Banning 2+ Reroll Saves in 40K tournaments?

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.

**pizzaguardian**

@labmouse42

Excuse me but are you saying in order to counter the top 2 builds you have to give up on your ability to counter other builds?

And wouldnt those said eldar/tau builds get crushed against the top 2 builds?

/sarcasm

i agree with 2++ rerolling is nigh impossible to counter. Eldar seercouncilthough still strong is somewhat killable in combination of ignore cover ap2 (available for tau even without buff commander) or with plain old beatstick. Screamerstar on the other hand requires specific armament (mass tfc or gk stomravens) in order to just slow down let alone destroy the screamerstar.

Maybe the dreaded d-weapons will be our saviour to these scourges.

**Inquisitor_Dunn**

Next they will say BA are broken because of Corbulo.....LOL

He has a 3+/2+++

Screamer Star doesn't mean

to an armor 15 fortress with a D-cannon! Bring on Stronghold Assault! Let the new supplements even the playing field.

**Big Blind Bill**

Breng77 wrote:
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Because it causes other people not to show up?

Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?

I presume this was in response to my post. I'll simply say that the same thing can be said for Serpent spam and many other tactics which are considered cheesy.

There are many lists around that are not fun to play against or might dissuade players from attending. I'm sure the TauDar meta has had this effect on some people.

Pitting the most competitive lists against each other is what tournaments are about, and to limit some of the competitors but not others is out of order in my books.

The last line is entirely your opinion....for many people that is not what tournaments are all about. I'm with you that 2+ re-roll lists are not the only unfun thing to play against that might deter attendees.

I just think it is short sighted and naive to think that there isn't some issue with the game right now that was not present before.

You think 2+ re-roll is bad, how about 21 Broadsides in an army....or just broadsides in every army?

I'm with Mike in waiting through the end of these releases, but there is no rule that the "competitive" side of thing cannot change things to make a more competitive/interesting game.

Tournaments already do this with missions, changes to how warlord traits are chose, leaving out mysterious stuff, 1999+1 events (this already was many people saying...lets not just bring the most competitive lists, because they are crazy broken/stupid), time limits on games, some have Comp in some method.

Will some people always bring the strongest available list? Yeah they will....toning down what that strongest available list is makes the games those players play against players not bringing the stongest list a bit more enjoyable.

No. I'm still sticking with the idea that tournaments are competitive. That is the definition of a tournament after all. People play the game for many reasons, but at the end of the day tournaments are there to be won, and the best way to win is to pick the most competitive list they can.

Now, if 2++ saves were causing an imbalance in the game, if lists that focused around them won the vast majority of the games they were played in, then sure I would support a change. However the facts simply do not support this. As it stands 2++ save builds are competitive, but not unbeatable. They provide some strong tactics to those armies that can attain it, and to remove it would simply remove a selection of viable builds for those armies.

Nowhere have I said that warhammer in its current state cannot be improved, so I don't feel that I am 'short sighted' or 'naive' in any way. Sure there are plenty of in-game imbalances, however crowbaring rules into a tournament is not the correct way to address it.
Doing so may create more imbalances than it solves, and will certainly annoy players who wish to use those strategies.

This of course changes if something is so far out of balance that it makes the game unplayable (think old fantasy Daemons, they had to release a new edition to solve that problem), but at the moment, 2++ saves are clearly not such a problem.

**Breng77**

The definition of tournament is a competition where all attendees compete for an overall prize. That in no way indicates that there are no rules in place to dictate how this is done.

I'm not suggesting you need agree with what changes people want to make. But to say the equivalent of: "Everyone at a tournament is there to win and should bring the most powerful thing they can think of...otherwise it is their fault when they don't have fun...afterall this is about winning not about fun."

Is false and always has been about 40k tournaments....and is the attitude that leads people to dropping when they can "no longer win" If 40k tournaments were all about winning they might as well have been single elimination, why bother playing games when you don't impact the final result after all?

You admit 40k could be improved but doing it at tournaments is not how to do it so how then should it be done?

Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.

**frgsinwntr**

Here is a better option.... limit the amount of psyker levels an army can bring? seems to fix it... keep the 2+ rerollable but you can't bring more than 10 levels of psykers to the game... tones down big bug nid psykers, (so we can acutally finish a game..), screamer star, and jet seer....

