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.
Savageconvoy wrote: Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Should mention the Archeron Imperial Knight, it has a Hellstorm (so the APOCALYPSE FLAME TEMPLATE) that is S7 AP3 Ordnance and a Reaper Chainfist that is AP2 Strength D on a WS4 Superheavy with 4 attacks....
Xenomancers wrote: Irrelevant because riptides aren't for killing tanks...they are for killing infantry and light vehicles.
And Imperial Knights are meant for only killing vehicles? You just made your own argument irrelevant if that's the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 19:17:25
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
The fact of the matter is the sole issue MOST people have with the Tau is the Riptide, a AP3 double tap battle cannon is a HUGE difference from a AP2 Large Blast w/ possible shenanigans. Think about what you pay for that... 5 points, just let that settle a bit.
Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit, I was given a situation and I ran with it. As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
gmaleron wrote: -Your argument for T6 vs T4, frankly the whole argument using Terminators is kind of silly as they are not a god comparison to go off of, a better comparison would be to use a Dreadknight or Imperial Knight as they are much more similar to the Riptide. The same goes with weaponry, of course S4 weapons are going to be better against T4 infantry, if you are relying on S4 weapons to bring down a MC then that is a problem with your list as in general all MC's need to have anti-armor and Special weapons such as Melta and Plasma to bring them down reliably.
I wasn't the one that brought up the comparison, I was responding to it. And no, not all MCs do have to have special guns to take them out. I've lost far more Carnifexes and Tervigons to bolter fire than I have to Plasma fire.
2 plasma shots, 1 hits, 1 wounds, I get a 5+ cover save.
17 bolter shots (8 dudes plus a pistol from the heavy weapon guy) 11 hit 2 wound, I get a 3+ armor save and rarely ever FNP. (Hint - I took a wound from the bolter fire).
Perhaps you should expand your thought process to include all MCs, not just Wraithknights, Dreadknights and Riptides.
-It is not a complaint about the weapon getting hot, it is a fact. Though it is only a 1/6 chance there is still a chance and after playing with and against Riptides I have seen it happen on numerous occasions even with the FNP save. Most of the mentions are not "complaining" as you put it, but stating it as fact.
Except by emphasizing it as everyone in this thread has when in reality there's a less than 2% chance of it happening, you're trying to bring it to the forefront of the discussion. Sure, it can happen. It's not realistic for it to happen, especially not multiple times per game.
-Saying you "rarely need the 3++" is not an argument as there are multiple other functions of the Nova Charge that make it worthwhile. And again its not a complaint its a fact that there is 1/3 of a chance that you can hurt yourself with no saves of any kind allowed unless you have feel no pain.
Since I was responding to a statement about having to nova charge for the 3++, my statement was very relevant. Yes, there are other options. Those are the more commonly used ones. And yes, you'll take a wound about 10% of the time using them.
But they're a huge benefit (with the HBC. With the IA it's not that big a deal).
-Yes the costing issues ARE minor as the Riptide as it comes is balanced especially when compared to other MC's. As mentioned by several Tau players we agree that the Ion Accelerator is undercosted, personally I feel it should be a 15-20pt. upgrade. Also things like Early Warning Override could be bumped up a few more points however the Feel No Pain upgrade is perfectly fine. 35pts. for FNP is not cheap. There should be no drastic 30-50pts. bump for ANY of the upgrades the Riptide has access to.
I disagree.
So in reality I haven't ignored anything - I've addressed everything that's been said. Awesome - thanks for helping to clear that up.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
gmaleron wrote: Relying on "Mathammer" in a dice game to me is not an excuse, especially in a random dice game. I am not discounting that statistical averages but I have NEVER seen over 40 Lascannon shots needed to bring down one of my Riptides, or when playing against Tau with my Imperial Guard, one of my opponents.
Pretty sure math is the basic premise for units point pricing. Come on you've never seen 12 laz cannons fire at a riptide and you take 0 wounds? making something like 6 saves or so? Happend to me all the time. I don't get mad cause I know statistically I shouldn't have got more than 1 anyways. I've learned. You just don't shoot at them. They are basically invincible to the firepower you can realistically field unless you are eldar with distort weapons. This is why people have a problem with them.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
makes me wanna buy 3 x XV-107..and 3 XV-109 and field 9 riptides in one FOC..lol..yes the tears..mmm so salty and full of rage!...
