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.

The troops that lose fewer points per hit than Marines from Scatter Lasers and Pulse Rifles are horde troops, who exist primarily to die.

Most troops do worse against the things you're complaining about than Marines.

Bharring wrote:
The troops that lose fewer points per hit than Marines from Scatter Lasers and Pulse Rifles are horde troops, who exist primarily to die.

Most troops do worse against the things you're complaining about than Marines.

The IA accelerator treats every infantry model in the game practically the same: you're under it and you die. D-scythes, IK weapons, etc all scoop marines as if they were grots.

I find it weird that Troops are defined as the most common units of their respective factions, but the current game encourages taking as few of them as possible for most armies.

 Pouncey wrote:
I find it weird that Troops are defined as the most common units of their respective factions, but the current game encourages taking as few of them as possible for most armies.

Easier to release new non-troop models that are easily marketable.

GW releases new unit for space marines. Guess what slot it's going to be? Odds are good not troops.

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I find it weird that Troops are defined as the most common units of their respective factions, but the current game encourages taking as few of them as possible for most armies.

Easier to release new non-troop models that are easily marketable.

GW releases new unit for space marines. Guess what slot it's going to be? Odds are good not troops.

Makes sense.

I guess that's one of the big problems with a game made by a company that puts selling models as their top priority, isn't it?

In that regard GW is acting no differently from most other companies. Their primary concern is keeping their investors happy, anything else is secondary. I don't think it's fair to criticise GW for it, it's a flaw of our entire economic system.

Troops are my favourite slot in game, it's sad that they're practically irrelevant now. It's part of the reason I play guard - my fancy stuff is just as gakky as my regular stuff so I just load up on the garbage.

 MarsNZ wrote:
In that regard GW is acting no differently from most other companies. Their primary concern is keeping their investors happy, anything else is secondary. I don't think it's fair to criticise GW for it, it's a flaw of our entire economic system.

Troops are my favourite slot in game, it's sad that they're practically irrelevant now. It's part of the reason I play guard - my fancy stuff is just as gakky as my regular stuff so I just load up on the garbage.

Ehh, I guess I play too much video games and not enough 40k. When Blizzard releases a new WoW expansion... Erm, actually, I just remembered Death Knights at the start of WotLK, so that's probably a bad example. But at least they didn't repeat that mistake with Monks. And probably not Demon Hunters.

Of course, whenever they release a balance patch or new class, most characters get some tweaks, based on how they're doing. And I guess since all the PvP and PvE stuff happens on Blizzard's servers, they don't have to rely on user reports all the time, they can actually see and confirm what classes are over/underpowered.

 MarsNZ wrote:
In that regard GW is acting no differently from most other companies. Their primary concern is keeping their investors happy, anything else is secondary. I don't think it's fair to criticise GW for it, it's a flaw of our entire economic system.

Are you suggesting that making money for the people who risked their money by investing in a business is a problem? If that's not what businesses do then there is no incentive to invest money to make these things happen in the first place.

That said - the best way to keep investors happy is to keep customers happy and making the game worse does not do that.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Troops are my favourite slot in game, it's sad that they're practically irrelevant now. It's part of the reason I play guard - my fancy stuff is just as gakky as my regular stuff so I just load up on the garbage.

Troops have been lame pretty much forever. They were valuable because missions made them valuable.

You should try zone mortalis. Troops are crucial.

 Pouncey wrote:

Of course, whenever they release a balance patch or new class, most characters get some tweaks, based on how they're doing. And I guess since all the PvP and PvE stuff happens on Blizzard's servers, they don't have to rely on user reports all the time, they can actually see and confirm what classes are over/underpowered.

 Traditio wrote:
And if windrider bikes were correctly priced (around 21-23 ppm), they wouldn't even be a threat if my opponent spammed them (assuming catapults, of course).

Ah yes, your classic "my army is balanced, anything that beats me is overpowered" argument. If a unit isn't a threat to your army, no matter how much it is spammed, then it's overpriced. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your standard for "balancing" Eldar (and probably Tau) is to make everything massively overpriced so that Eldar aren't a threat to any of your tactical marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
Why only troops? And why all troops?

The fluff idea presented back in 5th edition was that only troops are considered "unimportant" enough to be left camping on objectives. Your elite infantry, heavy tanks, etc, show up, kill a bunch of stuff, and then move on to the next priority target (which is somewhere off the table). They aren't going to stick around camping on an objective so if you don't have a squad of troops there at the end of the game then you haven't really secured it. This of course makes much less sense with maelstrom missions, but maelstrom missions are stupid anyway so that's not really a problem.

