Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 FreeFrag.UK wrote:
Out curiosity, can anyone tell me the point of the Skyray?

Conversions, mostly. I've seen people do some neat conversions with the Sky Ray parts, like making Remora drones out of the turret and some spare burst cannons. But rules-wise it's a pointless unit, and will continue to be one as long as seeker missiles are trash. Represent the Sky Ray accurately according to the fluff, where its load of six seeker missiles likely results in at least 4-5 dead aircraft attempting to enter its no-fly zone, and it will be relevant again.

That seems like a dangerous road to go down. Making everything completely fluff accurate.

pm713 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 FreeFrag.UK wrote:
Out curiosity, can anyone tell me the point of the Skyray?

Conversions, mostly. I've seen people do some neat conversions with the Sky Ray parts, like making Remora drones out of the turret and some spare burst cannons. But rules-wise it's a pointless unit, and will continue to be one as long as seeker missiles are trash. Represent the Sky Ray accurately according to the fluff, where its load of six seeker missiles likely results in at least 4-5 dead aircraft attempting to enter its no-fly zone, and it will be relevant again.

That seems like a dangerous road to go down. Making everything completely fluff accurate.

I like the idea, as a fluffy player, but I also agree.

One of the neat things about 40k fluff is that it's completely inconsistent and there's no "right" answer. To use the example at hand: The Skyray may kill 4-5 aircraft before it is empty, but there's an example in the Imperial Guard 5e codex of an Air Defense Regiment achieving a kill ratio of 99,999 aircraft for every 1 Flak Tank destroyed during a single battle. That's literally written in the book. It's clearly propaganda. But what are the "real" numbers? Who knows.

pm713 wrote:
That seems like a dangerous road to go down. Making everything completely fluff accurate.

Not really, if you're reasonable about which fluff to pick. In a points-based system you can always increase the point cost of a powerful unit to reflect its power. For example, the Sky Ray would probably not remain a dirt cheap unit if it had its rules changed to match the fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That seems like a dangerous road to go down. Making everything completely fluff accurate.

Not really, if you're reasonable about which fluff to pick. In a points-based system you can always increase the point cost of a powerful unit to reflect its power. For example, the Sky Ray would probably not remain a dirt cheap unit if it had its rules changed to match the fluff.

That's just going to end in a load of arguments about which fluff. Just fix the Skyray based on rules and leave fluff accurate rules for lol games where balance is out the window anyway.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
One of the neat things about 40k fluff is that it's completely inconsistent and there's no "right" answer. To use the example at hand: The Skyray may kill 4-5 aircraft before it is empty, but there's an example in the Imperial Guard 5e codex of an Air Defense Regiment achieving a kill ratio of 99,999 aircraft for every 1 Flak Tank destroyed during a single battle. That's literally written in the book. It's clearly propaganda. But what are the "real" numbers? Who knows.

You can toss out obvious propaganda like that, and you can compare the performance of units in other fluff/rules. For example, the Sky Ray in Aeronautica Imperialis is doing a point of damage on a 3+, and two points of damage on a 6, in a game where every fighter has 2 HP. That's clearly a powerful weapon that can cripple or kill a target with a single shot, vastly more powerful than the current rules where it would take multiple Sky Rays worth of missiles hitting a target to kill it. We can't be 100% sure exactly what its damage is fluff-wise, but we know that it's far more than what the current rules give it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
That's just going to end in a load of arguments about which fluff. Just fix the Skyray based on rules and leave fluff accurate rules for lol games where balance is out the window anyway.

Fluff is the entire point of 40k! Nobody is playing such a poorly designed game out of sheer love for the rules, they're playing it because they like the fluff. If the rules don't follow the fluff then there's no reason for them to exist.

Seeker missiles would need to be changed to fix the Skyray. Missile accuracy shouldn't be solely determined by markerlights either.

One way to make it more interesting would be to make Seekers missiles have a basic profile like this:

St 8. AP-3 D3 or D6 damage

With markerlights support:

1 markerlights- change profile to D3 mortal wounds

3 markerlights - change profile to D6 mortal wounds

5 markerlights - change profile to 6 mortal wounds


You can change the numbers around for balance but you get the idea. Skyrays needs to have a place and value in a list without a lot of markerlights, that needs to be step one. Step 2 is to make markerlights/Seeker missiles enough of a force multiplier to build viable strategies around. Right now, there are no real viable things to do with Marker lights/seeker missiles, and that will equate to Skyrays being a bad choice for the time being.

