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.

LordBlades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Just so everyone stops using Martel as a proxy for "reasons people lose to Tau" I'll throw my hat in here and say that I agree with him, his assessment of Riptides (IA ones at least) vs Wraithknights, the strength of the Tau, and claim that the Riptide was an unnecessary addition to the Tau army list in this addition. Tau needed buffs on a few units, which they received, but did not need the abomination of the Riptide.

So Space Marines, Eldar, Grey Knights, ect can get a powerful large Walker/MC that can do a lot of damage but not the Tau? And again, he is the only person I have ever heard saying x2 Riptides are worse then x3 Wraithknights, it is just plain not true and again the Riptide is not overpowered or nearly the monster many of you make it out to be. I can agree, boost the points cost on the Ion Accelerator and that alone would be a good enough change. If the Riptide is so "overpowered" then that means the Dreadknight, Imperial Knight and Wraithknight should be lumped into that argument as well for many of the reasons being stated here.

You can get whatever you want, just pay the appropriate points. I think the base Riptide needs to be a bit more expensive just because of its insane durability. Don't like that? Make it less durable. The IA needs to be way more expensive or replaced with a new weapon. The other units you mentioned should all probably be more expensive as well, just because of how difficult it is to get them off the table.

"nearly the monster many of you make it out to be"

I've seen them table too many lists, and not just mine.

As mentioned before, Knight and Dreadknight will most likely not change in the next 2 years minimum.

If so, why should Tau Riptide be nerfed to the point it's strictly worse than units that every Imperial army has access to?

Because it isn't about better or worse - It's about balance. The Riptide is nice, but still too nice for the price, and simply does its job too well (The same thing would happen if Dreadknights always one-hitted Daemon Princes - tha'ts their job, but then there would be no contest in taking them). The point isn't to give the Imperial factions love, it's to give the Tau the unit they need, and not the one they want.

As a former Tau player, I know that the Riptide is too easy to use. It's durable, long ranged and damaging, but that's not a problem, IKs are too. The point is that they need to cost what they are worth, so all these capabilities measure up to its true cost.

Most people are a bit biased because of the state of the Riptide, but I'm sure most people realize that it can be put into place with the game. we don't want to nerf the Riptid because we hate it, we want them nerfed (and Eldar and Tau in general to some extend) because we like them and want them to function in tangent with the rest of game. I wanna use a Riptide and get what its worth in points, I want to use it fairly, just as a Tyranid player uses a Mawloc or a Space Marine player uses a Dreadnought. But cannot, because the rules and point costs betray it.

Nerfing isn't a bad thing. It's not an attack. It's a good thing. It helps balance, and puts a given unit into the place it is meant to have - It's for the unit's, faction's, game's and player's good, all in all.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Just so everyone stops using Martel as a proxy for "reasons people lose to Tau" I'll throw my hat in here and say that I agree with him, his assessment of Riptides (IA ones at least) vs Wraithknights, the strength of the Tau, and claim that the Riptide was an unnecessary addition to the Tau army list in this addition. Tau needed buffs on a few units, which they received, but did not need the abomination of the Riptide.

So Space Marines, Eldar, Grey Knights, ect can get a powerful large Walker/MC that can do a lot of damage but not the Tau? And again, he is the only person I have ever heard saying x2 Riptides are worse then x3 Wraithknights, it is just plain not true and again the Riptide is not overpowered or nearly the monster many of you make it out to be. I can agree, boost the points cost on the Ion Accelerator and that alone would be a good enough change. If the Riptide is so "overpowered" then that means the Dreadknight, Imperial Knight and Wraithknight should be lumped into that argument as well for many of the reasons being stated here.

You can get whatever you want, just pay the appropriate points. I think the base Riptide needs to be a bit more expensive just because of its insane durability. Don't like that? Make it less durable. The IA needs to be way more expensive or replaced with a new weapon. The other units you mentioned should all probably be more expensive as well, just because of how difficult it is to get them off the table.

"nearly the monster many of you make it out to be"

I've seen them table too many lists, and not just mine.

As mentioned before, Knight and Dreadknight will most likely not change in the next 2 years minimum.