Change that to "infantry and dedicated transports for infantry," and we're in agreement.

If dedicated transports can capture objectives then why can't other vehicles? If an empty Chimera is able to secure an objective fluff-wise then why can't a Hellhound that is just the same Chimera with a fuel tank in the passenger compartment? The Hellhound is capable of doing everything the empty Chimera can, so why isn't it a scoring unit too?

Peregrine wrote:Ah yes, your classic "my army is balanced, anything that beats me is overpowered" argument. If a unit isn't a threat to your army, no matter how much it is spammed, then it's overpriced. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your standard for "balancing" Eldar (and probably Tau) is to make everything massively overpriced so that Eldar aren't a threat to any of your tactical marines.

I find it strange that you would make this claim, given the fact that you're constantly talking about the need to assess the cost of a unit in terms of its battlefield role and how it performs that role in comparison to other comparable units.

I also find it strange that you make this claim, given the fact that you're constantly insisting, and I quote (albeit from memory), that "list building is part of strategy and playing the game."

A 72 point windrider unit (assuming that they were appropriately priced) with 3 bikes armed with shuriken catapults is not much of a threat to my army in terms of killing capacity.

An unbound 1850 list with 25 or so units of them is also not much of a threat to my army in terms of killing capacity.

But then, neither is a 63 point space marine bike squad (at current cost) with 3 bikes armed with bolters, much less a 72 point space marine bike squad (assuming fair cost) with 3 bikes armed with bolters.

Neither would be much of a threat, a forteriori, if bikes lost relentless (which they should).

That said, neither is a 70 point tactical marine squad armed only with bolters.

Not to my army. Not to any reasonably well constructed army. Are you going to claim that they are all overcosted?

The answer, of course, is "no."

Dakka posters were completely right in pointing out that I was playing the game wrong by bringing naked tactical squads. That's not how those squads are supposed to be run. Tactical squads are ultimately a 70 point platform for a special weapon or heavy weapon (or a 140 point platform for both).

Likewise, windrider bikes are a platform for a heavy weapon. Thus the reason that they are currently so OP:

1. They pay absolutely no unit tax for their heavy weapons. A tactical squad has to pay 70 points before you can buy that heavy bolter. The windrider player has to pay 17 (if you want to argue semantics, I'll admit that the windrider player has to pay 51 to buy 3 heavy weapons).

2. They are undercosted.

3. They abuse broken bike rules (namely, relentless).

4. They fill a troop slot as opposed to a fast attack slot.

A 51 point windrider squad, though grossly undercosted, is not much of a threat.

An 81 point windrider squad with 3 scatter lasers and relentless is game-breakingly OP (evidence? Compare that to my 85 point tactical squad with 4 bolters and a missile launcher).

A 72 point windrider squad, though appropriately costed (more or less), is not much of a threat.

A 102 point windrider squad with 3 scatter lasers and relentless would still be game-breakingly OP.

An 82 point windrider squad with the maximum 1 scatter laser per squad, however, is another story.

It would still be another story even if they didn't have relentless.

It would still be another story if they didn't have relentless and filled a Fast Attack slot.

An 82 point windrider squad without relentless and filling a Fast Attack slot would pose a degree of threat to my army (appropriate to its points) without being game-breaking.

Again, if you want to talk about battle field roles, compare a windrider to an SM bike. How does a windrider fill its battlefield role relatively to an SM bike?

The fluff idea presented back in 5th edition was that only troops are considered "unimportant" enough to be left camping on objectives. Your elite infantry, heavy tanks, etc, show up, kill a bunch of stuff, and then move on to the next priority target (which is somewhere off the table). They aren't going to stick around camping on an objective so if you don't have a squad of troops there at the end of the game then you haven't really secured it. This of course makes much less sense with maelstrom missions, but maelstrom missions are stupid anyway so that's not really a problem.

Pedro conferred objective secured (or equivalent) on sternguard even in 5th.

If dedicated transports can capture objectives then why can't other vehicles? If an empty Chimera is able to secure an objective fluff-wise then why can't a Hellhound that is just the same Chimera with a fuel tank in the passenger compartment? The Hellhound is capable of doing everything the empty Chimera can, so why isn't it a scoring unit too?

I'm willing to admit "Only infantry, and potentially any infantry under appropriate circumstances."

