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.

You're (edit - Naaris, not Martel) underestimating the number of FnP wound reductions by rounding down.

7.5 wounds, when applying a 5++, means that 2/3 of the wounds go through. That's 5 wounds, as you stated.

When you take 5 unsaved wounds and apply the 5+++, that means that 2/3 of the wounds go through. 10/3 = 3.33.

Martel's math is correct.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I am trying to get a sense of whether the stereotype of Tau/Eldar players that's being sold to the Proposed Rules forum has any basis in fact.

I think you will only be able to get a realistic gauge of the vocal Tau/Eldar players here on Dakka. Much of the anecdotal information about players in people's game groups can be helpful, but is always colored by the perspective of the poster. So I think you are very right to look for first person feedback, that's a good call.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
When I've asked I've also been told that giving massive buffs to the rest of the game is somehow more palatable than trying to suggest fixes to the problem units in the game, and that Eldar/Tau players would object to their toys being taken away.

I think this answer exists in two phases:

1. Certain categories of units are outright poor, and they exist across many codices: Vehicles & Terminators are two glaring examples. The fundamental rules and design of these units make it seem, to me, like fixing the core elements of their weaknesses is easier than bringing down everything else to their level.

2. Fixing any one Faction's problematic unit's issues (like making the Land Raider worthwhile, or toning down the Wraithknight) can only be addressed with a new Codex. If we look over the rules that can be addressed over all codices at once (BRB rules), you end up painting with a broad brush of proposed Nerf and Buffs (Vehicle Armor Saves and MC Damage table). With this approach, I think it is easier to hand out buffs then to fix problem unit types, rather than singling out a problem unit (like a Riptide as a MC) for being too strong, without making other units even worse (Carnifex as a MC).

With the game on the cusp of a new Rulebook, I know I have fun brainstorming ways that I would address the current game flaws in terms of a core rule update. I tend to shift that focus to Faction specific nerfs/buffs when a Codex is at hand. I know before the last Tau Codex I was really hoping for a shake up, if only to give me some motivation to make hobby progress on the garbage units that have been collecting dust on the shelf (Vespid and the Aircraft). The Formations for Tau were at least more generous to our lower tier units than other Factions, and that helped, but I would rather have seen more unit level tweaking, if our better units took a nerf, so be it, fair's fair. Even if the Tau were taken down a competitive tier or three, I would rather have each unit be equally bad, that way I could choose more variety in my lists while still offering a challenging match to my opponent.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As an Eldar player I'm finding this extremely confusing, as I happen to think that intentionally choosing not to play with massed D-weapons/scatterbikes or putting up suggestions here that distortion be nerfed and Windriders be limited to one gun per three models is more balanced, more straightforward, and less annoying than stuffing the rest of the game with massive price cuts, easy access to Fleshbane/2+ poison, and 30k heavy support squads (at a 5pt/model discount over the original, of course).

I agree with you on these points. The realistic issue is that an Eldar or Tau Codex is probably not on GW's schedule since both are comperably fresh, so while it is great to talk about in PR threads, they aren't getting fixed anytime soon. I really am hoping for the next Codex rewrite will actually be a fresh Codex, not just the copy/paste versions they have grown fond of.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Would you be more annoyed to wake up tomorrow and find out that Riptides had become 3+ armour and Riptides/Stormsurges had lost access to stimulant injectors, that Windrider Jetbikes had been downgraded to 4+ armour and split into a Troops unit capped at one gun per three models and a Fast Attack unit that could have as many guns as they liked (and couldn't be taken in a Windrider Host formation), and that Wraithknights had been bumped to 450pts and could only be taken as 0-1 per Core choice in a Craftworld Warhost rather than as an Auxiliary choice? Or if you woke up tomorrow to find that vehicles now had an armour save, that Plague Marines had 2+ Poison on all attacks of any kind, and that all Land Raider-chassis tanks had become 50pts cheaper overnight?

Good question. I would be fine if woken up by a nerf bat. If GW started making Dataslate adjustment mid-edition, I would be elated! With their codex release schedule being what it is, they desperately need updates before a new book drops. In fact, the copy/paste rules they have been doing, combined with point tweaks would be great; while saving the major changes or modifications for the next book.