If so, why should Tau Riptide be nerfed to the point it's strictly worse than units that every Imperial army has access to?

Because it isn't about better or worse - It's about balance. The Riptide is nice, but still too nice for the price, and simply does its job too well (The same thing would happen if Dreadknights always one-hitted Daemon Princes - tha'ts their job, but then there would be no contest in taking them). The point isn't to give the Imperial factions love, it's to give the Tau the unit they need, and not the one they want.

As a former Tau player, I know that the Riptide is too easy to use. It's durable, long ranged and damaging, but that's not a problem, IKs are too. The point is that they need to cost what they are worth, so all these capabilities measure up to its true cost.

Most people are a bit biased because of the state of the Riptide, but I'm sure most people realize that it can be put into place with the game. we don't want to nerf the Riptid because we hate it, we want them nerfed (and Eldar and Tau in general to some extend) because we like them and want them to function in tangent with the rest of game. I wanna use a Riptide and get what its worth in points, I want to use it fairly, just as a Tyranid player uses a Mawloc or a Space Marine player uses a Dreadnought. But cannot, because the rules and point costs betray it.

Nerfing isn't a bad thing. It's not an attack. It's a good thing. It helps balance, and puts a given unit into the place it is meant to have - It's for the unit's, faction's, game's and player's good, all in all.

Thing is most Riptide issues are in fact IA issues. A nerf to IA is warranted and most Tau players in this thread have recognized as much (and even proposed solutions).

Very few people consuder HBC Riptide overpowered.

LordBlades wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:
Just so everyone stops using Martel as a proxy for "reasons people lose to Tau" I'll throw my hat in here and say that I agree with him, his assessment of Riptides (IA ones at least) vs Wraithknights, the strength of the Tau, and claim that the Riptide was an unnecessary addition to the Tau army list in this addition. Tau needed buffs on a few units, which they received, but did not need the abomination of the Riptide.

So Space Marines, Eldar, Grey Knights, ect can get a powerful large Walker/MC that can do a lot of damage but not the Tau? And again, he is the only person I have ever heard saying x2 Riptides are worse then x3 Wraithknights, it is just plain not true and again the Riptide is not overpowered or nearly the monster many of you make it out to be. I can agree, boost the points cost on the Ion Accelerator and that alone would be a good enough change. If the Riptide is so "overpowered" then that means the Dreadknight, Imperial Knight and Wraithknight should be lumped into that argument as well for many of the reasons being stated here.

You can get whatever you want, just pay the appropriate points. I think the base Riptide needs to be a bit more expensive just because of its insane durability. Don't like that? Make it less durable. The IA needs to be way more expensive or replaced with a new weapon. The other units you mentioned should all probably be more expensive as well, just because of how difficult it is to get them off the table.

"nearly the monster many of you make it out to be"

I've seen them table too many lists, and not just mine.

As mentioned before, Knight and Dreadknight will most likely not change in the next 2 years minimum.

If so, why should Tau Riptide be nerfed to the point it's strictly worse than units that every Imperial army has access to?

Because it isn't about better or worse - It's about balance. The Riptide is nice, but still too nice for the price, and simply does its job too well (The same thing would happen if Dreadknights always one-hitted Daemon Princes - tha'ts their job, but then there would be no contest in taking them). The point isn't to give the Imperial factions love, it's to give the Tau the unit they need, and not the one they want.

As a former Tau player, I know that the Riptide is too easy to use. It's durable, long ranged and damaging, but that's not a problem, IKs are too. The point is that they need to cost what they are worth, so all these capabilities measure up to its true cost.

Most people are a bit biased because of the state of the Riptide, but I'm sure most people realize that it can be put into place with the game. we don't want to nerf the Riptid because we hate it, we want them nerfed (and Eldar and Tau in general to some extend) because we like them and want them to function in tangent with the rest of game. I wanna use a Riptide and get what its worth in points, I want to use it fairly, just as a Tyranid player uses a Mawloc or a Space Marine player uses a Dreadnought. But cannot, because the rules and point costs betray it.