**Big Blind Bill**

Breng77 wrote:
Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.

Sure. But there are more things besides 2++ saves that potentially unbalance the game. As a TO, if you ban only one"overpowered" option, but not the others, then you risk unbalancing the game against one codex. You may think 2++ saves are powerful, but then again so are mass tau missile spam lists that shoots things out of line of sight, or wave serpents with a 4+ cover save that ignore penetrating hits. Should I even mention things like necron air or SM bike lists?

Will you ban all of these things because they are efficient? Where will it end?

By banning only a select few units in one codex you risk alienating all the attendees using that particular army and also potentially hinder their capability to compete. This will harm your tournament.

**Badablack**

Why don't you just put all the rules in a bottle, Kingsley?

**Breng77**

Big Blind Bill wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.

Sure. But there are more things besides 2++ saves that potentially unbalance the game. As a TO, if you ban only one"overpowered" option, but not the others, then you risk unbalancing the game against one codex. You may think 2++ saves are powerful, but then again so are mass tau missile spam lists that shoots things out of line of sight, or wave serpents with a 4+ cover save that ignore penetrating hits. Should I even mention things like necron air or SM bike lists?

Will you ban all of these things because they are efficient? Where will it end?

By banning only a select few units in one codex you risk alienating all the attendees using that particular army and also potentially hinder their capability to compete. This will harm your tournament.

Hey I never claimed that 2+ re-roll was the only thing that needed to be changed...in fact in previous threads Somewhere I posted a list of "rules changes" I would make to make the game more fun for all involved. TO the best of my recall they were

1.) Grimoir only effects the "Daemon" invul save.

2.) Change Fortune to Unit Ignores failed saves on a roll of 4+.

3.) Redact the 360 degree Heldrake FAQ.

4.) Change Markerlights back to -1 cover save per light spent.

5.) Change Serpent shields - any number of possible ways (Change range, make it one use only, change ignores cover to ignores jink, diminishing returns based on usage (i.e. you get less shots, and less durability each time you fire it or something)

6.) Fix buff commander: allow maybe only 2 signature systems and require them to take up his support slots.

7.) Fix artilery rules allowing all crew to benefit from T7.

I'm sure people could think of other possibilities...That said many thought that it was fixing too many things, but IMO it fixes to some extent the most common complaints I hear in the game.

I also suggested in the proposed rules a change to the FOC overall that prevents a lot of crazy builds but that is a much larger change to the core game rules.

**RiTides**

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Next they will say BA are broken because of Corbulo.....LOL

He has a 3+/2+++

Is there an accepted notation for all this "+" nonsense getting typed these days

I hadn't seen "+++" before... is that common, and if so, is this a correct key?

#+ = Normal save
#++ = Normal save that is rerollable
#+++ = Invulnerable save
??? = Invulnerable save that is rerollable

Or is "+++" actually uncommon, and people are using "#++" whether something is a normal or invulnerable save, just to denote that it is rerollable?

I'm having trouble distinguishing when something is an invulnerable save and when it isn't from the nomenclature people are using. If there's a standard, please link me to it

. I can't be the only one with this question so maybe it would help others, too... thanks

---------------------------------------------------------

My personal preference would be for #+ to denote a normal save, #++ to denote an invulnerable save, and simply typing "rerollable" or some other symbol to denote rerolls. "+++" feels like crazy town

Maybe this is how people are already using it, just wondering if there is a standard!

**Big Blind Bill**

Hey I never claimed that 2+ re-roll was the only thing that needed to be changed...in fact in previous threads Somewhere I posted a list of "rules changes" I would make to make the game more fun for all involved. TO the best of my recall they were

1.) Grimoir only effects the "Daemon" invul save.

2.) Change Fortune to Unit Ignores failed saves on a roll of 4+.

3.) Redact the 360 degree Heldrake FAQ.

4.) Change Markerlights back to -1 cover save per light spent.

5.) Change Serpent shields - any number of possible ways (Change range, make it one use only, change ignores cover to ignores jink, diminishing returns based on usage (i.e. you get less shots, and less durability each time you fire it or something)

6.) Fix buff commander: allow maybe only 2 signature systems and require them to take up his support slots.

