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:

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.

1. Grav Cents in Drop Pod
2. Grav Bikes
3. Imperial Knights
4. Melta Pods
5.MSU Plasma or Grav Spam (Space Marines are good at this)
6. Skyhammer Annihilation Force
7. Thunderhammer + SS Vanguard Vets
8. Assault Centurions (if you can get them there)
9. An Invisible Sternguard Unit
10. A normal Sternguard Unit
11. A Plasma Command Squad
12. A Melee Command Squad
13. Assault Cannon Razorbacks
14. Lascannon Razorbacks
15. The Lascannon Spam Land Raider

As to how many points worth of dudes it will eliminate? I dont know, and it doesnt matter as this isnt 4th edition or Warhamemr fantasy. One unit is worth one Kill Point, thats it. Also the Rhinos didnt cost you jack so who cares if they explode, the guys inside are fine and can go ahead and attack with impunity.

Peregrine wrote: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.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, JSJ should be taken into account. If actual conditions likely render the math-hammering in the riptide's favor, that should be taken into account.

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

A few points of consideration:

1. I am assuming from the get go that all armies should be basically balanced against all other armies. I refuse argue this point. I'm simply assuming it as something which should be obvious to any reasonable and fair-minded person of decent sensibilities.

2. I also recognize that there could quickly become a vicious circularity in thinking that the points system can effect equality independently of some standard of comparison. If my marines are worth roughly 15 points because they can kill roughly 3 of your guardsmen, and your 3 guardsmen are each worth 5 points because it takes roughly 5 of them to kill a thousand son model, and that thousand son model is worth...

What's easiest is simply to assume a codex as a standard baseline, assume that some units in that codex are the standards within that standard, and then compare all other units in the game to those units. I assume from the get go (again, this point isn't worth arguing over) that the Space Marines codex is that codex, and it is kind enough to tell us that there are three such units.

Tactical Marines
Devastator Marines
Assault marines

Simply read the words in italics.

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.

Again, I'm not going to argue this point. I'm simply assuming that any reasonable, fair-minded, unbiased observer of decent sensibilities would consider the view ridiculous from the get-go.

The tau shouldn't have an advantage before we even start rolling dice. Period.

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.

A battle company with rhinos and an auxillary other than a librarius conclave or an anti-air formation is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army build.

If it's not viable, then the problem isn't with that battle company. The problem is with the current state of game-balance.

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

As I said, their postings certainly can be read like that at face value.

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.

I run a battle company with pedro kantor and a 1st company formation of sternguard.

That is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army. Plus it completely fits the fluff.

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

That was a reading error on my part. I thought he meant "take drop pods WITH webway portal."

I didn't realize until later that this would be silly.

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

You take issue with my denying that players choose the armies that they do simply because they like the models.

If that were true, Eldar players would field avatars of Khaine.

How many models in the Eldar codex can you name which look cooler than said avatar?

In fact, they don't regularly field avatars of khaine.

QED.

Edit:

At this point, I imagine that you'll start yammering on about how 40k is a competitive game and bla, bla, bla.

Fact is, 40k is a poor game for purely competitive purposes. It is commonly recognized that 40k is ultimately (and is probably only intended to be) a way of playing with our little toy soldiers in a quasi-cinematic way.

If you value in-game value VERY MUCH over fluff, you're doing it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimmor wrote:1. Grav Cents in Drop Pod
2. Grav Bikes
3. Imperial Knights
4. Melta Pods
5.MSU Plasma or Grav Spam (Space Marines are good at this)
6. Skyhammer Annihilation Force
7. Thunderhammer + SS Vanguard Vets
8. Assault Centurions (if you can get them there)
9. An Invisible Sternguard Unit
10. A normal Sternguard Unit
11. A Plasma Command Squad
12. A Melee Command Squad
13. Assault Cannon Razorbacks
14. Lascannon Razorbacks
15. The Lascannon Spam Land Raider

Removing all options that you've offered which involve grav, pyskers or drop pods or anything outside of the vanilla marines codex, what remains is...

