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.
Altima wrote: A lot of complaints I've seen about the more recent editions of 40k is how useless vehicles are. Now that a faction has some good vehicles, the reaction is to...nerf them?
Well of course. What else would you expect? You get your codex, God help you if it is a 9th ed one. Tanks and vehicles in it are mostly nerfed to a point, there is zero entice to take them. And suddenly, for an army you don't play, there is a codex that makes vehicles very good. Of course you wouldn't be happy about it.
When knights got their books and suddenly everything, that wasn't a flyer or a castellan, was considered not worth taking, people weren't happy that the vehicle meta is great to have. When marines under 2.0 had their super predators work very good for certain chapters, not many people were happy about that thing either.
they would rather have the game remain the way it is and screw over the nonmarines and their equivalents than have to diversify their armies and/or tactics in a way that might have them not listhammering against space marines all the time.
The problem is that DE beat up not just marines. They beat everything, including those armies that aren't White Scars or DA.
And before DE came out, the play field was already very diverse with multiple armies being good, and the only outlier being Harlequins.So a 70%+ win rate army doesn't help anyone, aside for people that play it. Bad armies get beaten by it even more then before, mid tier armies suddenly become bad, armies that can't adjust become a non option for tournaments and very unfun if you happen to play against a DE army at a store, even people with the top of the top armies wouldn't be very happy, unless their army somehow stays good and becomes the DE counter in the coming months.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
the_scotsman wrote: ....People do know that Raiders basically existed before in exactly the same form, and just gained T5-T6 and +1 Transport Capacity, correct? And the +1 toughness was essentially put in because GW decided to double the damage on Heavy Bolters without increasing their cost? And also that before people typically took Raiders with Black Heart where they had 6+FNP and were actually usually more durable than they are now?
The Dark Lance significantly increased in power, and I think it's 100% silly that it's 0pts and the worse Disintegrator is 5pts. But it's wild to me that Raiders are now like "omgwtfbbq y this transport no 150pts???" when compared to other stuff in the codex that's tearing it up in events, not a whole lot changed.
Agreed, I think the Raiders/Ravagers should be 5/15 more points, then remove the cost of dissies and see what happens in regards to Venoms and other shooting units.
Nerfing Imperium melta units would impact Drukhari a lot less than most other factions.
I don't know why Lightning Fast Reactions is 1CP, that seems clearly too good, GW should nerf that and every other OP Stratagem DE have as well as the free 2CP before nerfing Incubi and Wyches. Removing Blade Artists would hurt Incubi a little and Wyches some more, but I wouldn't touch their points costs immediately and Blade Artists is just a superfluous rule with Wych weapons being loaded to the gills with AP already.
It's 1CP because you cannot stack modifiers anymore and a -1 to hit on one unit really isn't that powerful in general. There are other -1 to hit strats floating around that are also 1CP too.
Unless your opponent advanced with assault weapons or moved with heavy weapons on infantry then -1 to hit is just as good as previously on a Raider or Ravager. Besides, it was OP last edition, it being slightly lowered in power is not an excuse to make it just as OP as before. Let's say you use that Strat twice with your free 2 CP. That's 4 CP I think should be taken away. When other factions get a 70% win rate I will ask for their -1 to hit Stratagems to cost 2CP as well.
A lot of complaints I've seen about the more recent editions of 40k is how useless vehicles are. Now that a faction has some good vehicles, the reaction is to...nerf them?
I get that they're transports that do the actual job of transporting well and fairly efficiently, but they're less durable than in previous editions and there's really nothing else to decide on where to spend your shots. Unless there's ravagers or planes or talos/cronos, I guess?
The idea of adding a few points here, a few points there, to varying units (apart from the jetbikes which are clearly meant to be 20 points, not the misprinted 10) seems strange to me in that it just means that people recognize that they're good for their points, but many armies have units that are good for their points. That's why they're spammed and/or show up in *every* list.
The new codex is a strong and modern codex built specifically for this edition. I would be surprised if it didn't play better than armies still using the old edition (also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't because...GW, and it's not a power armor or popular army).
A lot of what I'm seeing in this thread seems to be that people have gotten used to the game being about the last six or seven releases--big, tough, elite armies. In fact, I think this might be the first codex release of this edition that can even be close to being considered a horde army. I guess what I'm seeing is that people have gotten used to playing the game a specific way against specific opponents that they don't want that to change, and that they would rather have the game remain the way it is and screw over the nonmarines and their equivalents than have to diversify their armies and/or tactics in a way that might have them not listhammering against space marines all the time.
