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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.

That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?

Plus at this rate we could see 10th edition before a new Tau codex (Tau being the faction that probably needs a new codex the MOST since 9th edition almost literally broke their army).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.

Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.

It is significantly worse against vehicles and monsters with 4+ saves...Like a raider.

But better against many others. The point stand, imo.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.

That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?

Well, no. But my point was that the codex railguns will probably get a similar treatment once the 9th edition Tau codex is released. But not before. Gw is taking a hard "not until your codex" stance on any weapons that aren't directly related to loyalists it seems.

At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).

Spoiler:

Just was theory crafting how Knight weapons stack up (Chaos Knights are my Primary army, so I think in terms of those weapon profiles more readily).

A Dual Avenger Knight has an evens chance of killing one if it piles all 24 shots into the Raider. If the Raider pops its -1 to hit strat though, it survives with 2 wounds left.

Double Thermal Knight doesn't seem to kill it reliably. Magaera (which is the competitive hotness right now... well, for Knights anyway ) doesn't kill it reliably.

(Base profiles on all these - I'm not factoring in specific traits and the like).

This obviously doesn't say anything definitive other than describing at what point a specific weapons type takes a Raider out of course, but I'm surprised at just how survivable they are in practice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).

Spoiler:

Where are you getting these numbers Daed? That website that doesn't work for me?

@Straylight: Same question.

Unitcrunch.com

I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.

10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.

If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.

10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.

If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.

Far less than that many. I think over 6 saturates too much and winning lists lean that way.

It would be important to dump out the right boats, and, to draw out the -1 on a non-key boat if possible.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).

Spoiler:

Where are you getting these numbers Daed? That website that doesn't work for me?

@Straylight: Same question.

I used https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/web/ (which is admittedly flawed, and badly out of date in terms of features) to just get a rough picture (I don't trust it entirely so paper and calculator to see if we're in the same ball park afterwards.)

I input 24 shots, BS 3, Str 6 AP -2 D 2 as the attacker to represent the Avenger Knight.

T 6, 10 wounds, Invuln of 5 for the Raider.

I just decrease the BS to 4 to represent the -1 strat here.

It's not a great method due to the sites issues, but it gives a somewhat reasonable overview quickly.

(Edit: I get essentially the same result from unitcrunch also for what it's worth - thanks Daedalus!)

I get three Razorbacks with TLAssault Cannons and Storm Bolters average a Raider knock out. That's without a -1 on the Raider, but also without any rerolls for the Razors. I could also add HK missiles for cheap.

A squadron of Attack Bikes kills one in Melta range.

Daedalus81 wrote:Unitcrunch.com

Yeah, thought so. It still won't let me input AP either. Thanks anyways Daed.

StrayIight wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).

Spoiler:

Where are you getting these numbers Daed? That website that doesn't work for me?

@Straylight: Same question.

I used https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/web/ (which is admittedly flawed, and badly out of date in terms of features) to just get a rough picture (I don't trust it entirely so paper and calculator to see if we're in the same ball park afterwards.)

I input 24 shots, BS 3, Str 6 AP -2 D 2 as the attacker to represent the Avenger Knight.

T 6, 10 wounds, Invuln of 5 for the Raider.

I just decrease the BS to 4 to represent the -1 strat here.

It's not a great method due to the sites issues, but it gives a somewhat reasonable overview quickly.

(Edit: I get essentially the same result from unitcrunch also for what it's worth - thanks Daedalus!)

That's what I generally use as well, but it doesn’t do the probability like Daed's site or whatever Goonhammer is using. Thanks though.

Yeah, thought so. It still won't let me input AP either. Thanks anyways Daed.

It should work as long as you do a negative value

 Insectum7 wrote:
I get three Razorbacks with TLAssault Cannons and Storm Bolters average a Raider knock out. That's without a -1 on the Raider, but also without any rerolls for the Razors. I could also add HK missiles for cheap.

A squadron of Attack Bikes kills one in Melta range.

Those 390 points of Razorbacks only kill a Raider ~50% of the time in devastator doctrine. You need to average at least 50% more wounds than a target has or you're leaving the death of a key unit to a coinflip.

Also, Razorbacks don't have core so what's getting them rerolls?

It takes 7 Raiders with Dark Lances to (average) kill one Raider with a Dark Lance. .666×.666×.666×5=1.477

Takes 5 Raiders to kill a Razorback

Compared to 3 TLAC+SB Razors to kill a Raider. 3-4 TLas HK-Missile Razors to get a Raider.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yeah, thought so. It still won't let me input AP either. Thanks anyways Daed.