Traditio what do you think about Marines getting Bikes as Troops?

pm713 wrote:
Traditio what do you think about Marines getting Bikes as Troops?

Several points:

1. I raised the issue in my posting, but I don't really think it would matter too much if the other problems were resolved. Space marines could have bikes as troops, as could Eldar, if the other things were fair. Given that they aren't, the fact that you can spam them just exacerbates the unfairness.

2. Given that formations exist, it's really not that big of an issue regardless. So what if bikes are fast attacks or troops? If you have a formation that lets you take 6 even though you didn't take any troops...

There's a lot wrong. Frankly, here are the problems I see, in descending order of importance:

1. The ability to take more than 1 heavy weapon per windrider squad.

2. The fact that bikes have relentless.

3. The inappropriate cost of windriders (should be 24 ppm, not 17).

And a fairly distant way down:

4. The fact that you can take bikes as troops.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Traditio what do you think about Marines getting Bikes as Troops?

Several points:

1. I raised the issue in my posting, but I don't really think it would matter too much if the other problems were resolved. Space marines could have bikes as troops, as could Eldar, if the other things were fair. Given that they aren't, the fact that you can spam them just exacerbates the unfairness.

2. Given that formations exist, it's really not that big of an issue regardless. So what if bikes are fast attacks or troops? If you have a formation that lets you take 6 even though you didn't take any troops...

There's a lot wrong. Frankly, here are the problems I see, in descending order of importance:

1. The ability to take more than 1 heavy weapon per windrider squad.

2. The fact that bikes have relentless.

3. The inappropriate cost of windriders (should be 24 ppm, not 17).

And a fairly distant way down:

4. The fact that you can take bikes as troops.

1. Okay. That's fair. I've always thought they should have stayed 1 in 3.
2. Why is this a problem? I've never understood why people have issues with this.
3.Your right it's totally fair to price them 1pt cheaper than a Ravenwing Bike. They're completely equal.
4. Why is that a problem? You haven't explained or it's buried in the text wall so deep I can't see it.

 Traditio wrote:
TL;DR about balance

You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what numbers you're talking about, if you're saying "unit X is no threat to my army" and "unit X needs to be more expensive" then you are wrong about at least one of those things. You can talk all you want about how each individual component of a unit is worth a certain amount of points, but in the end all that matters is the final result. If mass jetbike spam isn't a threat to your army then jetbikes should be made cheaper until you can bring enough of them that they are a threat.

And you're wrong about jetbikes being heavy weapon carriers. Prior to the current codex they only had a shuriken cannon (IOW, a very weak "heavy" weapon), and even in the current codex they still don't have lances/missile launchers/etc. Their current "role" as heavy weapon carriers is the result of scatter laser spam being overpowered, nothing more. Their real role is to be fast scoring units with some decent anti-infantry shooting.

Pedro conferred objective secured (or equivalent) on sternguard even in 5th.

Yes, which represents a special character modifying the tactics of the army. What I said is still true about "normal" armies.

I'm willing to admit "Only infantry, and potentially any infantry under appropriate circumstances."

This is at least more consistent, but it raises the question of why infantry are so special. Is an objective with a single guardsman (armed only with a lascannon) sitting next to it really more "secure" than one with a Hellhound parked on top of it, or even the empty Chimera that the guardsman was riding in?

Peregrine wrote:You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what numbers you're talking about, if you're saying "unit X is no threat to my army" and "unit X needs to be more expensive" then you are wrong about at least one of those things. You can talk all you want about how each individual component of a unit is worth a certain amount of points, but in the end all that matters is the final result. If mass jetbike spam isn't a threat to your army then jetbikes should be made cheaper until you can bring enough of them that they are a threat.

I basically agree with this, but then you're making a different point than I was.

My point is that naked windrider bikes aren't a threat. Your point is that if a unit isn't a threat, all things considered, then it's overcosted or underpowered.

These are mutually compossible propositions.

The result of my suggestion is that an 82 point windrider unit would have 3 bikes, a single scatter laser and no relentless, and that this unit, so composed, would pose a points-reasonable threat to my army.

Do you disagree?

And you're wrong about jetbikes being heavy weapon carriers. Prior to the current codex they only had a shuriken cannon (IOW, a very weak "heavy" weapon), and even in the current codex they still don't have lances/missile launchers/etc. Their current "role" as heavy weapon carriers is the result of scatter laser spam being overpowered, nothing more. Their real role is to be fast scoring units with some decent anti-infantry shooting.