Very good points for an army with a win rate under 55%. But we are talking about Drukhari in this thread and they have a roughly 70% win rate. Why did you make this silly comment? We have already had a half dozen people that ignore the problem of absurdly high win rates, what novel ideas have you brought? Did you post a list that you use that counters Drukhari well? No. Did you come up with a tactic that shuts them down? No. All you do is whataboutisms and ignoring the facts of Drukhari being good into every god damn army in the game and that there are no points efficient counters to them. How does underpowered Land Raiders ever justify overpowered Raiders? The argument that transports are bad shows that your lack of knowledge of top 4 lists in this edition. Ghost Arks, Duneriders, Rhinos, Starweavers even the odd Trukk have topped events. Now they are rarely being taken in big numbers as they were in some editions, but Raiders are not the first good transport this edition, just the first one that is worth taking a lot of. A 6% increase in points is not going to kill the Raider, 18% (15 pts) probably wouldn't even kill it.
Altima wrote: A lot of complaints I've seen about the more recent editions of 40k is how useless vehicles are. Now that a faction has some good vehicles, the reaction is to...nerf them?
This is a bit disingenuous comment as Venoms and Raiders have always been a part of the Drukhari play. If anything a common and popular transport has gotten a huge boost. There are many useless vehicles historically in 40k, but Venoms and Raiders have rarely, if ever, been useless.
On that note, I guess people are not noticing that Ravagers have disappeared after losing reroll 1s from archon and costing almost twice as much as raiders. The fact is that Raiders are now doing the job of Ravagers along with having a brilliant open-topped transport capacity. Considering how many raiders I am seeing on the table I am somewhat reminded of the days I spammed Wave Serpents(although I usually just managed 5 in a list). Hell, I have 6 raiders and I want to buy more. Raider stocks are going up.
Personally I'd love to see Raiders getting 6 man transport capacity and make them more akin to Razorbacks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 08:45:54
Lets say DE got nerf and now are at a 55%% win rate, lets say they gain popularity and has 3-4 out of 60 players there on average (so 7.5% popularity the same as custodes) Are you still going to say they are toxic for the meta b.c you KNOW they will be there and you KNOW they will threaten your list? At what point are they not toxic to you?
Historically there were no armies that fell 20% or more in win rates, unless GW fixed them, but then the armies went from what ever win % they had to something like 30% and never played.
The problem with DE, or armies like harlis, is that most armies can't tailor against them, those armies that do try to tailor them because a lot weaker to the rest of the field, while at the same time the DE give up nothing. They are great vs marines, very good vs everything else, and because they aren't played a lot the chance of an early round mirror is low. And they have +70% win rates.
So they are toxic to the meta the same way harlis or harli soups are.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Unless your opponent advanced with assault weapons or moved with heavy weapons on infantry then -1 to hit is just as good as previously on a Raider or Ravager. Besides, it was OP last edition, it being slightly lowered in power is not an excuse to make it just as OP as before. Let's say you use that Strat twice with your free 2 CP. That's 4 CP I think should be taken away. When other factions get a 70% win rate I will ask for their -1 to hit Stratagems to cost 2CP as well.
No, -1 to hit was not OP. Stacking additional hit modifiers on top of a flat free -1 to hit was what was problematic. Which you cannot do anymore.
It now being 1CP has 0 impact on Drukhari winrates either because it isn't why they're winning games.
Marin wrote: 2 damage LOS shooting seem to be very effective vs drukhari.
(gasp!) What a revelation....
and not a Whirlwind in sight
I do expect people to at least have some awareness of the statline of the Whirlwind. People can install Battlescribe and see the stats if they do not have the book. You are getting on average 4 shots(out of 2d3) that then need to hit on a 3+ and then wound on a 3+ resulting in about 1 shot wounding that the Drukhari player can save on a 5+. This is with the boosted missile launcher. It gets worse for the cheaper variant.
All that firepower for 145 points that is lucky to wound a raider.
I guess Whirlwinds are slightly better against footslogging large units of Drukhari but then you are playing against one of the worst Drukhari players around in my mind. Nobody who wants their Drukhari to survive footslogs them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also think people are getting overly stressed of a potential balancing point increase, one that we probably won't see for months unless Drukhari ruin the entire meta. Even the Chapter Approved is written in advance and if it comes during the summer like last time then Drukhari is too recent to be included in that book.