1. MSU Plasma or Grav Spam (Space Marines are good at this)
2. Thunderhammer + SS Vanguard Vets
3. Assault Centurions (if you can get them there)
4. A normal Sternguard Unit
5. A Plasma Command Squad
6. A Melee Command Squad
7. Assault Cannon Razorbacks
8. Lascannon Razorbacks
9. The Lascannon Spam Land Raider

As to how many points worth of dudes it will eliminate? I dont know, and it doesnt matter as this isnt 4th edition or Warhamemr fantasy.

Yes, it does. If the riptide blows up more than 185 points worth of stuff, then 185 points for a riptide is too few points. Period.

Traditio wrote:

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

A few points of consideration:

1. I am assuming from the get go that all armies should be basically balanced against all other armies. I refuse argue this point. I'm simply assuming it as something which should be obvious to any reasonable and fair-minded person of decent sensibilities.

So because of that you nerf the Riptide to 100x more unbalanced in the opposite direction (ie. unusable).
k den

2. I also recognize that there could quickly become a vicious circularity in thinking that the points system can effect equality independently of some standard of comparison. If my marines are worth roughly 15 points because they can kill roughly 3 of your guardsmen, and your 3 guardsmen are each worth 5 points because it takes roughly 5 of them to kill a thousand son model, and that thousand son model is worth...

So a Land Raider is worth infinite points as it takes infinite guardsmen to destroy it?
Unless they take a Melta Gun, in which case a Melta Gun Guardsman is worth infinity/12 points.
But then a Marine can kill roughly 3 of them, so they should be worth infinity/12 * 3 points.

You see where this is going, right?

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.

Again, I'm not going to argue this point. I'm simply assuming that any reasonable, fair-minded, unbiased observer of decent sensibilities would consider the view ridiculous from the get-go.

The tau shouldn't have an advantage before we even start rolling dice. Period.

Neither should Marines. Or Eldar.
Therefore the game can be fixed by making everyone the exact same on the tabletop. 0 advantages in any way will occur then!

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.

A battle company with rhinos and an auxillary other than a librarius conclave or an anti-air formation is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army build.

If it's not viable, then the problem isn't with that battle company. The problem is with the current state of game-balance.

"My 10 cultists can't kill a land raider ever. If I make a list consisting of solely cultists and a Dark Apostle, and your army includes a Land Raider, your army is unbalanced. That isn't a problem with my Cultist-spam-and-nothing-else army, that's a problem with the current state of game balance."
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

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.

I run a battle company with pedro kantor and a 1st company formation of sternguard.

That is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army. Plus it completely fits the fluff.

As is my hypothetical cultist army.

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

You take issue with my denying that players choose the armies that they do simply because they like the models.

If that were true, Eldar players would field avatars of Khaine.

How many models in the Eldar codex can you name which look cooler than said avatar?

In fact, they don't regularly field avatars of khaine.

QED.

Or, just maybe, it has a really old model that people don't think is cool.
I'm not saying that it's 100% the case, but it is possible.

Also, imho, the most of the Aspect Warriors (even the Banshees and Striking Scorpions), the Jetbikes, Farseers and definitely the Wraithknight and Wraithlord are all cooler than the Avatar.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:So because of that you nerf the Riptide to 100x more unbalanced in the opposite direction (ie. unusable).

According to the opinion of jade_angel on the first page of this thread, it would not, in fact, be unusable. A glass cannon? Maybe. Unusable? No.

And nobody's really given any arguments in favor of this.

So a Land Raider is worth infinite points as it takes infinite guardsmen to destroy it?
Unless they take a Melta Gun, in which case a Melta Gun Guardsman is worth infinity/12 points.
But then a Marine can kill roughly 3 of them, so they should be worth infinity/12 * 3 points.

You've missed the point of that bit of the posting. I was speaking against such a method of comparison.

I also note that you've specifically cut out the bit where I actually proposed what I think the appropriate method of comparison is. This leads me to conclude that you're just being intentionally dense here.

This merits no response other than "Try again."

Neither should Marines. Or Eldar.

I agree.

Therefore the game can be fixed by making everyone the exact same on the tabletop. 0 advantages in any way will occur then!

Non-sequitur. Proportional equality is a thing. Just saying.

