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:

Martel732 wrote:That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

You have to price both fairly. Even naked, a windrider bike is not just 3 ppm better than a tactical marine. It's not just 4 ppm better than a dire avenger.

No, you really don't. I've already explained why the base windrider's cost doesn't matter. Only properties that affect the game state should be costly.

Scatterbikes = 1 in 3 special weapons and increase the price of scatter lasers to 15.

Wraithknight = Becomes MC again and price hike. D weapons return to 6th ed rules.

 Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Galef wrote:Forgot to mention Grenades

LOL.

Yes, Galef, I'm sure that every single game you play, you find yourself standing across from your opponent, looking at your windrider bikes, and thinking to yourself: "Gee, these things are so underpowered and overcosted. You know what would help them out? Grenades. They need grenades. They're practically worthless without them."

[/sarcasm]

Not saying they need grenades. Goodness know they are plenty of unit that have them that don't need them (cough Dire Avengers). I am comparing your list on situational rules that Jetbikes have and making the point that Marines have a tons of situational rules as well, making their equal points cost relevant.

They're not situational. Are you telling me that your windriders' toughness 4 only occassionally comes up in a game? Your ability to move 12 in the movement phase while ignoring the game only applies to certain situations? Your ability to move and fire heavy weapons at full BS is something that only really matters every few game or so?

Bull pucky.

Last game I played against a white scars bike army, however, neither combat squads nor grenades came up even once.

You mean marine bikers? The unit that moves 12", and fires their guns at full BS?

lusciifi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

lusciifi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

lusciifi wrote:
Switching gears to the WK. How about just dropping it back down to an MC and keeping at the current point cost?

I don't mind it being GMC. I mind it being a cheap GMC. Make the WK badass, just make it pay for it.

Well personally I think the stomp rules dont work well and far too swingy, but I do see your point. If it did keep GMC status it should probably be around the 400pt range as suggested by the OP.

Any list can have the most badass thing ever, as long it is appropriately expensive. Want to be immune to 80% of the weapons in the game? Fine. Just pay out the ass for it. I think IK are actually overcosted given how many weapons out there can glance out AV 12. Not by much, though, which makes them an acceptable unit in comparison to WK.

Kind of off topic but do you think that a knight is more or less durable in an average game compared to a WK. AV12 is about the same as T8 and the IK has the better invuln. For me the issue is the ranged D offence, not the defense.

Way less, because no armor save. AV 12 is a joke compared to T8 because of FNP and armor save.

Wolfblade wrote:You mean marine bikers? The unit that moves 12", and fires their guns at full BS?

Windriders have the same ability, except with much greater mobility.

Space marine bikes don't ignore terrain and intervening models (enemy or otherwise).

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Space marine bikers don't die to a stiff breeze when they try to shoot their guns (i.e., they don't have to be within 12") And it's not that SM bikers are better, it's that windriders aren't the massive murder machine you think they are when they don't have scatter lasers or shuri cannons

If you're running bare windrider bikes, you're playing them as wrong as if I were to run naked tacticals.

Woah woah, moving the goal post again? You started out complaining about naked wind riders, and how they're undercosted, which is what I'm going on. No question that they're either OP or undercosted once they all get scatter lasers.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:You mean marine bikers? The unit that moves 12", and fires their guns at full BS?

Windriders have the same ability, except with much greater mobility.

Space marine bikes don't ignore terrain and intervening models (enemy or otherwise).

True, they just ignore terrain most of the time (assuming we're talking about the best bikers still)

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Space marine bikers don't die to a stiff breeze when they try to shoot their guns (i.e., they don't have to be within 12") And it's not that SM bikers are better, it's that windriders aren't the massive murder machine you think they are when they don't have scatter lasers or shuri cannons

If you're running bare windrider bikes, you're playing them as wrong as if I were to run naked tacticals.

That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

This the opposite case with the WK. There are so many benefits to being a GMC, that the base cost must be quite high to pay for all of those benefits. They are all benefits that really matter, too.

Dude Traditio, if you think bare windriders are such garbage, why do you insist on them being 25ppm? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read all day.

Martel's got the right idea. Leave the 17ppm windriders alone, but jack up the price on the thing that truly makes them formidable: the dang gun!. 20pt Scatter lasers are a good idea for Windriders, but I'm not sure about the Shuricannon. At 15pts, you still might not see them over Scats, so keep them 10.

--

No one cares about naked windriders. Even BA. Just stop with that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

You have to price both fairly. Even naked, a windrider bike is not just 3 ppm better than a tactical marine. It's not just 4 ppm better than a dire avenger.

No, you really don't. I've already explained why the base windrider's cost doesn't matter. Only properties that affect the game state should be costly.

I'm sorry, but I'm assuming, a priori, that the proposition: "Every model should be appropriately costed given its properties, with or without upgrades" is true or is the case.

If you disagree, then that's your opinion, but it's not something I'm going to budge on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Space marine bikers don't die to a stiff breeze when they try to shoot their guns (i.e., they don't have to be within 12") And it's not that SM bikers are better, it's that windriders aren't the massive murder machine you think they are when they don't have scatter lasers or shuri cannons

If you're running bare windrider bikes, you're playing them as wrong as if I were to run naked tacticals.