Someone already made a thread on that a couple months ago with the R'varna pre-nerf rules, he was asking for advice how to deal with it; guess what he wasn't having fun, enjoy your game mate this kind of attitude that doesn't contribute to the discussion doesn't really help.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator?
So you're in the camp that even the HBC version has to be nerfed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 19:27:26
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Savageconvoy wrote: Can you find a single person or quote in this entire thread that defends the IA Riptide at it's current cost? If you notice, the people defending the BASE Riptide are saying they don't want a nerf to the HBC Riptide and want to see the IA toned down, swapped, or costed appropriately.
Also I could have sworn there was a second weapon option for IK and a bunch of new FW models/rules for them.
Should mention the Archeron Imperial Knight, it has a Hellstorm (so the APOCALYPSE FLAME TEMPLATE) that is S7 AP3 Ordnance and a Reaper Chainfist that is AP2 Strength D on a WS4 Superheavy with 4 attacks....
Xenomancers wrote: Irrelevant because riptides aren't for killing tanks...they are for killing infantry and light vehicles.
And Imperial Knights are meant for only killing vehicles? You just made your own argument irrelevant if that's the case.
The argument was 5 IK vs 5 Riptide. I don't think theres any doubt 5 IK would wreck 5 riptides not only is it about 800 more points lol and it's also not what riptides are designed to do anyways.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
Rending HBC shots will do more than you think.
12 shots, 6 hit, about a Rend (meaning a pen) per shot with a less than 2% chance to take a wound from Gets Hot.
5 Riptides with HBC, Fusion, FNP, and 1 Shielded Missile Drones (for the ablative wounds) costs 250 points.
You add in 2 buffmanders and 2 sets of Broadsides as well as the Riptides and you're at 2k points. All that vs 5 IKs.
, but that is considering what else Tau could bring in at that point cost OR their own FW units.
So can we consider ALL the options IoM has to bring in along with those IK when we consider this? Including FW with the Beast Hunter Shell? Can we look at this fairly?
Sure - all 150 points of options. Go ahead - go wild.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed.
Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator? So you're in the camp that even the HBC version has to be nerfed?
Well off the top of my head... 2 Inquisitors w/8 Acolytes and a Rhino, though you could go 2 Inquisitors w/ Aegis and Icarus or Quad. As for why I'm comparing it to Tactical Terminators and not the DK or WK, you have to look at the roles.
The Terminators are meant to be a solid platform with alright damage. Sounds like the Riptide right?
Wheras the WK and DK are meant to advance up the field and eventually engage the enemy in melee, or be a bully unit; you HAVE to put them in a dangerous position for them to do their roles. Riptide not so much.
Then there are the stat differences, DK has 1 wound less, more BS a 36 inch threat range (assuming upgraded which you always should) a possible 4++ that has the same chance of periling as the Riptide has to get hot. Then the WK has 2 more T and a additional W, only a 3+ save to compensate for its additional T, but its base cost is a whopping 240 and has a 48 inch threat range. They're just to different in roles to compare!
EDIT: Why did I think a fully upgraded riptide cost less than a base WK?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/07 19:50:15
Please tell me right now what those 5 Imperial Knights could bring @ 2000 AND that is assuming they are all Errants not a single FW leaving 150 points left over, think over your argument a bit
How much are those Divination Inquisitors that don't take a FOC and can be put into any Imperial army? Not that it should matter. You said 5 vs 5 as in head on. If you want to talk about what they have available then you have to take into account that IoM is effectively one large army now.
You mean the inquisitors that will die the second someone looks at them funny with smart missile systems? Okay.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
I never said 5 vs 5, I was making the point you could bring 5 Superheavies in a Bound list in a 2000pt. game. Honestly all I am seeing is the typical double standard that Imperial Players it seems in particular have against the Tau. They complain about our shenanigans while they have just as many if not more thanks to their ally rule and a lot of them are much nastier then what a Riptide can do, I wonder at times if some of this stems from "were mighty Space Marines we deserve the best" mindset. Not accusing anyone in particular of it but it definitely seems to be an impression im getting.
Savageconvoy wrote: As for the BASE Riptide, it is heavily armored as a Termie with 5W and 2 more T, costs a bit less base, its a very fair deal if not by itself a little under-costed. Why not compare it to the Dreadknight and Wraithknight in terms of survivability instead of a Terminator?