"My 10 cultists can't kill a land raider ever. If I make a list consisting of solely cultists and a Dark Apostle, and your army includes a Land Raider, your army is unbalanced. That isn't a problem with my Cultist-spam-and-nothing-else army, that's a problem with the current state of game balance."

There is no chaos or chaos space marine formation, so far as I am aware, which tells you that you should take such a thing.

Furthermore:

My army has

3 HQ choices
6 troop choices
2 heavy support choices
2 fast attack choices
4 elites choices

It's pretty decently balanced, all things considered, if you compare it to a CAD.

Or, just maybe, it has a really old model that people don't think is cool.
I'm not saying that it's 100% the case, but it is possible.

Pretty sure that's not it. Have you seen the avatar of khaine?

Traditio, nice to see that you've decided what people can think looks good or not. Just because you think Avatars look good (and why is this relevant in a Tau thread?), doesn't mean everyone else does.

In fact, I think Drop Pods look very good. They embody the Space Marine way of war very well, and in the most believable and effective way possible.
So, according to your logic, because I[i/] like Drop Pods, [i]you should too.

Also, if the Riptide was in the Tau codex, some people would use it, certainly. The reason no-one likes your houserule is because it's that: a houserule. Why use a simply bad unofficial version over an official version?

You've had plenty of solutions to dealing with Riptides. You have the tools, but you won't use them. Guess what the issue is.
For example, you've been given a square hole and a round peg. After trying to use the round peg, you are given the square peg for the hole. You refuse to use the new peg, and keep trying to use the round one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's pretty much what you're doing here.

Also, the Land Raider/Cultist point is very good. If a unit simply cannot be hurt by a unit with a completely different role, is it unbalanced? How do you get round that? Without giving autoguns Gauss.

EDIT - So a fluffy Cultist Horde with a Dark Apostle leader is now Huh. I guess all of Warhammer 30k must be unfluffy because they have no formations.
And I guess Black Templar Crusader Squads don't exist in the fluff either because they can't be taken in a Gladius.

Anything that is in the codex is taken by that faction. It's up to the player to justify their army with fluff if they wish.
Your remark about the Cultist army is genuinely baffling.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Traditio, nice to see that you've decided what people can think looks good or not. Just because you think Avatars look good (and why is this relevant in a Tau thread?), doesn't mean everyone else does

Do you really think that Avatars of Khaine don't look cool?

You've had plenty of solutions to dealing with Riptides. You have the tools, but you won't use them. Guess what the issue is.
For example, you've been given a square hole and a round peg. After trying to use the round peg, you are given the square peg for the hole. You refuse to use the new peg, and keep trying to use the round one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's pretty much what you're doing here.

Also, the Land Raider/Cultist point is very good. If a unit simply cannot be hurt by a unit with a completely different role, is it unbalanced? How do you get round that? Without giving autoguns Gauss.

"What's easiest is simply to assume a codex as a standard baseline, assume that some units in that codex are the standards within that standard, and then compare all other units in the game to those units. I assume from the get go (again, this point isn't worth arguing over) that the Space Marines codex is that codex, and it is kind enough to tell us that there are three such units.

Tactical Marines
Devastator Marines
Assault marines

Simply read the words in italics."

I would add something to this. But there's nothing really I need to add.

Traditio wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Traditio, nice to see that you've decided what people can think looks good or not. Just because you think Avatars look good (and why is this relevant in a Tau thread?), doesn't mean everyone else does

Do you really think that Avatars of Khaine don't look cool?

What I think is irrelevant. Apparently it's only your opinion that matters here, regardless of those who don't agree.
And for the record, I know there are worse sculpts, but no. I'm not overly keen on the Avatar model. Is that an issue?

You've had plenty of solutions to dealing with Riptides. You have the tools, but you won't use them. Guess what the issue is.
For example, you've been given a square hole and a round peg. After trying to use the round peg, you are given the square peg for the hole. You refuse to use the new peg, and keep trying to use the round one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's pretty much what you're doing here.

Also, the Land Raider/Cultist point is very good. If a unit simply cannot be hurt by a unit with a completely different role, is it unbalanced? How do you get round that? Without giving autoguns Gauss.

"What's easiest is simply to assume a codex as a standard baseline, assume that some units in that codex are the standards within that standard, and then compare all other units in the game to those units. I assume from the get go (again, this point isn't worth arguing over) that the Space Marines codex is that codex, and it is kind enough to tell us that there are three such units.