Nerfing isn't a bad thing. It's not an attack. It's a good thing. It helps balance, and puts a given unit into the place it is meant to have - It's for the unit's, faction's, game's and player's good, all in all.

Thing is most Riptide issues are in fact IA issues. A nerf to IA is warranted and most Tau players in this thread have recognized as much (and even proposed solutions).

Very few people consuder HBC Riptide overpowered.

Sure. Have no problem with that. Make it 20 pt, or even 25 pt, or maybe make it into the Ion Cannon instead.

I still feel that, to the armies who don't pack all anti tank, it's a bit too hard to kill. A wound off it would be fine by me. I don't care if its toughness gets nerfed or not, but I'd like it if it happened.

My point just was that nerfs is the best thing most codexes can get at this point. I like nerfs because of that.

It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well. And before you say it the 3++ is not an automatic thing but it does help, however hurting itself 1/3 of the time with no saves is a major drawback (and one I feel is completely overlooked) on top of it potentially getting hot. The same comparison could be made in regards to the Dreadknights Psychic abilities giving its Gatling Psylincer INSTANT DEATH on top of others. Regardless of how minute the chance might be it is a dice game and there is still a chance.

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well. And before you say it the 3++ is not an automatic thing but it does help, however hurting itself 1/3 of the time with no saves is a major drawback (and one I feel is completely overlooked) on top of it potentially getting hot. The same comparison could be made in regards to the Dreadknights Psychic abilities giving its Gatling Psylincer INSTANT DEATH on top of others. Regardless of how minute the chance might be it is a dice game and there is still a chance.

I didn't mean that it should be compared to the Dreadknight. To me, that comparison is moot - It only came to be so usual because both the Dreadknight and the Riptide are 6th Ed MCs. I have no need to have them be equal in anything, because they two very different things - Meleeing big things with shooting support and Break enemy strongpoints with powerful weaponry.

What I did mean was that the Riptide should be nerfed according to what role it has. Right now it has armour, toughness and Invulnerability to match a melee creature, which would be nice if it was a such. Problem is, it couldn't be less of a melee creature, beyond what it natively can do as an MC. It's a shooting platform with really strong guns, but the statline of a creature that should soak up damage coming into melee range, like the Dreadknight in many respects. That's the reason I'd like it to get a toughness nerf - When you've got so great guns on such a powerful platform, one of two things will happen: It is either priced like a goddamn LoW, because it serves a similar role of tough, large and menacing... Problem s, you can take three, without even using Detatchments. To me, that isn't acceptable. On the other hand, you can make it do less damage by nerfing the IA, which I support - Problem is still that the unit can do the same as always, while still being able to sit and do nothing in a corner. Again, not a great thing to me.

And THAT'S why I like the idea of lowering it's T to 5 and/or reducing it to 4 W. It's a powerful platform that can be Instadeathed, and therefor should be used with a lot of care. S 10 weaponry tend to be either melee (Which should always be the Tau kryptonite, as people have agreed), single shot (Railgun, Taychon Arrow) or very short ranged (Leman Russ Demolisher, Vindicator). This means that the toughness of the Riptide is still prelevant against smaller forces (as other people have shown us that T 5 vs 6 isn't much different), but is a downside against really huge weaponry, which the Riptide are then in need of avoiding. It would also make the 3++ test a lot more risky and tactical in general - do you really want to risk doing nothing a turn and damaging yourself for a chance of a 3++ for a turn, that might defend you against a S 10 hit? Maybe instead choose the jump option to get away? Or maybe the Ordinance Pie-plate, for a higher chance of dealing with the unit in question?

To me, Tau has always been a agile and extremely dangerous force that does not allow failure - That's why we have things like Supportive Fire and Markerlights, simply because our downsides are pretty goddamn dangerous to us, and we got to do something about that to succeed. A Tau army can't just be squandered - You need to think. That's what I want from the Riptide. It needs to be dangerous and tough, as long as the army supports it and keeps it safe, but very easy to remove whenever it isn't - It's the Tau way. Fight smart, fight fast and keep the feth away from that thunderhammer!

Why is it that people want to nerf what makes Tau unique, yet on a thread about drop pods being too cheap tey say that they need them to be unique... Double standard much?