Exactly, for example lets compare a Dreadknight to a Riptide:
-50pts. cheaper BASE and with upgrades and is better in close combat, better BS and only has one less wound.
-S10 in Close Combat with x4 attacks and WS5.
-2+ armor save and 5+ invulnerable save
-Can "shunt" once a game basically meaning it will be in your face right off the bat.
-Access to Psychic powers
Now according to what has been said about the Riptide does that mean that some of the same arguments should be made towards the Dreadknight?
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Dude if I had to put my money on 5 Imperial Knights vs. 5 Riptides... I would pick the riptides
Really? A total of 5 twinlinked melta shots, maybe some double tapping against 5 IK? I would love to see this fight because I don't think the Riptides really have the Firepower to take them down at range and stand no chance at all in CC.
Rending HBC shots will do more than you think. 12 shots, 6 hit, about a Rend (meaning a pen) per shot with a less than 2% chance to take a wound from Gets Hot. 5 Riptides with HBC, Fusion, FNP, and 1 Shielded Missile Drones (for the ablative wounds) costs 250 points. You add in 2 buffmanders and 2 sets of Broadsides as well as the Riptides and you're at 2k points. All that vs 5 IKs.
Problem with that is that there's a 1/3 chance that the HBC doesn't get rending as the Nova charge failed. And if it's going for Rending on the HBC it can't double tap the Fusion Blaster which has a better chance of getting an Explodes result thanks to AP1.
So lets start with a 2/3 chance of getting nova charge, then if that goes off we have 12 shots, 6 hits, 1 rend, 4+ invulnerable save etc. Overall that gives the HBC 0.3 penetrating hits on an IK. Add in a single TL-FB which gets you another 0.125 outside of Melta Range (and you don't want to be within Melta range of an IK as that means you're probably getting charged next turn).
Over all, not great odds.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/07 19:52:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It's awesome that these IKs have their shield covering every facing. Man, I wish I had those IKs.
And your percentage was off, by the way. 0.3% cannot be correct - I think you forgot to make it a percentage because it's ~32% chance. (12 shots * .5 to hit * .16 to rend * .5 to save * .67 to happen in the first place)
And the TL-FB is a 1 shot * .75 chance to hit * .5 chance to be relevant = 37.5% chance to do at least a hull point, 25.5% chance to pen. (before saves, so 18.75% and 12.75% respectively)
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Boniface wrote: 2 things I've noticed about this thread (and Tau in general).
Firstly It seems Tau hate almost all boils down to the Riptide. Every Tau 'hate' thread I've seen on here ends up talking at length about the Riptide and everything wrong with it.
Maybe because that's really the only thing "wrong" with the codex? Buffmanders rub me the wrong way, but they're apparently fluffy so it's fine.
There isn't anything strictly 'wrong' with the Riptide, it's just a bit 'more' than it should be. I've not denied that.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Directly quoting you is taking you out of context? O.o
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
So you're arguing something that's irrelevant? Discussing survivability (which is what you're attempting to do) without taking Toughness into account (which is what you're trying to do) is silly - there's no reason for it.
Riptides and Terminators are apples and oranges survivability wise.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
So... it's the same as missing. So why call it out specifically?
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
I never said it was right. And I've never taken the 3++ into account because IME it isn't used or needed.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
20-30 points isn't minor. And it's at least that IMO.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
You'd probably be surprised with how survivable tanks are in 7th edition. Because tanks, in general, are significantly harder to kill than they were in 6th.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Quote something I ignored. Just one thing.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Good way of nerfing Tau would be removing them from 40k universe, they ruin the grimdark anyway.
Just sell them to disney, they will fit the fluff and visuals of Star Wars perfectly as a race descending from admiral Ackbar and tuna fish.
Spoiler:
heheh@ mr. Sidstyler.
For the record though, I do think Eldar fit grimdark even less, except wraithlords and wraithguard. The fact that pussy ponytail elves were most powerful on the table ruined 6th edition for me more than random tables and look out sir. Make them bald give them cyber eye ffs I dont know but they look bad and wave serpent is not OP because it has a tax of owning an ugly pussy tank on it.
Tau are second, fire warriors, stealth suits are ok, new broadside is incredible but crisis suits, kroot and riptide legs make me cringe. Whats worst though is the look of the race itself imo, just like elves in space they are too soft, nice, I dont know. Moar grimdark, they should look closer to the more menacing grey alien types for example rather than have the E.T. vibe they have now.