I also want sweeping changes to terrible units. I especially want streamlining of rules at the same time. Vehicles are a good example:

Toss AV as a special thing. AV minus 4 as a 'Toughness' is very close to the same (yes, you can score a HP with a weapon with one lower Str, but it's close enough). Keep multiple Toughness values on different angles, and firing arcs, so they still play uniquely with a more lumbering feel. Give all vehicles a 3+, +1 for Heavy, -1 for Open Topped. Toss away the Vehicle Damage Table entirely. Now they have the one 'To Wound' chart for everything, more durability, a still unique playstyle with vulnerabilities, only have to track HP and not multiple status modifiers from Damage, low AP/High Str weapons are now more useful than Mid Str/High AP weapons (like Missilesides),and they now have a similar save as every other unit type.

Whether all that would be good or bad is a topic for another thread, but as a general rule, simple and better seems like a good place to start. I'm not worried about oversimplification to the point of blandness, unless we knew that GW was throwing all the codices out with an edition update, and starting from scratch. As long as the current codices aren't going anywhere (for better or worse) the game will have plenty of flavor.

More to your question, I would like almost any Codex update to nerf the strong and buff the weak, if only to give each Faction a shake up. Of course I think certain things should always be decent, particularly the iconic stuff (Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, Terminators, Battlewagons, Monoliths, Aspect Warriors, LRBTs, & Hammerheads all come to mind), but if you are always oscillating what is better and worse, you should also be making smaller and smaller adjustments to achieve this, and the overall balance should get closer to the median. Unfortunately we've seen plenty of the opposite, specifically with the onset of Formations. Things like the Librarius Conclave and Riptide Wing just blow the doors off any hope of having a random pickup game that is roughly equal. Thankfully with apps like Discord and Facebook groups it's easier to discuss strength of lists ahead of time and still create your own balance, but really it would be ideal if that was not a necessity.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As a follow-up question: What makes people so attached to the 220pt Ion Accelerator/Stimulant Injector Riptide. . . that they insist on revising the entire game around them, rather than change them in any way?

I know on this site that seems popular to complain about, but I have not found that Riptide to be very common. Personally I never bother with Stims, as the Riptide a pain to kill as-is. In competition, the Wing is where Riptides are, almost exclusively, and if you're going to put 3 Stim Injectors on them, just pony up the extra points for a 4th Riptide. I always had a soft spot for the Heavy Burst Cannon+ECPA combo myself, and rarely take a second Riptide unless my opponent or I want to do Tournament Prep. At my last GT the Ion Accelerator was on one of my Riptides, but that was more for range considerations concerning Hailfire and tactical preference. I like having a flanking unit that can push up on an uncontested side of the battlefield (especially in Dawn of War deployment), or allow the other two HBC Riptides to advance in tandem while the Ion sits back. Even then, I despise the Ion Accelerator. One big shot just doesn't cut it today, and missing out on firing once a game due to 'Gets Hot' is unacceptable. You can buff him to BS 6 with Markerlights to reroll, but you still need two more Markerlights to Ignore Cover. That's a ton of Markerlight tokens just for one guy. My Stormsurge is also a Marker-hog but makes much better use of them. I often hear others mentioning the Ion Cannon's 'Unit Deletion' every turn, but unless someone just Deep Struck (without a Drop Pod) how are you getting more than 3 hits with a Large Blast? Even 25mm bases are tough to get more than that unless you get a favorable scatter, and even then I'm elated to get 4 hits. With 2 Markerlights the Heavy Burst Cannon kicks off 10 hits (more with the Array) and you can screw the Ignores Cover because the occasional Rend wouldn't be worth it anyway. I like the Idea of a Ion Riptide that doesn't need to Nova every turn, but it also doesn't do much if it doesn't Ripple Fire. The Riptide's biggest strength is it's durability, but if your opponent can ignore your offensive potential by just thinning your Markerlights (rather than needing to wipe them all) they won't bother firing at you Riptide until everything else is dead anyway.

TL,DR: I'm not attached to that loadout, I rarely even use an Ion Accelerator, and rarer still the Stim Injector. Not because it's too good, but because my experiences fielding it and going up against it in Tournaments lead me to believe it is the inferior choice.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...@AnomanderRake

I applaud your approach, and I think I've expressed a great deal of agreement with it, but an informal internet poll of the people who are already browsing the Proposed Rule forum (and are thus at least more likely to be interested in considering, well, Proposed Rules) doesn't strike me as a good representation of 40k players as a whole.

