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.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

Just tired of the same game vs Tau over and over and over for the same reasons. Look! MCs that never come off the table! What fun!

Does anyone else notice the irony of wanting Landraiders to have T10 sv 2+ when the Riptide having a 2+ or the wraithknight having t8 alone is enough to cause people to lose their flipping mind?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Does anyone else notice the irony of wanting Landraiders to have T10 sv 2+ when the Riptide having a 2+ or the wraithknight having t8 alone is enough to cause people to lose their flipping mind?

No, the pricetag is what causes people to lose their minds. WK is a 400 pt model at least.

Honestly, I don't even care if the Land Raider is in the game anymore. They've already defacto squatted it. It hasn't been good since ?????

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

Pretty much everything is wrong with the Riptide. It's too durable, the IA is way too good, it's mobility is too good, and it has an auto-take formation that is insanely overpowered. It's pretty much the textbook example of what is wrong with 7th edition 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Assuming it's in Metla Range, the likelihood of achieving an Explodes! Result (assuming no re-rolls) is 2/3 (To Hit) x 27/36 (Chance of Scoring a Pen) x 1/3 (Chance of Scoring an Explodes!) = 16.67%. Now this mathematically might sound relatively low, but when you consider that you are one-shoting a vehicle that in most situations will cost close to double (if not more) than the unit doing the shooting, that chance is quite high. And that's just for the Explodes! Result. If we try to account for the amount of damage a weapon with the Melta Special Rule can do within Melta Range, that number would be a lot higher. If these numbers were against the Armour Values in the bottom end of the AV spectrum, I would be OK with this, but this is against the highest Armour Value in the game. In short, the Melta Rule not only allows the weapon to do too much damage in Melta Range, but for me at least also exemplifies the relatively high amount of damage that many Anti-Vehicle weapons can do that needs to be toned down.

Again, disagree strongly. A 1/6 chance of a kill for one of the most powerful anti-tank weapons in the game is, if anything, too low. Having the highest armor in the game (other than AV 15 Apocalypse-scale stuff) is what makes that chance 1/6 instead of nearly 100% like it would be for real-world anti-tank weapons against real-world tanks.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Does anyone else notice the irony of wanting Landraiders to have T10 sv 2+ when the Riptide having a 2+ or the wraithknight having t8 alone is enough to cause people to lose their flipping mind?

Their is also a difference in the number of wounds - a Land Raider would have 4, with no invulnerable save and difficulty getting a cover save, while Riptides come standard with a 5++ (and can increase it to a 3++) and get an undercosted option for 5+++ FnP, and WK have access to 5++ and come standard with 5+++.

A Landraider would only take 12 lascannon hits to put down at 250 points, while the Stimtide would need ~12 (~24 with 3++) at 215 and the WK w/shield ~18 at 300ish.

Martel isn't completely wrong about some units being undercosted (Riptides and WKs are undercosted), he's just inaccurate in appropriately costing them because his baseline is, as he himself notes, worthless models.

Edit: T10/2+ is also almost completely the same as AV14 would be against AP2 weapons (worse, actually, against S7), though it is significantly better against AP 3 or worse. This is what I'm talking about when I discuss the veil of confusion in the AV/T distinction currently.

So how much is a stimtide worth you think?

Remember its more durable than ik and has a better gun.

And what, would the Land Raider still cost 250? Heck, at 35p (or 0, becuase fething Gradius) the t7 +3 rhino makes a mockery of the 120p Canifex

Martel732 wrote:So how much is a stimtide worth you think?

Remember its more durable than ik and has a better gun.

More durable against some thing, less so against others.

I'm not sure I agree on the "better gun" - I think I'd rather have a 2 shot battlecannon over the IA.

How much they should be worth is tough to answer, but somewhere between 10-30 points more. Increased defenses have diminishing returns. Suggesting 120 points is absurd, and the result of your comparison coming from a baseline of "worthless units".

Luke_Prowler wrote:And what, would the Land Raider still cost 250? Heck, at 35p (or 0, becuase fething Gradius) the t7 +3 rhino makes a mockery of the 120p Canifex

Dunno about the Landraider cost. It might stand to have a slight decrease, but less than if it remained at AV (and thus vulnerable to being exploded, and more vulnerable to AP3 or worse weaponry).

