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.

SO I take it no-one liked my option to get rip of its invul saves/possibly its nova reactor for the option to take a 2nd armament? even charging a large amount for it?

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:And that's because *drum roll* vehicles suck! Most are overcosted for what they do, or have confused roles (i.e. the LR is a transport gunship, but sucks at being a gunship)

And again I repeat my question, which nobody can seem to answer:

Vehicles suck compared to what? Under the assumption of what metas?

Again, against lascannons and missile launchers, landraiders are just fine.

Like... everything pretty much. Infantry can get ICs to soak up wounds (smashfether i.e.), bikes move just as fast but can jink. Jump infantry can deepstrike, MCs get smash/etc.

Vehicles just suck.

 Traditio wrote:

In principle, everything in the game should be balanced against everything else in the game. That's why points costs exist.

And again, it's really not so different. What you are paying for when you pay for a landraider is the 14 AV. You are paying for durability. Riptides are much more durable and have better firepower to boot.

Balance cultists vs a land raider.

 Wolfblade wrote:


Balance cultists vs a land raider.

Culists get new special rule: "Witness me!" every 5 cultists that have chrome painted on their faces can choose to sacrifice themselves and do 1 hp to any land vehicle. If disembarking from an open topped transport to do so, then only need 3 cultists"

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:


Balance cultists vs a land raider.

Culists get new special rule: "Witness me!" every 5 cultists that have chrome painted on their faces can choose to sacrifice themselves and do 1 hp to any land vehicle. If disembarking from an open topped transport to do so, then only need 3 cultists"

Love it! But we still need to balance bolters and lasguns vs land raiders!

raverrn wrote:and that's the difference between casual and competitive play.

Ruleswise, why should there even be such a difference?

In a competitive environment, matched against Libby Conclaves, Wraithknights, IC GravCents and the like, the Riptide is absolutely fine. Yes it's got a 2+ 3++ 5+++, but that's simply what it takes to survive in that kind of game.

Or perhaps all of those things are completely OP and need to be nerfed just as much as riptides.

So, unifying those two aspects is quite a bit harder than *hurf durf make it cost 300 points*. The durability and price probably can't flex much

Why to any of this? What is your reasoning for this beyond "I want to win tournaments"?

Everything should be appropriately priced. Everything should be balanced against each other. Nothing should be OP or undercosted.

It's that simple.

Are we going to launch into a crusade to nerf everything Traditio considers OP now? It feels like we're heading that way.

Again, it's not just dumb/massively time consuming to attempt to balance each unit vs every other unit, but literally impossible.

Balance cultists, gaunts and fire warriors vs each other, land raiders, and a stormhawk. Then against every dread variant and daemons princes with every variation of equipment it can have.

Wolfblade wrote:Like... everything pretty much. Infantry can get ICs to soak up wounds (smashfether i.e.)

This is commonly complained about. Smashfether is commonly described as "cheese," "OP" and in need of a nerf.

bikes move just as fast but can jink

Bikes are ridiculously points efficient for the rules they get. They need severe nerfing.

Jump infantry can deepstrike

Would you prefer a landraider or the points equivalence in assault marines?

MCs get smash/etc.

Literally this entire thread is a laundry list of complaints against MCs.

Basically, what your answer boils down to is this:

"Vehicles suck compared to the OP cheesy nonsense in this game. It's difficult to do OP, cheesetastic things with vehicles. Therefore, they suck."

I beg to differ: we need less OP, cheesetastic things in this game, not more of them.

Balance cultists vs a land raider.

Either they can be balanced against each other or they cannot. If they cannot, then they shouldn't have a common measure of comparison (namely, points costs).

There's always the option the thread stops engaging with Traditio and absurd comparisons between cultists and land raiders.

The issue is people talk about buffing vehicles to a balanced level. This is perfectly fine.

Bikes don't really need nerfing. They are hardly monstrosities.

Land Raider vs Assault Marine question is stupid. What am I doing with them?

If you fix the disparity between vehicles and MCs as a mechanic (basically one getting a save while the other doesn't), and tweak all the special/heavy weapons to match the new changes, you fix a whole lot of the game.

pm713 wrote:Bikes don't really need nerfing.

The result of a previous poll I did on this showed that at least half of respondents agreed with me that bikes should cost more. That's a nerf.