7.) Fix artilery rules allowing all crew to benefit from T7.

I'm sure people could think of other possibilities...That said many thought that it was fixing too many things, but IMO it fixes to some extent the most common complaints I hear in the game.

I also suggested in the proposed rules a change to the FOC overall that prevents a lot of crazy builds but that is a much larger change to the core game rules.

As an entry in a FAQ or new edition rule book, these might be ok. However if running a tournament I would never attempt to alter so many rules which effect the meta armies. Doing so would push away more people than it would attract.

For a safe bet at making a successful tournament, I would stick to changing/clarifying rules which are existing points of contention, rather than creating new ones by altering Codices.

It all comes down to this:

Are 2++ re-rollable saves dominating tournaments to such an extent that they need removing?
Would removing the 2++ save solve more arguments than it causes?
Would removing the 2++ encourage more players to attend the event?

To all 3 of these questions I believe the answer is no. Regardless of your opinion on the state of balance of 40k, and unless something is truly broken, the TO should only be there to clarify rules and set the points level of play, not to create a different arbitrary rule sets that change the army lists of the participants.

To do this would cause the TO more problems.

**Breng77**

and the point of contention right now is that they Meta Armies might be driving people away from the game. You are right that as a single (smaller GT) TO I would never do all those things because the cost is to large for any one event.

What would need to happen is for a majority of TOs (and players) to agree on a tournament rule set/format. Covering any rules changes and have it be consistent. If all/many tournaments are run with said rules the chance of success is higher.

Now I'm not saying this will happen. However, the problem right now is not points of contention, TOs already clear these up...it is that things we all agree work, that are no fun to play with, but win games.

When as a TO you see lots of people not enjoying the game, thinking of solutions is fairly natural...now whether you use them is something else.

I also find it a sad statement, that slight nerfs to top armies will push players away when many admit that these things are "broken" or "too powerful".

I personally play screamer star and would prefer the change I listed above because it is no fun to play and just leads to games where people complain all the time....

**Big Blind Bill**

Breng77 wrote:
and the point of contention right now is that they Meta Armies might be driving people away from the game. You are right that as a single (smaller GT) TO I would never do all those things because the cost is to large for any one event.

What would need to happen is for a majority of TOs (and players) to agree on a tournament rule set/format. Covering any rules changes and have it be consistent. If all/many tournaments are run with said rules the chance of success is higher.

Now I'm not saying this will happen. However, the problem right now is not points of contention, TOs already clear these up...it is that things we all agree work, that are no fun to play with, but win games.

When as a TO you see lots of people not enjoying the game, thinking of solutions is fairly natural...now whether you use them is something else.

I also find it a sad statement, that slight nerfs to top armies will push players away when many admit that these things are "broken" or "too powerful".

I personally play screamer star and would prefer the change I listed above because it is no fun to play and just leads to games where people complain all the time....

Yeah, I agree with this.

A tournament faq released quarterly, decided upon by the hosts of all the major tournaments in an area, might work towards setting a more balanced competitive standard.

**Dude_I_Suck**

RiTides wrote:
Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Next they will say BA are broken because of Corbulo.....LOL

He has a 3+/2+++

Is there an accepted notation for all this "+" nonsense getting typed these days

I hadn't seen "+++" before... is that common, and if so, is this a correct key?

#+ = Normal save
#++ = Normal save that is rerollable
#+++ = Invulnerable save
??? = Invulnerable save that is rerollable

Or is "+++" actually uncommon, and people are using "#++" whether something is a normal or invulnerable save, just to denote that it is rerollable?

I'm having trouble distinguishing when something is an invulnerable save and when it isn't from the nomenclature people are using. If there's a standard, please link me to it . I can't be the only one with this question so maybe it would help others, too... thanks

---------------------------------------------------------

My personal preference would be for #+ to denote a normal save, #++ to denote an invulnerable save, and simply typing "rerollable" or some other symbol to denote rerolls. "+++" feels like crazy town

Maybe this is how people are already using it, just wondering if there is a standard!

#+ = armour
#++ = invul
#+++ = FnP

The "+" just signifies tiers of ignoring wounds. That's why we say "2++ rerollable" etc when we are talking about this.