They also say that drop pods are fine since those lists don't win tournaments... Neither do Tau lists, so by the same logic Tau are underpowered!

Double standards, double standards everywhere!

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well. And before you say it the 3++ is not an automatic thing but it does help, however hurting itself 1/3 of the time with no saves is a major drawback (and one I feel is completely overlooked) on top of it potentially getting hot. The same comparison could be made in regards to the Dreadknights Psychic abilities giving its Gatling Psylincer INSTANT DEATH on top of others. Regardless of how minute the chance might be it is a dice game and there is still a chance.

I've proven countless times using mathematics that the riptide is more than twice as durable than the dread knight in almost every situation. Keep going on and on and on ignoring the math.

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well.

Yes it should.

Seriously, units which combine
-high toughness
-multiple wounds
-2+ armour save
-5+ inv save
-tank-like weapons and mobility
-close combat abilities of an MC

...simply should not exist. Both Riptide and DK should be either changed to T7 3+ 4 wounds, or (preferably) made into walkers.

Compare Riptide's durability to Hammerhead. It's just absurd - and completely belies logic, because Hammerhead is a TANK.

Backfire wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well.

Yes it should.

Seriously, units which combine
-high toughness
-multiple wounds
-2+ armour save
-5+ inv save
-tank-like weapons and mobility
-close combat abilities of an MC

...simply should not exist. Both Riptide and DK should be either changed to T7 3+ 4 wounds, or (preferably) made into walkers.

Agreed.

I think the incredible mobility (JSJ on the Riptide, Jump Movement on the Wraithknight and Dreadknight) is even worse.

There seems to be this idea that big models should be able to do everything better - better mobility, better defence, better ranged weaponry, better melee weaponry etc.. Sorry, but there has to be a trade-off - especially when it comes to durability vs. mobility. If you have a really durable unit, fine, but don't them make it as mobile (or more so) than similar, but less durable units.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well. And before you say it the 3++ is not an automatic thing but it does help, however hurting itself 1/3 of the time with no saves is a major drawback (and one I feel is completely overlooked) on top of it potentially getting hot. The same comparison could be made in regards to the Dreadknights Psychic abilities giving its Gatling Psylincer INSTANT DEATH on top of others. Regardless of how minute the chance might be it is a dice game and there is still a chance.

I've proven countless times using mathematics that the riptide is more than twice as durable than the dread knight in almost every situation. Keep going on and on and on ignoring the math.

Yes, using Schrodinger's mathematics. that means your math was as valuable as throwing darts on a board by a blindfolded monky.

Using actual REAL math, were proven far, FAR more times that the riptide is in fact far LESS durable than the dreadknight when costs are compared, even with the FnP upgrade-as long has the HBC and wants to actually be any use in shooting (and if he ins't any use in shooting-he isn't any use at all. given that its all he does, and if he dos not shoot well there isn't even a reason to shoot AT it, making its durability irrelevant)

This brings us back to the fact the problem is not the riptide, but the IA. a riptide without IA is far, FAR less durable than its statline would suggest.
Though by this point I have stopped expecting you to actually follow logic, math or fairness, given how you successfully brushed aside everything we said the entire thread as if we did not give a shopping list of reasons you are wrong and that you never even bothered to answer any of it.

They are all more durable than what the BA get.

As for the post above, I have never seen a Riptide without an IA. So, to me, they might as well not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SGTPozy wrote:
Why is it that people want to nerf what makes Tau unique, yet on a thread about drop pods being too cheap tey say that they need them to be unique... Double standard much?

They also say that drop pods are fine since those lists don't win tournaments... Neither do Tau lists, so by the same logic Tau are underpowered!

Double standards, double standards everywhere!

You can ban drop pods for all I care. I just won't use dreadnoughts anymore. That's all.

Martel732 wrote:
They are all more durable than what the BA get.

As for the post above, I have never seen a Riptide without an IA. So, to me, they might as well not exist.

You apparently haven't seen a table with.LOS blocking terrain either so these might not exist either despite people's testimony of the contrary, right?