The rhino would have no melee, for one. Further, the Rhino would be just as glanced to death in the current system if fired at from front or side angles as it would at T7 (less durable, actually, against S4, and more durable against S10) because S7 would only glance or pen (i.e inflict a HP in damage, the equivalent of a wound) on a 4+, and would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING against T7. It would become more resilient against AP4 or less, so perhaps 3+ armor is too much - I'd rather see it at 4+ armor for things like transports.

It would also have 3 wounds to the Carnifex's ... 4? 5? Plus, the Carnifex is not exactly widely considered a GOOD unit, so once again we're comparing apples to rotten oranges.

The gladius cost is its own bucket of idiocy, in the same way the Riptide Wing makes the already-too-good Riptide unreasonably better.

There is no weapon the ik is immune that stands a realistic chance of clearing a wound vs stimtide.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no weapon the ik is immune that stands a realistic chance of clearing a wound vs stimtide.

Depends on the facing. Anything AP 2 has a 44.4% chance of clearing through if it wounds. anything S3 Rending would qualify, and anything S3-6 (front/side) or 3-5 (back) would also do the task. Weapons with ID (up to S6 for front/sides, S5 for back) can also do the task.

And for the record, I'm totally on board with making IKs more durable by giving them T values and armor saves.

Vehicles getting a save against glances would be a start, with that save based on how many AV points you have above 10. Mathematically this would create value on higher AV. (11->6+ vs glance, 12->5+ vs glance, 13->4+ vs glance, >=14->3+ vs glance). Base this off of the weakest armor on the unit. AP1 or AP2 shots are exempt from "glance save."

Finally, Ceramite plating should be purchasable for any vehicle with av above 11, but purchasable for each specific side. For example, you could pay 20 points, 5 per side, to buy Ceramite plating, on a land raider. On a predator, you couldn't buy it for the rear armor because the AV is 10.

This would:

1. Give vehicles a realistic chance to avoid being glanced to death.
2. Allow people to spend up their vehicles so they don't get 1 shot by melta nearly as easily.

This would be incredibly easy to implement without recosting vehicles and would actually mean having a higher AV would be worth it.

So a 270 point land raider crusader would have a 3+ save against glances, and have Ceramite plating to protect it from melta rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

Pretty much everything is wrong with the Riptide. It's too durable, the IA is way too good, it's mobility is too good, and it has an auto-take formation that is insanely overpowered. It's pretty much the textbook example of what is wrong with 7th edition 40k.

The Riptide Wing needs to be purged from reality, living memory, and its potential for ever returning removed. That formation should never have survived the first rules writer looking at it.
I wrote a post on Riptide fixes a while back, removing the IA Overcharge mode, moving the single shot profile down to AP3 (so you fire three AP3 shots or use the high risk S9 AP2 pie plate from novaing), giving it a "heavy battlesuit" rule that gave it 1D6 for jetpack, and the nova pack to give it 3D6, and nerfing the IA down to 36" range. I'll steal Kanluwen's idea of making stimulant injectors a declared effect, which grants FNP for -2 BS and -2WS.
With these changes, I believe that it would be reasonable with no points increase.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Depends on the facing. Anything AP 2 has a 44.4% chance of clearing through if it wounds. anything S3 Rending would qualify, and anything S3-6 (front/side) or 3-5 (back) would also do the task. Weapons with ID (up to S6 for front/sides, S5 for back) can also do the task.

There's hardly anything with those stats. Virtually all AP 2 weapons are at least STR 6 and capable of damaging a knight, S3 rending (if such a thing even exists) can damage a knight, and ID on low-strength weapons is similarly rare. The weapons that are a realistic threat to a Riptide are all capable of damaging a knight.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Depends on the facing. Anything AP 2 has a 44.4% chance of clearing through if it wounds. anything S3 Rending would qualify, and anything S3-6 (front/side) or 3-5 (back) would also do the task. Weapons with ID (up to S6 for front/sides, S5 for back) can also do the task.

There's hardly anything with those stats. Virtually all AP 2 weapons are at least STR 6 and capable of damaging a knight, S3 rending (if such a thing even exists) can damage a knight, and ID on low-strength weapons is similarly rare. The weapons that are a realistic threat to a Riptide are all capable of damaging a knight.

