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.

Peregrine wrote:No, it doesn't look comparable. The dreadnought is optimized for low-volume high-strength shooting (at least as far as a dreadnought can be)

You mean, just like the riptide if you equip it with the 72 inch gun?

the Riptide's strength is its anti-infantry pie plate. For example, if you want to kill MCs the dreadnought is significantly better than the Riptide (two shots vs. one, and the blast doesn't help against single-model targets).

The 72 inch gun can fire up to 3 S7, AP 2 shots. It doesn't even get hot. Again, they're pretty comparable. The difference is that the riptide has a somewhat inferior statline, benefits from marker lights and has better guns.

The dreadnought is a melee unit that can be armed with double guns if you stubbornly insist on it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. You'd be right in saying that the Ironclad dreadnought is a melee unit. The normal dreadnought, however, is as much a "melee unit" as anything else in the SM codex. The fact that it comes with a power fist makes it as much of a melee unit as it makes normal terminators a melee unit.

Yes, it can be a melee unit, but it doesn't specifically have to be for melee. Terminators can bring heavy weapons, and dreadnoughts can switch out their weapons.

The dreadnought is like just about the rest of the SM codex: it's a generalist unit that you can customize basically however you want based on your own gaming preferences.

What you are paying for when you take a dreadnought is the 12 AV, the word "walker" in the statline and the space marine dreadnought statline.

And really, shooty dreadnoughts aren't taken primarily for meta reasons. In the current meta, shooty dreadnoughts are terrible. Other things are way more durable and get way better shooting at a better points efficiency. There's too much in the game that will wreck a shooty dreadnought before it gets any real shooting in.

So why take one?

However, if you remove the cheese from the game, a shooty dreadnought becomes a pretty respectable option. Compare a shooty dreadnought to a lascannon predator (140 points). They're pretty "on par" with each other.

Here's an equivalent comparison: crisis suits with no weapons are clearly a melee unit

This is a stock Tau argument, and it just doesn't convince me. What you are paying for, in the case of a naked crisis suit, is a customizable weapons platform. You're not supposed to take them naked.

Frankly, I think it's silly that GW even gives Tau players the option to do so.

I can't believe this dispute has carried on this long.

Marines have nothing comparable to the Riptide, because marines don't rock MCs. It's virtually impossible to compare a walker, because said walker has a ton of extra disadvantages. I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

And I would argue against that. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

And I would argue against that. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim.

Because I can do math. Superior for the points. Does that clear it up?

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

And I would argue against that. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim.

Would you rather have 400 or so points of IKs or 400 or so points of riptides?

The fact that I can take one of the worst codices and the game (BA) and pay for dirt cheap ASMs with melta and pods and endanger a 375+ IK's life is a joke. The same squad can't scratch MCs. And there is no melta equivalent vs MCs. Because no table. Because reasons. You might say grav, but you still need WAY more points than just some chumpos with melta to field sufficient grav.

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

4. They should be walkers, but are MCs instead...

Prove this.

As per consensus in this thread, I'm not going to do that, in order not to derail the thread. However, let the following points be noted, all of which, I think, are pretty non-controversial:

1. If you were to make a poll of it, you would find the dakka community split pretty evenly on the question. If you remove the opinions of Eldar and Tau players, you'd find a much greater consensus that riptides should be walkers. With eldar/tau players taken into account, the poll would run anywhere from 40/60 to 60/40. Just a guess, but I think it's probable. Remove the Eldar and Tau players, and at least 60% would agree with me. Again, just a guess, but it seems probable.

2. If you examine the opinions of Tau and Eldar players who disagree with me, their reasons will come down to two things:

A. Because fluff.
B. Because nerf.

For this thread, we can safely ignore A, especially since A is what would most derail the thread. Let's attend solely to B. If would nerf Riptides to make them walkers, then it's a buff for Riptides to be MCs. If it would weaken them by making them walkers, then the fact that they are MCs makes them stronger and contributes to their being OP (if, in fact, they are OP).

Thus stands my insistence: if you want them to be balanced, if you want to nerf them, then get rid of the things that contribute to their being OP and imbalanced. Their MC status is one of those things.

The fact that they get free AP 2 close combat attacks and can't get immobilized, for starters, is pretty infuriating when you compare them to dreadnoughts.

I dont' care if they are walkers or MCs. It's only a problem because MCs are point for point far superior.

 Traditio wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

And I would argue against that. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim.

Would you rather have 400 or so points of IKs or 400 or so points of riptides?

I'd rather the Riptides. Either as or against. Sure with the IK one of the player's turns will be relatively quick, but at least the Riptides have a chance to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

4. They should be walkers, but are MCs instead...

Prove this.

