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.

Bharring wrote:
The WaveSerpent is not more heavily armed than a Razorback.

-A BL Serpent gets 2 BL shots - S8 @ 36"
-A LC Razor gets 2 Lascannon shots - S9 @ 48"

-A SC Serpent can get 9x S6 PseudoRending shots @24"
-An AssaultCannon Razorback can get 12 S6 Ap-1 shots @24"

In both cases, the Razorback has more firepower. And, for notably less.

Fly is good.

Dark Eldar are the Glass Cannon army. CWE have - and always have had - rather durable tanks. Those tanks aren't glass cannon, and don't pay glass-cannon prices (or rather, don't get glass-cannon firepower at their pricepoint). So if you're fighting a CWE Tank army, you're not fighting glass cannon. Compare their firepower to equal points of DE or SM or AM, and it's not a lot. They pay points for their durability (mostly - the RG/AL/Alaitoc trait was dirty even before it went on Tanks).

The Serpent can't shoot as well as a Pred or Razorback. The Serpent can't survive as well as a StormRaven. The Serpent can't transport as cost-effectively as a Rhino. But it can do a decent amount of each. Again, much like the basic, much maligned Tac Marine.

I still think it's a little too good, but when we say it's more heavily armed than a Razorback, we're not being accurate.

Too be all honest, in a world of assault out of T1 Deepstrike, 16 inches movement, and move twice then assault meta, Eldar vehicles with fly have much much more ultilty compare to their SM counterpart. The Space Marine vehicles can be easily silenced before they even have a chance to fire a shot. For Eldar? No problem, just fall back and keep shooting.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.

Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.

The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.

Its a good unit. Too good apparently to have an army trait.
The Tfex can also move and shoot with no penalty if it must. It also has a good secondary weapon and above average close combat capability. It's obviously going to be kronos to have reroll 1's. Basically the whole nid codex is full of units likes this.

The Serpent can't shoot as well as a Pred or Razorback. The Serpent can't survive as well as a StormRaven. The Serpent can't transport as cost-effectively as a Rhino. But it can do a decent amount of each. Again, much like the basic, much maligned Tac Marine.

Are you seriously comparing a wave serpent to a tactical marine? That really puts your entire analytical argument into question. Marines are one of the worst codexs imo, and tactical marines are one of the worst units for the past decade or more.

Wave serpents *can* survive better than a storm raven due to their shield and alaitoc trait. They can also transport MORE effectively than a rhino because there is a big difference in 10 vs 12 models. That means you can hold 2 squads and characters rather than a single 10 man squad.
Can it fire as many shots as a razorback? No, but it can move to a better position with no penalty (because you're taking shuriken cannons) and overall it has excellent shooting compared to units in its own codex. Razorbacks often get locked in combat at least once per game which is -12shots where as Serpents have fly.

A razorback or stormraven is basically a marine armies ONLY firepower units and they're also only really good with Guilliman. At this point I think Marines most likely belong on a shelf unless you're playing with Bobby G.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.

Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.

The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.

Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.

There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.

Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.

The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.

Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.

There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.

If you're including buffs make sure to include the rerolls given by appropriate marine bubbles.

Jorm is "always in cover". Which is pretty solid.

@Kirasu,
The comparison to the Tac Marine wasn't in level or capability. It was that, much of what you say is true of the Tac Marine vs others. Less firepower per point than glass cannon troops, not as survivable as the tanky troops, not as good at mobile as the super-mobile troops. Many claim the reason Tacs are so bad is because they are generalists.

So now we have a Serpent, which isn't as tanky as the super-survavable tanks, doesn't have the dakka of the dakka tanks, and isn't as cost effecive at transporting guys across the field as basic transports. A generalist tank, that's both an MBT and APC. To argue Tacs are bad because generalists are bad, but Serpents are good because generalists are good, is an err.

That's the comparison I'm making. Pointing out that it's a generalist that actually works well. A little too well, even.