It should work as long as you do a negative value

That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It takes 7 Raiders with Dark Lances to (average) kill one Raider with a Dark Lance. .666×.666×.666×5=1.477

Takes 5 Raiders to kill a Razorback

Compared to 3 TLAC+SB Razors to kill a Raider. 3-4 TLas HK-Missile Razors to get a Raider.

Yes and? Raiders are 85 point fast, flying TRANSPORTS that bring 11 nasty models with them that also bring some serious chip damage with a free gun. Razorbacks can't fit half the units their army wants to use, pay out the nose for their weapons, and are effectively half as mobile to boot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.

It's not as precise as Goonhammers 95% value, but it makes for a good rule of thumb. If you on average just barely kill a target that's a coin flip, if you do 50% more wounds then it takes a lot going wrong to turn that attack into a whiff.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.

Not quite. e.g. 5 Assblasters average 10 wounds, but have a 63% chance to pop it.

Really you want to minimize the 2/4/6 results. A raider on 8 wounds can be managed with small arms. In this setup the chance for 2/4/6 is 15%. If your rolls were leading you to 2 or 4 wounds aiming for 50% more isn't going to save you. It will just ensure you overkill more often than underkill.

It all depends on the list though.



The weapon matters though. This is 10 lascannons with an average 10 wounds and a 63.7% chance to kill, but it has over 20% under 8 wounds for the results and lots of overkill, too. The good thing about LC is that you can probably drop only a couple at a time and reach for some lucky results.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It takes 7 Raiders with Dark Lances to (average) kill one Raider with a Dark Lance. .666×.666×.666×5=1.477

Takes 5 Raiders to kill a Razorback

Compared to 3 TLAC+SB Razors to kill a Raider. 3-4 TLas HK-Missile Razors to get a Raider.

Yes and? Raiders are 85 point fast, flying TRANSPORTS that bring 11 nasty models with them that also bring some serious chip damage with a free gun. Razorbacks can't fit half the units their army wants to use, pay out the nose for their weapons, and are effectively half as mobile to boot.

Razorbacks are TRANSPORTS too.

Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

This seems to be the first article of this type at Goonhammer. Can anyone provide any data for other vehicles for context? They're aiming for a 95% kill chance, but that seems like a very awkward metric. Practically guarantee'd dead versus reasonably dead is an important distinction in a dice game that can have plenty of different circumstances.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.

10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.

If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.

Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.

5-6 seems to be the sweet spot, the winning lists seem to all cluster around that number.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Razorbacks are TRANSPORTS too.

Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.

It can be a problem for people whose whole armies are made out of termintors or large chunks being primaris. I ain't gonna lie though, I wish termintors could drive around in rhinos and razorbacks.

Altima wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-killing-drukhari-raiders-imperial-edition/

I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.

This seems to be the first article of this type at Goonhammer. Can anyone provide any data for other vehicles for context? They're aiming for a 95% kill chance, but that seems like a very awkward metric. Practically guarantee'd dead versus reasonably dead is an important distinction in a dice game that can have plenty of different circumstances.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.

10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.

If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.

Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.

I have not seen a top list with more than 6 so far. The top 2 from that 8 round event was 6 and 4. No one takes them just to take them empty, they are not good enough to just take without a purpose (85pts for 10w mobile single DL is not good enough by it self lol). They take them b.c they need them. If you need 3 you take 3, if you need 5 you take 5.

Edit: Maybe if venoms were cheaper people would take them empty? But not a raider, not anymore at least back in the day with old vehicles rules (3rd-5th for example) empty raiders were really good b.c movement blocks, tie ups in melee, charge blocks, etc... and DE had beaststars as well as terrain had real rules so you could have things out of transports and live.

The raider got major buffs with no real points increase and this is almost certainly part of the problem. I don't however think its good enough to run by itself. The key thing is that it helps your equally buffed up characters+wyches+incubi+DT wracks etc who are getting Eradicator level returns on so many units in the game (especially Marines). Running an empty raider makes about as much sense as foot-slogging the above units. You could, but why?

Second order mathhammer (I'm going to push this term even if it makes no sense) is cool and can give you a clearer idea of how the game works - rather than averagehammer which is more useful for optimising lists. But it can mislead if you don't give all the information. Because okay - ignoring the rule of 3 - it might be useful to know I'd need 4-5 squads of Suppressors to get a 95% chance of killing a raider. But if I were to have them in my army, what's my chances of killing 2? Or even 3? Or my chances of killing one and leaving another with say 2-4 wounds that other units in my army can easily pick off? I think emphasising the 95% probably gives you an exaggerated perception of resilience - which you would see for other units if you did the same sort of calculations.