As per consensus in this thread, I'm not going to do that, in order not to derail the thread. However, let the following points be noted, all of which, I think, are pretty non-controversial:

1. If you were to make a poll of it, you would find the dakka community split pretty evenly on the question. If you remove the opinions of Eldar and Tau players, you'd find a much greater consensus that riptides should be walkers. With eldar/tau players taken into account, the poll would run anywhere from 40/60 to 60/40. Just a guess, but I think it's probable. Remove the Eldar and Tau players, and at least 60% would agree with me. Again, just a guess, but it seems probable.

2. If you examine the opinions of Tau and Eldar players who disagree with me, their reasons will come down to two things:

A. Because fluff.
B. Because nerf.

For this thread, we can safely ignore A, especially since A is what would most derail the thread. Let's attend solely to B. If would nerf Riptides to make them walkers, then it's a buff for Riptides to be MCs. If it would weaken them by making them walkers, then the fact that they are MCs makes them stronger and contributes to their being OP (if, in fact, they are OP).

Thus stands my insistence: if you want them to be balanced, if you want to nerf them, then get rid of the things that contribute to their being OP and imbalanced. Their MC status is one of those things.

The fact that they get free AP 2 close combat attacks and can't get immobilized, for starters, is pretty infuriating when you compare them to dreadnoughts.

Why remove the opinion of Eldar players? Are they not allowed an opinion on an army they have to fight? How about instead we disregard Space Marine and Tau players opinions, because the SM players are clearly going to want to nerf the Riptide.

We can argue fluff all day, but the reality that MC status is nothing but advantages and walkers have a couple advantages and pile of disadvantages.

Happyjew wrote:Why remove the opinion of Eldar players?

Because they have the same bias towards the question as Tau players do. Of course an Eldar player is never going to want a riptide or a storm surge to turn into a walker. The day that happens is the same day that wraithlords and wraithknights turn into walkers.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue Riptides are superior to all SHW as well.

And I would argue against that. I'm not sure how you could even make such a claim.

Would you rather have 400 or so points of IKs or 400 or so points of riptides?

I'd rather the Riptides. Either as or against. Sure with the IK one of the player's turns will be relatively quick, but at least the Riptides have a chance to win.

Yeah, I'd rather play against Riptides. Riptides I can ignore. IKs I cannot.

You can kill the IKs, though. Thereby removing the need to make decisions. It's embarrassingly easy to kill IKs.

Martel732 wrote:
You can kill the IKs, though. Thereby removing the need to make decisions. It's embarrassingly easy to kill IKs.

I mean, a Riptide is easier for me to deal with in general, as a Necron player. I would love to fight 2 Riptides instead.

IMHO, walkers bite badly. There are only a few interesting walkers as a result. Buff walkers, and then we can talk about making Riptides, Ghostkeels, Wraithlords, etc into walkers.

In the interim I suggest making the Riptide and Ghostkeel into Infantry and the Stormsurge into an MC (instead of a GC).

Ultimately, I think vehicles with AV should go away, and all models should be handled with a durability/Toughness score, armor save and Wounds/Hull Points, with some kind of special rule to differentiate between biological and mechanical things. (Yes, that might mean that things like Crisis Suits and Necron infantry would get the 'mechanical' tag.)

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You can kill the IKs, though. Thereby removing the need to make decisions. It's embarrassingly easy to kill IKs.

I mean, a Riptide is easier for me to deal with in general, as a Necron player. I would love to fight 2 Riptides instead.

1. Most of the things in your army, I am willing to bet, glance IKs on 6s.
2. Most of the shooting in your army, I am willing to bet, resolves at 24 inches or inferior.

You'd prefer the riptides? Really?

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You can kill the IKs, though. Thereby removing the need to make decisions. It's embarrassingly easy to kill IKs.

I mean, a Riptide is easier for me to deal with in general, as a Necron player. I would love to fight 2 Riptides instead.

You're on crack. You can Gauss out the IK like a boss.

jade_angel wrote:
IMHO, walkers bite badly. There are only a few interesting walkers as a result. Buff walkers, and then we can talk about making Riptides, Ghostkeels, Wraithlords, etc into walkers.

In the interim I suggest making the Riptide and Ghostkeel into Infantry and the Stormsurge into an MC (instead of a GC).

Ultimately, I think vehicles with AV should go away, and all models should be handled with a durability/Toughness score, armor save and Wounds/Hull Points, with some kind of special rule to differentiate between biological and mechanical things. (Yes, that might mean that things like Crisis Suits and Necron infantry would get the 'mechanical' tag.)

Hey, if that means mechanical things get some (fluffy) immunities to things like Poison, I'm all for it.

jade_angel wrote:
IMHO, walkers bite badly. There are only a few interesting walkers as a result. Buff walkers, and then we can talk about making Riptides, Ghostkeels, Wraithlords, etc into walkers.

IoW:

"I am only open to the idea of riptides being walkers if they remain OP as walkers."