Sidstyler wrote: It is double-dipping, and Supporting Fire is overkill anyway when they already brought back Overwatch. Even if they hadn't, though, being able to unload with every Tau unit in range is just stupid. One unit, maybe.
Anyway, if you want a possible explanation for why people get "sensitive" when the topic of Tau nerfs comes up, it's probably because people have been calling Tau overpowered and demanding they be nerfed pretty much ever since they were introduced into the game...regardless of their actual power level, even though they were always kind of a mediocre army and certainly never as bad as they are now even at their "peak". "Fish of Fury" was as bad as it ever got, which I personally don't even think counts since that came about in an edition where you could consolidate into new units after assaulting. It was easily fixed in 5th edition anyway by just letting people assault the damn devilfish, which is why people stopped doing it and suddenly Tau fell all the way down to trash tier (though 5th edition was so well-designed in comparison to what we have now that they were still playable, if you knew what you were doing...every single army had a "best of" list and even sub-par armies could compete).
We've had to listen to this gak for as long as we've been Tau players and it's fething old. Some of it just comes off as sour grapes, too, like the years-old bolters vs. pulse rifles issue. When you point out every single other advantage or perk that tactical Marines get compared to fire warriors all you get is a dismissive "doesn't matter", "doesn't matter", "doesn't matter"...all that matters is that Tau, a foul xenos race, have a basic gun that's one strength higher than the best gun in the UNIVARSE!, and god fething damn it that just can not be allowed. Damn all the reasons why this came to be, Marines are supposed to be the best, end of. Just one example. And when you add to that the fact that many people are quite adamant that Tau don't even "belong" in the universe in the first place, and often ask for the army to be removed from the game entirely instead of just nerfed, I don't know any other way to respond to that than with matched hostility. It feels like fighting a fething war sometimes; these people don't listen to reason, they don't even really care, they just want your army, and you, gone. Period. "Go play a different game you fething weeb, stop tainting my grimdark with your Gundam and Hello Kitty bullgak!"
And in that case it's just Tau, too. You never see anyone claim that Eldar don't "fit in" and that the game would be better off if Eldar just weren't around anymore, even though they're far more powerful than Tau are, and in my opinion their aesthetic clashes with the "grimdark" just as much, if not more...the only thing that makes Eldar "grimdark" is their fluff, and it can be argued that Tau are pretty much the same now if you've actually fething read any of the new stuff. With every new codex they've been making Tau darker and darker and it's to the point now where Aun'Va is coming off as some kind Emperor Palpatine-esque character. Before the evil in the Tau Empire was kinda subtle, now it's all but spelled out for you and slapping you in the face (especially in the Farsight supplement, where he's looking more and more like the valiant hero instead of the traitor turning his back on the Empire like before). The point is though, you never see that with any other army. When people criticize Tau they aren't just doing it for the sake of game balance, they're doing it because of the appearance of the models, or the fluff they personally don't like or find "boring" (And glorious Spehss Mahreens constantly overcoming everything you throw at them because Spehss Mahreens is interesting? Maybe if you're 12...), or some other nonsense factor that has no bearing on the game and is entirely up to opinion, and making it awful god damn personal while they're at it.
Hell, I don't want to have the most overpowered army in the game. I want to feel like my wins actually matter and that the quality of my codex didn't "skew" the result, I don't like feeling like I only won because I played Tau, or the opposite; like all throughout 5th edition where I felt like I was losing because my codex was too old. I really don't want to defend the current codex because it does have legitimate issues that need to be fixed or toned down, but I've been on the defensive for so long it is genuinely hard to see those issues sometimes because I naturally assume everyone falls into that group that just wants GW to Squat my army, or to nerf them so hard into the ground that everyone stops playing them and they achieve the same result, which is getting Tau off the table.
So...yeah, that's my explanation anyway. lol. I type too fething much, I'm going to eat tacos and put some models together now, god damn.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
8 S6 shots or 12 S6 Rending shots with the HBC.
3 S9? shots with the IA.
Plus the Fusion Blasters (S8 AP1)
3 Str 7 for the IA, overcharging or novacharging makes it a blast that cant hit fliers.
Soon his foes would learn that the only thing more dangerous than a savage three hundred pound brute is a savage three hundred pound brute with a plan - Ork Codex
I've recently started taking on commissions, if you'd like to talk a project over feel free to PM me here, or find me at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BasiliskStudios Email: Basilisk.Studios@yahoo.co.uk
Directly quoting you is taking you out of context? O.o
The meaning is put of contxt, suppose that's the problem with this form of communication.