I explicitly noted facing as an element - S6 is incapable of damaging a knight from its front facing (and IIRC, its side facing) of 13. S3 Rending is the same (I'd be surprised if it didn't exist, honestly) and S4 rending is not that uncommon and has at least as "unrealistic" a chance of removing "wounds" from an IK as it does a Stimtide, and force weapons are not common, but not exactly rare, depending on the source book, and are not the only source of low S ID (in fact, most weapons that inflict ID through special rules are low S - its rare far more rare for a high S weapon to have the ID special rule).

S3-5 or -6 weapons with AP are rare, but not nonexistent - Tau Plasma Rifles are S6 AP2 (and Rail Rifles are S6 AP1), Smite is S4 AP2, that new Ynarri nova power is S3 AP2. There are probably more.

And as I've stated, I'm all for increasing the overall durability of vehicles, INCLUDING IKs. I'd rather find the middle ground (increase Riptide cost or decrease its durability, while increasing durability of IKs and other vehicles).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I explicitly noted facing as an element - S6 is incapable of damaging a knight from its front facing (and IIRC, its side facing) of 13.

You recall incorrectly. Knights are AV 12 on the side. So STR 3 rending, STR 6 AP 1/2, etc, can all damage a knight. The only example that is really relevant is low-strength force weapons, which are both rare and extremely difficult to deliver to a target as mobile as a Riptide.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I explicitly noted facing as an element - S6 is incapable of damaging a knight from its front facing (and IIRC, its side facing) of 13.

You recall incorrectly. Knights are AV 12 on the side. So STR 3 rending, STR 6 AP 1/2, etc, can all damage a knight. The only example that is really relevant is low-strength force weapons, which are both rare and extremely difficult to deliver to a target as mobile as a Riptide.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction. But I am correct that the front armor is 13, so S3 rending and S6 AP1/2 cannot damage a knight from the front, yes?

I'll concede that the IK is too vulnerable for its points and the Riptide is too resistant to damage for its points, which I did so already several times, because its true.

Edit: Also, for the force weapons, any strength of 6 or less would result in IK immunity and Riptide vulnerability, as all CC attacks are resolved against a Walker's front facing. Their rarity will depend on the army, and the delivery mechanism... is concededly difficult.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

When everyone feels hard done by it usually means equality.

If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I explicitly noted facing as an element - S6 is incapable of damaging a knight from its front facing (and IIRC, its side facing) of 13.

You recall incorrectly. Knights are AV 12 on the side. So STR 3 rending, STR 6 AP 1/2, etc, can all damage a knight. The only example that is really relevant is low-strength force weapons, which are both rare and extremely difficult to deliver to a target as mobile as a Riptide.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction. But I am correct that the front armor is 13, so S3 rending and S6 AP1/2 cannot damage a knight from the front, yes?

I'll concede that the IK is too vulnerable for its points and the Riptide is too resistant to damage for its points, which I did so already several times, because its true.

Edit: Also, for the force weapons, any strength of 6 or less would result in IK immunity and Riptide vulnerability, as all CC attacks are resolved against a Walker's front facing. Their rarity will depend on the army, and the delivery mechanism... is concededly difficult.

Force weapons mean something has plowed across the table, through all the Riptide's firepower, all the co-operative power of Tau overwatch and made combat - If you let that happen your Riptide deserves insta-gibbing.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

When everyone feels hard done by it usually means equality.

Equality does not always connote efficiency or optimal. Pure socialism is great for equality, but can end up dragging everyone below "acceptable" status.

But hey, I don't mind if we're dragging everyone and everything down to BA levels, I just happen to think that would require significantly more work than curbing the worst offenders (yes, that includes Riptides, just not to the extent suggested by Martel, et al.) and boosting those most in need (including BA, Orks, and Tyranids).