And this is why discussions like these never get anywhere. Eldar and Tau players aren't actually interested in "balancing" anything.

 Traditio wrote:
GW aren't actually interested in "balancing" anything.

Fixed that for you. Now we can /thread.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
GW aren't actually interested in "balancing" anything.

Fixed that for you. Now we can /thread.

1. I have to disagree with you. GW are interested in balancing...their finances. They just seem to be doing a poor job at it.

2. Presumably, JA is proposing house rules or fixes, just like Galef was doing with the WK.

The problem with these "fixes" is that they are proposing "fixes" from a position of bias. They don't actually want a fair fight. They just want to present enough of an illusion of a fair fight to make their opponents stop complaining.

Which might satisfy "competitive" opponents.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are going to see right past that. No, JA, making the riptide an infantry model isn't what I want. I don't care whether it has "infantry" or "MC" in the statline. What I do care about is its ridiculous durability and fire power and unreasonable points efficiency. Putting "infantry" in the statline won't change any of that.

You want to fix the riptide? Then fix those things.

You don't want to fix those things, but only want to "appear" to fix things?

Well let me tell you, JA, and let me tell the rest of you Eldar and Tau players:

I have the simplest "fix" of all. Players like me can simply say "no" to games with players like you. And we'll all be a whole lot better off.

 Traditio wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
IMHO, walkers bite badly. There are only a few interesting walkers as a result. Buff walkers, and then we can talk about making Riptides, Ghostkeels, Wraithlords, etc into walkers.

IoW:

"I am only open to the idea of riptides being walkers if they remain OP as walkers."

And this is why discussions like these never get anywhere. Eldar and Tau players aren't actually interested in "balancing" anything.

No, that is not what I said. Stop putting words in my mouth, stop accusing me of playing or arguing in bad faith.

What I said, is that the walker type, due to issues with vehicle rules at present, sucks. I did not say that I insist on leaving Riptides as totally OP. I'd still suggest nerfing them, even if walkers were just as good as MCs or even Infantry. But for now, walkers stink. They stink badly enough that there are almost no walkers in the game that are balanced other than maybe IG Sentinels. They either have OP levels of firepower (Eldar War Walkers) or they're too squishy to do their jobs (Dreadnoughts, Helbrutes). So, let's make vehicles not suck. That would help a lot of folks, BTW - perhaps Space Marines or Guard most of all.

We just have radically different ideas of what that nerf should be, mostly because we've got different ideas of what the Riptide's role on the battlefield should be. You see a Basilisk-equivalent, and wonder why in all hell a Basilisk has any business being as durable as a squad of Mark of Nurgle bikers. I see a giant XV8 and wonder why in all hell it has any business standing at the edge of the table barfing S8 AP2 pie-plates on things. That's how we come up with things as radically different as you thinking that a 10/10/10 2HP walker is a fair start, and me thinking that's flaming crazy (because that's a Sentinel statline, and Sentinels are dirt-cheap and not OP. They're actually about where they should be.) That's not a totally abominable idea for a mobile artillery piece sitting at the edge of the battlefield, after all. Of frigging course that's gonna die as soon as a squad of Sternguard or Dominions gets a clear look at it, and it should!

However, if you're expecting something that's supposed to go forward along with other units with short-range but strong guns and draw fire so they can do their jobs, you need something that can survive being shot at: T6 or AV12 with a save (or AV13 without), 3-4HP or 4-5W, and a gun scary enough that you can't ignore it, but it also won't just delete a unit per turn with no defense. (So, something like the cyclic ion raker or a shorter-ranged heavy burst cannon...)

For another thing, did you even freaking read my initial post? Changing the Riptide to Infantry is not the only change I made.

The 72" gun is gone. It's replaced with a gun that shoots a bunch of AP4, unless you nova-charge it. The 3++ is gone. The HBC's range was cut to 30" from 36".

I already gave a proposal for a drone turret version that is a walker, with 12/10/10 armor, whose whole trick is to sit at the back of the table and shoot, but well, I don't freaking want that. And you conceded that a Sentinel for 180 points is not reasonable. Make me a reasonable counterproposal here: you've proposed things weaker than Dreadnoughts for more points, which, considering the usual opinion on Dreadnoughts, makes no sense.

The only way to salvage this discussion is to simply ignore Traditio and let people discuss reasonably without dismissing someone's opinion based on an army they play.

 Traditio wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
IMHO, walkers bite badly. There are only a few interesting walkers as a result. Buff walkers, and then we can talk about making Riptides, Ghostkeels, Wraithlords, etc into walkers.

IoW:

"I am only open to the idea of riptides being walkers if they remain OP as walkers."