Tactical Marines
Devastator Marines
Assault marines

Simply read the words in italics."

I would add something to this. But there's nothing really I need to add.

Why Marines? Why are they your baseline?
Also, I'm referring to your weapons on those units. Mainly grav on bikers or on Drop Pod Skyhammer Devastators and suchlike. You have them.

Also from my previous point:
So a fluffy Cultist Horde with a Dark Apostle leader is now unfluffy. Huh. I guess all of Warhammer 30k must be unfluffy because they have no formations.
And I guess Black Templar Crusader Squads don't exist in the fluff either because they can't be taken in a Gladius.

Anything that is in the codex is taken by that faction. It's up to the player to justify their army with fluff if they wish.
Your remark about the Cultist army is genuinely baffling.

Its easy but its also lazy and incredibly inaccurate.

If i were to take statistical sample of only 3 people, do you think that would be a good assessment of something?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And for the record, I know there are worse sculpts, but no. I'm not overly keen on the Avatar model. Is that an issue?

Really?

Why Marines? Why are they your baseline?

It's completely arbitrary. Again, if you go back and read my other assumptions, it's entirely reasonable arbitrarily to select such a codex.

And I'd also like to point out the immense difference between my army and the cultist spam army.

If you simply read the 7th edition codex, independently of knowing what the meta looks like, my army is what you might actually come up with if you like the section on the Crimson Fists.

The battle company formation facilitates it very easily. And it looks like what a crimson fists detachment reasonably should look like.

Sure proportional equality is a thing, but so is equality. So far your suggestions as to equality haven't been proportional at all.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were arguing against that, because I've seen you argue for it in that past, and in in this thread.

And my army has a Dark Apostle and 6 units of Cultists.
Multiplied by the number of CADs required to fill points.
100% legal. Why is your army apparently more legal than mine?

And yes, I've seen the Avatar of Khaine. It's old, small and imo doesn't look cool at all.

Traditio wrote:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, JSJ should be taken into account. If actual conditions likely render the math-hammering in the riptide's favor, that should be taken into account.

Ok, and? I wasn't giving a comprehensive list of every factor that could have an effect on the Riptide vs. devastators matchup, I was just listing a few reasons that are entirely independent of balance that could result in the devastators failing to kill the Riptide.

1. I am assuming from the get go that all armies should be basically balanced against all other armies. I refuse argue this point. I'm simply assuming it as something which should be obvious to any reasonable and fair-minded person of decent sensibilities.

No, you don't get to do this. We are not starting with a premise of "any reasonable and fair-minded person agrees with me". If you want to argue that no reasonable or fair-minded person could support a rock/paper/scissors model for codex balance then you'd better be prepared to offer more than "because I said so" as justification.

I assume from the get go (again, this point isn't worth arguing over) that the Space Marines codex is that codex, and it is kind enough to tell us that there are three such units.

Tactical Marines
Devastator Marines
Assault marines

I see. So now we're not even using C:SM as a benchmark, we're picking specific marine units that you think should be the benchmark? And, despite the choice of benchmark unit having a huge impact on the conclusion of any balance evaluation, the choice of which units to use is "not worth arguing over"?

No. You can either defend your claims or concede defeat on them.

Again, I'm not going to argue this point. I'm simply assuming that any reasonable, fair-minded, unbiased observer of decent sensibilities would consider the view ridiculous from the get-go.

That's awfully convenient. I'm going to assume that any reasonable, fair-minded, unbiased observer of decent sensibilities would consider the view that C:SM should be a playable army to be ridiculous from the get-go. Therefore the fact that C:SM struggle with Riptides is irrelevant, and your entire justification for nerfing Riptides fails.

A battle company with rhinos and an auxillary other than a librarius conclave or an anti-air formation is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army build.

If it's not viable, then the problem isn't with that battle company. The problem is with the current state of game-balance.

And? The fact that it is a legal build doesn't mean that it has to be viable. A single naked captain and two naked 5-man tactical squads is a legal CAD for a 50,000 point game but I don't think any reasonable person would expect the 11 naked marines to win that game.