'A Skyrays Ballistic skill is equal to 6 minus the number of markerlights attached to it's target.'

 Peregrine wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That's just going to end in a load of arguments about which fluff. Just fix the Skyray based on rules and leave fluff accurate rules for lol games where balance is out the window anyway.

Fluff is the entire point of 40k! Nobody is playing such a poorly designed game out of sheer love for the rules, they're playing it because they like the fluff. If the rules don't follow the fluff then there's no reason for them to exist.

What's the point of playing if you hate the rules. Why not just read the books and save yourself the trouble? The two are so not intrinsically linked you can't enjoy one without the other. I've met plenty of people who's knowledge of the 40k fluff is shallower than you claim the rules are.

 Bach wrote:
Seeker missiles would need to be changed to fix the Skyray. Missile accuracy shouldn't be solely determined by markerlights either.

One way to make it more interesting would be to make Seekers missiles have a basic profile like this:

St 8. AP-3 D3 or D6 damage

With markerlights support:

1 markerlights- change profile to D3 mortal wounds

3 markerlights - change profile to D6 mortal wounds

5 markerlights - change profile to 6 mortal wounds


You can change the numbers around for balance but you get the idea. Skyrays needs to have a place and value in a list without a lot of markerlights, that needs to be step one. Step 2 is to make markerlights/Seeker missiles enough of a force multiplier to build viable strategies around. Right now, there are no real viable things to do with Marker lights/seeker missiles, and that will equate to Skyrays being a bad choice for the time being.

I'm no Tau expert, but I remember them from 4e. Markerlights are a targeting laser, yes? Why would that make the missile more killy?

M.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Tau are a dogs breakfast now. for a 1 trick army they perform that trick poorly.
Tau are not a horde army. They are a tactical strikeforce that use intelligence and superior technology to defeat their foes that usually outnumber them greatly.

Spikeybits terrified me with this article - https://spikeybits.com/2017/12/5-reasons-why-gw-doesnt-read-their-own-lore.html

Your first mistake is reading Spikeybits.

They also don't use "intelligence", they use technology.

Whatever your preconceived notions of that site are (and BOLS), the article was on point and made some quite poignant observations regarding how GW are treating their background.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

pm713 wrote:
That's just going to end in a load of arguments about which fluff. Just fix the Skyray based on rules and leave fluff accurate rules for lol games where balance is out the window anyway.

Fluff is the entire point of 40k! Nobody is playing such a poorly designed game out of sheer love for the rules, they're playing it because they like the fluff. If the rules don't follow the fluff then there's no reason for them to exist.

But I would rather they made balanced rules that aren't fluffy. For example if I add a rule that Striking Scorpions are undetectable before attacking is that fluffy? Yes. Is it a good rule? No because there's no counter or way of preventing it like there is with Infiltration.

I use the Skyray to drop guaranteed final wounds off of targets.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Bach wrote:
Seeker missiles would need to be changed to fix the Skyray. Missile accuracy shouldn't be solely determined by markerlights either.

One way to make it more interesting would be to make Seekers missiles have a basic profile like this:

St 8. AP-3 D3 or D6 damage

With markerlights support:

1 markerlights- change profile to D3 mortal wounds

3 markerlights - change profile to D6 mortal wounds

5 markerlights - change profile to 6 mortal wounds


You can change the numbers around for balance but you get the idea. Skyrays needs to have a place and value in a list without a lot of markerlights, that needs to be step one. Step 2 is to make markerlights/Seeker missiles enough of a force multiplier to build viable strategies around. Right now, there are no real viable things to do with Marker lights/seeker missiles, and that will equate to Skyrays being a bad choice for the time being.

I'm no Tau expert, but I remember them from 4e. Markerlights are a targeting laser, yes? Why would that make the missile more killy?

M.

It is a targeting laser but we did see, in 7E, destroyer missiles get a higher damage profile from MLs. Why that was ? Not sure exactly but it made for good synergy and value with something like a one time use weapon.

 FreeFrag.UK wrote:
Out curiosity, can anyone tell me the point of the Skyray?

My understanding of it at the time was to give fire warriors anti tank capabilities without actually giving them anti tank weapons.