So find me a better one. I'm sitting here trying to beat it through Naaris' thick skull that what he thinks the Tau/Eldar players of the world are going to think of him is wrong, and he's concluded that anything anyone's telling him is obviously them lying under peer pressure and all Tau/Eldar players are exactly as much of a munchkin as his worst possible opinions of them.

I'm trying to argue that Proposed Rules needs to stop designing to please the imaginary donkey-cave constituency, and it's getting taken over by people declaring that all players are obviously part of said imaginary donkey-cave constituency because they can't imagine why they wouldn't be.

Let me take a crack at the math:
10 Grav shots, 5 at BS4, 5 at BS5 should yield ~7 hits
With 2+ armour and Grav amps, that's 7 wounds
With a 5++, just less than half will be save (let's say 3) and 1 of the 4 failed is likely to be saved by FNP.
So the RIptide only takes 3 wound from 2 Grav cannons with 5++
But with the 3++, it's only likely to take 1, maybe 2.

I'd say it's safe to say that it take about 5-6 Grav cannons to drop 1 Riptide. I don't see any Marine lists with 20+ Grav Cannons just to take out 3-5 Riptides.

If Riptides only had a 3+ armour and a max 4++, Riptides would be far more palatable.

-

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You suggest that it is impossible to buff things up and nerf things down at the same time.
Look at the Eldar codex. It isn't reasonable because there are units that need a buff. No amount of killing the Scatterbikes profile will ever make someone take Banshees or Spears because the unit profile is terrible. So why not fix both and make Scatterbikes reasonable at the same time?

I suggest that you should pick a baseline to work from and consider why the outliers are outliers, rather than handing middle-of-the-road units massive buffs and justifying it by explaining how they're less stupid than scatterbikes.

I'm worried about a general approach that's going to take units that weren't that problematic before and hand them buffs that require other non-problem units to be buffed to keep up.

So the issue comes from what's actually middle road and the disagreements on that.
For example, I maintain that the main baseline for Eldar is Dire Avengers and Striking Scorpions. I'd hand out proper buffs and nerfs to the units as necessary for my vision (for example I'd give Dire Avengers the OS rule standard, so that if they're in a formation they still super score) and work my way from there.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...@AnomanderRake

I applaud your approach, and I think I've expressed a great deal of agreement with it, but an informal internet poll of the people who are already browsing the Proposed Rule forum (and are thus at least more likely to be interested in considering, well, Proposed Rules) doesn't strike me as a good representation of 40k players as a whole.

So find me a better one. I'm sitting here trying to beat it through Naaris' thick skull that what he thinks the Tau/Eldar players of the world are going to think of him is wrong, and he's concluded that anything anyone's telling him is obviously them lying under peer pressure and all Tau/Eldar players are exactly as much of a munchkin as his worst possible opinions of them.

I'm trying to argue that Proposed Rules needs to stop designing to please the imaginary donkey-cave constituency, and it's getting taken over by people declaring that all players are obviously part of said imaginary donkey-cave constituency because they can't imagine why they wouldn't be.

There may not be a better one, but that doesn't make the one you're using good, in the same way Capitalism can be the best of a bunch of bad systems. That said, it is probably the best of the possible choices. Just keep in mind that you really need to apply your results here with a barrel-full of salt.

I agree that Proposed Rules needs to "stop designing to please the imaginary donkeycave constiuency", but that doesn't entail that your own perspective isn't any less imaginary, particularly if your only proof is effectively anecdotal (as an informal poll on a forum will almost inevitably be).

If you want a proposed rule to be accepted, it has to be applicable to those you want it applied to (redundant statement, I know). While the community isn't entirely made up of donkeycaves, I don't think its any more reasonable to suggest its entirely made up of self-regulating, not-taking-good-units fluff players like yourself either.

