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.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.

It's not durable compared to what? In relationship to what weapons?

It's immune to all S7 and inferior shooting.

S8 glances it on 6s.

S9 glances it on 5s.

It would take, on average, 18 lascannon shots at BS4 to glance it to death. Even if you take into account the possibility that a lascannon could one shot it:

2/3 X 1/3 = 2/9 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 to hit

A lascannon fired at BS 4 has a 1/9 chance of dealing penetrating hit to a landraider. Assuming it deals that penetrating hit, it has a 1/6 chance of causing an Explodes! result.

1/9 X 1/6 = 1/54. It would take 54 lascannon shots, on average, to one-shot a landraider.

Yes, grav cannons can make short work of landraiders, but grav is commonly admitted to be a stupid, OP rule.

Lascannons aren't the only thing in the game that shoot at vehicles, you know that right? You didn't even mention Melta, or Haywire, or Gauss, or Armorbane, or Ordnance weapons or the myriad of S10 ap2 CC attacks in the game. Every well made army has the weapons in its list that can easily handle AV14. And you don't need to explode it, Immobilizing it or Stunnning it also makes it useless.

Also Grav was invented after the Riptide was made, so Land Raiders were bad before Grav existed too.

 Traditio wrote:
2. I've later re-evaluated my assessment of what a riptide should cost.

In the game as-is, or in the totally changed one?

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
2. I've later re-evaluated my assessment of what a riptide should cost.

In the game as-is, or in the totally changed one?

As is.

That's why I keep asking you if the riptide and the wraithknight are comparable.

If you tell me that a wraithknight and riptide are comparable, and, furthermore, that they are balanced in relationship to each other, then you'll have to agree with me when I tell you that a riptide, as described, should cost 295 points, under the assumption that a wraithknight should cost 395.

If a riptide should basically cost 3/4 what a wraithknight costs, then that is the fair cost of a riptide, assuming stimulant injectors and ion accelerator.

 Traditio wrote:

If you tell me that a wraithknight and riptide are comparable, and, furthermore, that they are balanced in relationship to each other, then you'll have to agree with me when I tell you that a riptide, as described, should cost 295 points, under the assumption that a wraithknight should cost 395.

They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

raverrn wrote:They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

That doesn't make them not comparable. It means that a wraithknight has stuff that a riptide doesn't, i.e., meaning that a wraithknight is better (at least in those respects) and therefore should cost more than a riptide.

It doesn't in and of itself mean that a riptide and wraithknight aren't comparable.

A wraithknight has those things, a better statline, etc. Therefore, it should cost 100 points more than the riptide.

Saying that you can't compare a wraithknight and a riptide is like saying that you can't compare a tactical marine to a space marine bike.

The bike has more stuff and performs better than a tactical. Therefore, it should cost more (by 10 points, say I).

But fine, let us assume that a wraithknight and riptide aren't comparable. Against what can a riptide be compared?

Name something that at least 70% of people would agree is neither undercosted nor overpowered.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:No, the Land Raider is bad compared to everything. It has terrible shooting for the price, its not actually durable because the vehicle rules is just a list of drawbacks and nerfs, and taking it as a transport is adding 250 points to the cost of what ever unit you put inside of it.

It's not durable compared to what? In relationship to what weapons?

It's immune to all S7 and inferior shooting.

S8 glances it on 6s.

S9 glances it on 5s.

It would take, on average, 18 lascannon shots at BS4 to glance it to death. Even if you take into account the possibility that a lascannon could one shot it:

2/3 X 1/3 = 2/9 chance of rolling a 5 or 6 to hit

A lascannon fired at BS 4 has a 1/9 chance of dealing a penetrating hit to a landraider. Assuming it deals that penetrating hit, it has a 1/6 chance of causing an Explodes! result.

1/9 X 1/6 = 1/54. It would take 54 lascannon shots, on average, to one-shot a landraider.

Yes, grav cannons can make short work of landraiders, but grav is commonly admitted to be a stupid, OP rule.

If you want a game where a Lascannon is the be-all and end-all of antitank weapons, you need to completely redo 40k base mechanics.

So you're just going to ignore my post Tradito?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So you're just going to ignore my post Tradito?

I'm still pondering it. I fully intend to get around to it later on.

 Traditio wrote:

raverrn wrote:They are not comparable. See the comments about speed, D-weaponry and Stomp attacks.

That doesn't make them not comparable. It means that a wraithknight has stuff that a riptide doesn't, i.e., meaning that a wraithknight is better (at least in those respects) and therefore should cost more than a riptide.