That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

This the opposite case with the WK. There are so many benefits to being a GMC, that the base cost must be quite high to pay for all of those benefits. They are all benefits that really matter, too.

Dude Traditio, if you think bare windriders are such garbage, why do you insist on them being 25ppm? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read all day.

Do you think that a naked tactical is garbage?

You do?

Cool. Would you mind if they were 8 ppm?

Martel's got the right idea. Leave the 17ppm windriders alone, but jack up the price on the thing that truly makes them formidable: the dang gun!. 20pt Scatter lasers are a good idea for Windriders, but I'm not sure about the Shuricannon. At 15pts, you still might not see them over Scats, so keep them 10.

--

Compare naked windriders to naked space marine bikes. Are they much better? Much worse? Or about even?

If they have the same in-game utility, they should cost the same.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Space marine bikers don't die to a stiff breeze when they try to shoot their guns (i.e., they don't have to be within 12") And it's not that SM bikers are better, it's that windriders aren't the massive murder machine you think they are when they don't have scatter lasers or shuri cannons

If you're running bare windrider bikes, you're playing them as wrong as if I were to run naked tacticals.

That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

This the opposite case with the WK. There are so many benefits to being a GMC, that the base cost must be quite high to pay for all of those benefits. They are all benefits that really matter, too.

Dude Traditio, if you think bare windriders are such garbage, why do you insist on them being 25ppm? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read all day.

Martel's got the right idea. Leave the 17ppm windriders alone, but jack up the price on the thing that truly makes them formidable: the dang gun!. 20pt Scatter lasers are a good idea for Windriders, but I'm not sure about the Shuricannon. At 15pts, you still might not see them over Scats, so keep them 10.

--

At 27 ppm, they are still 75% as effective vs tanks and give up 12" range. I'd have to playtest it. GW has made medium str high ROF way too good.

"Compare naked windriders to naked space marine bikes. Are they much better? Much worse? Or about even? "

It doesn't matter. They both are irrelevant and relatively weak.

Martel732 wrote:

lusciifi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

lusciifi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

lusciifi wrote:
Switching gears to the WK. How about just dropping it back down to an MC and keeping at the current point cost?

I don't mind it being GMC. I mind it being a cheap GMC. Make the WK badass, just make it pay for it.

Well personally I think the stomp rules dont work well and far too swingy, but I do see your point. If it did keep GMC status it should probably be around the 400pt range as suggested by the OP.

Any list can have the most badass thing ever, as long it is appropriately expensive. Want to be immune to 80% of the weapons in the game? Fine. Just pay out the ass for it. I think IK are actually overcosted given how many weapons out there can glance out AV 12. Not by much, though, which makes them an acceptable unit in comparison to WK.

Kind of off topic but do you think that a knight is more or less durable in an average game compared to a WK. AV12 is about the same as T8 and the IK has the better invuln. For me the issue is the ranged D offence, not the defense.

Way less, because no armor save. AV 12 is a joke compared to T8 because of FNP and armor save.

Most weapons that reliably do damage to T8 have low AP anyways, its basically 4++ on the IK vs 5+ FNP on the WK. AV12 also serves to stop S5/poison/sniper in its tracks. At least when I play my tau I know a WK is an easier unit for me to kill.

The WK is still the better unit (its cheaper and has ranged D). But not in terms of toughness.

We want naked Windriders to be viable. We also want Shuriken Cannons viable. Scatter Lasers too, possibly.

Currently, the Heavy weapons are OP, but the naked version isnt too far off.

Id vote 4+, FA, and SLS become 20ppm on Windriders. Seems about right.

The WK feels more "right" as a GMC. It just needs to pay for it (bump the cost).

Martel732 wrote:It doesn't matter. They both are irrelevant and relatively weak.

Well feth, man.

5 ppm tactical marines. 7 ppm space marines bikes.

I mean, while we're at it, how about 2 point rhinos?

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

You have to price both fairly. Even naked, a windrider bike is not just 3 ppm better than a tactical marine. It's not just 4 ppm better than a dire avenger.

No, you really don't. I've already explained why the base windrider's cost doesn't matter. Only properties that affect the game state should be costly.

I'm sorry, but I'm assuming, a priori, that the proposition: "Every model should be appropriately costed given its properties, with or without upgrades" is true or is the case.

If you disagree, then that's your opinion, but it's not something I'm going to budge on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Space marine bikers don't die to a stiff breeze when they try to shoot their guns (i.e., they don't have to be within 12") And it's not that SM bikers are better, it's that windriders aren't the massive murder machine you think they are when they don't have scatter lasers or shuri cannons

If you're running bare windrider bikes, you're playing them as wrong as if I were to run naked tacticals.

That's why you load the cost into the GUNS.

This the opposite case with the WK. There are so many benefits to being a GMC, that the base cost must be quite high to pay for all of those benefits. They are all benefits that really matter, too.

Dude Traditio, if you think bare windriders are such garbage, why do you insist on them being 25ppm? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read all day.