Heavy bolters are heavy weapons. If you put the shuriken cannon and scatter lasers in the SM codex, it wouldn't be in the special weapons list.

 Traditio wrote:
These are mutually compossible propositions.

No they aren't, because you're ignoring the fact that naked jetbikes are supposed to be a valid option. They were in the past, and the only thing that changed in the current codex is that scatter laser spam made them obsolete. Old-codex jetbikes certainly weren't built around their terrifying 1-in-3 shuriken cannon.

The result of my suggestion is that an 82 point windrider unit would have 3 bikes, a single scatter laser and no relentless, and that this unit, so composed, would pose a points-reasonable threat to my army.

Do you disagree?

I disagree. You have a jetbike unit (IOW, a unit defined by its speed) that you've turned into a static heavy weapon platform. That's a unit that makes no sense at all.

Heavy bolters are heavy weapons. If you put the shuriken cannon and scatter lasers in the SM codex, it wouldn't be in the special weapons list.

Yes, technically heavy bolters are heavy weapons. But we all know there would be a lot of disappointed and frustrated marine players if devastators couldn't take lascannons and missile launchers, and they wouldn't think "well, they're still a heavy weapon unit".

Peregrine wrote:No they aren't, because you're ignoring the fact that naked jetbikes are supposed to be a valid option. They were in the past, and the only thing that changed in the current codex is that scatter laser spam made them obsolete. Old-codex jetbikes certainly weren't built around their terrifying 1-in-3 shuriken cannon.

Should naked tacs be an option?

I disagree. You have a jetbike unit (IOW, a unit defined by its speed) that you've turned into a static heavy weapon platform. That's a unit that makes no sense at all.

Except, it wouldn't be static. Jetbikes can be pretty much anywhere on the map that you want them to be. Not to mention assault phase movements. Sure, if you move them on the turn you shoot, you are snapshooting, but we're talking about a unit that's much more mobile than my 85 point tactical marine squad with missile launcher (or, more comparable, an 80 point tactical marine squad with heavy bolter).

And note, what you've said isn't really an answer to what I asked.

What I've asked was this:

Would an 82 point unit as I've described pose a points-reasonable threat?

I'd like to remind you that scatter lasers are 36 inch range, S6 and fire 4 shots a piece.

 Traditio wrote:
Should naked tacs be an option?

No, because they've always been defined as a squad where they have a heavy and special weapon (and can split into two sub-squads to use both of them effectively). Jetbikes, on the other hand, only got their "take heavy weapons" role when GW made a mistake with scatter lasers.

Would an 82 point unit as I've described pose a points-reasonable threat?

And the answer is "it doesn't matter, the unit concept is stupid". There's no point in analyzing a unit idea that makes no sense and should never happen.

Peregrine wrote:No, because they've always been defined as a squad where they have a heavy and special weapon (and can split into two sub-squads to use both of them effectively). Jetbikes, on the other hand, only got their "take heavy weapons" role when GW made a mistake with scatter lasers.

Ok. If I've understood you correctly, then you and I share the same principle of analysis (battlefield role), but you've chosen to consider them from a different role-perspective (fast, mobile objective seizure and anti-light infantry).

Space marine bikes have basically the same battlefield role. Are naked windriders more, less or about as effective as naked space marine bikes at this battlefield role?

And the answer is "it doesn't matter, the unit concept is stupid". There's no point in analyzing a unit idea that makes no sense and should never happen.

Because bikes should always be relentless?

Because windriders should be able to have more than 1 scatter laser?

Because naked windriders are appropriately priced?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:2. Why is this a problem? I've never understood why people have issues with this.

If my 29 point missile launcher marine moves even a fraction of an inch, he's hitting on a 6. Why should a 27 point scatbike move 12 and hit on 3s?

3.Your right it's totally fair to price them 1pt cheaper than a Ravenwing Bike. They're completely equal.

They're not equal. Eldar bikes are much more mobile.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok. If I've understood you correctly, then you and I share the same principle of analysis (battlefield role), but you've chosen to consider them from a different role-perspective (fast, mobile objective seizure and anti-light infantry).

Correct, because that had been their role until GW made a huge balance mistake with scatter lasers.

Space marine bikes have basically the same battlefield role. Are naked windriders more, less or about as effective as naked space marine bikes at this battlefield role?