Land Raider vs Assault Marine question is stupid. What am I doing with them?

Exactly.

Assault marines aren't obviously better than landraiders simply because assault marines can deep strike. The fact that an assault marine can deepstrike doesn't in and of itself mean that a landraider sucks because it can't.

 Traditio wrote:

Balance cultists vs a land raider.

Either they can be balanced against each other or they cannot. If they cannot, then they shouldn't have a common measure of comparison (namely, points costs).

Cool, so you admit your idea to balance everything against everything is stupid then? Or are you going to keep trying to parrot that line over and over.

As for LRs vs assault marines, neither. Both suck very hard.

And again, vehicles suck when compared to ANYTHING. Name a unit type and vehicles are worse than it in general. They die too easy and lack fire power, especially once they start rolling on the damage chart.

 Traditio wrote:

Land Raider vs Assault Marine question is stupid. What am I doing with them?

Exactly.

Assault marines aren't obviously better than landraiders simply because assault marines can deep strike. The fact that an assault marine can deepstrike doesn't in and of itself mean that a landraider sucks because it can't.

I think pm713 means "what role am I trying to fill with them", not whatever you think PM713 was saying.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Bikes don't really need nerfing.

The result of a previous poll I did on this showed that at least half of respondents agreed with me that bikes should cost more. That's a nerf.

Land Raider vs Assault Marine question is stupid. What am I doing with them?

Exactly.

Assault marines aren't obviously better than landraiders simply because assault marines can deep strike. The fact that an assault marine can deepstrike doesn't in and of itself mean that a landraider sucks because it can't.

The poll was tainted by trolls and therefore we have to ignore it. Plus half didn't agree.

The Land Raider is still overpriced though. Pretending other people are being irrational doesn't change that.

Wolfblade wrote:Cool, so you admit your idea to balance everything against everything is stupid then?

Reading comprehension. It's a thing. Look into it.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I offered was a dichotomy:

Either:

1. They can be balanced against each other

or

2. They shouldn't have a common measure of comparison.

A reasonable, unbiased observer would have gone on to think to himself:

"But they should have a common measure of comparison. They should both have a points cost. After all, if they can't both be given a points cost, then they don't belong in the same game. But they clearly both do belong in the same game. Therefore, by disjunctive syllogism, they can be balanced against each other."

As for LRs vs assault marines, neither. Both suck very hard.

Again, compared to what?

And again, vehicles suck when compared to ANYTHING.

Are rhinos worse than tactical marines? Are leeman russes inferior to devastator marines?

Name a unit type and vehicles are worse than it in general. They die too easy and lack fire power, especially once they start rolling on the damage chart.

Again, compared to what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:The Land Raider is still overpriced though.

I've asked this question, I am willing to bet, no fewer than half a dozen times in the last couple of pages in this thread, and nobody has given any kind of real answer to it.

Why is it overpriced?

In comparison to what is it overpriced?

Was it overpriced in 5th edition?

Tau Riptide. Ws 2 BS 3 S5 T6 W5 LD9 3+ 150 points, TL SMS/PR/FB standard
50 points- offensive weapons suite: The riptide can take 2 main weapons, of either the IA with only normal and overcharge profile, and the HBC
60 Points- Balanced suite: Riptide gains the riptide shield generator, and can take 1 main weapon. Gains the ability to nova charge.
70 points- Defensive suite: Riptide armor improves to 2+ gains the riptide shield generator, access to nova charge, a 2nd SMS/PR/FB, and stimulant injectors

how about that? actually on topic!

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Cool, so you admit your idea to balance everything against everything is stupid then?

Reading comprehension. It's a thing. Look into it.

I said nothing of the sort.

What I offered was a dichotomy:

Either:

1. They can be balanced against each other

or

2. They shouldn't have a common measure of comparison.

A reasonable, unbiased observer would have gone on to think to himself:

"But they should have a common measure of comparison. They should both have a points cost. After all, if they can't both be given a points cost, then they don't belong in the same game. But they clearly both do belong in the same game. Therefore, by disjunctive syllogism, they can be balanced against each other."

So should what should exist then? LRs or anything with S7 or less? LRs invalidate anything that cannot hurt it after all.

 Traditio wrote:

As for LRs vs assault marines, neither. Both suck very hard.

Again, compared to what?

Compared to anything that fills the same role as either pretty much.

