Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I explicitly noted facing as an element - S6 is incapable of damaging a knight from its front facing (and IIRC, its side facing) of 13.

You recall incorrectly. Knights are AV 12 on the side. So STR 3 rending, STR 6 AP 1/2, etc, can all damage a knight. The only example that is really relevant is low-strength force weapons, which are both rare and extremely difficult to deliver to a target as mobile as a Riptide.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction. But I am correct that the front armor is 13, so S3 rending and S6 AP1/2 cannot damage a knight from the front, yes?

I'll concede that the IK is too vulnerable for its points and the Riptide is too resistant to damage for its points, which I did so already several times, because its true.

Edit: Also, for the force weapons, any strength of 6 or less would result in IK immunity and Riptide vulnerability, as all CC attacks are resolved against a Walker's front facing. Their rarity will depend on the army, and the delivery mechanism... is concededly difficult.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

When everyone feels hard done by it usually means equality.

Equality does not always connote efficiency or optimal. Pure socialism is great for equality, but can end up dragging everyone below "acceptable" status.

But hey, I don't mind if we're dragging everyone and everything down to BA levels, I just happen to think that would require significantly more work than curbing the worst offenders (yes, that includes Riptides, just not to the extent suggested by Martel, et al.) and boosting those most in need (including BA, Orks, and Tyranids).

Nvs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nvs wrote:
If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

In AoS every monster comes with an independent table describing how an arbitrary set of weapon stats and rules are affected as it loses Wounds. Personally I hate the AoS implementation, because there's no consistent pattern to what's affected and how it's affected, which means you need to learn an extra couple of dozen numbers to play any monster without needing to constantly check back at the warscroll, but in principle the idea that a vehicle or monster should just get linearly 'worse' as it takes wounds without needing to roll on the damage table isn't a bad one.

And is it static or do you basically roll on this table every wound? Because anything that takes additional rolling is a nonstarter IMO.

I'd be fine with MCs in general being given a primary weapon, secondary weapon, and melee weapon and just make it so the first wound takes out the secondary weapon, the second would takes out the primary, and the third halves attacks rounding up. And then any other wound would do nothing special until the creature eventually dies. So long as they keep generic rules today so these things are still a threat until they're torn down it should be fine.