire four weapons from it.

And no, that would require correlative statistical data that would prove that MEQ and GEQ take the same points cost in transport/unit to transport ratio. I use ten man squads in rhino's for example, generally what you are suggesting is a very narrow view on transport and unit data.

SevenToxy wrote:
Don't look into 1 unit being destroyed compared to 1 other: compare to an army: POINT WISE YOU LOSE THE SAME!

You're forgetting that having almost twice the numbers of the enemy increases the toughness of the army as well. Killing the same amount of Guardsmen as Space Marines would require twice the firepower, as they'll be in two transports as opposed to one. Space Marines revolve around tough, relatively few models whereas the Imperial Guard has strength in numbers. Every individual Guardsman is not supposed to be as tough as a Space Marine, they make up for it in numbers.

Corrode wrote:3 ideas each more terrible than the last.

so true

Wrong section too. This should be in proposed rules yes?

This is just picking at the details.

Transports need something major in order to fall in line with the style of the rest of the game. The biggest problem, I think, is with dedicated transports. Instead of sometimes making it so that the transport and their cargo are the same unit (occupying the same force org slot, the transport can only transport that squad), and sometimes not (them being two different units that can operate completely independently, that count as two KP), GW should pick one way or the other and go all out.

If you're going to split them apart, then you need to make them weaker, commensurate with their price. In this case, you make a rule that says that all dedicated transports have to skimp on armor for more speed and transport capability, meaning that you get a +1 to the damage chart when attacking a vehicle (so against open top transports with a meltagun (however infrequently that would happen) would be a +3). You could even stand to make the damage to infantry caught inside even lower.

If you're going to combine them, then they should actually behave as a single unit. On the one hand, they only count as 1 KP, and the transport itself, whether occupied or not, counts as scoring, but if the vehicle is wrecked with guys inside it, EVERYTHING is removed as a casualty, guys and vehicle alike.

At the moment, most dedicated transports give the bonuses of MSU without really much in the way of penalty (other than reduced killing power points efficiency over foot lists). More importantly, the way it's set up doesn't even make all that much sense abstractly. A little cleanup would be appreciated, but that means making real changes, not altering the window dressing like the OP.

SevenToxy wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Losing 1/3 of a Tactical Squad is not equal points-wise to losing 1/3 of a Veteran squad.

Well I'm sorry but it is: if we can say 3 IG are equal to 1 SM (5x3 points = 15 point sm) losing 1/3 of a guardsman unit= losing 1/3 of a sm unit; You will lose 1/3 of the unit cost and this for all army's (except if you have an invul/multiple-wounds. This is the same for vets point-wise.

µand for landraiders: there av 14 is meant to protect them, so an enemy who can explode a landraider has put so many units on this task that he "needs" form of reward for doing so (meaning 1/4 of the termi dies).

This will also prevent from rushing mindlesly in the enemy heavy-melta army;

Though I could conceive that every assault-vehicle/open-topped can ignore the auto-pin when destroyed; i think that would balance it so that termi are not to much nerfed.

Also don't forget that msot of the time sm use 5 unit squads while GEQ uses 10 unit squads.

what about a 10 man vetern squad and a 10 man tactical squad? the difference in points is way different

3 veterns die, 3 tac marines die... i think we know that seems a bit out of balance

spaceXjam wrote:what about a 10 man vetern squad and a 10 man tactical squad? the difference in points is way different

3 veterns die, 3 tac marines die... i think we know that seems a bit out of balance

Seriously, why? it's a more expensive unit. If you kill an equal amount of a more expensive unit, you lose more points worth of troops. If you transport a more expensive unit, you also gain more points worth of benefit.

And the argument to apply an armor modifier (auto wound plus armor check) also discriminates against high toughness troops with low armor values.

And the argument to apply *any* modifier discriminates against expensive troops with both low toughness and low armor - ie, shooty Eldar, Fire Dragons with the exact same per-model cost as Tactical Marines, but with lower Toughness and Armor. Who are, by the way, running around in open-topped cardboard boxes with twice the chance of exploding. That cost 90 points apiece.

Come on, guys. The game balance problem to fix here is Space Marines in cheap transports. The "fix" isn't something that favors Space Marines in cheap transports.

What open-topped transport are fire dragons riding around in?

That cost 90 points apiece.

Okay the Eldar and Tau Transports cannot really be used as they were made for an edition where.

A: Skimmers were far more powerful and had more special rules than they do now.

B: An older version that concentrated less upon cheaper costs for transports.

C: They aren't open topped.