HBC Riptides make good AA and light vehicle killers. At least in my meta the standard triptide is 2x IA and HBC

I've seen plenty of tables with LOS blocking terrain. But mostly that was before 6th at a different location. I've moved since then. :(

I'm just pointing out that IA Riptides vastly outnumber HBC Ritpides in real games, I'm sure.

Martel732 wrote:
I've seen plenty of tables with LOS blocking terrain. But mostly that was before 6th at a different location. I've moved since then. :(

I'm just pointing out that IA Riptides vastly outnumber HBC Ritpides in real games, I'm sure.

Agreed, nut the HBC Riptide do fulfill a role in a Tau army. Therefore I think changing the Riptide (as opposed to the IA itself) based exclusively on IA Riptide performance is wrong.

LordBlades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I've seen plenty of tables with LOS blocking terrain. But mostly that was before 6th at a different location. I've moved since then. :(

I'm just pointing out that IA Riptides vastly outnumber HBC Ritpides in real games, I'm sure.

Agreed, nut the HBC Riptide do fulfill a role in a Tau army. Therefore I think changing the Riptide (as opposed to the IA itself) based exclusively on IA Riptide performance is wrong.

I wouldn't change it much. I still think the base hull is too durable for its cost, but it's not super-killy without the IA.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It is no harder to kill then the Dreadknight in terms of toughness and armor save, according to that logic it means the Dreadknight should be made less durable as well. And before you say it the 3++ is not an automatic thing but it does help, however hurting itself 1/3 of the time with no saves is a major drawback (and one I feel is completely overlooked) on top of it potentially getting hot. The same comparison could be made in regards to the Dreadknights Psychic abilities giving its Gatling Psylincer INSTANT DEATH on top of others. Regardless of how minute the chance might be it is a dice game and there is still a chance.

I've proven countless times using mathematics that the riptide is more than twice as durable than the dread knight in almost every situation. Keep going on and on and on ignoring the math.

Yes, using Schrodinger's mathematics. that means your math was as valuable as throwing darts on a board by a blindfolded monky.

Using actual REAL math, were proven far, FAR more times that the riptide is in fact far LESS durable than the dreadknight when costs are compared, even with the FnP upgrade-as long has the HBC and wants to actually be any use in shooting (and if he ins't any use in shooting-he isn't any use at all. given that its all he does, and if he dos not shoot well there isn't even a reason to shoot AT it, making its durability irrelevant)

This brings us back to the fact the problem is not the riptide, but the IA. a riptide without IA is far, FAR less durable than its statline would suggest.
Though by this point I have stopped expecting you to actually follow logic, math or fairness, given how you successfully brushed aside everything we said the entire thread as if we did not give a shopping list of reasons you are wrong and that you never even bothered to answer any of it.

No...it's called statistics, it's real math, it's indisputable (which means you can't dispute it). Laws of probability always reach equilibrium with enough samples which is why we are even able to play a game using dice rolls and expect some degree of balance. Not trying to be rude but your argument has no basis in reality - you can't argue that statistics isn't real math. Even without the 3++ the riptide is significantly more durable. It gets and additional 5+ FNP and has an additional wound hard to comprehend a situation where having equal toughness equal armor save and an additional 5+ which is undeniable and an additional wound would make you less tough - it seems you are the one trying to use some quantum formula to figure out which unit is tougher...because here in reality dread-knights aren't nearly as tough as riptides plus they operate at shorter ranges exposing them to 100% of an armies firepower as opposed to something like the typical 20% or less an army has at 48 to 60 inches....

Pure curiosity: how many of the 'riptide is too survivable 'guys are taking the self-inflicted wounds of failed nova charges and Gets Hot into account?

The other side of 'Dreadknight needs to get close so it eats more firepower' argument: Dreadknight often gets into melee, where it ears exactly 0 anti-tank firepower.

What are the exact chances of failing nova charge? And how often do wounds result from it? I've always assumed my opponents know what they were doing on that.

Gets Hot on a single shot weapon will not generate many wounds on a 2+ save model.

Martel732 wrote:
What are the exact chances of failing nova charge? And how often do wounds result from it? I've always assumed my opponents know what they were doing on that.