The squad leader could mark the offending tank and the skyray would launch a big old missile at it.
It also helped that the missile was launched from the perspective of the vehicle rather than the marker for the purposes of facing, so you could sneak a pihrana with a seeker behind a tank (maybe being across the board from it) and launch it at the weaker rear whilst marking it from the front with a fire warrior. The skyray was just a way to get a whole lot of seekers on the field.

But since then the fire warriors have gained a deployable rocket turret, and the markerlights and seeker missiles have lost a lot of their reliability.

The skyray was just collateral and left by the wayside.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
'A Skyrays Ballistic skill is equal to 6 minus the number of markerlights attached to it's target.'

That is actually a pretty nifty way to help the Skyray! I love it!

As others have said, the problem with the Sky Ray is that Seeker Missiles themselves are fairly worthless. They are one use only, only hit on BS with 2 ML (only hitting on a 6 without MLs), are a heavy weapon (meaning penalty to shoot after moving), and only deal a single mortal wound. So a Sky Ray can deal a maximum of 6 wounds a game if every single Seeker Missile hits, and after they've been used becomes a nearly 200 point tank armed with 2 ML and 8 S5 shots a turn. A model who's primary weapon is only 6 1 use only missiles that deal 1 mortal wound is utterly useless, especially at almost 200 points. If we want Sky Rays to ever be usable in 8th, Seeker Missiles need a complete overhaul. They need to hit on BS naturally (use MLs to be able to hit targets out of LoS), and then either they need to remove the one use only from them or have them deal D3 mortal wounds per hit a la Smite.

 Bach wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Bach wrote:
Seeker missiles would need to be changed to fix the Skyray. Missile accuracy shouldn't be solely determined by markerlights either.

One way to make it more interesting would be to make Seekers missiles have a basic profile like this:

St 8. AP-3 D3 or D6 damage

With markerlights support:

1 markerlights- change profile to D3 mortal wounds

3 markerlights - change profile to D6 mortal wounds

5 markerlights - change profile to 6 mortal wounds


You can change the numbers around for balance but you get the idea. Skyrays needs to have a place and value in a list without a lot of markerlights, that needs to be step one. Step 2 is to make markerlights/Seeker missiles enough of a force multiplier to build viable strategies around. Right now, there are no real viable things to do with Marker lights/seeker missiles, and that will equate to Skyrays being a bad choice for the time being.

I'm no Tau expert, but I remember them from 4e. Markerlights are a targeting laser, yes? Why would that make the missile more killy?

M.

It is a targeting laser but we did see, in 7E, destroyer missiles get a higher damage profile from MLs. Why that was ? Not sure exactly but it made for good synergy and value with something like a one time use weapon.

The only explanation i could think of for destroyer missiles is that if they are sorta like micro nukes and need markerlights to arm the missile. If they fire while not armed they just crash into the target and its fuel explodes but doesn't cause a proper "nuclear" reaction.

As for the Skyray why not just give it the ability to reload during the next shooting phase so it can fire again the next turn? (turn 1 you fire off your 6 seekers, turn 2 your reloading, turn 3 your shooting seekers again). Turn 1 it still puts out the same firepower but only by turn 3 is it getting a firepower boost. By then though the opponent should be able to eliminate the markerlight support so it gives counter play besides "kill it".

 John Prins wrote:
Fire Warriors are supposed to be the mainstay of Tau forces. Drones are used extensively because a dead drone is not a dead Tau. Kroot Mercs are used in decently large numbers.

Tau armies can easily field lots of models without being un-fluffy or ineffective. It's not all big robots and skimmers.

I know, one of my dream armies has been massed Fire Warriors, with Hammerhead/Skyhammer and Devilfish support. A few stealth suits for some fun behind enemy lines hit and runs.

Ruin wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Naaris wrote:
Tau are a dogs breakfast now. for a 1 trick army they perform that trick poorly.
Tau are not a horde army. They are a tactical strikeforce that use intelligence and superior technology to defeat their foes that usually outnumber them greatly.

Spikeybits terrified me with this article - https://spikeybits.com/2017/12/5-reasons-why-gw-doesnt-read-their-own-lore.html

Your first mistake is reading Spikeybits.

They also don't use "intelligence", they use technology.

Whatever your preconceived notions of that site are (and BOLS), the article was on point and made some quite poignant observations regarding how GW are treating their background.

except I'm not sure it's right, 40K's stuff has actually been better at consistancy and sticking to things then they used to be. I think they're getting better in that regard. thing is not every character can be the same,

 Vankraken wrote:

 Bach wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Bach wrote:
Seeker missiles would need to be changed to fix the Skyray. Missile accuracy shouldn't be solely determined by markerlights either.