Secondly I'm seeing a lot of double standards here.
2+ armour with 5++ on a team of 5 termies is awful and you'll drown them in wounds where as 2+ armour with 5++ on a riptide is suddenly a different thing?
I appreciate the difference between T6 vs T4 but they both have 5 wounds.
No, you apparently don't appreciate the differences between T6 and T4. Let's look at bolters, just as a for instance.
S4 vs T4 wounds 50% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to kill a single terminator we have to hit with ~3 bolter shots.
S4 vs T6 wounds 16% of the time. 2+ save saves it 84% of the time. So to do a single wound to a riptide takes ~8 bolter hits.
There's a difference. Pretending 5 wounds is 5 wounds is simply ignorant.
You missed the point here. My point was there is statistically no difference between 2+/5++ on any platform, but as soon as it's on a riptide it's indestructible whereas termies (only used for armour comparison purposes) are always stated as dying instantly.
I wasn't bringing the T into it because I realise how different it makes the comparisons, which wasn't my point.
So you're arguing something that's irrelevant? Discussing survivability (which is what you're attempting to do) without taking Toughness into account (which is what you're trying to do) is silly - there's no reason for it.
Riptides and Terminators are apples and oranges survivability wise.
Still missed it. I don't mean compare the units, I mean people say 2+ is rubbish on something's but not others. That was it. My point was 2+ is 2+ all the time. The same tactic applies just the delivery method is different. Termies die to weight of fire, so will a riptide.
Riptides have an ap2 gun that has 3 shots or a blast that averages 2-5 hits which has a chance to get hot and fail or miss.
People have complained about Gets Hot a lot in this thread. You have a 16% chance to get hot and a 16% chance to take a wound after that, with a further 67% chance to take the wound after FNP.
What's that add up to? 1.7% chance to suffer a wound from Gets Hot. Please, stop complaining about it.
Gets hot = no shot, unless they changed that, no so much the wound.
So... it's the same as missing. So why call it out specifically?
That means 2 chances at missing. Aka I didn't get hot but I scattered and missed or I got hot had to save a wound (no biggy) but now my riptide is doing nothing. Pity I didn't nova for something good/different. Point is one can't have it all ways. It's a factor that comes into it. Nova is before shooting so it is possible to waste a nova charge or ability for no gain.
Riptides can have a 3++ but you have a 1/3 chance to take an instant wound.
And you rarely need the 3++
I mean everyone talks like the riptide always has a 3++. It doesn't and it's a risk not a guarantee. Therefore always using the 3++ is wrong.
[
I never said it was right. And I've never taken the 3++ into account because IME it isn't used or needed.
I didn't mean you. I meant generally people always say yes but 3++, which is just a lie. 3++ is sometimes but a risk.
Ok some minor costing issues we'll get fixed at some point.
Minor? Really?
I think it's minor not like 100 points or something.
20-30 points isn't minor. And it's at least that IMO.
Another point i've noticed in this thread.
It'll encourage people to use hammerheads. I find this a bit unfair. So Tau players should have to take a poor tank that can easily be killed. This sounds a lot like we want to be able to just wipe out Tau. It's not like destroying the other things in the army is hard, but the Riptide is slightly more difficult so it best be nerfed.
Um. Hammerheads aren't "easiy killed". They're just simply outclassed firepower wise so why ever take them?
I think tanks, period, are bad. Some are minorly better. I avoid the though.
You'd probably be surprised with how survivable tanks are in 7th edition. Because tanks, in general, are significantly harder to kill than they were in 6th.
Like I said seems like a lot of double standards.
Only if you ignore facts.
Not sure what to say here, you literally just ignored my facts or maybe I didn't make them clear.
Normally I don't respond directly as I feel it can be interpreted as an attack, which it isn't.
Just pointing out what I actually meant.
Quote something I ignored. Just one thing.
I think it's just the medium of communication combined with the nuances of English and all that. You didn't so much ignore them as misunderstand my meaning. I'm happy to leave some of these points, I disagree about tanks, I think they're rubbish all the time, but that's just my opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 20:48:31
Well, it can buy upgrades for optional skyfire or interceptor or both. It uses all its regular weapons otherwise.