I run a battle company with pedro kantor and a 1st company formation of sternguard.

That is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army. Plus it completely fits the fluff.

And? Why should you be allowed to say "my army is built this way, I'm not changing anything" and then expect your opponent to accept your house rules to modify their army?

You take issue with my denying that players choose the armies that they do simply because they like the models.

If that were true, Eldar players would field avatars of Khaine.

This is only true if you assume that the Avatar is a model that a lot of people like. They could simply feel that the Avatar is an ugly model and not appealing enough to buy. Or, who knows what they think about the Avatar, because this is not a discussion of Eldar. Saying "Eldar players don't take {unit}" has absolutely nothing to do with what Tau players take in Tau armies.

If you value in-game value VERY MUCH over fluff, you're doing it wrong.

I'm glad you're here to tell people that they're "doing it wrong" despite having fun playing 40k competitively.

Removing all options that you've offered which involve grav, pyskers or drop pods or anything outside of the vanilla marines codex, what remains is...

Why are we removing those options?

If the riptide blows up more than 185 points worth of stuff, then 185 points for a riptide is too few points. Period.

No. As I've already explained, it doesn't work that way. Please go back and read what I said earlier about units having different roles and different ideal target types.

Traditio wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And for the record, I know there are worse sculpts, but no. I'm not overly keen on the Avatar model. Is that an issue?

Really?

I stand by my point. That model does nothing for me.
If you like it so much, why don't you play a fluffy Eldar list around it?

Why Marines? Why are they your baseline?

It's completely arbitrary. Again, if you go back and read my other assumptions, it's entirely reasonable arbitrarily to select such a codex.

And I'd also like to point out the immense difference between my army and the cultist spam army.

If you simply read the 7th edition codex, independently of knowing what the meta looks like, my army is what you might actually come up with if you like the section on the Crimson Fists.

The battle company formation facilitates it very easily. And it looks like what a crimson fists detachment reasonably should look like.

I'm not saying your marines are unfluffy. I'm saying the Cultists are just as fluffy. Yet according to you, because they have no formation, they shouldn't be taken like that.

Again, if you could address my edits on my previous point, I'd be much obliged.

Yeah tradito, that Avatar model doesn't look good. Also that's the Forge World sculpt. Look at GW's Avatar of Khaine and tell us that you can't see how that one doesn't look good to some people,

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.

Ah, but on the other hand, you are playing with the mentality that your list is an auto take. If librarians shouldn't be auto-take, then the same applies to battle companies.

Get out of your one dimensional thinking and the game opens up.

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.
.

No it's not. There are plenty ways to deal with one. Your refusal to branch out and adapt/embrace new tactics and options is what's the problem. That's what needs to go, not the riptide.

In other words, l2p. If you insist on using only a subset of your options and face something they can't deal with, when those options you could have taken would have worked, then frankly, it's on you.

Traditio wrote:

1. I am assuming from the get go that all armies should be basically balanced against all other armies. I refuse argue this point. I'm simply assuming it as something which should be obvious to any reasonable and fair-minded person of decent sensibilities.

What's easiest is simply to assume a codex as a standard baseline, assume that some units in that codex are the standards within that standard, and then compare all other units in the game to those units. I assume from the get go (again, this point isn't worth arguing over) that the Space Marines codex is that codex, and it is kind enough to tell us that there are three such units.

Tactical Marines
Devastator Marines
Assault marines

Simply read the words in italics.

1. 'Lists' are distinct from 'armies'. Your 'army' has the answers. Your list doesn't. You wrote the list. It's on you.

2. How about 'no'.

Traditio wrote:
The tau shouldn't have an advantage before we even start rolling dice. Period.

You have the answers to hand. you don't take them. The advantage they have is entirely artificial, and is entirely down to you and your approach to the gsme, and refusal to adapt, or adopt new strategies.

Traditio wrote:
A battle company with rhinos and an auxillary other than a librarius conclave or an anti-air formation is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army build.