One way to make it more interesting would be to make Seekers missiles have a basic profile like this:

St 8. AP-3 D3 or D6 damage

With markerlights support:

1 markerlights- change profile to D3 mortal wounds

3 markerlights - change profile to D6 mortal wounds

5 markerlights - change profile to 6 mortal wounds


You can change the numbers around for balance but you get the idea. Skyrays needs to have a place and value in a list without a lot of markerlights, that needs to be step one. Step 2 is to make markerlights/Seeker missiles enough of a force multiplier to build viable strategies around. Right now, there are no real viable things to do with Marker lights/seeker missiles, and that will equate to Skyrays being a bad choice for the time being.

I'm no Tau expert, but I remember them from 4e. Markerlights are a targeting laser, yes? Why would that make the missile more killy?

M.

It is a targeting laser but we did see, in 7E, destroyer missiles get a higher damage profile from MLs. Why that was ? Not sure exactly but it made for good synergy and value with something like a one time use weapon.

The only explanation i could think of for destroyer missiles is that if they are sorta like micro nukes and need markerlights to arm the missile. If they fire while not armed they just crash into the target and its fuel explodes but doesn't cause a proper "nuclear" reaction.

The destroyer missiles increased damage was based on the idea that markerlights would give the missile a more accurate hit than if it was only locked at the general target when launched. This came from the idea that the markerlight network transmits information and analysis on targets and isn't just a laser pointer. For example a piranha fires a missile at a tank. Without the markerlight support it would recognise the tank as a imperial MBT and probably go for the center mass and on a hit kill of some crew members. With markerlight support, the system would identify it as a leman russ, relay information to the missile on the weak spots and allow it to hit the ammo storage blowing the whole thing up.

How to improve Tau as a faction?

1: Make markerlights not so lacklustre. The current markerlight table is ridiculously bad compared to the old system, and it cripples your entire army.

2: Stop making all the best units overcosted. Right now, at least half of our battlesuits are overcosted to the point of uselessness- getting a broadside, a riptide or an XV8 for anything other than a for-fun thematic game makes no sense points wise. Right now we're sorely lacking for strong, lascannon-like long range firepower that is cost efficient. Without the power of commanders, we'd be crippled.

3: Give us a reason to actually play this combined arms style that is in accordance with the fluff. Give us a mixed army that is viable. Right now, you either play a gunline (forefitting your ability to be out on the map and scoring objectives) or an aggressive list with lots of fast-moving units and deep strike, which is frail and can get completely screwed. Give us some versatility. Give us a reason to take hammerheads and skyrays.

 SevenSeasOfRhye wrote:
How to improve Tau as a faction?

2: Stop making all the best units overcosted. Right now, at least half of our battlesuits are overcosted to the point of uselessness- getting a broadside, a riptide or an XV8 for anything other than a for-fun thematic game makes no sense points wise. Right now we're sorely lacking for strong, lascannon-like long range firepower that is cost efficient. Without the power of commanders, we'd be crippled.

With the price drops in many codexes, I believe suits will get some cuts too. Also, it seems Tau fares better with PL instead of points

 Vector Strike wrote:

 SevenSeasOfRhye wrote:
How to improve Tau as a faction?

2: Stop making all the best units overcosted. Right now, at least half of our battlesuits are overcosted to the point of uselessness- getting a broadside, a riptide or an XV8 for anything other than a for-fun thematic game makes no sense points wise. Right now we're sorely lacking for strong, lascannon-like long range firepower that is cost efficient. Without the power of commanders, we'd be crippled.

With the price drops in many codexes, I believe suits will get some cuts too. Also, it seems Tau fares better with PL instead of points

That last part is somewhat true, certainly. As much as we all complain that our suits are overcosted (which they absolutely are), the other major issue with them is the cost of weapons options. Even if suit costs do go down, if weapon costs remain the same we still have a major problem. MPs, for example, are borderline useless, even on Commanders, due to their cost. They're literally double the cost of AM autocannons, for what? Assault instead of Heavy, less range, and D3 damage instead of 2? How does being slightly more mobile (while having less range to make up for it) and having variable (thus less reliable) damage justify being double the points? Or the IA on Riptides. We pay 105 freaking points for what ultimately amounts to a Heavy 3 Plasma Gun with 72" range (the Nova profile is the only profile actually worth using on it, and the Riptide has to suffer a mortal wound just to have the option of using that profile). Yeah, the IA was certainly undercosted back in 7th, but I would love to see someone justify over a hundred points for a glorified plasma gun. Tau fare better in PL than points cause then we just have to deal with our suits being overcosted rather than our suits as well as all of their weapons being overcosted.