More effective because of their superior speed, though much less effective than marine bikes at melta/plasma delivery (something marine bikes are very good at). And they should be more effective, because the Eldar army concept is based around fast units.

Because bikes should always be relentless?

Because windriders should be able to have more than 1 scatter laser?

Because naked windriders are appropriately priced?

Because a unit (jetbikes) defined by its speed should not have a weapon that requires the unit to remain static to use it effectively. That means either the bikes need to continue to be relentless, or their weapons need to be able to fire at full BS while moving.

Peregrine wrote:Correct, because that had been their role until GW made a huge balance mistake with scatter lasers.

I'm willing to accept and discuss on these lines.

More effective because of their superior speed, though much less effective than marine bikes at melta/plasma delivery (something marine bikes are very good at). And they should be more effective, because the Eldar army concept is based around fast units.

If I'm understanding you, you're essentially saying that it's a wash. Eldar bikes and space marine bikes are basically at parity, all things being considered. Therefore, by your own standards of analysis, SM bikes and eldar bikes should have comparable points costs.

Because a unit (jetbikes) defined by its speed should not have a weapon that requires the unit to remain static to use it effectively. That means either the bikes need to continue to be relentless, or their weapons need to be able to fire at full BS while moving.

I basically agree with this, but I add this caveat: this doesn't show that bikes should have relentless. It shows that bikes shouldn't be able to have weapons with "heavy" in the statline. If they're supposed to be fast, light units, then they need fast, light weapons.

Eldar bikes should have shuriken cannons (which have "assault" in the statline) as upgrades. They shouldn't have scatter lasers as upgrades. That's a heavy weapon, and eldar bikes are light, fast models. Right?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No, because they've always been defined as a squad where they have a heavy and special weapon (and can split into two sub-squads to use both of them effectively). Jetbikes, on the other hand, only got their "take heavy weapons" role when GW made a mistake with scatter lasers.

pm713 wrote:2. Why is this a problem? I've never understood why people have issues with this.

If my 29 point missile launcher marine moves even a fraction of an inch, he's hitting on a 6. Why should a 27 point scatbike move 12 and hit on 3s?

3.Your right it's totally fair to price them 1pt cheaper than a Ravenwing Bike. They're completely equal.

They're not equal. Eldar bikes are much more mobile.

So what? That's horrific reasoning. One bike having an issue (in theory) does not require a nerf to ALL bikes.

And much more fragile, has a weapon range putting it into a lot of danger, less cc power, no rules that allow it to ignore morale or cc rules and realistically the mobility isn't as helpful as you make out. Sure you have more range to move but moving without dying limits it. Ravenwing Bikes should be 35ppm because they have T5!

 Traditio wrote:
If I'm understanding you, you're essentially saying that it's a wash. Eldar bikes and space marine bikes are basically at parity, all things being considered. Therefore, by your own standards of analysis, SM bikes and eldar bikes should have comparable points costs.

No, I'm saying that it's hard to make a direct comparison because they have somewhat different roles, and Eldar jetbikes should be better for their points than space marine bikes because of their roles in their respective codices. I haven't done the fine-tuning of exact point costs for space marine bikes and a hypothetical no-scatter-spam jetbike unit so I can't tell you what their appropriate point costs should be, outside of "probably roughly comparable".

I basically agree with this, but I add this caveat: this doesn't show that bikes should have relentless. It shows that bikes shouldn't be able to have weapons with "heavy" in the statline. If they're supposed to be fast, light units, then they need fast, light weapons.

Eldar bikes should have shuriken cannons (which have "assault" in the statline) as upgrades. They shouldn't have scatter lasers as upgrades. That's a heavy weapon, and eldar bikes are light, fast models. Right?

Ok, but regardless of whether or not I agree with that idea this is a concession that your original idea about jetbikes with a single scatter laser and a "heavy weapon carrier" role was not a very good one. I'm not sure of the merits of "mobile light weapon unit" vs. "mobile heavy weapon unit" (at different point costs probably), either one could be a viable unit concept.

Peregrine wrote:No, I'm saying that it's hard to make a direct comparison because they have somewhat different roles, and Eldar jetbikes should be better for their points than space marine bikes because of their roles in their respective codices. I haven't done the fine-tuning of exact point costs for space marine bikes and a hypothetical no-scatter-spam jetbike unit so I can't tell you what their appropriate point costs should be, outside of "probably roughly comparable".

Depending on what you mean, I don't have any real difficulty with anything that you're saying here.