Nvs wrote:
If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

In AoS every monster comes with an independent table describing how an arbitrary set of weapon stats and rules are affected as it loses Wounds. Personally I hate the AoS implementation, because there's no consistent pattern to what's affected and how it's affected, which means you need to learn an extra couple of dozen numbers to play any monster without needing to constantly check back at the warscroll, but in principle the idea that a vehicle or monster should just get linearly 'worse' as it takes wounds without needing to roll on the damage table isn't a bad one.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nvs wrote:
If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

In AoS every monster comes with an independent table describing how an arbitrary set of weapon stats and rules are affected as it loses Wounds. Personally I hate the AoS implementation, because there's no consistent pattern to what's affected and how it's affected, which means you need to learn an extra couple of dozen numbers to play any monster without needing to constantly check back at the warscroll, but in principle the idea that a vehicle or monster should just get linearly 'worse' as it takes wounds without needing to roll on the damage table isn't a bad one.

And is it static or do you basically roll on this table every wound? Because anything that takes additional rolling is a nonstarter IMO.

I'd be fine with MCs in general being given a primary weapon, secondary weapon, and melee weapon and just make it so the first wound takes out the secondary weapon, the second would takes out the primary, and the third halves attacks rounding up. And then any other wound would do nothing special until the creature eventually dies. So long as they keep generic rules today so these things are still a threat until they're torn down it should be fine.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
300 point Riptides are still worthless. Nerf the IA, nerf what's actually wrong with the Riptide. Don't just double the points out of nowhere.

You have to pay for immortality. It's more durable than a Warhound titan. That costs points. I'm tired of Tau players pretending it shouldn't.

Wouldn't you know it, Tau players are tired of everyone else looking to make their units worthless, rather than merely appropriately costed.

Problem is, 300 is appropriately costed for a stimtide. To be cheaper, it would have to be less durable. I basically have a whole codex of worthless units, so I'm not horribly sympathetic.

Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around, eh?

When everyone feels hard done by it usually means equality.

Equality does not always connote efficiency or optimal. Pure socialism is great for equality, but can end up dragging everyone below "acceptable" status.

But hey, I don't mind if we're dragging everyone and everything down to BA levels, I just happen to think that would require significantly more work than curbing the worst offenders (yes, that includes Riptides, just not to the extent suggested by Martel, et al.) and boosting those most in need (including BA, Orks, and Tyranids).

Blood Angels could do with a chapter specific Assault Vehicle.

Nids need movement bonuses.

Orks are the hard one - they need the game to change, particularly at the Tournament level - a lack of completed matches usually pulls them up short.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nvs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nvs wrote:
If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

In AoS every monster comes with an independent table describing how an arbitrary set of weapon stats and rules are affected as it loses Wounds. Personally I hate the AoS implementation, because there's no consistent pattern to what's affected and how it's affected, which means you need to learn an extra couple of dozen numbers to play any monster without needing to constantly check back at the warscroll, but in principle the idea that a vehicle or monster should just get linearly 'worse' as it takes wounds without needing to roll on the damage table isn't a bad one.

And is it static or do you basically roll on this table every wound? Because anything that takes additional rolling is a nonstarter IMO.

I'd be fine with MCs in general being given a primary weapon, secondary weapon, and melee weapon and just make it so the first wound takes out the secondary weapon, the second would takes out the primary, and the third halves attacks rounding up. And then any other wound would do nothing special until the creature eventually dies. So long as they keep generic rules today so these things are still a threat until they're torn down it should be fine.

Usually static and unique to the creature.
Normally as it suffers more wounds the creature hits harder but makes less attacks and suffers mobility penalties.

 Marmatag wrote:
Vehicles getting a save against glances would be a start, with that save based on how many AV points you have above 10. Mathematically this would create value on higher AV. (11->6+ vs glance, 12->5+ vs glance, 13->4+ vs glance, >=14->3+ vs glance). Base this off of the weakest armor on the unit. AP1 or AP2 shots are exempt from "glance save."

You'd have to word the exact nature of these saves very carefully in order to make sure that the vehicle actually gets the save without said save being too powerful. On many Proposed Rules threads where vehicle saves have been suggested, there has been much discussion about whether it should be an Armour Save, an Invulnerable Save, a Cover Save, or some other save that is either an existing save or a newly designed save specific to vehicles. The concept of a generic Vehicle Save tends to be more complex than everyone seems to think.

 Marmatag wrote:
Finally, Ceramite plating should be purchasable for any vehicle with av above 11, but purchasable for each specific side. For example, you could pay 20 points, 5 per side, to buy Ceramite plating, on a land raider. On a predator, you couldn't buy it for the rear armor because the AV is 10.