Don't really see it threatening flyers unless there is something I am missing.
You're missing something. I'm not sure what but an AV12 (at most) vehicle should be scared of S7 weapons, or mass S6. Or Melta (which the Riptide has)
That's a good point, actually - what about the Riptide and all its extra weaponry, let alone the Missile Drones? Shouldn't we consider all these things (Most likely IA, the Nova Reactor, Secondary Weaponry, Drones and various upgrades) as well when judging the Riptide?
HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Also funny to see how people always ignore that when NOVA fails you don't only get hurt, it literally fails and you don't get the benefit.
And that overcharged HBC is 12 gets hot shots. It average it's 0.33 wounds from that alone.
HBC riptide that tries to overcharge every turn deals on average 3.33 select wounds in a game. And if he doesn't, he deals neglectible damage.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
Boniface wrote: Still missed it. I don't mean compare the units, I mean people say 2+ is rubbish on something's but not others. That was it. My point was 2+ is 2+ all the time. The same tactic applies just the delivery method is different. Termies die to weight of fire, so will a riptide.
Sure - so will a Wraithknight. That's a a silly statement, however, when the weight of fire most armies have isn't very effective against it.
A 2+ on one model is not always the same as a 2+ on another model. A 2+ on a Grot, for example, wouldn't be worth much because it's so easy to generate wounds on them. A 2+ on a Riptide is valuable because it's harder to generate wounds.
That means 2 chances at missing. Aka I didn't get hot but I scattered and missed or I got hot had to save a wound (no biggy) but now my riptide is doing nothing. Pity I didn't nova for something good/different. Point is one can't have it all ways. It's a factor that comes into it. Nova is before shooting so it is possible to waste a nova charge or ability for no gain.
Yes, it's possible to miss. Just like any other Gets Hot weapon. Plasma Cannons can Get Hot and scatter too!
My point is saying that it can miss and Get Hot is just putting emphasis on Gets Hot - when it's a small chance of it happening.
I didn't mean you. I meant generally people always say yes but 3++, which is just a lie. 3++ is sometimes but a risk.
So you brought up the 3++ as if anyone in the thread was saying they always have it? O.o
I think it's just the medium of communication combined with the nuances of English and all that. You didn't so much ignore them as misunderstand my meaning. I'm happy to leave some of these points, I disagree about tanks, I think they're rubbish all the time, but that's just my opinion.
So you agree I didn't ignore anything? Because you originally said that I did.
And right now Hammerheads are rubbish because there's no reason to take them - the Riptide is harder to kill and has better firepower. Change one of those facts and poof - the Hammerhead becomes attractive.
Note that I said the Riptide is harder to kill; not that the Hammerhead is easy to kill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BoomWolf wrote: HBC is decent at AA. Still less than an annibarge even with skyfire though unless it passed a NOVA for it.
Ion isn't even a serious threat assuming he bought both skyfire and interceptor and these are conflicting upgrades that block out fnp if you want both.
Why isn't it a threat?
Also funny to see how people always ignore that when NOVA fails you don't only get hurt, it literally fails and you don't get the benefit.
I'm not ignoring it.
And that overcharged HBC is 12 gets hot shots. It average it's 0.33 wounds from that alone.
HBC riptide that tries to overcharge every turn deals on average 3.33 select wounds in a game. And if he doesn't, he deals neglectible damage.
Really? 12 shots, on average 2 Gets Hot. I've already proven that you'll suffer a wound from a Gets Hot less than 2 percent of the time.
So how does 60 shots (5 game turns) times 2% give you 3.33? And exactly how is 4 fewer shots and no Rending "negligible"? I mean - obviously Flyrants are doing barely over negligible damage...
Nova fails, on average, once or twice a game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 20:59:14
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
in the face (especially in the Farsight supplement, where he's looking more and more like the valiant hero instead of the traitor turning his back on the Empire like before). The point is though, you never see that with any other army. When people criticize Tau they aren't just doing it for the sake of game balance, they're doing it because of the appearance of the models, or the fluff they personally don't like or find "boring" (And glorious Spehss Mahreens constantly overcoming everything you throw at them because Spehss Mahreens is interesting? Maybe if you're 12...), or some other nonsense factor that has no bearing on the game and is entirely up to opinion, and making it awful god damn personal while they're at it.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 