It's all about point costs. That's it. Generalists that are correctly pointed or even undercosted work just fine.

The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.

The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.

The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.

However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.

It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.

The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.

Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).

Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).

My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.

Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).

But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.

Bharring wrote:
@Kirasu,
The comparison to the Tac Marine wasn't in level or capability. It was that, much of what you say is true of the Tac Marine vs others. Less firepower per point than glass cannon troops, not as survivable as the tanky troops, not as good at mobile as the super-mobile troops. Many claim the reason Tacs are so bad is because they are generalists.

So now we have a Serpent, which isn't as tanky as the super-survavable tanks, doesn't have the dakka of the dakka tanks, and isn't as cost effecive at transporting guys across the field as basic transports. A generalist tank, that's both an MBT and APC. To argue Tacs are bad because generalists are bad, but Serpents are good because generalists are good, is an err.

That's the comparison I'm making. Pointing out that it's a generalist that actually works well. A little too well, even.

The issue is also that the serpent isn't a generalist either. IT still has "dump stats" it cannot fight its way out of a wet paper bag, and its stats reflect that. It has a crappy number of attacks (average for tanks), and a terrible WS. SO it isn't paying for its ability to fight, when it in reality isn't good at it. IT isn't as shooty as a Razorback, but also cannot be stopped from shooting because it has fly, Point for point I would argue that it is tankier than many vehicles (it is tankier than any marine vehicle short of a land raider., and point for point is tankier than a land raider). I'm also not saying it is a super OP vehicle, just a good one. Unlike previous editions where it shot better than most tanks, while being a dedicated transport.

The Serpent is a durable fast transport with decent shooting. A tactical marine has no such descriptions.

All that said I really think the primaris marines feel like what I want out of marines and if the points change rumors are true I think they might really start to shine, all the units are specialized (no, one special weapon with a bunch of bullet sponges), are decent in combat (2 attacks each is a big deal), have decent durability. 2 wounds and a 3+ is not bad except against heavy weapons. At 18 points the Intercessors are really attractive troops that are I think pretty good at what you want them to do, then you take other specialized units to do what they are supposed to do.



I do think that marine stratagems are somewhat underwhelming compared to some of the other books, and some chapter tactics need tweaking if I were to make things ideal (Imperial fists need a new tactic, but so do Iron Warriors, unless cover becomes much more of a thing, I wish they would have switched their stratagem and tactic.), but really fixing the points on primaris as rumored would be a huge boost IMO. Though they still might need more transport options to be truly good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.

The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.

The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.

However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.

It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.

The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.

Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).

Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).

My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.

Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).

But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.

Worth noting that against, say plasma the Serpent the same durability 2 Rhinos not even factoring in -1 from Alaitoc. Factor that in and it is more durable. Against D3 Damage, they are probably close to equal, D6 edge goes to the rhinos.

If tac marines had fly keyword id be inclined to agree.

Vs overcharged plasma - a wave serpant is more than twice as durable than 2 razorbacks. It would require only 10 plasma failed saves to kill the two razors. It would require 13 to kill the wave serpent. For D3 weapons it's about the same. OFC this isn't factoring in army trait of ulthwe or alotioc. Etherway you cut it - the wave serpant is a beast compared to the razor. In a heads up scenerio the razor would get 1 turn of -1 to hit shooting against the serpent. And it would deal less than 1 damage on average. Then the serpent charges it - and makes it useless the rest of the game as it keeps shooting it...falling back and shooting it and then finishing it off with mortal wounds.

How useful is this comparison? Not sure. I'm pretty sure I'd rather have a wave serpant regardless of army traits. Plus it gets an army trait...so yeah...it has nothing to do with the capability of the space marine tanks and them not having army traits. It's 100% because thats the way it has been in previous editions when space marines were the only army that got chapter traits. Where space marines OP with army traits? NOPE. They had to get more free goodies like...free razorbacks in order to be played. HAHA. You just can't make this stuff up. And now - every army is basically getting chapter tactics and the army that needed chapter tactics and free gear to compete is getting some dumbed down version of chapter tactics. LOL.