If it's not viable, then the problem isn't with that battle company. The problem is with the current state of game-balance

Indeed, it's perfectly legal and codex compliant, and guess what? As per the fluff, it doesn't have the answers to everything. Space marines themselves, as per the fluff, have weaknesses and are often only used in specific circumstances. There are things they can't do, and places where they are outmatched. The 'battle company' isn't the sum total of astartes combat doctrine. That's what they have 'strike forces' that are built using the first, tenth and reserve companies,calling with assets from the vehicle pool and other auxiliary elements of the chapter.

It's not zero/sum. There is a huge difference between a list not being viable because it is fundamentally underpowered, and a list not being viable because you refuse to use certain options that the army has access to. Your problems are entirely of your own making, and all you are doing is playing the victim.

In other words, if it's not viable, what other options are available to you?

Traditio wrote:
I run a battle company with pedro kantor and a 1st company formation of Stern guard.
That is a perfectly legal, codex compliant army. Plus it completely fits the fluff.
.

See above.

Traditio wrote:

Yes, it does. If the riptide blows up more than 185 points worth of stuff, then 185 points for a riptide is too few points. Period.

He played better? You played poorly? You didn't use proper tactics or tech to deal with it?

Traditio wrote:
There is no chaos or chaos space marine formation, so far as I am aware, which tells you that you should take such a thing.

And there is nothing telling you that you should only take the tiny subset of options you insist on when even kantor would be like 'lads, get the grav guns out and ready the drop pods. We're going in!)

Traditio wrote:.
Furthermore:
My army has
3 HQ choices
6 troop choices
2 heavy support choices
2 fast attack choices
4 elites choices
It's pretty decently balanced, all things considered, if you compare it to a CAD.

Obviously it's not as decently balanced as you claim.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I stand by my point. That model does nothing for me.

If you're telling the truth, then I must admit my great surprise.

We clearly have very different notions of what looks cool and what does not.

Ok.

How do you feel about crimson fists with golden helmets?

Blue bodies, golden helmets, red hands.

Cool, or no?

If you like it so much, why don't you play a fluffy Eldar list around it?

I don't know eldar or the fluff well enough to do so.

If I played eldar, though? I would seriously consider it.

I personally think the model looks really cool.

Throw in some fire dragons?

Hm...

I'm not saying your marines are unfluffy. I'm saying the Cultists are just as fluffy. Yet according to you, because they have no formation, they shouldn't be taken like that.

There is no sense in which spamming cultists is even an internally balanced army composition. I mean, say what you want about whether my army is suitable for 5th or 7th edition play, but it is a TAC list which takes armored and non-armored opponents into account.

...

...

Can cultists take meltabombs?

Again, if you could address my edits on my previous point, I'd be much obliged.

Also, I'm referring to your weapons on those units. Mainly grav on bikers or on Drop Pod Skyhammer Devastators and suchlike. You have them. ]

1. Who said anything about bikes?

2. Who said anything about skyhammer?

Also from my previous point:
So a fluffy Cultist Horde with a Dark Apostle leader is now unfluffy.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see a cultist horde as being analogous to what I've described.

Huh. I guess all of Warhammer 30k must be unfluffy because they have no formations.
And I guess Black Templar Crusader Squads don't exist in the fluff either because they can't be taken in a Gladius.

Anything that is in the codex is taken by that faction. It's up to the player to justify their army with fluff if they wish.
Your remark about the Cultist army is genuinely baffling.

The sole reason I brought up the battle company is because it requires a mix of troop choices, fast attacks and heavy support. Those troop choices, fast attacks and heavy support, furthermore, may involve what have traditionally been the core of a space marine army.

What you're saying is that a riptide shouldn't be balanced against the traditional core of a space marine army.

My answer?

False.

There is no sense in which spamming cultists is even an internally balanced army composition. I mean, say what you want about whether my army is suitable for 5th or 7th edition play, but it is a TAC list which takes armored and non-armored opponents into account.

Your army isn't TAC though that's the problem. It doesn't have the tools to deal with things like Riptides or Flyers (remember your rant about Flyrants?). You keep on assuming your army is TAC because you are still living in 5ed but its been several years since 5ed and the game has changed. The game isn't only vehicles and non-vehicles anymore.

Deadnight wrote:
Obviously it's not as decently balanced as you claim.

I'm not going to bother answering the previous points, since your "l2p" comment basically sums it up. In point of fact, what this actually means is "bring the new shinies" and "accept codex creep."