Gets Hot on a single shot weapon will not generate many wounds on a 2+ save model.

1/3 to fail, so 1.33 wounds over a 6 round game after FnP
Alsio HBC is a 8/ 12 shot gun with Gets Hot

LordBlades wrote:
Pure curiosity: how many of the 'riptide is too survivable 'guys are taking the self-inflicted wounds of failed nova charges and Gets Hot into account?

The other side of 'Dread-knight needs to get close so it eats more firepower' argument: Dread-knight often gets into melee, where it ears exactly 0 anti-tank firepower.

Gets hot wounds on a 2+ 5+fnp?
(.167) (.167)(.667) = .0186 = 1.86% chance to take a wound from gets hot. Less than a 2% chance to happen every shot. About a 10% chance to take a wound in a game from gets hot. Nova can be risky...not sure I'd ever shoot it like that unless I had full wounds and really needed to risk 1 wound to annihilate an entire squad - when the decision comes - I'm sure it's an easy decision to make. For the 3+ Inv...very rarely do people use it. Sitting in 4+ cover from ruins is usually enough with a 5+ fnp save and 5 wounds.....

heck it would only take
(.667)(.834)(.500)(.666) = .185 = 18.5% chance of laz cannon wound. So roughly 5.5 laz cannons to cause a wound x 5 wounds = 27.5 laz cannons to kill...considering just about no army can realistically kill it in even 2- 3 turns at range...why would you EVER use the shield?

Compared to a Dread-knight
(.667)(.834)(.500) = .278 = 27.8% chance to cause a wound. So roughly 4 laz cannons to cause a wound x 4 wounds = 16 laz cannons to kill. Pretty tough but as you can see 16/27.5 = 58.1% - so only 58.1% of the toughness of a riptide even without the 3++.

Numbers speak for themselves.

Who the bloody hell is saying the Dreadknight is more durable than a Riptide? I will beat you with a metal dreadnought if you try under any circumstances to defend that claim.

I know you've all taken to ignore my meterlong posts, but here goes: Why are we even using the Dreadknight as a point of comparison, anyway? It's not an "MC vs MC" thread, but a "How to nerf Tau" thread afterall - It doesn't matter if it points up to the Dreadknight or not.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I know you've all taken to ignore my meterlong posts, but here goes: Why are we even using the Dreadknight as a point of comparison, anyway? It's not an "MC vs MC" thread, but a "How to nerf Tau" thread afterall - It doesn't matter if it points up to the Dreadknight or not.

I've been reading your posts. very logical and fair posts - I agree with you. Except I disagree that we can't compare 1 MC to another. I chose the dreadknight because they have the same toughness and same armor save and cost about the same with their typical builds. In the post above I give the basic statistical annalisis of these MC suruvivability to low AP high STR weapons (the weapons that are most effective at taking these things down) and the dread-knight proves to be about 40% less effective at tanking these weapons.To me this is absurd. That the tougher of these two units is the 60" range sandoff unit.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I know you've all taken to ignore my meterlong posts, but here goes: Why are we even using the Dreadknight as a point of comparison, anyway? It's not an "MC vs MC" thread, but a "How to nerf Tau" thread afterall - It doesn't matter if it points up to the Dreadknight or not.

Tau (or anything else for that matter) are 'strong' or 'weak' only by comparison to the other armies. The whole 'nerf Tau' thread has a comparison at base.

How would you propose we judge if a unit is too strong or too weak if not by comparison with other units?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I know you've all taken to ignore my meterlong posts, but here goes: Why are we even using the Dreadknight as a point of comparison, anyway? It's not an "MC vs MC" thread, but a "How to nerf Tau" thread afterall - It doesn't matter if it points up to the Dreadknight or not.

I've been reading your posts. very logical and fair posts - I agree with you. Except I disagree that we can't compare 1 MC to another. I chose the dreadknight because they have the same toughness and same armor save and cost about the same with their typical builds. In the post above I give the basic statistical annalisis of these MC suruvivability to low AP high STR weapons (the weapons that are most effective at taking these things down) and the dread-knight proves to be about 40% less effective at tanking these weapons.To me this is absurd. That the tougher of these two units is the 60" range sandoff unit.