It consists of a mixture, and of the thousands of shades of gray in between them. I'm not bringing 3+ Riptides and 2+ Stormsurges to every game because I wouldn't end up playing terribly often in my gaming ground due to them not enjoying themselves (in fact, I don't even own more than 1 stormsurge), but I still have a stronger inclination towards competitive play than I do purely fluff lists (despite my fairly substantial Kroot & Fire Warrior models), and I do own Riptides and Ghostkeels that I will use in game with the intent to help me win.

I'd (baselessly) speculate that pure WAAC and pure Fluff-or-die players are mostly the extreme outliers... most folks are found in the sea of grays between, and THEY need to be the targeted audience for any Proposed Rule.


Honestly, I think we mostly agree. Perhaps I'm being too much of a tone-policeman here - I'm just inherently uneasy about trying to take informal data (be it individual anecdotes or an informal poll among a potentially nonrepresentative population) and expressing it as the unassailable Truth (with that capital T).

I agree with the idea that a select few units that are currently heavily undercosted badly need some degree of nerfing- can't be sure how much though, as a unit could get catapulted into the garbage tier if not careful. However, blanket rule changes to unit types/BRB rules will not fix things. For example, if there are heavy MC nerfs indirectly targeting WKs/riptides, Nid players will be utterly shafted. Maybe if MC and FMC didn't have such disparity, they wouldn't be forced to spam out flyrants just to remain relevant. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to buff the comparatively weaker units too heavily, either. Some of the most bottom-of-the-barrel units definitely need it to catch up to more median level units, but changes definitely need to start with nerfs to over-the-top units/rules.

A couple brief examples, several already noted by other users:
- Change invis from snap shots only to BS1. Boom, not broken, blasts being an obvious counter if you're lucky enough not to scatter too badly; thus scatter places a check on said countermeasure.

- Riptides have 3+ armor OR invul is a little weaker OR pay substantially more for FnP. Alternatively, make the giant robosuit a Walker! With hull points! Nobody* will ever cry "Man, Riptide is too strong" ever again! Hooray!

- Wraithknights I'm not terribly familiar with rules. Points increase probably the easiest fix, and if they actually do have IWND, get rid of it. But, you could instead make the giant robosuit a Walker/SHW! With hull points! Nobody* will ever cry "Man, Wraith Knight is too strong" ever again! Hooray!

- Whose idea was it to give grav cannons the equivalent of Shred (grav-amp)? That is extremely strong, make it cost points so it's less auto-include and spammy. Note the "buff everything else to equally ridiculous high levels" equivalent of this could be easily be pushed too far. Demolisher Cannon with Shred/Preferred Enemy and can do multiple HP to vehicles? Even as an IG player I'd retch.

*And by nobody, I mean the number of complaints will decrease once they start getting one-shotted by melta or the like. These points were more or less sarcastically pointing out how much stronger MC is than Walker due to having stacking saves and no damage table to fret about. Definitely a more dramatic nerf than actually warranted, as they'd probably go the way of the G(M)orkanaut.

EDIT: Also, weren't Eldar as a whole BS3 then got bumped to nearly universal BS4? I really hope the guy working on the next Tau codex doesn't think about it.

" Also, weren't Eldar as a whole BS3 then got bumped to nearly universal BS4?"

Yup, they sure did.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...@AnomanderRake

I applaud your approach, and I think I've expressed a great deal of agreement with it, but an informal internet poll of the people who are already browsing the Proposed Rule forum (and are thus at least more likely to be interested in considering, well, Proposed Rules) doesn't strike me as a good representation of 40k players as a whole.

So find me a better one. I'm sitting here trying to beat it through Naaris' thick skull that what he thinks the Tau/Eldar players of the world are going to think of him is wrong, and he's concluded that anything anyone's telling him is obviously them lying under peer pressure and all Tau/Eldar players are exactly as much of a munchkin as his worst possible opinions of them.

I'm trying to argue that Proposed Rules needs to stop designing to please the imaginary donkey-cave constituency, and it's getting taken over by people declaring that all players are obviously part of said imaginary donkey-cave constituency because they can't imagine why they wouldn't be.

There may not be a better one, but that doesn't make the one you're using good, in the same way Capitalism can be the best of a bunch of bad systems. That said, it is probably the best of the possible choices. Just keep in mind that you really need to apply your results here with a barrel-full of salt.