One the post above, there are indy tourny FAQs, one for west coast and one for east coast, just like how the formats are for BAO west and NOVA east.

**RiTides**

Thanks for the nomenclature

**Oaka**

Rather than banning anything that can be taken normally according to the rules, add a unique scenario objective to one of your tournament missions. For example:

Warp Flux : This battle takes place extremely close to a warp rift, bending the laws of space and time. No dice may be rerolled during this game, for any reason.

Just let everyone who is interested in the tournament know that this rule will be in place for one or more of the missions, and then let them decide if it is worth bring a 2++ reroll unit. It also affects master-crafted, twin-linked, etc. and would provide for a quite interesting game.

I ran a tournament where I wanted to ban flyers, this is when sixth edition first came out and not every codex had flyers or a good counter to them. Needless to say, it did not go over well with the community. People want to be able to take their list and their models without any banning. So, I created additional rules to the tournament where every player got a free Icarus lascannon that was an indestructible objective, rather than banning flyers. It worked great. In one game, the Necron player had so many flyers and no ground units, that his opponent actually made it to his enemy's Icarus objective and started shooting down croissants with both gun emplacements, as well as his own Aegis quadgun!

**Breng77**

The problem with something like that is that it nerfs tons of other units which don't really need nerfing. For example, Chaplains.

**MagickalMemories**

avedominusnox wrote:
My opinion is that we play the game as it is. If anyone started to ban what he personally disliked... Dunno it feels so wrong.
The game has rules and rules are not to be broken. Best idea is to make people play casual games instead of fully competitive lists.
You can't force people to follow your changes. That is why we buy rulebooks.

This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).

...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.

Eric

**Breng77**

Which is of course your choice...as it would be for someone to not play in an even that allowed all sorts for broken stuff.

**Oaka**

MagickalMemories wrote:

This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).

...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.

Eric

I can only assume your strategy is to scare away every TO in your area from hosting tournaments, thereby making you undefeated in tournaments in your area.

Breng77 wrote:
The problem with something like that is that it nerfs tons of other units which don't really need nerfing. For example, Chaplains.

But, it at least allows selection of any unit in the rules. I can't think of many people that rely on a Chaplain in order for their army to work, but a lot of armies need that 2++ reroll.

**Breng77**

I would not say a lot of armies need a 2+ re-roll to work (I can think of 2), it would have a much greater effect on things like prefered enemy, twin linked weapons, divination spells etc, than 2+ re-rolls. Fixing the 2+ re-roll still allows those people to take those armies without the super buff, where as yours nerfs them and lots of other things that are not needed.

**MagickalMemories**

Oaka wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:

This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).

...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.

Eric

I can only assume your strategy is to scare away every TO in your area from hosting tournaments, thereby making you undefeated in tournaments in your area.

Am I so transparent? LOL

Nah. In truth, I just don't like it when people use their position of power to force their own bias onto people.

Eric

**avedominusnox**

Reecius wrote:
@Aftermath

I am 100% aware of the irony of our team name and my current stance on these issues. It is funny.

But, Team Zero Comp was something that came about as we lived in an area where there were only comp heavy tournaments and 5th edition, pre-GK, was really balanced comparative to any other point in the game.

This is different.

Can you beat these armies? Yes.

Are they fluky? Yes. 1/8 games they don't get their combination of powers and they take a crap. 7/8 games they do, and the game is a joke.

I personally am all about finding a way to win, and learning how to deconstruct and beat the "unbeatable" armies as it gives me a lot of satisfaction. Not everyone thinks that way.

It is very, very easy for some people to simply say, "tell everyone to just deal with it and stop being pussies."

Yup, I know the feeling. I used to be that way myself.

But, it is a HUGE difference when you are the one with tens of thousands of dollars on the line running a big gaming convention. I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.

While a lot of tournament goers share the opinions of those expressed here, the simple truth of the matter is that the health and well being of a convention rests on the bottom 94% of the attendees coming. Straight up. The top 16 will be the top 16 regardless of format. The guys with the mental mastery of the game can go to any event in any format and win. The guys coming to have fun, can't because they do not have the time nor the inclination to invest the hours of study it takes to get to that point.