Because of A, both Tau and Eldar have over-costed transports (And back in 4th The Fish of Fury wasn't costed enough!)


So can one tell me in non-abstract terms why the rhino is under-costed? And for some reason this only applies to MEQ, not SoB, and why suddenly we want to discriminate against MEQ alone.

I personally think it should just be anyone in a transport that explodes suffers a wound on a 4+ with normal saves applying, and are automatically pinned. This means that MEQs still get their armour save that they've paid for, and GEQs aren't taking far more wounds (though it generally all still be more, due to lower saves) than their T4 3+ counterparts. With them all being pinned, they're unable to immediately shoot up an MC or guy with meltabombs that just blew up their transport, but are still not completely out in the open to all shooting. Seems like an ok compromise to me, and as a GEQ player (mainly) I think we would be punishing the marine players (and especially terminators) a little too much by making it negate armour saves.

The non-abstract proof they're undercosted is that they're a virtual auto-include for Space Marine lists. ie, the whole reason this discussion topic exists, prevalence of transport spam.

You know why I transposed Dark Eldar/Eldar open topped transports? Eldar don't spam transports as a matter of course, because they're expensive. Note that the newest codex, my Necrons, also don't spam transports - again, because they're expensive. (115 and 100 pts.) The implication there is someone noticed they'd swung too far in terms of transport cost-effectiveness.

Enforcing a flat percentage killed on exploding also isn't discriminating against MEQ, it's by definition equal treatment. I understand it stings - but if it's not a little painful, it won't be a deterrent. It might be better to recost the transports themselves, but the mechanics of rule/codex release make that impractical.

The alternative is living with competitive lists consisting primarily of transport spam.

The non-abstract proof they're undercosted is that they're a virtual auto-include for Space Marine lists. ie, the whole reason this discussion topic exists, prevalence of transport spam.

Venoms and Raiders are auto-include for Dark Eldar. Can we punish them too?

Note that the newest codex, my Necrons, also don't spam transports - again, because they're expensive. (115 and 100 pts.) The implication there is someone noticed they'd swung too far in terms of transport cost-effectiveness.

They are also AV13 (cept the scythe, but it has a different set of rules), have special rules, and have far more effective weapons than a piddling Storm Bolter. Seriously, are you seriously trying to compare these two by proxy of being transports? Unless rhino's gain AV13, the ability to revive marines, and has two very effective sets of guns, or can go supersonic, is a fast skimmer, with an A4 S7 weapon, (twin linked) that can deep strike, supersonic, aerial assault, and may end up a flier in 6th, and can can ignore shaken on 2+, and stunned on 4+. Than we can compare these two against a rhino!

The rhino's abilities? Search Lights (used by firing a 24" storm bolter), and smoke. Please try again with a far more rational comparison.

What the... Do you see Ghost Arks and/or Nightscythes spammed in competitive lists? No? What does that tell you? Seriously, help me out here - if Necron transports are comparably cost-effective to Rhinos and Razorbacks, are the competitive Necron players just stoopit?

spaceXjam wrote:what about a 10 man vetern squad and a 10 man tactical squad? the difference in points is way different

A tac squad in a rhino is 205 points. A vet squad in a chimera is 175. There's not THAT much difference. Plus, you're talking about something that is in the context of a different army. Space marines have drop pods and deepstriking terminators, etc. while guard are stuck with their one option.

Eldar open topped transports?

Eldar don't have any open topped transports.

Eldar don't spam transports as a matter of course, because they're expensive.

Actually, most Eldar lists do spam transports. Things like Reecius' Footdar are the exception, not the rule.

Note that the newest codex, my Necrons, also don't spam transports - again, because they're expensive. (115 and 100 pts.) The implication there is someone noticed they'd swung too far in terms of transport cost-effectiveness.

Necron Transports are expensive, because they do things that no other transports do.

The Night Scythe has a Twin-linked Destructor, Aerial Assault, and Supersonic. It is actually the quickest transport in the game. It's also got a very large carrying capacity, at 15 models. Now, with just those rules, you can understand why it's over double the points of a Rhino. Another thing to keep mind, even though it's only speculation, is that if Vehicles start seriously harming passengers in the next edition when they get destroyed, then the Night Scythes special rule comes into play as well. This may already be factored into it's cost. Possible flyer rules as well.

I would also postulate that you haven't seen people spam these yet, because a model wasn't available until very recently.
Depending on how the Rules pan our for 6th, you may very well see these spammed.

You could also argue that Necron players don't spam a lot of transports, because we have other ways to manuever around the Battlefield. Things like a Monolith Portal, and the Veil of Darkness come to mind.