I agree that Proposed Rules needs to "stop designing to please the imaginary donkeycave constiuency", but that doesn't entail that your own perspective isn't any less imaginary, particularly if your only proof is effectively anecdotal (as an informal poll on a forum will almost inevitably be).

If you want a proposed rule to be accepted, it has to be applicable to those you want it applied to (redundant statement, I know). While the community isn't entirely made up of donkeycaves, I don't think its any more reasonable to suggest its entirely made up of self-regulating, not-taking-good-units fluff players like yourself either.

It consists of a mixture, and of the thousands of shades of gray in between them. I'm not bringing 3+ Riptides and 2+ Stormsurges to every game because I wouldn't end up playing terribly often in my gaming ground due to them not enjoying themselves (in fact, I don't even own more than 1 stormsurge), but I still have a stronger inclination towards competitive play than I do purely fluff lists (despite my fairly substantial Kroot & Fire Warrior models), and I do own Riptides and Ghostkeels that I will use in game with the intent to help me win.

I'd (baselessly) speculate that pure WAAC and pure Fluff-or-die players are mostly the extreme outliers... most folks are found in the sea of grays between, and THEY need to be the targeted audience for any Proposed Rule.


Honestly, I think we mostly agree. Perhaps I'm being too much of a tone-policeman here - I'm just inherently uneasy about trying to take informal data (be it individual anecdotes or an informal poll among a potentially nonrepresentative population) and expressing it as the unassailable Truth (with that capital T).

The difference here is that I'm trying to take the position "in the absence of evidence design to the middle".

The middle.

Not an extreme outlier case based on my anecdotal evidence.

Every thread here lately has gotten hijacked by a small and persistent group of voices who love to hold the scatterbike up as an example of why anything below S6 is bad, why the d6 system is fundamentally flawed, and why things like casually handing Fleshbane to spammable Troops units isn't really that bad in the grand scheme of things.

When I've pressed them on the issue the consistent answer I've gotten is that the Eldar players as a constituency would never accept a nerf to the scatterbike.

I'm trying to rein in some of the incredibly extreme positions that seem to have become accepted and normal here, and open up the dialogue for actual fixes instead of every thread on every subject getting shot down with "it's garbage because it's worse than a scatterbike" or "it's perfectly fine because it's not as stupid as a scatterbike".

The scatterbike doesn't make things below str 6 bad, it just maximizes the math already created by the system. That's why I say the system has to go. They were already bad before the scatterbike. Now they are just worse. There are exceptions like the Wyvern, but it has a pile of special rules to make it viable. The Wyvern, of course, is immune to Str 5 from the front, too.

Martel732 wrote:
The scatterbike doesn't make things below str 6 bad, it just maximizes the math already created by the system. That's why I say the system has to go. They were already bad before the scatterbike. Now they are just worse. There are exceptions like the Wyvern, but it has a pile of special rules to make it viable. The Wyvern, of course, is immune to Str 5 from the front, too.

Start over. Forget the numbers for a second.

There exist weapons in 40k that are good against too wide a range of targets.

There exist weapons in 40k that are not good against as wide a range of targets.

Explain to me again why the problem you've taken away from this is that there aren't enough weapons in group 1?

Why is it the system's fault that GW screwed up and made one gun too good against too many targets?

Is Warmachine immune to a poor designer making a ROF 5 POW 20 Weapon Master gun with range 40 on a RAT 20 platform?

Is Infinity immune to a poor designer making a Burst 10 Damage 20 gun with +6 to hit at all ranges and AP+DA+Shock?

What property of the system made GW screw up the scatterbike?

What about your d10 system is going to be immune to an idiot designer creating a kill-everything-with-one-gun weapon?

"What about your d10 system is going to be immune to an idiot designer creating a kill-everything-with-one-gun weapon?"

I'm the designer. And with more granularity, there will be less difference between Str 5 and Str 6 inherently.

I never said that group 1 should increase. I'm saying GW's system makes this group almost inevitable unless they are reigned in by pricing.

Man goes out for a couple of hours and finds his words twisted, his intentions reversed, himself put amongst cowering liers only trying to endear strangers on the interwebz... Strange forum Dakka is indeed. I'm not even supprised, that in Eldar/Tau hate-related thread, actual Eldar/Tau players are a minority...