The reason these conversations are coming up is that for the first time ever in this game, their are lists that take skill out of the equation. That pisses off top players and it pisses off casual players. For the first time, everyone is pissed! haha, that is a problem.

So, we are talking about ideas that may help to mitigate this.

Do any of you really think that going from invincible status with a 2+ reroll to neigh-invincible status with a 2+/4+ is really going to kill any build? A 2+/4+ is what Draigowing was last edition and that was considered slowed OP then. We're talking about simply backing it up enough so that if another player must engage the deathstar unit, they actually have a chance of hurting it.

It's saying instead of 108 Bolter shots to cause a SINGLE WOUND, we're talking about the still stupid, 36 bolter shots.

Is that really that big of a deal?

While I agree that we need to play as close to the rules as possible, we are coming to a point in the game where you can have 6 books in a single list, or more.

Super Heavies on the table.

It's all legal now. If we don't allow any of it, we are "banning" things. There is no difference in saying, we are going to ban super heavies in our tournament because we think it won't be fun, than saying, we're going to ban a 2+ reroll (or nerf it, to be more accurate) because we think it will be more fun for more people.

And, as a player, would you choose to not go to an event because of this nerf to simply allow people to actually fight back against certain units that are becoming increasingly prevalent? Even if attacking said units is a bad idea in the first place? All it does is take away that sense of hopelessness that turns players away form coming back to a tournament. The units still function in the exact same way they did before, but with a slight, and IMO reasonable reduction to make everything more fun for everyone.

Again, not saying that this WILL happen, but that we should consider it.

That is what we are talking about, not banning entire armies which, come on, even on the internet that is being excessively hyperbolic. We're talking about extremely targeted nerfs, that modify the game in as small a way as possible to attempt to level the playing field so that more armies are viable, and that more people can enjoy the game they are playing.

That is the only truth, and I m 100% with you.
I can't believe people waited for the escaltation to release so they can start speaking of 2++ and they forget necrons and other OP things. But after all haters will eventually do what they live for.

**Kyrolon**

@Reecius

I am not terribly familiar (okay at all familiar) with the current tournament environment. My tournament playing days were back in my 20 something youth of 1999-2000. Back then (early 3rd edition) there were units you needed to contend with that were nearly impervious to the same kind of fire you described for the 2++ rerolls. It took 100+ shuriken catapult (or bolter) shots to take down a single death company marine. This added to the furious charge rules and blood rage made blood angles almost impossible to kill. We also had to deal with Thousand Sons troops that were written to be completely immune to anything less than str 5. So that's an infinite amount of S4 small arms.

These kind of units are not new. Both of these units needed Anti Tank weapons (which were far less common back then) to take out. Are the new deathstars that much worse?

One thing I will point out, back in the day (boy do I sound old now) they did limit comp. Most local tournaments followed the GW grand tournament pattern and encouraged lots of troops and non duplication. I was a pseudo outrider at the time (my friend was the actual outrider, but I helped him do all the local organizing) and we carried over these policies in local tournaments to good effect as much as they chafed sometimes.

One other thing I've noticed looking at the tournament write-ups here is that the limits have gone up over the years. Back in our day (there's that phrase again

) we played at 1500 pts with a 250 pt swappable option. Sometimes the last round would allow all 1750 pts to be used.

This solved 2 problems. At 1500 pts and with the comp (no more than 25% spent on HQ or loose comp pts) the really pricy deathstar units were impractical. When you only have 1500 pts to work with, and need to seize multiple objectives, a 750 pt deathstar is a HUGE investment. It also kept the rounds manageable so that they finished. It seems this might mitigate two of the biggest problems I've seen come up on forums.

You know your target audience better than I do. Have any of these been tried? Are they worth considering?

**morgendonner**

Kyrolon wrote:
These kind of units are not new. Both of these units needed Anti Tank weapons (which were far less common back then) to take out. Are the new deathstars that much worse?

Yes, because there is not weapon (ignoring Strength D because that isn't going to happen) that circumvents rerollable 2+ invulnerable saves. It's not a matter of having the right weapons, it's that there are none. Regardless of if you fire 36 lascannons or 36 bolter shots, that will result in 1 wound on average.