Randall Turner wrote:What the... Do you see Ghost Arks and/or Nightscythes spammed in competitive lists? No? What does that tell you? Seriously, help me out here - if Necron transports are comparably cost-effective to Rhinos and Razorbacks, are the competitive Necron players just stoopit?

The main purpose of a rhino? Protect it's occupants, and get from A to B, and settle on objectives.

The Main Purpose of a night scythe? Same thing, however it has flat out movement, can fire still on said movement, and can ignore shaken/stunning attempts so it can do some damage as well. It has a higher cost because it can do things more effectively, but at the same time necrons have far more effective means from reaching differing points, with the variety of deep striking, fast wraiths, scarabs, and a nice number of 12" units that can effectively get across the field and assault, they are not as necessary.

Ghost Arcs purpose is more niche, as most lists don't run warriors in mass numbers, it's primary purpose is a battle barge for warrior heavy lists, supporting 20+ models of warriors as they march on across, repairing the units as they get damaged, along with Phaeron Overlords leading the groups.

CCB is always taken for overlords from what I've seen, except in aforementioned Warrior/Phaeron list

The main reason they aren't taken is because they have a far different purpose than the standard rhino's, as they have either additional purposes added to them, or the benefits are nullified by another part of the army. The rhino's cost-effective status is due in part that they literally have no other use other than just moving marines around and giving them armor protection.

while guard are stuck with their one option.

You have Valkyries, Vendette's, and deep striking storm troopers, your not entirely stuck based on the ground with the chimera.

Sasori, if you're trying to say that our transports are comparable in cost-effectiveness to Rhinos and Razorbacks, I'm just calling BS on you. We could buy three Rhinos for the price of one Ghost Ark, we'd be right in there with Space Marines. Man would we - assault protection, ability to hide from fire until we're ready to engage, heck, even the smoke and self-covering aspects. Three Rhinos is just grossly better than one Ghost Ark.

Randall Turner wrote:What the... Do you see Ghost Arks and/or Nightscythes spammed in competitive lists? No? What does that tell you? Seriously, help me out here - if Necron transports are comparably cost-effective to Rhinos and Razorbacks, are the competitive Necron players just stoopit?

I think it's a bit hard to compare them, like that. The Necron Transports are a lot closer to Stormravens, than they are Rhinos/Razorbacks. How many points do you value the Tesla-Destructor at? How many points for being a skimmer? How many points for Living Metal? Etc etc. For a Razorback to get a comparable weapon to the Destructor (Let's say the Asscan) It has to pay 35 points, bumping it up to 75. If you end up factoring in the rest of the Night Scythe rules, it does appear to be very cost efficient.

In addition, as I said in my previous post, they didn't have a model until very recently.

I would also put forth, that Necrons don't need to spam transports to be competitive. We really don't need the MSU list, that a lot of other armies have to resort to, to be competitive. If Rhino/Razorspam Armies could be effective without paying for transports, I'm sure they would fill out their lists with other units.

Sasori, if you're trying to say that our transports are comparable in cost-effectiveness to Rhinos and Razorbacks, I'm just calling BS on you. We could buy three Rhinos for the price of one Ghost Ark, we'd be right in there with Space Marines. Man would we - assault protection, ability to hide from fire until we're ready to engage, heck, even the smoke and self-covering aspects. Three Rhinos is just grossly better than one Ghost Ark.

EDIT:

I did not use the Ghost Ark for any kind of comparison, Did I? I do believe I have illustrated that the Night Scythe is very comparable to a Razorback though, and quite cost effective.

Sasori wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:What the... Do you see Ghost Arks and/or Nightscythes spammed in competitive lists? No? What does that tell you? Seriously, help me out here - if Necron transports are comparably cost-effective to Rhinos and Razorbacks, are the competitive Necron players just stoopit?

I think it's a bit hard to compare them, like that. The Necron Transports are a lot closer to Stormravens, than they are Rhinos/Razorbacks.

Dude, you're just totally frickin' wrong here. The main benefit of a transport is just being a separate unit you have to kill. You don't need or want the other gear, which is exactly why Stormravens aren't spammed - they had to *pay* for the gear, just like our "transports" had to pay for theirs. But the main benefit is to give you a turn of defense against CC or small arms fire.

We would so totally benefit from something like this foot blocks would come back in as a primary Necron FOC slot, rather than something we have to fill out by necessity.