The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.

Tyel wrote:

The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.

Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.

Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.

This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Razorbacks are TRANSPORTS too.

Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.

It can be a problem for people whose whole armies are made out of termintors or large chunks being primaris. I ain't gonna lie though, I wish termintors could drive around in rhinos and razorbacks.

Well once upon a time they could... I'm pretty sure in the 2e launch White Dwarf the BA army took a rhino for that exact purpose. The major issue I've had with assault termies is that thier delivery systems costs as much, if not more than the unit it's self... However thats getting sidetracked...

Back to Drukhari

Amishprn86 wrote:

Altima wrote:


Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.

I have not seen a top list with more than 6 so far. The top 2 from that 8 round event was 6 and 4. No one takes them just to take them empty, they are not good enough to just take without a purpose (85pts for 10w mobile single DL is not good enough by it self lol). They take them b.c they need them. If you need 3 you take 3, if you need 5 you take 5.

Edit: Maybe if venoms were cheaper people would take them empty? But not a raider, not anymore at least back in the day with old vehicles rules (3rd-5th for example) empty raiders were really good b.c movement blocks, tie ups in melee, charge blocks, etc... and DE had beaststars as well as terrain had real rules so you could have things out of transports and live.

I'd agree a single DL isn't enough to warrant getting an otherwise empty Raider. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that sub 90ts for a fast, flying, really quite durable (that 5++ is so good), open topped transport would be quite a bargain. I think almost every army could put such a transport to good use.

The force multiplication affect is simply huge – Liquifiers (especially DT), Kalabite Squads (that can bring a couple of blasters, their own DL, and a phantasm GL) can fire with relative impunity out of their surprisingly hard to crack flying boxes.

That you get a DL on top of this is means that the Raider is simply, and quite utterly amazing.

Whilst you may be buying the Raider for the transport of (upto) 11 unfriendly space elves, you do also get a really nice weapon (which may have a re-roll depending on selections). Granted 1 won't do much, but when you take 4-6 raider you can easily end up with ½ a dozen DLs. I think this is clearly a contributory factor to the players feeling that when they bring 2k of Drukhari they’ve got an extra 200 or so points on the field.

To me a reasonable ‘best case’ of under costing is raising the Raider (inc DL) by 15 (if not 20) points to account for the DL. So those 4/6 Raiders are, at present bring an extra 60 – 120 points (4 x 15 pts and 6 x 20pts).

The ‘Worst Case’ is 6 Raiders bring 6 DL, which is the equivalent firepower of 2 Ravagers (already pretty appealing prices at sub 150pts), which would put the ‘extra’ capability from 6 Raiders to just above 275 pts…

Of the two I'd lean towards the former.

 StrayIight wrote:

Tyel wrote:

The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.

Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.

Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.

This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.

And without the Invul they would be a PoS vehicle that wouldn't live long enough to want one and would need to be cheaper.

Tyel wrote:
The raider got major buffs with no real points increase and this is almost certainly part of the problem.

The Drukhari transports (and troops) got a crippling hike in points in the Munitorum Field Manual, for no reason apparent at the time.

 StrayIight wrote:

Tyel wrote:

The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.

Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.

Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.

This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.

it is not inherently a mechanical problem if some or all of the AP stat of a weapon can be wasted due to an invuln.

Already, the strength, AP and damage stats of a weapon are all conditional upon the stats of the target. firing S9 at T6 wastes 2 points of strength. Firing AP-3 at sv 4+/5++ wastes 2 points of AP. That's an inefficient target to shoot then - good thing there are S6/S7 Ap-/Ap-1 weapons that you can fire that won't waste any stats at all.

Currently I feel like 10-15pts undercosted, but the defensive stats it has in comparison with the 'standard vehicle chassis' are good for the game, not bad. It is good for the game to have a vehicle that exists that makes high-AP high-strength antitank weapons less optimal and makes mid-strength low-AP weapons like autocannons more optimal. Not having there be one optimal class of weapon to kill X category of thing is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The raider got major buffs with no real points increase and this is almost certainly part of the problem.

The Drukhari transports (and troops) got a crippling hike in points in the Munitorum Field Manual, for no reason apparent at the time.

Are you talking the 2020 MFM? Because in 2021 they went down 5pts.