It doesn't in and of itself mean that a riptide and wraithknight aren't comparable.

A wraithknight has those things, a better statline, etc. Therefore, it should cost 100 points more than the riptide.

Saying that you can't compare a wraithknight and a riptide is like saying that you can't compare a tactical marine to a space marine bike.

The bike has more stuff and performs better than a tactical. Therefore, it should cost more (by 10 points, say I).

But fine, let us assume that a wraithknight and riptide aren't comparable. Against what can a riptide be compared?

Name something that at least 70% of people would agree is neither undercosted nor overpowered.

The bike does all the things a marine does, but better. How much is +1 Toughness worth? Your initial thought would be that it is worth something... But it actually depends on the weaponry available in game. If all that exists is poison and S7 then T5 is useless. So we need to price T5 relative to the prevalence of those weapons (or more likely, price those weapons relative to T5).
We can see simple formulaic thinking creating bad units all over the place because it doesn't take in to consideration the whole game. Eg, any multi-wound T4 creature. Any combat model limited to 6" movement. You could pile on other stats as much as you want but a A10 model with standard infantry movement is barely worth more than an A1 model.

In addition, ulthe wraith knight has additional capabilities over a riptide. Not just "better than", but "you can't do this at all". So while you could potentially come up with a cost for T8 vs T6 (even though that cost presupposes/determines all weapons and their costs), you can't put a price on Stomp with the existing points of reference.

Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Why?

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

 Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally? I'd say probably closer to 300pts than the ~220 or so that they currently are. These things pack the firepower of something like a kitted Russ tank, but with easily twice the resiliency or more, and dramatically more mobility, and with more capabilities to boot. Ideally, I'd be ok with leaving the Riptide at the current price but dropping a wound and not allowing FNP to be taken (what is something like a Riptide doing with FNP anyway? stimulant injectors for the pilot aren't repairing the leg actuator obliterated by a Lascannon).

FNP + 1 wound = 80 points?

Easily. An FNP'd 5 wound Riptide effectively had 7.5 wounds, by dropping a wound and disallowing FNP, you cut the average number of shots required by to kill a Riptide by nearly 50%, but the Riptide remains a very strong tough unit with T6 W4 Sv2+/5++/3++, retaining firepower equal to a heavy battle tank but with greater mobility and utility, and priced accordingly, just not astoundingly more resilient for no good reason.

Vaktathi wrote: Easily. An FNP'd 5 wound Riptide effectively had 7.5 wounds

I think you're overestimating feel no pain. A feel no pain saves an otherwise unsaved wound on a 5+ roll. It increases effective durability by 1/3, not by 1/2.

5/1 X 4/3 = 20/3, or 6 2/3.

You're overestimating durability by 3/4s of a wound.

Unless my maths are just wrong.

I'm not sure how much this affects your points cost evaluation, even if I'm right, though.

by dropping a wound and disallowing FNP, you cut the average number of shots required by to kill a Riptide by nearly 50%

It would be 4 wounds vs. 6.6 (repeating).

Let's do the math:

300 is to 6.6 (repeating) as x is to 4

X in this case comes out to be roughly 181.

That is assuming that each wound has exactly the same value and doesn't render diminishing returns with the addition of each several wound (likely a false premise).

At least at first glance, what you are saying seems to be about right. 1 wound + FNP could make an 80 point difference.

Nonetheless, a doubt remains:

Wouldn't it still be more durable, for all practical purposes, than a landraider while having better fire power?

2/3 X 2/3 X 2/3 X 1/4 = 8/108 = 4/52 = 2/26 = 1/13

It would take 13 lascannon shots to take it down, assuming that it doesn't nova its invuln.

If it novas:

2/3 X 1/3 X 2/3 X 1/4 = 4/108 = 2/52 = 1/26

And again, that's "72" in the range part of the statline for the IA. For all practical purposes, it's much more durable than the landraider simply because of the fact that it can stay out of range of...pretty much everything.

Even then, shouldn't it still cost as much as a landraider?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

raverrn wrote:Why?

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

Do you not see the problem with just assuming that durability is directly proportional to the number of Las cannon shots something needs to die?

I can't remember the last time I killed a riptide by taking all its wounds one by one. Much more common for me is:
- tactical 6 on stomp
- tactical 6 on D-weapon
- instant death weapon
And my favourite
- beat it by 1 in combat and run it down. Especially easy if you can multi charge it and some squishier friends

 Traditio wrote:


Then you aren't disagreeing just with me. You're disagreeing with Black Sails. He's the one who initially suggested it.