Edit: Nitghtscythes as gunships vs. Razorbacks as fire support - this too is silly. Nightscythes are huge floating AV11 targets that can't hide behind anything, can't fire if they move and get a cover save, and don't have the range to stand off. An equal number of fire support configured Razorbacks will self-cover, engage the Nightsythes out of their effective range, and kill half of them before they can do anything. The problem isn't the lack of models - the problem is they actually do suck.

Can they be successful? I haven't seen it yet, maybe as situational specialists to quickly move a troop to the other end of the board, maybe en mass as part of a list that's already threat-heavy. But if they were as cost-effective as SM transports they'd be getting used in something other than Stelek's pipe-dream lists, dude.

Dude, you're just totally frickin' wrong here. The main benefit of a transport is just being a separate unit you have to kill. You don't need or want the other gear, which is exactly why Stormravens aren't spammed - they had to *pay* for the gear, just like our "transports" had to pay for theirs. But the main benefit is to give you a turn of defense against CC or small arms fire.

The Main Benefit of a Rhino is a separate unit you have to kill. Why? Because that's the Only benefit it provides. There are several other Transports in the game (Venoms, Stormravens, Etc) That provide much more than basic Transport. You don't see Venoms spammed, just because it's a transport. You see it spammed because of all the benefits it provides, in addition to being a transport. It's the same Principal with Night Scythes.

We would so totally benefit from something like this foot blocks would come back in as a primary Necron FOC slot, rather than something we have to fill out by necessity.

I'd like to see you elaborate a bit more on this, as I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Sasori wrote:I'd like to see you elaborate a bit more on this, as I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Our transports aren't as cost-effective as Space Marine transports. Yes, there are two elements - one as cheap fire support, one as cheap transport/protection. But they're better at both. And what's his name, Lizard boy, was trying to maintain they weren't. It sounds like you agree with him.

Randall Turner wrote:

Sasori wrote:I'd like to see you elaborate a bit more on this, as I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Our transports aren't as cost-effective as Space Marine transports. Yes, there are two elements - one as cheap fire support, one as cheap transport/protection. But they're better at both. And what's his name, Lizard boy, was trying to maintain they weren't. It sounds like you agree with him.

I do to an extent, on the Night Scythe.


The Ghost Ark really isn't cost effective as a transport.

Sasori wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:

Sasori wrote:I'd like to see you elaborate a bit more on this, as I don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

Our transports aren't as cost-effective as Space Marine transports. Yes, there are two elements - one as cheap fire support, one as cheap transport/protection. But they're better at both. And what's his name, Lizard boy, was trying to maintain they weren't. It sounds like you agree with him.

I do to an extent, on the Night Scythe.


The Ghost Ark really isn't cost effective as a transport.

okay, then, no. Just no.

download Vassal40k. Take "x" points worth of NightScythe, I'll take "x" points worth of Razorbacks. And oh God, let me take the most prevalent Space Marine variant, GK. I'll absolutely massacre you. It won't be close. I don't care if you're Einstein, I can take any of a number of different loadouts for the Razorbacks that'll be individually cheaper than the NightScythes and individually better than the NightSycthes.

Actually, that might be a more fair test. We'll run one at equal points, then one at equal models. I'm trying to mathhammer it in my head without being anal - I believe, with a group of Razorbacks self-covering (which is really easy to do), that if I even allow you to take the first shot the Razorbacks will win. lessee..

Equal numbers, Nightscythe first shot:
s7 x4 * 8/9tl * 1/2 cover * 1/2 pen == 8/27 glance, 16/27 hit, round up to 1 full-on hit, ap '-', 50% shaken/stun, 33% weapon/immob, 16% kill. say 33% can't shoot back.

Razorspam return fire:
ac
s7 x4 * 8/9tl agh rend eff it == more than twice as effective, less than half the models can't shoot back, they'll win. Too one-sided, try lasplas...

las/plas
s7 x2 * 8/9tl * 1/2 pen == same 8/27 glance, 16/27 hit, 33% shaken/stun, 33% weapon/immob, 33% kill.
s9 x1 * 2/3 * 2/3 pen == 4/9 say about 10% kill okay this one is closer, razorbacks still win but have to factor in NS losing guns.

tl las
s9 x1 x8/9tl * 2/3 pen == say 2/3 hit, 1/3 kill, 22% kill overall razorbacks would lose this one, but would maybe make it up w/first shot.

Back of the napkin quickie numbers, I gave you the benefit on the first shot, it's not that close. See what's killing you there? The ability to take cover. Huge. Floating. Targets. And this isn't some contrived example, it's always going to be like this, and that's the problem with most of our models - even the ones that don't fly. Very difficult to get cover with them.

Edit: misspelled Einstein, how ironic.