Well I totally agree. I hate mathhammering, and math in general, and as you said, I try to be logical about it at any rate. I see the niche that the Dreadknight occupies, and that's fine, but the problem the Riptide has is that it doesn't fit a specific niche - Because it is so durable and all around useful through a lack of weaknesses, it ends up being the workhorse of a typical Tau army, which it really shouldn't be - All details about it points it out as a breaktrhough unit that can deal with Infantry, light and heavy. Right now, it can deal with everything, and then some.

As I stated, Tau has always been a force that wants to avoid getting damaged by using advanced tactics and weaponry - The Fire Warrior, Crisis Suit, Broadsides and the like alll present this, while well armed, by being either very few or easily damaged by enemy fire. The Riptide, however, does not. In fact, it plays a bit like an Ork machine, what with the randomized Nova Reactor, with a good load of Necron resilience on top. What it was supposed to be, was a massive Crisis Suit to soak up damage and break up formations, but in the pursuit of that, it just ended up being way too much of everything.

Now, onto the meat of it: I think the Riptide could deal with one point less of T and/or W, with appropriate point reduction for that. This will make it a bit more fragile to overwhelming fire, as is the rest of the army, and on top of that it's very fluffy, as Tau are great at making superior armour and wargear, but lack the resilience to back it up (See Crisis Suits and Broadsides). I would also make the Ion Accelerator 20-25 pt, OR make it S 7 AP 3 Heavy 3, with an option to Nova it to get S 8 AP 3 Large Blast Ordnance. I know it's quite a lot, but I think it's all around better for the unit.

And while I'm going, Rail weaponry need a boost - Not a lot, just something to cement its main role: Tank hunting. I'd give all Rail weaponry Armourbane (Or whatever the Vanquisher gets on the main gun). this will help it one-hit things, without boosting its strength against MCs. Stealth Suits desperatly need Move through Cover, and could deal with some sort of upgrade to represent their invincibility (Go to ground = Reduce enemy BS to 1?). I have no clue as to how to help Vespid. General rules need some adjustments too: Overwatch would be better with just one extra unit instead of all within 6'', and Markerlights should be "1 to get -1 Cover Save on a given unit", like so many others stated.

BAM - Solved all our problems

to say my thoughts to rips and reducing T or W of them, i use only one in my armys and would use a second one at 2000pt and more. I like how it moves the same way like krisis and that is the main reason why i want to play it. The ion is to strong, thats clear and it needs to cost more points.
But if you reduce the wounds or toughness, then i am sure that i wont play the rip like before because i have to be so much more carefull that it will constantly scratch my tableedge and be as far away from the opponent as possible. Until now i played the rip offensive and like i said only one so if you have tauplayer that are not only bringing three of them into play than it should be allright and a more attractive play but if you reduce the T or W than it will be boring like hell because than it will be clear how the tau will react to this - hate generates only opposing hate.

At the end i want to ask you:
Why do you have such threads and discuss how you would nerf this and that? You cant change things, only gw can this do and the new taucodex will maybe there in summer? I dont know what you want with these threads cause they only make you hate the specific unit/combo/army or do you want to see that all are the same oppinion like you?

I dont meen it offensive but i really want to know what you really want to archive with these.

xsharkmanx wrote:
to say my thoughts to rips and reducing T or W of them, i use only one in my armys and would use a second one at 2000pt and more. I like how it moves the same way like krisis and that is the main reason why i want to play it. The ion is to strong, thats clear and it needs to cost more points.
But if you reduce the wounds or toughness, then i am sure that i wont play the rip like before because i have to be so much more carefull that it will constantly scratch my tableedge and be as far away from the opponent as possible. Until now i played the rip offensive and like i said only one so if you have tauplayer that are not only bringing three of them into play than it should be allright and a more attractive play but if you reduce the T or W than it will be boring like hell because than it will be clear how the tau will react to this - hate generates only opposing hate.

At the end i want to ask you:
Why do you have such threads and discuss how you would nerf this and that? You cant change things, only gw can this do and the new taucodex will maybe there in summer? I dont know what you want with these threads cause they only make you hate the specific unit/combo/army or do you want to see that all are the same oppinion like you?