That could create a lot of annoying bookkeeping very quickly. If such a rule were to be implemented, it may be better to say one of two things:

(1) If the vehicle has a least one Armour Value of 10, it cannot purchase Ceramite Plating.
-- And / Or --
(2) The the summed total of the Armour Values of the vehicle must meet a minimum requirement in order for Ceramite Plating to be purchased as an upgrade.

 Marmatag wrote:
This would:

1. Give vehicles a realistic chance to avoid being glanced to death.
2. Allow people to spend up their vehicles so they don't get 1 shot by melta nearly as easily.

(1) is not really relevant because Ceramite Plating (at least as it's described in the Space Marine Codex) only stops Melta Weapons rolling the extra D6 when in Melta Range. That doesn't really make much of a difference in terms of Glancing Hits, but mainly just makes it less likely for the weapon to score a Penetrating Hit. (2) is the important point, here.

 Marmatag wrote:
This would be incredibly easy to implement without recosting vehicles and would actually mean having a higher AV would be worth it.

I'm not entirely convinced that not every vehicle would need to be re-costed, but I feel it's at least a half decent fix.

 Marmatag wrote:
So a 270 point land raider crusader would have a 3+ save against glances, and have Ceramite plating to protect it from melta rules.

The Ceramite Plating alone would make the three types of Land Raider worth it.

Nvs wrote:
If someone could do a better job of explaining just how AOS works, that would be great. Many posts reference it and I get the idea that larger things have wounds and the fewer wounds it has the weaker it gets. So like a Land raider would have 5 wounds. 4 wounds it loses one weapon, 3 another, 2 the final, and 1 wound it can only mvoe 50% or something I imagine? But yea, a better idea of the system you want to adopt would be great for those of us who don't play AoS.

Now that said, I'd much rather see all walkers just given MC rules and see vehicle rules stripped down and written from the ground up in a way that acknowledges the type of game we play in today or in a new edition where the type of game we play in will be dramatically different (I hope).

Well, first off, we'll use a statline as an example:

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-lord-of-change-en.pdf

Now, notice the "Damage Table" and compare it to the primary statline above. Note the items marked with an asterisk instead of a numerical value. For those areas, you use the value that corresponds with the amount of wounds that have been suffered by the behemoth. Each behemoth suffers a bit differently, but with the exception of a particular Khorne greater Daemon, all of them tend to get weaker as they suffer more wounds.

Have not read thread.

Did not vote.

The problem is not vehicles.

The problem is lack of damage tables for Monstrous and larger creatures.

Land raiders are unusable even with ceramite.

I don't necessarily want everything drug down to ba. I just want units fairly costed.

Martel732 wrote:
Land raiders are unusable even with ceramite.

I don't necessarily want everything drug down to ba. I just want units fairly costed.

I apologize if I've unfairly characterized you.

But I hope you understand that your estimations of costs tend to strike me as egregious, unless the intent was to drag the target down to a level of worthless, and your comparisons tend to be directly related to what your army is capable of (which you've characterized as being worthless yourself).

One of the biggest issues with dicussions like these is determining what "fair" means - the baseline one sets will dictate a lot about how you cost a given capability.

Again, my apologies for unfairly characterizing you, if I did so.

There's several metrics at work here.

On the one hand, the Riptide is not fearless. But this is difficult to exploit, and would be more significant if it were forced to take drones.

But then you have stats like it being able to soak up more high strength fire than a warhound titan. This is a problem for far more than BA lists. How does the IG kill one? How do the Orks kill one? Hell, how do CSM kill one?

Also, being able to externally gain ignore cover makes the ion accelerator and to a lesser extent the HBC also hard to price, imo. Ask the DA how fun facing that combo is.

BA don't work due to a conspiracy of math in 7th ed. Namely, marines are not good. Marine GIMMICKS are good, and BA have none of those gimmicks. The Riptide has its own maelstrom of math around it making people miserable.

The sad fact is that scatterbikes will glance out an IK on its side long before the riptide even notices they are there. Riptide is one of the few things scatterbikes are bad against. That's a hell of a red flag right there.