Even if our suits get a BS buff and a points drop, they will still be extremely limited in usage due to weapons costs.

That last part is somewhat true, certainly. As much as we all complain that our suits are overcosted (which they absolutely are), the other major issue with them is the cost of weapons options. Even if suit costs do go down, if weapon costs remain the same we still have a major problem. MPs, for example, are borderline useless, even on Commanders, due to their cost. They're literally double the cost of AM autocannons, for what? Assault instead of Heavy, less range, and D3 damage instead of 2? How does being slightly more mobile (while having less range to make up for it) and having variable (thus less reliable) damage justify being double the points? Or the IA on Riptides. We pay 105 freaking points for what ultimately amounts to a Heavy 3 Plasma Gun with 72" range (the Nova profile is the only profile actually worth using on it, and the Riptide has to suffer a mortal wound just to have the option of using that profile). Yeah, the IA was certainly undercosted back in 7th, but I would love to see someone justify over a hundred points for a glorified plasma gun. Tau fare better in PL than points cause then we just have to deal with our suits being overcosted rather than our suits as well as all of their weapons being overcosted.

Even if our suits get a BS buff and a points drop, they will still be extremely limited in usage due to weapons costs.

Also true. While I think some of the cost is fine- plasma rifles at 11 pts, burst cannons at 10- the missile pods are extremely overcosted. The riptide weapons options are the same.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
As others have said, the problem with the Sky Ray is that Seeker Missiles themselves are fairly worthless. They are one use only, only hit on BS with 2 ML (only hitting on a 6 without MLs), are a heavy weapon (meaning penalty to shoot after moving), and only deal a single mortal wound. So a Sky Ray can deal a maximum of 6 wounds a game if every single Seeker Missile hits, and after they've been used becomes a nearly 200 point tank armed with 2 ML and 8 S5 shots a turn. A model who's primary weapon is only 6 1 use only missiles that deal 1 mortal wound is utterly useless, especially at almost 200 points. If we want Sky Rays to ever be usable in 8th, Seeker Missiles need a complete overhaul. They need to hit on BS naturally (use MLs to be able to hit targets out of LoS), and then either they need to remove the one use only from them or have them deal D3 mortal wounds per hit a la Smite.

if they are going to keep the 1 time use, d3 is too low dmg.

they have only 2 options as i see it:
remove the ML BS penalty and increase the range, 1 time use, 2d6 choose the higest d6 mortal wounds.
remove the ML BS penalty and increase the range, remove 1 time use, make missiles 1 mortal wound. (no reload stuff or any other pointless system, it must have 6 misssiles each turn)

anything less then this and the skyray will still be 100% pointless even whit a hefty price reduction.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

That last part is somewhat true, certainly. As much as we all complain that our suits are overcosted (which they absolutely are), the other major issue with them is the cost of weapons options. Even if suit costs do go down, if weapon costs remain the same we still have a major problem. MPs, for example, are borderline useless, even on Commanders, due to their cost. They're literally double the cost of AM autocannons, for what? Assault instead of Heavy, less range, and D3 damage instead of 2? How does being slightly more mobile (while having less range to make up for it) and having variable (thus less reliable) damage justify being double the points?

Well, for one thing, you can Advance and Fire Missile Pods at a -1 to Hit(which can be mitigated by Markerlights or Target Lock wargear). You can also improve the Missile Pod to be -2 AP by taking the Advanced Targeting System(grants an additional -1AP to all of its weapons).
And that's also ignoring Mont'ka, which lets you advance and fire with no penalties.

Another thing however is that Autocannons are on limited platforms in the Guard book. You've got Heavy Weapon Teams for Guard Veterans/Command Squads(BS3+) or Infantry and Heavy Weapon Squads and Sentinel Squads(BS4+). There's also a token Autocannon on some Baneblade hulls but that's still BS4+.

Or the IA on Riptides. We pay 105 freaking points for what ultimately amounts to a Heavy 3 Plasma Gun with 72" range (the Nova profile is the only profile actually worth using on it, and the Riptide has to suffer a mortal wound just to have the option of using that profile). Yeah, the IA was certainly undercosted back in 7th, but I would love to see someone justify over a hundred points for a glorified plasma gun.