And this is why discussions like these never get anywhere. Eldar and Tau players aren't actually interested in "balancing" anything.

actually it's because you insist on bad comparisons, unwillingness to make any concessions, and putting words in other people's mouths (quote? See above). You can't tell me why the riptide should be compared to the dreadnought other than the dreadnought is "iconic", and can be equipped with very bad ranged weapons thus making it "fill the same role", despite it not doing anything like that (giving a combi weapon or special weapons to an assault squad does not make them a ranged unit i.e.). You have a random level of balance that you want, where everything basically lines up/rides in transports then lines up and just starts Revolutionary War style of fighting, and anything else is basically "shenanigans".

You also need to stop acting like every Tau/Eldar/Player who wants to play competitively is some sort of WAAC TFG and randomly discounting their opinions when it suits you because you assume they're WAAC TFGs. You need to move past 5th ed ideas. 5th ed was no more balanced than 6th, or 7th. Or whenever. And probably will never be except when players talk their lists over with each other (no, this doesn't include "Oh, you have X? Yeah, I'm never playing you, feth off WAAC TFG!").

In this case, YOU'RE that fething guy when it comes to anything that gives SM a run for their money competitively, or runs against your random "cheese" list (i.e. psykers, riptides, eldar, or tau).

 Traditio wrote:

I have the simplest "fix" of all. Players like me can simply say "no" to games with players like you. And we'll all be a whole lot better off.

Ironically, I think this is the best solution as I doubt very many people would have an enjoyable game with you from this thread, but you've pretty much always been in the minority so I doubt anyone would lose very many games anyways. There's always almost always another player looking to play.

 Blacksails wrote:
The only way to salvage this discussion is to simply ignore Traditio and let people discuss reasonably without dismissing someone's opinion based on an army they play.

Except, for the most part, I'm simply echoing the commonly voiced complaints. You may disagree with the precise details of my solution, but nobody can disagree that the following are the common complaints against riptides:

1. They are too durable.
2. Their firepower is too strong.
3. They are too points efficient.
4. They aren't walkers.

You may or may not agree with the legitimacy of those complaints. But you can't disagree that those ARE the common complaints.

If you haven't addressed all 4 of those points, then you simply have NOT proposed a fix which addresses the common complaints.

I don't think I've heard the complaint about it not being a walker in a LONG time. Got any proof that's a common complaint? I can give you 1 and 3 I suppose, but they only have one S8 AP2 gets hot! large blast. Not exactly earth shattering firepower. what makes it so good is the 72" range, which allows for multiple turns of shooting on a durable platform.

Then propose the details of your solution, and stop dismissing the arguments of people who happen to play a particular army. You complained about the discussion not going anywhere, but you are the problem.

Ok, how about this: let's start with a blank slate and build what this thing should look like, maybe even breaking it into two units.

One, the artillery suit. This thing has a big, frak-off scary megacannon, but it dies if you look at it funny. Devastators or Predators turn it into jelly. But they better, or it'll do the same to them.

Two, the close-support suit. This thing is a linecrasher, but with guns instead of power fists or giant swords. It should be durable enough to survive a fair bit of small-arms shooting but be a bit weak against heavy weapons, with enough firepower that you can't just blithely ignore it and kill the things it's there to protect instead.

What would you have those look like? Walker, Infantry, MC, Tank, doesn't really matter. Both should be targeted at a point value somewhere in the neighborhood of 200, because that's what the existing unit costs (180, but 200 or so with the shinies that most players bolt on).

 Wolfblade wrote:
I don't think I've heard the complaint about it not being a walker in a LONG time

There was a poll on dakka about it within the past several months, IIRC. The conversation included riptides, wraithknights and wraithlords. If memory serves, the conversation was so volatile and divisive that it ended up being locked.

My earlier points addressing why it should be a walker are basically pulled directly from that thread.

Got any proof that's a common complaint? I can give you 1 and 3 I suppose, but they only have one S8 AP2 gets hot! large blast.

S9, AP 2, large blast, barrage, gets hot. 72 inches.

That's the statline, iirc.

And that's only:

1. One of the weapons it can use.
2. One of the firing modes of that weapon. That gun has two other firing modes.

No barrage. And it's only s9 when nova-charged (that also makes it Ordnance, however). Most players don't do that because if they nova-charge at all with the IA (risky, kinda), they use it for the 3++ save. Which is, I fully agree, insult to injury on something that can sit 72" away.

By the way, the fluff about the damn thing in the Tau codex has it operating up close and being durable as its whole schtick. The ion accelerator's stupid-long range could be regarded as unfluffy by Tau players, even. That's why I want it to be short-range, but still be durable, not long-range but squishy.

In full, the IA's profiles:

R72 S7 AP2 Heavy 3
R72 S8 AP2 Heavy 1, Large Blast, Gets Hot!
R72 S9 AP2 Ordnance 1, Large Blast, Gets Hot!, Nova-Charge