 Traditio wrote:

And again, vehicles suck when compared to ANYTHING.

Are rhinos worse than tactical marines? Are leeman russes inferior to devastator marines?

Generally yes. As long as it can cause 3 glances reliably the vehicle is worthless. Or one pen if said pen prevents it from shooting (or forces snap shots), or prevents it from moving if it's a transport.

 Traditio wrote:

Name a unit type and vehicles are worse than it in general. They die too easy and lack fire power, especially once they start rolling on the damage chart.

Again, compared to what?

Compared to anything in the same role.

Russes are still better than dev marines because they can move and shoot. And can't be suppress by S6/7 spam. The problem is that the Russ doesn't dish out enough hurt for the cost.

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are still better than dev marines because they can move and shoot. And can't be suppress by S6/7 spam. The problem is that the Russ doesn't dish out enough hurt for the cost.

stock russ yes, because ordinance makes all other shots snap shots, despite its heavy profile. but the punisher russ or underestimated eradicator, or even the long reaching s9ap 2 armorbane vanquisher are not that much, and can take full advantage of other weapons

I just can't get over the fact that an "assault" chapter like BA has not a single unit that's actually favored against this thing in CC. Even Mephiston or Dante can't beat it. It's got too many saves.

Martel732 wrote:
I just can't get over the fact that an "assault" chapter like BA has not a single unit that's actually favored against this thing in CC. Even Mephiston or Dante can't beat it. It's got too many saves.

And that's assuming us melee Chapters get there in the first place! I guess a Librarian/Ironclad/Furioso Dreadnought or a Contemptor could eventually kill a Riptide, but it'd take forever, and you'd have to get the Dreadnought into combat, which isn't ever happening.

That's awful and true, but it's more a commentary on how much this edition favors ranged combat over melee, and more importantly how godawful the BA codex is.

Can Black Templars kill this thing in assault? Can anyone other than Space Wolves?

Necrons probably could with Scythe Lycheguard if the Tau player rolled some bad assault jet moves and somehow doesn't shoot them off the board.

Martel732 wrote:
Can Black Templars kill this thing in assault? Can anyone other than Space Wolves?

Get me Honour Guard with the Emperor's Champion in CC with it and I'll kill it... eventually, and that's not taking into account how my 400+ point unit gets there in the first place. TH/SS Terminators might fare better since they wound on 2+, but there's still the FNP and how to get there to solve.

An Invisible D-Thirster courtesy of Be'lakor will murder a Riptide in CC, Imperial Knights can kill them and a Wraithknight would munch it (although it'd be easier to just D it in the face). Other than that Space Wolves are the only feasible melee option I can think of.

Other than Wulfen, Thunderwolves, and Imperial Knights I cannot think of an Imperial melee unit that can feasibly get to and kill a Riptide. Possibly Smashfether with friends, since they move 12", but that'll still take forever to kill the darn thing. I don't want to have to take Grav-cannons, but it's the only option I have that feasibly threatens Riptides. On a game-wide level the Riptides probably aren't OP, it's just that they're partially responsible for why playing a melee army that isn't SW or Daemonkin is an exercise in frustration in 7th. The fact that they require Grav-spam to deal with also means there's more Grav-weapons being spammed, which is in itself another reason why melee MEQ is in a bad spot.

I called out the Tau 6th edition Codex as a deatblow to the viability of assault armies when it was first released (thread's still in the underbowels of Dakka somewhere). Here we are. Scatterbikes, Riptides, Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and Grav-centurions galore and as usual the Space Wolves are the only ones getting viable melee units.

Invisible libby conclave swinging a force axe charged up.

Martel732 wrote:
Invisible libby conclave swinging a force axe charged up.

Aye, that'd work if you got into CC with the thing (which you won't). No witches for Templars though. We're stuck with the fact that we're almost as bad off as BA while getting no sympathy since Codex: White Scars is winning tournaments.

Ironically, BA are vaguely annoying for White Scars. Anything they didn't invis has a tendency to get its face ripped off.

5 Wraithblades with axe and shield. About 150 points. Better WS, higher Strength and Toughness, with AP2 and 4++. 150 points. Might take a while especially if the Riptide manages to nova charge the shield and has stimms, but eh.

Notice the theme? Lots of stuff can theoretically win in CC, but only after the game is over and it has done its damage to you.