We simply disagree at a fundamental level.

In point of fact, purely on a priori grounds, according to the general rules, etc. of the game, the list is pretty decently balanced. In a standard cad, you can bring:

2 HQs
6 troop choices,
3 heavy support
3 fast attack
3 elites
1 LoW

If you tell me that instead of taking a general TAC list with the upgrades and selections of my choosing, with traditionally appropriate selections from each of those slots, then the game has become unbalanced.

I shouldn't have to take specific codex entry y specifically to counter the possibility of your bringing codex entry z.

No. The core selections of my codex, taken collectively, should be able to deal with anything that you can throw at me, and the other way around. The "shinies" and special units which build on those core selections should ultimately just add flavor and different ways of playing. They shouldn't be mandatory "you need to take it, or else, accept losing all the time."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Your army isn't TAC though that's the problem. It doesn't have the tools to deal with things like Riptides or Flyers (remember your rant about Flyrants?). You keep on assuming your army is TAC because you are still living in 5ed but its been several years since 5ed and the game has changed. The game isn't only vehicles and non-vehicles anymore.

1. I've made changes to my army. The two missile launcher squads now have flakk missiles. The 6 tac squads are now all fully kitted out with heavy weapons (3 plasma cannons; 3 multimeltas).

2. The fact that you -specifically- bring up individual units like "riptides" (and, by extension, wraithknights, etc). shows that the problem isn't my army. Those particular units are OP.

So again, I shouldn't have to take anything in addition to my Dark Apostle and Cultists to take down a Land Raider. In fact, they should be able to properly deal with everything and anything.

1) Took you long enough. Still not enough to be an actual TAC since you apparently can't handle the big MCs of the game

2) No, it shows that there is a power difference between your army and those units. If could be that your army is bad and riptides and such aren't OP

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So again, I shouldn't have to take anything in addition to my Dark Apostle and Cultists to take down a Land Raider. In fact, they should be able to properly deal with everything and anything.

False.

That said, if you take a reasonable assembly of units from the HQ, fast attack, heavy support, elite and troop selections of your codex (regardless of what those selections are, just so long as you've upgraded them in a reasonable way (reasonable according to the traditional way of doing things), then yes, you should be able to take down the land raider.

But why should I have to take anything else in my fluffy cultist horde? It's just as fluffy as yours is.

Why don't you upgrade your units in a reasonable way with Grav and free Vehicles to get that grav close?

 CrownAxe wrote:
1) Took you long enough. Still not enough to be an actual TAC since you apparently can't handle the big MCs of the game

I just as easily could answer that the "big MCs," e.g., like the wraithknight or riptide, are OP and have commonly been recognized as being such since they came out of the box in 6th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
But why should I have to take anything else in my fluffy cultist horde? It's just as fluffy as yours is.

It's not a reasonable admiture of troop, HQ, heavy support fast attack and elite selections.

Why don't you upgrade your units in a reasonable way with Grav and free Vehicles to get that grav close?

Because that's one specific upgrade, not a general class of upgrades. No optional selection in a codex should be an auto-take. Period.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
1) Took you long enough. Still not enough to be an actual TAC since you apparently can't handle the big MCs of the game

I just as easily could answer that the "big MCs," e.g., like the wraithknight or riptide, are OP and have commonly been recognized as being such since they came out of the box in 6th.

But they weren't OP. In fact I wouldn't even consider the Riptide as an OP unit. Wraithknights weren't OP in 6ed, they only became broken because their 7ed codex gave them GMC and StrD for free. Sure the riptide is good but it's not broken. You just are extremely biased so can't see the big picture (because you keep insisting on using devastators and tacticals as your only frame of reference for power)

But Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, Lords of War etc. are optional. I shouldn't have to take any of them to deal with anything! My Cultists and Apostle should be able to beat everything without optional upgrades, as it's a legitimate and fluffy list.

I seriously don't see why you shouldn't have to take additional units and options to take out Riptides and the like while my Cultist army should.

Traditio wrote:
In point of fact, what this actually means is "bring the new shinies" and "accept codex creep."