I also understand that people don't like their armies to be addressed if they are problematic. Hell, I have had my share on Dakkadakka defending my armies so I know the gut reaction feels like when somebody discusses potential nerfs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 09:08:43
Lets say DE got nerf and now are at a 55%% win rate, lets say they gain popularity and has 3-4 out of 60 players there on average (so 7.5% popularity the same as custodes) Are you still going to say they are toxic for the meta b.c you KNOW they will be there and you KNOW they will threaten your list? At what point are they not toxic to you?
Historically there were no armies that fell 20% or more in win rates, unless GW fixed them, but then the armies went from what ever win % they had to something like 30% and never played.
The problem with DE, or armies like harlis, is that most armies can't tailor against them, those armies that do try to tailor them because a lot weaker to the rest of the field, while at the same time the DE give up nothing. They are great vs marines, very good vs everything else, and because they aren't played a lot the chance of an early round mirror is low. And they have +70% win rates.
So they are toxic to the meta the same way harlis or harli soups are.
You missed the entire point of this comment, it was seeing if he even wants DE to be playable in events at a respectable win rate.
You missed the entire point of this comment, it was seeing if he even wants DE to be playable in events at a respectable win rate.
There are states between 30% win rate and 76% win rate. You know like the majority of armies hanging around 50%. People treat the the DE win rates as if they were 57%, and people from all around the globe, and not just the US and UK, were pointing out that GW tailored them to the entire edition.
The question of army X or Y should be valid or not valid, in the end comes down, to you playing it, or someone close to you playing it. I know that in any tournament setting, for any game, something that has win rates like that would require imidate reaction from the judges. In sports 60% is considered broken and DE broke the 3/4 mark. Even if they were to drop 10% they would still be the second best army in 9th ed win rate wise.
I just don't get why people try to make it seem as if the rules were just fine, and the "marines" were somehow the real problem. Most marine factions don't even come near 60% win rates. And those are considered to be the good army. Do the math of what is the chance of victory with an army that has 30% win rate vs one that is above 70%. You may as well not put the models out of the box, because it is just a waste of time.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
You missed the entire point of this comment, it was seeing if he even wants DE to be playable in events at a respectable win rate.
There are states between 30% win rate and 76% win rate. You know like the majority of armies hanging around 50%. People treat the the DE win rates as if they were 57%, and people from all around the globe, and not just the US and UK, were pointing out that GW tailored them to the entire edition.
The question of army X or Y should be valid or not valid, in the end comes down, to you playing it, or someone close to you playing it. I know that in any tournament setting, for any game, something that has win rates like that would require imidate reaction from the judges. In sports 60% is considered broken and DE broke the 3/4 mark. Even if they were to drop 10% they would still be the second best army in 9th ed win rate wise.
I just don't get why people try to make it seem as if the rules were just fine, and the "marines" were somehow the real problem. Most marine factions don't even come near 60% win rates. And those are considered to be the good army. Do the math of what is the chance of victory with an army that has 30% win rate vs one that is above 70%. You may as well not put the models out of the box, because it is just a waste of time.
You missed passed convos where people were saying "DE makes it too hard to fight other armies like DG and Custodes" hence my question, if DE was as normal in the metas Custodes this means yes you have to prep for them and maybe DE isn't the problem you you can not handle them and Custodes or DG at the same time.
Hence my question, IDK what you are even trying to get at, you ignored everything before my comment.
I think that apart from the crazy sucubus, the main problem with DE is that they have their main antitank role in the transports for free (with the right cabal RR hit) , and don't need to take ravagers.
Moreover those antitank have opentop, fly and 14" Move, so they can be hiding from first turn enemy shooting and cross the table to kill nearly what they want
I would put that darklance at at least 15 points, it would let the transport as a transport
Amishprn86 wrote: People are just jealous their transports are crap (and they are lol, look at the Impulsor, literally pointless to take) what really needs to happen is GW needs to make 80% of all other transports cheaper or better.
Even if Raiders are +5 or +10pts you will still see 6 of them on the table and you will still complain about the real problem, DT Wrackifiers.
I don't think the impulsor is pointless. People just don't like paying what they think is a tax. And the raider might be a touch too cheap ( they should be paying for the lance ). In any case...
Impulsor stubber, skytalon, and storm bolters. 5 Helblasters with the 3 shot assault guns. Captain w/ Relic Shield probably with the Shield Indomitus.
15 * .777 * .666 * .666 * 2 = 10 damage - that's a dead raider.
The impulsor then puts twenty S4 shots ( 12 are AP2 turn 1 - both will be AP1 turn 2 ) into the occupants -
20 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 7.4 wyches - almost gone after morale
12 * .666 * .5 = 4 wracks
8 * .666 * .5 * .833 = 2.2 wracks -- if they're carrying 2x5s you can break a whole unit
Then you have a super durable captain to HI and tank any left over units.