If you mean, "Granted the same points cost, eldar jetbikes should be faster than space marines, though they are inferior in other respects," then I agree.

If you mean: "Assuming that mobility were to have a points cost which is factored into eldar and space marines bikes respectively, eldar should have more mobility for equal or less points," then I disagree in principle.

But this would take us astray from the initial points.

Ok, but regardless of whether or not I agree with that idea this is a concession that your original idea about jetbikes with a single scatter laser and a "heavy weapon carrier" role was not a very good one. I'm not sure of the merits of "mobile light weapon unit" vs. "mobile heavy weapon unit" (at different point costs probably), either one could be a viable unit concept.

I wasn't making a normative claim; I was making a descriptive claim.

In fact, in their current incarnation, eldar jetbikes are a mobile heavy weapons platform. Practically speaking, in fact, that's indisputable.

You can deny that they should be a mobile heavy weapons platform, and we can have a discussion on those lines, but that doesn't change the actual current facts.

pm713 wrote:So what? That's horrific reasoning. One bike having an issue (in theory) does not require a nerf to ALL bikes.

And much more fragile, has a weapon range putting it into a lot of danger, less cc power, no rules that allow it to ignore morale or cc rules and realistically the mobility isn't as helpful as you make out. Sure you have more range to move but moving without dying limits it. Ravenwing Bikes should be 35ppm because they have T5!

It's not just the one bike. Really, when is "relentless" even going to make a difference for a bike model? Relentless only matters if you are using a weapon that doesn't have "assault" or "pistol" in the stat-line.

If you stripped dark eldar bikes of relentless, dark eldar players wouldn't even notice.

If eldar bikes didn't have scatter lasers, and if eldar bikes were stripped of relentless, eldar players wouldn't even notice.

Relentless pretty much only counts, in practice, for:

1. Eldar players using scatterbikes

and

2. Space marine players, who can:

A. Have a bike chapter master use an orbital strike after moving.
B. Rapidfire twin-linked bolters and still charge
C. Move and still fire grav-guns at 18 inch range at Salvo 3 (instead of 9 inch range and salvo 2)...and still charge afterwards.
D. Move their attack bikes but still fire heavy bolters or multimelta at full BS...and still charge afterwards.

In their current incarnation, bikes in general are completely OP for their points costs.

There is no sense in which +1 toughness, the ability to jink*, relentless and jump-pack like movement is a 7 points upgrade.

A forteriori, for eldar bikes, there is no sense in which +1 toughness, the ability to jink, relentless and jet-pack like movement AND +2 armor save is a 7 points upgrade.

Even if you took away relentless, that STILL shouldn't be a 7 points upgrade.

Currently, 3 bikes + grav gun = 78 points.

5 tacticals + grav gun = 85 points.

You taking the tacticals?

Even if SM bikes were fairly costed (24 ppm instead of 21):

3 bikes + grav gun would equal 87 points

5 tacticals + grav gun = 85 points.

Again, are you taking the tacticals?

At least if bikes lost relentless, there would be some kind of strategic trade-off between the bike squad and a similar tactical squad in a rhino.

Currently, bikes are considered auto-take and "competitive." In other words: OP bullgak.

And as far as the cost of eldar bikes goes:

Are you really going to tell me that a naked windrider bike is only 4 ppm better than a dire avenger? Please. Try to tell me that while keeping a straight face.

*If you shoot my tactical marine with a plasmagun, I have to forgo both movement and assault on my following turn to gain a 6+ cover save. If you take that same tactical marine and put him on a bike, I can say the magical word "jink," gain a 4+ or better jink save, and still move and assault normally on the following turn. It's completely bogus.

Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Other way around. Tacticals don't need to be buffed. Bikes need to be nerfed. Increase their points cost and take away their special rules until they become points-comparable to tactical marines.

Tac marines need buffed because even with a bike nerf, they'd still suck vs the field.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody takes Tacticals because you HAVE to buy a model as a transport on top of their rules saying only one special and heavy weapon.

Bikers having Relentless is just icing on the cake with that. Fix the latter problem with Tactical Marines and they're less of a tax.

Other way around. Tacticals don't need to be buffed. Bikes need to be nerfed. Increase their points cost and take away their special rules until they become points-comparable to tactical marines.

I am with this.
Lose the +1 T and have Bikes count all terrain as impassable. That way you are left with a fast moving unit that can rapidly advance to take objectives or threaten the enemies flanks, but now has to factor in terrain and can be blocked by a forest or ruin.