Martel732 wrote:
If tac marines had fly keyword id be inclined to agree.

UM Chapter Tactics is fly-lite.

But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.

Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.

The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.

Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.

There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.

If you're including buffs make sure to include the rerolls given by appropriate marine bubbles.

Jorm is "always in cover". Which is pretty solid.

The Tyrannofex has the bonus built in, whereas the Predator doesn't come with a Captain, or any HQ for that matter for the price. The Tyrannofex is maybe 40 points more expensive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.

Martel732 wrote:
But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

It is if you play UM

Bharring wrote:
The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.

The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.

The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.

However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.

It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.

The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.

Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).

Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).

My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.

Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).

But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.

You're not seriously saying that Rowboat is one guy and the Serpent is just one vehicle are you? You can get multiple Serpents...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.

Never used him and probably never will.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.

Never used him and probably never will.

Well aren't you special. Let us know how well that works while topping Marine lists steadily decline.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?

And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.

Never used him and probably never will.

I respect the way you play. It's totally fine to not play with just the cheesiest units but that's how it is in tournaments and that's how it is in the entire area I play. Why do you have such strong opinions about competitive play when you aren't playing competitively?

I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

As we are discussing in another thread:

That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

As we are discussing in another thread:

That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?

That's just absurd. By the same logic it is OK for the Grey Knights to suck as people who care about competitiveness can just play Eldar.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

As we are discussing in another thread:

That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?

So you're saying it was fine that Imperial Guard were awful for the entirety of 6th-7th?

Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

As we are discussing in another thread:

That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?

That's just absurd. By the same logic it is OK for the Grey Knights to suck as people who care about competitiveness can just play Eldar.

Yes, that's my logic exactly. Because listbuilding and army choice is a part of the game, surely?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.

As we are discussing in another thread:

That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?

So you're saying it was fine that Imperial Guard were awful for the entirety of 6th-7th?

Yes, I played them then and had a blast.

Then there's almost no hope for you.

Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.

Even if army balance will never be a perfect 50/50 win rate (assuming a robot played both 1000 times), the idea is to get them close enough that the primary factor in deciding who wins rests in player decision making. Secondary should be in pre-game decisions (list, deployment, choice of booze, comfy shoes), and tertiary should be the ever present factor of luck. The strength of the faction will inevitably skew the results, but it should never be the dominant factor in determining a winner in a properly designed game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then there's almost no hope for you.

Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Even if army balance will never be a perfect 50/50 win rate (assuming a robot played both 1000 times), the idea is to get them close enough that the primary factor in deciding who wins rests in player decision making. Secondary should be in pre-game decisions (list, deployment, choice of booze, comfy shoes), and tertiary should be the ever present factor of luck. The strength of the faction will inevitably skew the results, but it should never be the dominant factor in determining a winner in a properly designed game.

That's why, in my thread, I was very careful to ask if listbuilding and army choice were part of player skill or not.

Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then there's almost no hope for you.

Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.

Why?

Makes the game more interesting and promotes varied internal builds that focus on different aspects. It also puts more agency in the players for determining the winner. Think of the extreme case of no balance. Having a near 100% to lose every game is not fun for either side (unless you're a masochist who enjoys losing with no hope of winning or a close match).

Faction balance promotes diversity of factions, and internal balance within the factions promotes varied gameplay. Players are happy because their army choice isn't going to determine the outcome of the game; the players will do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.

List building is a player skill/decision making aspect. It has to be. Throwing darts on a board to pick units can lead to somewhat functional lists in balanced games, but assuming equally skilled players, the winner will be determined by who brought a more cohesive list.