Oh no, you have to take a penalty to use the Nova Reactor!
Pretty sure that Stimulant Injectors still are a potential solution there, correct?

In any regards, it's still better than Plasma Cannon Sentinels. If you roll a 1, the Sentinel is slain.

Tau fare better in PL than points cause then we just have to deal with our suits being overcosted rather than our suits as well as all of their weapons being overcosted.

Even if our suits get a BS buff and a points drop, they will still be extremely limited in usage due to weapons costs.

Basically everyone fares better in PL when you have weapon options that are overcosted.

Well, for one thing, you can Advance and Fire Missile Pods at a -1 to Hit(which can be mitigated by Markerlights or Target Lock wargear). You can also improve the Missile Pod to be -2 AP by taking the Advanced Targeting System(grants an additional -1AP to all of its weapons).
And that's also ignoring Mont'ka, which lets you advance and fire with no penalties.

At 36' and strength 7, you're a long range medium strength tank hunter. You're not likely to want to advance. It's an incredibly minor bonus. All points listed do not address the fact that pods are way overcosted, and your points are either irrelevant or too minute to be of note. 24 pts for a pod is too much. Right now there is zero reason to take pods on anything.

Oh no, you have to take a penalty to use the Nova Reactor!
Pretty sure that Stimulant Injectors still are a potential solution there, correct?

In any regards, it's still better than Plasma Cannon Sentinels. If you roll a 1, the Sentinel is slain.

...he didn't say jack about the nova reactor. He complained that we pay 105 points for very little damage output. Which is 100% true.

Right now riptides are complete ass, purely because of the cost. They need about 100 pts decrease to be worthwhile.

Oh and let me add: stim injectors now save wounds on sixes only. They suck.

 SevenSeasOfRhye wrote:

Well, for one thing, you can Advance and Fire Missile Pods at a -1 to Hit(which can be mitigated by Markerlights or Target Lock wargear). You can also improve the Missile Pod to be -2 AP by taking the Advanced Targeting System(grants an additional -1AP to all of its weapons).
And that's also ignoring Mont'ka, which lets you advance and fire with no penalties.

At 36' and strength 7, you're a long range medium strength tank hunter. You're not likely to want to advance. It's an incredibly minor bonus. All points listed do not address the fact that pods are way overcosted, and your points are either irrelevant or too minute to be of note. 24 pts for a pod is too much. Right now there is zero reason to take pods on anything.

Except for the fact that things which can take Missile Pods can usually take a complimentary weapon...

Oh no, you have to take a penalty to use the Nova Reactor!
Pretty sure that Stimulant Injectors still are a potential solution there, correct?

In any regards, it's still better than Plasma Cannon Sentinels. If you roll a 1, the Sentinel is slain.

...he didn't say jack about the nova reactor. He complained that we pay 105 points for very little damage output. Which is 100% true.

Right now riptides are complete ass, purely because of the cost. They need about 100 pts decrease to be worthwhile.

Selective reading:

Or the IA on Riptides. We pay 105 freaking points for what ultimately amounts to a Heavy 3 Plasma Gun with 72" range (the Nova profile is the only profile actually worth using on it, and the Riptide has to suffer a mortal wound just to have the option of using that profile). Yeah, the IA was certainly undercosted back in 7th, but I would love to see someone justify over a hundred points for a glorified plasma gun.

He literally talks about the Nova profile--which means he did "say jack about the nova reactor".

Oh and let me add: stim injectors now save wounds on sixes only. They suck.

They're in line with everything else doing the same thing.

Except for the fact that things which can take Missile Pods can usually take a complimentary weapon...

Which matters how, exactly? Right now, pods are able to be taken by fliers, commanders, XV8s, broadsides and... I don't recall any others. Right now I don't see any real use for it, which is especially true because of the insane cost.

He literally talks about the Nova profile--which means he did "say jack about the nova reactor".

You got me. I missed the part about the nova reactor. Then again, the person you replied to wasn't complaining about the novacharge itself- so your comment still doesn't make sense.

They're in line with everything else doing the same thing.