Lets get a few things straight here.

You've spelled my name correctly before, I'd appreciate if the trend continued.

I'm honoured you're using me as some sort of benchmark for balance knowledge, holding me up on a pedestal like that. I'm touched.

I could be super snarky about this, but it should be noted that when I mentioned the WK is to mostly illustrate how pants on head silly comparisons to a Land Raider are, and then picked an example of a unit that was closer in comparability for a number of reasons. It does not automatically follow that the point costs of one can derive the point cost of the other in a vacuum, the same way you can't use a Land Raider for deriving point values of a Riptide. So no one is disagreeing with me, its just that you took a very specific, narrow reading of something I wrote and twisted it sufficiently to throw back at people. I ask you kindly not to do that.

And stop comparing Land Raiders to Riptides. It only shows a lack of understanding.

 raverrn wrote:
Traditio, the gulf between the Riptide and the Wraithknight is absolutely massive. Just offensively the WK is capable of engaging any target in the game, in melee or in CC and have a decent chance of killing it in a single round. Stomp attacks make a mockery of MCs, of armor, of deathstars, everything.

Note well that an Imperial Knight has the exact same Stomp ability, carries a S(D) sword *and* drops 2x S8 AP3 pie plates at vastly longer range, along with taking a few S8 AP3 pot shots coming in.

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

It's a hallmark of these troll polls to imply that different armies should pretty much only differ artistically. Weaponry should be the same. It can have different names, but functionally should be the same.

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

Dakkafexes and Dreadknights likely don't fit my second criterion (widely considered balanced/fair by at least 70% of people).

The dual twin-linked brain devourers are part of what goes into making the consummately OP dakka flyrant.

And whereas Gray Knights aren't as complained about now as a bunch of other things, dual dreadknights are still basically auto-takes in common gray knights builds. Comparing it to a dreadknight would fit my second criterion as much as comparing it to a heldrake...in other words, not at all.

And are ionheads commonly considered fair/balanced? If I started a poll right now, would no more than 30 percent of respondents complain about it?

And comparing it to a crisis suit or a leeman russ is as fair as my comparing it to a wraithknight. Why is it any more fair to compare it to an infantry unit or a tank than to a GMC?

In the case of the wraithknight, I'll claim that it has at least one build that includes shield (conferring a 5+ invuln) and a cannon that fires blasts at range. And feel no pain to boot.

Here's an easy solution to the problem:

Does anybody remember the points cost for a wraithknight in 6th edition?

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.

Haven't you attempted to compare dreads to riptides? And Riptides to land raiders? (and by that logic, dreads to LRs)

And dreadknights only stand out because they're the only MCs any SM get, and because they're one of the few good units GK get.

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

 Traditio wrote:

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

You can't. What you are trying to do is folly.

No other model in the game does what the Riptide does. No other model in the game combines:

1) Durability - Nobody will argue the Riptide is anything but a hard target. While there are a few golden bullets, players can expect Riptides to soak a LOT of firepower.
2) Mobility - Not the same thing as speed. While they can't make a 20" move-charge like a SHV can, Riptides ignore the slowdown from difficult terrain, have several neat tricks the jetpack move offers, and can push the limit to move huge distances at a cost.
3) Anemic CC potential - 3 WS2 attacks means almost any fight is going to be a long one. The durable aspect means it won't LOSE a combat to most targets, but it also won't be shooting for quite a while. And when it does lose, I2 means it's probably gone.
4) Ranged output dependent on Markerlights and range- Without at least 3 markers the Riptide simply isn't reliable. The large blasts mitigates the BS issue somewhat, but Gets Hot turns that into a crapshoot all the same. And, by the way, the dichotomy of how tough the Riptide is and how fragile every Markerlight unit is is probably one of GW's triumphs in balance. (unintentional though it probably is). It's no accident the dependable weapons on the chassis - the secondaries - are significantly shorter in range to make up for it.

So no, there really isn't another tough, mobile, vulnerable to CC, high damage but only when buffed MC we can compare the Riptide to. The closest you can probably get is a double devourer flyrant - with the hard-to-hit modifier it's pretty darn tough, and the mobility of both are pretty close. But the flyrant is almost immune to being locked in CC, and is a monster even if he is! Also between templates, twin-links and Vector Strikes the flyrant's damage output is rock-solid regardless of the support the rest of your army provides, and is in fact a force multiplier for them instead of the other way around.

Wolfblade wrote:If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

In principle, everything in the game can be compared to everything else in the game. That's why they can all be measured by a single common measure, i.e., the points cost.