I dont meen it offensive but i really want to know what you really want to archive with these.

Why we do this? An absolutely fantastic cocktail of a need to create chaos and conflict, to escape boredom, and most importantly, for the lulz

Of what you wrote, I got tgat you were afraid that the unit would play differebtly if reduced in overall toughness, which is exactly what I'm aiming at - I want people to use it differently, as it's supposed to - right now, nothing can really scratch it, and cover won't be needed for the most part... But with a reduction in T and a Vindicator bearing down on you, you will embrace the tried and true JSJ to a whole new degree!

Now, as you explain, that would make you put the Riptide as far away from anything as possible, and that's of course not the point... What I'd do is to reduce tge range of the IA to 36'', and MAYBE the HBC to 24". Why? Firstly, it will force the player to risk the Riptide when using it's weapons, but as long as there's no S 10 close, it should actually be fine against most shooting, as plenty of mathhammerers in this thread have proved. Secondly, it will mske it fit the role of a "breakthrough unit", as right now, it's more of an artillery piece than anything... And that's what we have the Hammerhead and Skyray for. Bear in mind, I do believe that it should be a bit cheaper for it, to compensate.

With these changes, I hope it will be used as the giant, wellarmoured Crisis Suit it is, and not as a moving, shooting, tanking artillery piece. It will change up how you play, but that's the best part - If there's something I love about the new codexes, it's the fact that you can't just play as you've always done anymore. You got to adapt... Just like tge Tau has always done!

LordBlades wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What are the exact chances of failing nova charge? And how often do wounds result from it? I've always assumed my opponents know what they were doing on that.

Gets Hot on a single shot weapon will not generate many wounds on a 2+ save model.

1/3 to fail, so 1.33 wounds over a 6 round game after FnP
Alsio HBC is a 8/ 12 shot gun with Gets Hot

That's not nearly enough wounds to care about, imo. It does me no good if the thing eventually kills itself after it has already killed my whole list. I need to get it off the table quickly, no pray for my opponent's bad dice.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
Why we do this? An absolutely fantastic cocktail of a need to create chaos and conflict, to escape boredom, and most importantly, for the lulz

Of what you wrote, I got tgat you were afraid that the unit would play differebtly if reduced in overall toughness, which is exactly what I'm aiming at - I want people to use it differently, as it's supposed to - right now, nothing can really scratch it, and cover won't be needed for the most part... But with a reduction in T and a Vindicator bearing down on you, you will embrace the tried and true JSJ to a whole new degree!

Now, as you explain, that would make you put the Riptide as far away from anything as possible, and that's of course not the point... What I'd do is to reduce tge range of the IA to 36'', and MAYBE the HBC to 24". Why? Firstly, it will force the player to risk the Riptide when using it's weapons, but as long as there's no S 10 close, it should actually be fine against most shooting, as plenty of mathhammerers in this thread have proved. Secondly, it will mske it fit the role of a "breakthrough unit", as right now, it's more of an artillery piece than anything... And that's what we have the Hammerhead and Skyray for. Bear in mind, I do believe that it should be a bit cheaper for it, to compensate.

With these changes, I hope it will be used as the giant, wellarmoured Crisis Suit it is, and not as a moving, shooting, tanking artillery piece. It will change up how you play, but that's the best part - If there's something I love about the new codexes, it's the fact that you can't just play as you've always done anymore. You got to adapt... Just like tge Tau has always done!

I am not afraid that the rip will be played different, im afraid that the game will be boring as hell against/with tau because nobody would risk to get a 200pt model instakilled with a toughness x2hit. At first you suggested to decrease T and/or W and to get around the new problem which would be created of your change you want to nerf the rip again? hm i dont know what to say but that isnt the right thing/way.
I agree that the rip takes to much firepower to die but reducing T/W isnt the right way, maybe i would delete the option for the 3+.
The Ion is to cheap for what it can do so higher costs and range to max 48" would be ok imo.

If you want to keep the invinco-Riptide, fine. Just pay for the invincibility.