Martel's got the right idea. Leave the 17ppm windriders alone, but jack up the price on the thing that truly makes them formidable: the dang gun!. 20pt Scatter lasers are a good idea for Windriders, but I'm not sure about the Shuricannon. At 15pts, you still might not see them over Scats, so keep them 10.

--

Compare naked windriders to naked space marine bikes. Are they much better? Much worse? Or about even?

If they have the same in-game utility, they should cost the same.

Naked windriders are about the same, way easier to kill, much worse guns, and worse leadership (marines have ATSKNF), but grab objectives at the last minute much better. They're pretty fairly costed, it's their guns that are too cheap, which is why the guns should go up in price, not the windriders thermselves.

Bharring wrote:
We want naked Windriders to be viable. We also want Shuriken Cannons viable. Scatter Lasers too, possibly.

Currently, the Heavy weapons are OP, but the naked version isnt too far off.

Id vote 4+, FA, and SLS become 20ppm on Windriders. Seems about right.

The WK feels more "right" as a GMC. It just needs to pay for it (bump the cost).

Ok. You can have space marine bikes. We'll take windriders.

You up for that trade?

So I'm sticking with 1 of 2 options:

A) 20pt Scatters, everything else remains as is
OR
B) 15pt Scatters and the Eldar jetbike only grants 4+ armour

Naked Windriders do *not* have the same role as naked Marine bikers. Windriders really only maneuver well. Marine bikers are skirmishes and bullies. Windriders have an easier time sniping an objective. Marines can do that too, but worse. H9wever, Marine bikers' small arms are still usefully against chaff units, and even naked can assault most back fielder's successfully.

They have different roles. The Marine version is worth a bit more naked.

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

The specific thing that makes the WK so much more durable is S6/S7 spam.

BS 4 scatterlasers generate 0.44 hp against AV 12, presumably on a side with no ion shield.

Scatterlasers generate a lowly .1 wounds vs a WK from any direction

BS 4 Autocannons generate also 0.44 hp vs AV 12, but only .1 wounds vs a WK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

Maybe. But it's unimportant.

If I traded CWE bikes for SM bikes?

Well, as those are my main factions, I'd have both. But each would feel out of place and wrong in the other army.

On the other hand, while those are my armies, I don't have either. Not my style.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

I said "about", you then proceeded to ignore everything else as norm.

Both are fairly costed, neither has great damage output when naked, marines are much better at surviving while windriders are better objective grabbers late game (and that's all they do).

Bharring wrote:
If I traded CWE bikes for SM bikes?

Well, as those are my main factions, I'd have both. But each would feel out of place and wrong in the other army.

On the other hand, while those are my armies, I don't have either. Not my style.

So that's a firm "no," huh?

About what I thought.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

I said "about", you then proceeded to ignore everything else as norm.

Both are fairly costed, neither has great damage output when naked, marines are much better at surviving while windriders are better objective grabbers late game (and that's all they do).

No one trembles in fear of either.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

I said "about", you then proceeded to ignore everything else as norm.

Both are fairly costed, neither has great damage output when naked, marines are much better at surviving while windriders are better objective grabbers late game (and that's all they do).

Are windriders only 3 ppm better than dire avengers? Yes or no?

"Are windriders only 3 ppm better than dire avengers? Yes or no?"

In practice, yes. Without the heavy weapons, they aren't an issue.

Your implication is I want OP units in my Dex.

The post demonstrates that that is *not possibly* my motivation.

So on the surface, yes, they shouldn't trade. But that's for thematic, not balance reasons.

Martel732 wrote:
"Are windriders only 3 ppm better than dire avengers? Yes or no?"

In practice, yes.

This posting needs no answer. Its falsity is so patent to any non-biased observer that I'll let it stand for itself.

 Traditio wrote:

Are windriders only 3 ppm better than dire avengers? Yes or no?

According to GW they are. Dire Avengers, after all have a ton of rules and wargear.

 Traditio wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Naked windriders are about the same

And therefore should cost the same.

21 ppm minimum (the current cost of SM bikes). 24 ppm ideally (which is what SM bikes should cost).

I said "about", you then proceeded to ignore everything else as norm.

Both are fairly costed, neither has great damage output when naked, marines are much better at surviving while windriders are better objective grabbers late game (and that's all they do).

Are windriders only 3 ppm better than dire avengers? Yes or no?

Yes. Avengers have better damage output, leadership, and decent mobility with an 18" gun and battle focus And they're actually 4ppm, not 3ppm. On average, the dire avengers will only be 1.5" slower than the bikes. Do you have any counter argument as to why the bikes aren't?

Avengers: Better range, counterattack, better LD, better melee (especially with an exarch), grenades, but slightly slower and only T3 with a 4+.
Windriders: faster (especially when turboboosting), crap shooting without upgrades, easy to break when run in minimum squads (as in, 1 model = LD test which is only passed something like 60% of the time iirc)

Martel: Very true, no one cares about naked windriders or bikes

It's harder to get cover on a jetbike, too. Jinking makes your offense crap. Everything's fine if the guns are costed appropriately, because it's they synergy of the guns with the bike that becomes powerful.