What you're paying for is a set of rules, a stat-line, which, when combined, lend itself to a given battlefield role. In principle, a riptide can be compared to a landraider, to a wraithknight, to a cultist, to a tactical marine, or practically anything else.

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

They only "suck" assuming that things like scatter bikes,wraithknights, etc. exist. When properly supported by the rest of the army, dakka fexes can do some damage. My usual opponent runs two, and the only reason they don't regularly deal more damage is because I build a rhino wall (a rhino wall I pay for, mind you; no, I don't generally use the battle company, even though I have the models for it and run essentially the same army without it) in the middle of the map early on in the game.

For its points cost, a dakkafex isn't bad. It's 140 points for a T6, 3+ save, multiwound MC which can fire 12 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range.

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Point costs aren't used for measuring units, they are used to restrict how much you can take in your army. They aren't meant to be used in comparison to each other

There is a reason you can't compare a Space Marine to just a Plasma Gun (even though both cost 15 points)

 Traditio wrote:

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Did you include the effects of Instinctive Behavior in this comparison? What about the general superiority of the Drop Pod as a means of deployment? What about the armies they're in? Does the glut of SM powers make the dreadnought more valuable? The easy access to Shrouded or FnP from Tyranids? Were they still at parity when Dreadnoughts only had two attacks in CC?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Point costs aren't used for measuring units, they are used to restrict how much you can take in your army. They aren't meant to be used in comparison to each other

Warhammer BRB, 4th edition, p. 13:

"Points Values

Generally, you'll find characteristic profiles come with one other piece of information- the points value per model. This represents the relative battlefield value of the creature in question. Points values are an abstract calculation which take into account a huge number of different factors including characteristics, different races' overall strengths and weaknesses, basic weapons, unit size, rarity and so forth.

For comparison, space marines are worth 15 points and termagaunts 7. This means space marines can be outnumbered by termagants by at least two to one and still have an even chance of winning."

There is a reason you can't compare a Space Marine to just a Plasma Gun (even though both cost 15 points)

But you can compare a space marine to a termagant, just as you can compare a plasma gun to a heavy bolter.

 raverrn wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Did you include the effects of Instinctive Behavior in this comparison? What about the general superiority of the Drop Pod as a means of deployment? What about the armies they're in? Does the glut of SM powers make the dreadnought more valuable? The easy access to Shrouded or FnP from Tyranids? Were they still at parity when Dreadnoughts only had two attacks in CC?

This, in a nutshell.

The points cost of a unit isn't just about the effectiveness of that unit in a vacuum... because you don't field that unit in a vacuum. The army that you field it in affects the value of the unit. So no, you can't just compare Unit X from this army and Unit Y from that army one-for-one and expect it to mean anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or,in other words:

 Traditio wrote:

"Points Values

Generally, you'll find characteristic profiles come with one other piece of information- the points value per model. This represents the relative battlefield value of the creature in question. Points values are an abstract calculation which take into account a huge number of different factors including characteristics, different races' overall strengths and weaknesses, basic weapons, unit size, rarity and so forth.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

In principle, everything in the game can be compared to everything else in the game. That's why they can all be measured by a single common measure, i.e., the points cost.

What you're paying for is a set of rules, a stat-line, which, when combined, lend itself to a given battlefield role. In principle, a riptide can be compared to a landraider, to a wraithknight, to a cultist, to a tactical marine, or practically anything else.

You replied to your own post... and are arguing against yourself. My reply to what you originally posted was "Haven't you attempted to compare dreads to riptides? And Riptides to land raiders? (and by that logic, dreads to LRs)"

 Traditio wrote:

Dakkafexes just suck iirc. Slow, easily killed, fairly expensive. So yeah,. they're probably not a great comparison.

They only "suck" assuming that things like scatter bikes,wraithknights, etc. exist. When properly supported by the rest of the army, dakka fexes can do some damage. My usual opponent runs two, and the only reason they don't regularly deal more damage is because I build a rhino wall (a rhino wall I pay for, mind you; no, I don't generally use the battle company, even though I have the models for it and run essentially the same army without it) in the middle of the map early on in the game.

For its points cost, a dakkafex isn't bad. It's 140 points for a T6, 3+ save, multiwound MC which can fire 12 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range.

Compare it to a dreadnought and it's roughly at parity.