Back in 7th, you could save a wound on a 5+, making them essential. Here... well, let's dig into this mess:
At 14 wounds, going down a bracket after taking 7, the riptide's already lacklustre 4+ BS means it's completely useless without markerlights, which are in no way guaranteed. Its shooting is extremely limited for the 300+ points it costs- and all an opponent has to do to be able to mostly ignore it, if it isn't outright killed by a volley of lascannons in turn 1, is to bracket it once. After that, the riptide's badly overpriced guns will be so cost inefficient that your enemy can happily ignore it and focus on whatever other hard-hitting thing your army has.
That considered, being able to save wounds only on a 6+ means the support system is nearly useless. Given that every lascannon, autocannon, bright/dark lance or whatever is going to immediately point at the riptide and destroy it in 2 rounds tops, barring exceptional circumstances, you really need that 5+. Right now the riptide is probably the most useless unit in our entire arsenal, chiefly because it's overcosted but also because of secondary problems like being forced to take a mortal wound (when you're already a prime target for big guns) to activate your novacharge, which if you're bracketed just isn't worth it, and of course the abysmal state of current markerlights.

 SevenSeasOfRhye wrote:

Except for the fact that things which can take Missile Pods can usually take a complimentary weapon...

Which matters how, exactly? Right now, pods are able to be taken by fliers, commanders, XV8s, broadsides and... I don't recall any others. Right now I don't see any real use for it, which is especially true because of the insane cost.

Broadsides don't get Missile Pods. They get Smart Missile Systems.
The Missile Pods are on the Missile Drones--which can be taken only by Broadsides.

Missile Pods are able to be taken by:
Commanders
XV8s
Fire Warrior Teams(it's an option for the turret)
Missile and Shielded Missile Drones(Broadside and Riptides are the only ones able to take these two variants)
Flyers

He literally talks about the Nova profile--which means he did "say jack about the nova reactor".

You got me. I missed the part about the nova reactor. Then again, the person you replied to wasn't complaining about the novacharge itself- so your comment still doesn't make sense.

Or the IA on Riptides. We pay 105 freaking points for what ultimately amounts to a Heavy 3 Plasma Gun with 72" range (the Nova profile is the only profile actually worth using on it, and the Riptide has to suffer a mortal wound just to have the option of using that profile). Yeah, the IA was certainly undercosted back in 7th, but I would love to see someone justify over a hundred points for a glorified plasma gun.

R E A D T H E P O S T.
He literally is complaining about the Nova Charge and how it works.

If you don't like Nova Charge being an automatic Mortal Wound? Well there's hope for you!
The Leman Russ Executioner Plasma Tank was changed to be less punishing for firing it as Overcharge.
However there's also the potential that nothing changes since, as mentioned, Armoured Sentinels still are instantly slain when they fire a Plasma Cannon overcharged.

They're in line with everything else doing the same thing.

Back in 7th, you could save a wound on a 5+, making them essential. Here... well, let's dig into this mess:
At 14 wounds, going down a bracket after taking 7, the riptide's already lacklustre 4+ BS means it's completely useless without markerlights, which are in no way guaranteed. Its shooting is extremely limited for the 300+ points it costs- and all an opponent has to do to be able to mostly ignore it, if it isn't outright killed by a volley of lascannons in turn 1, is to bracket it once. After that, the riptide's badly overpriced guns will be so cost inefficient that your enemy can happily ignore it and focus on whatever other hard-hitting thing your army has.
That considered, being able to save wounds only on a 6+ means the support system is nearly useless. Given that every lascannon, autocannon, bright/dark lance or whatever is going to immediately point at the riptide and destroy it in 2 rounds tops, barring exceptional circumstances, you really need that 5+. Right now the riptide is probably the most useless unit in our entire arsenal, chiefly because it's overcosted but also because of secondary problems like being forced to take a mortal wound (when you're already a prime target for big guns) to activate your novacharge, which if you're bracketed just isn't worth it, and of course the abysmal state of current markerlights.

You know what Feel No Pain did back then, yeah?

And let's be completely honest here:
"Back in 7th", Vehicles that were way more expensive were garbage and things like Riptides were fantastic because of the whole Monster v Vehicle nonsense.
Let's also not pretend that the Riptide isn't getting a 2+ save base with a 5+ Invulnerable Save and the ability to pawn those lascannon, autocannon,bright/dark lance or whatever onto Drones.

Also let's stop with the dramatic nonsense about Markerlights. They're far from "abysmal". You don't get to throw your BS up to ridiculous levels any more and you're actively required to put lights onto targets to get benefits.
Why do you think you should be able to just get the best stuff right off the bat?