Kyrolon wrote:
At 1500 pts and with the comp (no more than 25% spent on HQ or loose comp pts) the really pricy deathstar units were impractical. When you only have 1500 pts to work with, and need to seize multiple objectives, a 750 pt deathstar is a HUGE investment. It also kept the rounds manageable so that they finished. It seems this might mitigate two of the biggest problems I've seen come up on forums.

Lowering the points is an interesting idea, but probably would only make the matter worse as both the seer council and the screamer star both easily fit in at 1500 while opponents would have even less tools to try and deal with them. Also both of these deathstars have no problem with objectives in the sense you mention, both can break into 4 separate units which are almost entirely jetbikes (meanining they can capture/contest > 36" away).

**avedominusnox**

I don't really understand how can FW with 2++ rerollable is broken, while the key is to kill grim holder. This is broken? And 3 riptides are not? Serpent spam with auto-hit shield is not? Baron 2++ rerollable is not?

**morgendonner**

avedominusnox wrote:
I don't really understand how can FW with 2++ rerollable is broken, while the key is to kill grim holder. This is broken? And 3 riptides are not? Serpent spam with auto-hit shield is not? Baron 2++ rerollable is not?

Erm, nobody is talking about FW...? Baron with a 2++ rerollable is exactly along the lines of what we're talking about. 3 Riptides is annoying, but not game-breaking. For comparison a 2+ rerollable Seer Council will not have taken a single wound by the time one Riptide is dead. By the time you've killed 3 Riptides, the council has suffered only 2.5 wounds. Still think those are comparable? And mind you, that's all assuming you're not using any armor ignoring weapons, in which case the council will take even less wounds by the time you kill the Riptides, as they will have rerollable 2+ cover and a rerollable 4++ (or as you mentioned a 2++ with Baron in the front) too while the riptide will just have maybe 3+ cover / 5++.

And serpent spam really isn't broken at all, on average it scores less hits than a tesla destructor does. It's a really good vehicle, don't get me wrong. It's just far from being as game-changing as the jetseer is.

**Breng77**

The thing Serpents have going for them VS Tesla Destructors are several though.

1.) Range
2.) Ignores Cover
3.) Possibly Rending.

Tesla Destructors are nasty but they always give the opponent their best save, where as the serpent often does not.

You are right that it is Not on the level of the Jetseer though.

**Kirasu**

I tend to think that those that think 2++ rerollable is just as annoying as a riptide don't understand probability.. To kill 15 wounds worth of riptides using non AP2 weapons you need to cause 90ish wounds

To kill 15 wounds worth of 2+ re-rollable you need to do 540! (or 1792 bolter shots ) There is a difference, it's no where even close to the same thing.

1/6 != 1/36

**Breng77**

I think that those that look at it that way though fail to seek the full impact of units (and I'm not saying 2++ equald riptide)

Those 3 Riptides put out quite a bit more offensive capability than a a screamer star for example for less points.

I think 2+ re-rolls on mass scale need fixing, but so do some other things that equate to just as little enjoyment for opposing players.

Also I think your math is off it only takes 1620 bolter shots to kill 15 wounds worth of 2+ re-rollable models with a T4

It takes 810 bolter shots to do 15 wounds to those riptides..So the 2+-reroll is twice as good as those Riptides as far as durability.

Then again going straight bolter shots is kind of silly because then the Wraithknight wins as uber broken....

AP 2 hurts riptides a lot more.

But it is just as unfun to get blown away by serpents or Riptides etc, early as it is to shoot at a unit all game and do nothing.

**Big Blind Bill**

Tarpitting....denying movement through positioning....... ignoring them and going for the objectives.

As riptides have already proven this edition, just because something is on the table does not mean you have to kill it. There are several alternatives to simply pouring dice at a 2++ re-rollable saves.

Yes they can be annoying, but with random psychic abilities, a 3+ roll of the grimoire and then a psychic test to get the save, its not like the thing is a certainty. Even then it will often require a lot of points and may leave other areas of their list open for exploitation.

Some gunline armies simply do not want to change, and cry imbalance when simply shooting at something won't make it yield. This shows a lack of adaptation to a situation, as opposed to something that needs fixing.