This thread is a rather bizarre example, that even when faced by Eldar players that are not only willing to nerf, but in fact do play with self-imposed nerfs because they are not WAAC, some notorious individuals still have a hard time accepting the fact only because it does not change their local group powerlevel or their biased view on state of 40K.

@ Martel - if you are only interested in your own gaming experience in your own homebrew-denying group/tournaments, then please enlighten me, because I sencerely don't understand: why do you spend so much time and effort to express your POV in every Eldar-related and general ballance-related thread, when apparently only official GW rules are of your any concern and any rule or agreement in Proposed Rules just doesn't apply to you or your 40K experience? Like never ever? I get it, your local meta is as harsh as it can be. But what do you exactly expect from thread like this one, which isn't even targeted at people like you, and asks a simple and direct question to a precisely defined group of players? You should instead spam emails at GW rules department that their math suck and let other people enjoy actually meaningfull and constructive discussions.

@ Martel and Naaris - you should realy, realy get out to the 40K world more, as it has been repeatedly shown in many, many threads here on dakka, by various players from vastly different groups and corners of the world, that hardcore tournament crowd IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE to the entire community. At all. You are in not enviable situation of having thick-skulled opponents and/or underdog factions, but I don't understand at all what is your ultimate goal in Proposed Rules threads... It is painfully obvious, that not even single Proposed Rules thread ever got to GW officials. Proposed Rules threads are good only to provide ideas and feedback for changes WITHIN WILLING GROUPS OF PLAYERS... If you have an unwilling group, then no amount of whining will change that, ever. Developing social skills if you're casual or stepping up your game if you're competetive may change your situation. Complaining about 40K won't.

Martel732 wrote:
"What about your d10 system is going to be immune to an idiot designer creating a kill-everything-with-one-gun weapon?"

I'm the designer. And with more granularity, there will be less difference between Str 5 and Str 6 inherently.

I never said that group 1 should increase. I'm saying GW's system makes this group almost inevitable unless they are reigned in by pricing.

So the d10 is superior to the d6...because you like the d10?

WHAT ABOUT THE SYSTEM makes weapons that are good against everything inevitable?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"What about your d10 system is going to be immune to an idiot designer creating a kill-everything-with-one-gun weapon?"

I'm the designer. And with more granularity, there will be less difference between Str 5 and Str 6 inherently.

I never said that group 1 should increase. I'm saying GW's system makes this group almost inevitable unless they are reigned in by pricing.

So the d10 is superior to the d6...because you like the d10?

WHAT ABOUT THE SYSTEM makes weapons that are good against everything inevitable?

Because you have so few possible AVs, you end up with a common average AV. Which is 12 it seems. Then, you have a very simple system for determining effects upon said AV. The break point of being able to affect the most common AV vs not affect the most common AV at all is huge. Then you have very few possible RoFs. 1-4 typically. So weapons that end up throwing lots of dice that can take down most of the vehicles in the game also by default are awesome against infantry because of the way the STR stat is used to both wound and penetrate AV, and we have so few possible STR choices, and so few possible AV choices that this kind of weapon becomes hard to avoid. One solution is to cost it appropriately instead of trying to prevent it's emergence altogether. But you don't seem to like that solution.

Naaris wrote:
Blackie, your telling me that on the weekly gaming night where you play, that if you face off against a tau player, you will, without a doubt, face 3-5 riptides.

Well to be honest I'll arrange most of my games as everyone in my group is not interested in winning but only in having a balanced game, which means that we tailor our lists a bit. Sometimes we play with fluffy lists, sometimes we like to try competitive games, most of the times something in between. And everytime we decide to take our best stuff tau deploy 5-6 big robots. In many other communities, where people shows at the local store with TAC lists, you often see competitive lists.

Now not that I really care about tau effectiveness, IMHO they're certainly good but not that powerful, it's just extremely boring play against those kind of lists and force me to rely always on the same options to counter them. I was referring to my meta, but I always see competitive lists when it comes to tau, eldar and SM. Even if they can be quite good without their best gimmicks a lot of people like to play them as a no brainer, that's why some units need a huge nerf.