Army choice should never be a factor. Factions are picked because of aesthetics and a tendency to favour certain playstyles. Players shouldn't be punished or rewarded for having selected certain factions.

Serpents don't pay for decent CC, and Tacs don't pay for decent Transport Capacity. Sure, it's not a generalist in the sense that it can't do everything any model type can. It's a generalist in that it can do a bit of anything things in it's class can. Even in CC, it pays for Fly, so yes, it is better than the average Tank in CC.

Against overcharged plasma, yes, the Serpent is more durable. Against non-overcharged, it's much less durable. Against D3, it's an EV of 5/3rds vs an EV of 6/3rds of HP lost per failed save - making Rhinos still take less.

Xeno,
If you're using Fly units - like the StormRaven - to fall back then charge, you're cheating. So that Serpent that keeps locking that Razorback in CC is cheating. Meanwhile, the non-cheating Serpent is losing out on shootout.

Fly units can shoot if they fall back. They cannot charge. When it comes to falling back, UM is better than Fly, not worse.

You don't take an AssaultCannon Razorback for fighting a Serpent, and you don't take a BL Serpent for fighting a Razorback. You take TLLC and TLBL. and the TLLC is strictly superior to the TLBL now.

And before you say "in a vacuum", of course, that's the point of this part of the discussion.

Also, it's not *twice* as durable as *TWO* razorbacks, even in it's absolute best matchup - the Overcharged plasma. It's a little more durable than 2, or a little more than twice as durable as 1 Rhino/Razorback. But then, against their ideal target (T8 at >36" away), the Razorback is at least twice as good (hitting on 3s wounding on 3s vs hiitting on 4s wounding on 4s). The numbers in both durability and dakka are closer on other targets.

Bottom line, in durability per point, the kitted Serpent is less durable than 2 Rhinos to everything *except* 2W weapons. It's 30% more durable to those specific 2W weapons.

@breng,
I think we're on the same page that the Serpent is a little better than it should be. But the point wasn't that the Serpent was too good. The point was to expose the fallacies in several of the arguments here - like the Serpent locking down a Razorback by charging every round after falling back.

On the RowBoat vs Serpent comparison wasn't that you can have only one of them. It was that it's one entry in the Dex, and discounting that one entry, and the one Razorback entry, and the one StormRaven entry, it seems to be uncharitable to not discount the one CWE vehicle that does so well. So if you want to talk about Preds and Tacs and Rhinos, then you shouldn't be ignoring Falcons and DAs and such. Pretending I'm claiming that the Serpent has all the limitations of RowBoat is silly.

Also, what's with all the people complaining that we should look at non-UM SM, but not non-Alaitoc CWE? Isn't that disengenous?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then there's almost no hope for you.

Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.

Why?

Makes the game more interesting and promotes varied internal builds that focus on different aspects. It also puts more agency in the players for determining the winner. Think of the extreme case of no balance. Having a near 100% to lose every game is not fun for either side (unless you're a masochist who enjoys losing with no hope of winning or a close match).

Faction balance promotes diversity of factions, and internal balance within the factions promotes varied gameplay. Players are happy because their army choice isn't going to determine the outcome of the game; the players will do that.

But my point is that army choice IS the player's choice. If you take my logic to the extreme, then even settling down to play the game with miniatures is merely a formality, in a world with 0% balance - the real game is picking what to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
\

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.

List building is a player skill/decision making aspect. It has to be. Throwing darts on a board to pick units can lead to somewhat functional lists in balanced games, but assuming equally skilled players, the winner will be determined by who brought a more cohesive list.

Army choice should never be a factor. Factions are picked because of aesthetics and a tendency to favour certain playstyles. Players shouldn't be punished or rewarded for having selected certain factions.

Presumably, competitiveness can be a reason factions are picked.

If you pick an uncompetitive faction based on other factors (e.g. playstyles or aesthetics) then why would you be upset when you lose to a faction that is more competitive?