Dakka fexes are actually 150pt, being only T6 with 4 wounds, no invul save, and 3+ armor. It takes 9 plasma gun/7.2 melta shots/21.6 hellfire bolter shots to deal 4 wounds to them, meaning dropping a 5man sternguard with combi plas is a pretty good way of killing them. A pyschic shriek has a decent chance of killing one in one go (10.5 wounds on average, meaning 50% of the time it dies from the first shriek, or has one wound left)

And a melee dread destroys a carni in CQC despite being 20 points cheaper (2.77 wounds with two melee arms, not counting any charge bonus, carni strikes back with 3 attacks for one pen or glance). Shooting wise, carni will kill the dread first if they start 24" away, but will also cost anywhere from 40pt (MM and ML) to 20pt more expensive still. So no, I'm not comparing dakkafexes to "OP" things. Not to mention the 'fex is stuck walking across the board opening it up to attack from everything with maybe just a cover save.

And of course, this isn't counting any SM chapter tactics, drop pod use, etc.

As for a marine vs 2 termies, marine deals .88 wounds to the .5 from the gaunts. More damage is done before the gaunts ever get in range however.

 Traditio wrote:

 raverrn wrote:

I believe that I've made the "why" abundantly clear by this point.

And with that:

Good day.

You have not yet explained why a model must be similar to another in order to be balanced.

If they aren't similar or comparable, then how are you going to compare them?

That's what a points cost is: it is a measure of comparison. It allows you to compare different things by a common measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Then for the nth bloody time:

Name something that's comparable (and is widely agreed (70% agreement or better) not to be OP or undercosted).

Crisis suits
Ionhead
Dakkafex
Leman Russ
Dreadknight

You're not going to find something that is exactly identical: all the above have stark differences. But comparing to a GMC is guaranteed to go wrong.

Dakkafexes and Dreadknights likely don't fit my second criterion (widely considered balanced/fair by at least 70% of people).

The dual twin-linked brain devourers are part of what goes into making the consummately OP dakka flyrant.

And whereas Gray Knights aren't as complained about now as a bunch of other things, dual dreadknights are still basically auto-takes in common gray knights builds. Comparing it to a dreadknight would fit my second criterion as much as comparing it to a heldrake...in other words, not at all.

And are ionheads commonly considered fair/balanced? If I started a poll right now, would no more than 30 percent of respondents complain about it?

And comparing it to a crisis suit or a leeman russ is as fair as my comparing it to a wraithknight. Why is it any more fair to compare it to an infantry unit or a tank than to a GMC?

No unit in the game does exactly what the Riptide does. You're right. But we can compare it to some other options in the game, even if it is to say that the Riptide is better/worse/whatever.

The reason that comparing to a Wraithknight is a bad idea is that the comparison to a GMC introduces some entirely new capabilities. It is nearly completely immune to all of the weaknesses of a Riptide. The additions of T8 and the gamut of GMC rules transform the Wraithknight in to an incredibly powerful model that doesn't fear any phase of the game, and can trivially deal with targets that a Riptide has no way of combating.

Some of the options I posted:
Crisis Suits. They're the best comparison for a riptide, because if riptides didn't exist, Tau players would probably fill up their points with Crisis suits. They have roughly the same purpose as a Riptide, can be configured in similar ways, and have roughly the same types of units they find hard to deal with. A unit of 4 Crisis suits with Plasma Rifles and Interceptor retains most of the important damage-dealing characteristics of a Riptide and costs in the same ballpark. And if people really whinge about crisis suits being overpowered they need to find a different game to play.
So how do they compare to a Riptide?
8 Plasma shots at 24", 16 at 12", vs the Riptide's 3 Plasma / Plasma Blast at 60". Jet Packs. Can gain all of the same markerlight buffs so we can essentially discount that aspect of the riptide. But they're 4x W2 T4 SV3 compared to riptides T6 W5 SV2/5. In combat (lol) the Riptide has 1/4 of the attacks but at AP2, so they're actually pretty even there.
Even under the best circumstances I'd only wager on 4 hits from the Riptides' blast weapon (and then you have the 1 turn per game where it gets hot, and the 1 turn per game where it scatters off target and hits nothing), whereas the Crisis should be getting that at 24", doubling it at 12", and getting a far higher benefit from +BS markerlights. But the Crisis can be taken out easily with Lascannons and Krak missiles, and every model they lose reduces their damage output significantly. Crisis are also a bit more risky to use as to maximise their damage they need to be close to the opponent.

Here's an easy solution to the problem:

Does anybody remember the points cost for a wraithknight in 6th edition?

The Wraithknight was already very powerful, even undercosted, in 6th edition, before it became a GMC.