Tau Player here to add my opinion on Riptides. Killer unit, definitely in need of some reigning in. At most I might field 2 in a 2000pt game, one with Burst cannon, CDS and Stim for the frontline, the other tends to be EWO and Skyfire with Ion accelerator for tackling fliers and reserve transports or armour blobs. although I prefer fielding just the one alongside regular crisis suits in a Farsight Enclave.

The things that made me go what when I read their rules are as follows:

Elite unit choice (How are they NOT Heavy support?)
Base points price, these guys are pretty killer before you add any upgrades (especially considering they are jetpack infantry and the nova reactor ability to increase one of 4 areas.)
how people model them (They're supposed to stand upright, not do morning yoga sessions across the battlefield)
Invulnerable (3++ is somewhat excessive when nova charged, 4++ seems fairer considering the round will still impact near the actual body of the armour, instead of an alternate surface like a storm shield.)

Things I see people complain about that I don't tend to have an issue with:

Armour 2+ (It's easy to see these guys are to crisis suits armour-wise as a terminator is to a space marine, not to mention the fluff of using a denser alloy)
FNP (Yeah, its not pleasant as you can't get the strength to ignore it, but the price of it is not to be ignored, the problem with the price of FNP comes down to the base cost of the model itself.)

In fact, the problem has got so out of hand regarding the opinion of Riptides in general that one of my friends has outright refused to ever play me as tau regardless of what list I play because he hates how they play at the moment with riptides championing most lists that he sees.

My favorite part about people who defend riptides and wraith knights is that they always compare them to Grav weapons. Because as we all know every faction has access to Grav. Just the other day killed 5 riptides with a Mob of Boyz armed with Grav weapons....

The other wonderful aspect is that when they try to justify S D weapons and huge rates of fire and other nonsense they always compare it against Death Stars. Because again, as we all know, every unit in the game is a deathstar.

Whats the point of this? The point is that you are comparing a broken model to something else that is broken in order to justify the ridiculous levels of OP said unit has.

Why do people hate Scatbikes? Because I have watched my green tide with a 5+ FNP disintegrate before a wall of S6 fire power. I have also watched my Kan list and transport rush lists die ingloriously to massed S6 firepower. Nothing like paying 300pts for a unit of Killa Kanz and have them destroyed turn 1 by Scatterbikes that are shooting beyond the range of my Kanz.

Why do people hate Wraithknights/Riptides? Because they are drastically under priced and too difficult to kill. Again, Against my orks I have to focus fire these things with most of my army, or at the absolute best, hope to god I can someone get into CC with them with enough Power Klaws and Boyz to kill them in 1-2 rounds of combat. Keeping in mind that against the Wraithknight its almost Do or Die because of Stomp.

Keep comparing those OP units to other OP units and you will continue to get the same results, compare those OP units to regular units and you will understand the hatred most armies have for those units.

At least D weapons only smoke single models. You can still win the objective game vs D weapons. Scatterlasers lay waste to entire squads.

Let me tell you a little story about Chaos.

My friend and I hadn't gotten a chance to play in quite a long time. 6th Edition and the new Chaos had just come out, and I had jumped on the new Daemon Engines. So my army consisted of a Forgefiend and a Heldrake, along with Cultists and a Land Raider full of Terminators, while his was Tactical Marines, Devastators and a Predator. Admittedly we got the rules wrong, in that my Heldrake started on the board, but that's not the point. I got first turn and it went across the table and flamed eight Tacticals to death in a single attack. I'd never fielded something so effective against anything. Even though the Heldrake died to the Devastators and Predator soon after (and not mentioning the Heldrake's cost or its specialisation at killing Marine infantry), I didn't forget the feeling that struck me at that point. It felt bad. That was the first time I'd ever felt that way in a game.

I love Riptides and Wraithknights (and all the big robots in general). I bought them just about as soon as they were out. I love just about all things Eldar, as well, and was happy with the changes to their infantry in 6th. But both those armies give me that same feeling the Heldrake once did, but far worse. Such incredible imbalance brings into question why we even play the game at all. Most people who've played Overwatch should understand what it feels like to be on the receiving end of overpowered nonsense. But unlike Overwatch, I can't give up on 40k.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every thread here lately has gotten hijacked by a small and persistent group of voices who love to hold the scatterbike up as an example of why anything below S6 is bad, why the d6 system is fundamentally flawed, and why things like casually handing Fleshbane to spammable Troops units isn't really that bad in the grand scheme of things.[/i].