Yes, that's what happens in a game like 40k. The game changes, and if you don't change with it (yes, that means buying new stuff) then you get left behind and stop winning. If you're going to ask your opponents to accept your house rules to nerf their armies then you also need to be willing to make changes to your army, and that includes buying the "new shinies".

I shouldn't have to take specific codex entry y specifically to counter the possibility of your bringing codex entry z.

You don't, which is why people have suggested a long list of potential counters. You just keep dismissing each option with "I shouldn't have to take that specific unit".

No. The core selections of my codex, taken collectively, should be able to deal with anything that you can throw at me, and the other way around. The "shinies" and special units which build on those core selections should ultimately just add flavor and different ways of playing. They shouldn't be mandatory "you need to take it, or else, accept losing all the time."

Why not? And why are those units the "core" of your codex? Why aren't drop pods or psykers or grav weapons part of the "core"? Once again you've imposed arbitrary limits on what you should be expected to bring, limits that don't exist in the rules GW publishes.

1. I've made changes to my army. The two missile launcher squads now have flakk missiles. The 6 tac squads are now all fully kitted out with heavy weapons (3 plasma cannons; 3 multimeltas).

That's hardly a significant change. One change involves buying/building/painting nothing, you just write "flakk missiles" on your army list. The other involves a total of six marine models. That is hardly a major investment and display of willingness to change, especially compared to your opponent having to replace ~200 points worth of Riptide because you imposed a "one per 1000 points" limit as a house rule. So it seems like our assessment is accurate: you want your opponents to take on almost all of the burden of giving you a 50/50 chance of winning, while you bring whatever you feel like taking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
It's not a reasonable admiture of troop, HQ, heavy support fast attack and elite selections.

You know, I don't see any rules in any codex about "reasonable admixture of troop, HQ, heavy support, fast attack, and elite selections". Could you please stop making up your own rules about how the game is "meant" to be played and acting like any army list that doesn't comply with your rules doesn't count?

Because that's one specific upgrade, not a general class of upgrades. No optional selection in a codex should be an auto-take. Period.

It's one specific upgrade, part of a whole long list of specific upgrades that you've rejected. It's nice to say that no optional selection should be an auto-take, but at some point you do have to take an anti-MC specialist. You can pick which one, but you can't keep rejecting every option and then expect your opponent to remove their MCs so you don't have to change your own list.

At this point I'm calling this a troll. I'd rather believe Traditio is just getting a rise out of people rather than him thinking everything a naked tac squad can't kill is broken.

 raverrn wrote:
At this point I'm calling this a troll. I'd rather believe Traditio is just getting a rise out of people rather than him thinking everything a naked tac squad can't kill is broken.

No, speaking from previous experience with Traditio I think they're entirely serious in everything they're arguing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
At this point I'm calling this a troll. I'd rather believe Traditio is just getting a rise out of people rather than him thinking everything a naked tac squad can't kill is broken.

No, speaking from previous experience with Traditio I think they're entirely serious in everything they're arguing. This is not really a comforting thought.

You sure? I mean, 500 points for an 3HP AV12 flyer?

 raverrn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
At this point I'm calling this a troll. I'd rather believe Traditio is just getting a rise out of people rather than him thinking everything a naked tac squad can't kill is broken.

No, speaking from previous experience with Traditio I think they're entirely serious in everything they're arguing. This is not really a comforting thought.

You sure? I mean, 500 points for an 3HP AV12 flyer?

You should see his post history. This is par for the course for Tradito.

 CrownAxe wrote:
You should see his post history. This is par for the course for Tradito.

Yeah, here are a couple representative examples:

Traditio wrote:
What could possibly justify spending $140 on an imperial knight? Seriously. Give me a list of reasons why someone would buy one. For every reason you list, I will be able to tell you why there's something wrong with that person.

Traditio wrote:
You dropped $140 on a model because it's pretty? If you have $140 to drop on a random decoration, that's money that you could have donated to charity. While a pretty model is sitting on your shelf, people are starving in Africa. How many bags of rice and beans do you think $140 could purchase?

Plus a whole bunch of stuff about how you're morally obligated to play with a "fair" (by their definition of how you should build 40k lists) list, how bluffing in a game is an inherently evil act, etc. And Traditio seems to believe these things with 100% sincerity.