It's not just lately. It's been going on for a long time, maybe even forever. The Dreadknight used to be the classic "proof" that Monstrous Creatures were, as a unit type, utterly overpowered. This only got worse when the Riptide and 6th Edition Wraithknight came along, and this sentiment still exists today (better watch out for Maleceptors!). The old Vendetta was an example of why all flyers were inherently overpowered as well. And let's not forget the Flyrant with twin-linked brainleech devourers, which is used to say that all FMCs are overpowered even though the abysmal Harpy exists in the same Codex. It seems people will always make sweeping judgements based only on the most extreme examples, as in the expression "tarred with the same brush".

Balance is one of the single most important elements of any competitive game - internal and external both. The game is not balanced, not by a mile, and the solution is not to buff everything. Some things are too good, some things aren't good enough, and fixing that is the best way to make the game better for everyone. As you said quite well, AnomanderRake; design to the middle. With my Tau, Eldar, CSM and Tyranids, I can say that having a grossly overpowered army is just as fun (in other words, not at all) as having a grossly underpowered one. To give a clearer picture of what I mean, consider my two most favourite units in the game: the Wraithknight and the Tyranid Warrior. Neither of these things I can enjoy using, despite having a great love for them and the armies they are part of.

EDIT: Remember the 6th Edition Wave Serpent?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
PLEASE READ BEFORE RESPONDING: This is not a comprehensive or concrete list of suggestions. This is not a thread for people to complain about the relative power of their armies. I am trying to get a sense of whether the stereotype of Tau/Eldar players that's being sold to the Proposed Rules forum has any basis in fact.

I'm seeing a lot of massive buffs to non-Eldar/Tau units and broad sweeping changes to the core rules in Proposed Rules getting justified as necessary to compete in a world of Riptides, Scatterbikes, and D-weapons. When I've asked I've also been told that giving massive buffs to the rest of the game is somehow more palatable than trying to suggest fixes to the problem units in the game, and that Eldar/Tau players would object to their toys being taken away.

As an Eldar player I'm finding this extremely confusing, as I happen to think that intentionally choosing not to play with massed D-weapons/scatterbikes or putting up suggestions here that distortion be nerfed and Windriders be limited to one gun per three models is more balanced, more straightforward, and less annoying than stuffing the rest of the game with massive price cuts, easy access to Fleshbane/2+ poison, and 30k heavy support squads (at a 5pt/model discount over the original, of course).

So I'd like to hear firsthand from other Eldar players and some Tau players. Firsthand. Directly. Would you be more annoyed to wake up tomorrow and find out that Riptides had become 3+ armour and Riptides/Stormsurges had lost access to stimulant injectors, that Windrider Jetbikes had been downgraded to 4+ armour and split into a Troops unit capped at one gun per three models and a Fast Attack unit that could have as many guns as they liked (and couldn't be taken in a Windrider Host formation), and that Wraithknights had been bumped to 450pts and could only be taken as 0-1 per Core choice in a Craftworld Warhost rather than as an Auxiliary choice? Or if you woke up tomorrow to find that vehicles now had an armour save, that Plague Marines had 2+ Poison on all attacks of any kind, and that all Land Raider-chassis tanks had become 50pts cheaper overnight?

As a follow-up question: What makes people so attached to the 220pt Ion Accelerator/Stimulant Injector Riptide, the D-Scythe Wraithguard, and the 27pt/model 100%-gun-density scatterbike unit that they insist on revising the entire game around them, rather than change them in any way?

As an Eldar player, I would give jetbikes a 4+ armor, I would make heavier weapons only available in 1 in 3 jetbikes. I would raise the Wraithknight price to 450 pts. I would also remove the D strength for the distortion weapons and replace it with a weapon that wounds on a specific roll a bit like poisonned weapons with a possibility for Instant Death like it used to. A race for even more powerful weapons and units would only serve to make even more obsolete troop choices with basic weapons and/or force more models on the table, augment the starting cost for an army and lengthen game even more than now. Having formation priced and/or give disadvantages in addition to bonuses would also be interesting and could serve to balance some of them.