165 points plus a reroll aura pulled off 85.
125 points pulls off 70 to 100 points of wyches.
Maybe you don't want to expose a captain. Run a dreadnought alongside and pop wisdom. Then you have a dreadnought great at tanking liquifiers and some extra guns incase the raider doesn't go down.
What about losing the helblasters? What guns do DE have usually? A small handful of lances, liquifiers, a small handful of blasters, and melee. If you place the Impulsor to block visibility to the Helblasters they will be unlikely to get enough units in range to get to them without killing the Impulsor first. And are they really going to put lances on an Impulsor with Dreadnoughts walking around?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 15:57:24
It is a bit crazy that DE transports get one of the best AT guns in the game on them basically just as a freebie on what would still be one of the best transports in the game even without that gun. The degree to which raiders outclass basically every other transport in the game right now is quite remarkable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 16:08:05
Gorgobola wrote: I think that apart from the crazy sucubus, the main problem with DE is that they have their main antitank role in the transports for free (with the right cabal RR hit) , and don't need to take ravagers.
Moreover those antitank have opentop, fly and 14" Move, so they can be hiding from first turn enemy shooting and cross the table to kill nearly what they want
I would put that darklance at at least 15 points, it would let the transport as a transport
The DL raider went up in points from 8th book to 9th book and it is 1 shot max 6D just like many other guns. It is actually just as popular to play Poison Tongue b.c of its stratagem to redeploy (which doesn't get re-roll 1 hit) they also are not Core so no RR auras.
I play 6 and they don't really do that well as dedicated Anti-tank at all. heck it took 7 shots last week to kill a 10w vehicle b.c 2 missed to hit and 2 missed to wound, he had a 5++ and saved 1. Without that 5++ it would have took 6 shots. That was me also having to position all 6 to not only get into position to get my melee units ready and not be charged but also to see his tank. It takes 6 on average (without re-rolls) to kill 1 sisters Rhino, 5 vs IG transports, and 7 to kill a Raider. So they are not as effect as you think for a 4-6D weapon.
If you still think that is good then that is fine, but as a DE player I can not rely on them to be my Anti-tank they support anti-tank and I use them to try to get off the last 4 wounds which can take a few shots at times.
If you still think that is good then that is fine, but as a DE player I can not rely on them to be my Anti-tank they support anti-tank and I use them to try to get off the last 4 wounds which can take a few shots at times.
Not necessarily the best anti-tank, but they are very good at softening up targets before you assault with something else.
Raiders aren't really much different than before (a few minor changes), but what has changed is what's inside...dramatically. You're not going to see foot Drukhari winning games, so the issue for other armies is how to bring the raiders down before they get to do their job. Before, nobody cared because what was inside wasn't scary at all, it was like getting hit by a wet tissue, so raiders weren't really a problem.
IDk why you keep saying free, its tied into the cost of the vehicle. 8th the Raider was 65 + points of the gun (15 for DL). Thats like me saying the HB on the LSS is free, or the 2 Shuriken Cannons on the starweaver is free. They are added to the total as a hidden number.
If they add +5pts to the DL you'll just see DTDC's again, if you want the raider to go up it need to be +5pts in general not the DL.
EDIT: which brings me back to DT is the problem.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 16:36:04
I think both are problems, DT and DL on transport (the thing with DL is that its min dmg is 4, not 1 like before, it's a huge difference between old and new raider, moreover the possibility to RR cabal)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/02 16:45:41
Amishprn86 wrote: If they add +5pts to the DL you'll just see DTDC's again, if you want the raider to go up it need to be +5pts in general not the DL.
EDIT: which brings me back to DT is the problem.
Why are you taking dark lances on all your Raiders if you believe that disintegrator cannons are equally worth the points? Re-instating limits on which units can go in which transports would make it harder to have enough DTDCs assuming DT liquifier Wracks do not remain OP.
It's not just DT that is a problem, it's the whole chapter tactic system that makes the game impossible to balance.
Gorgobola wrote:I think both are problems, DT and DL on transport (the thing with DL is that its min dmg is 4, not 1 like before, it's a huge difference between old and new raider, moreover the possibility to RR cabal)
Tyran wrote:No one used the old DL, it really needed its buff to Damage.
Yep it was a terrible gun, the DE community thought it would get the "D6 damage to a minimal of 3" rule but instead we got 3+D3 which is more damage on average but it was needed b.c even without DT the Dis Cannons was better b.c how swingy the DL was, the DL was literally only better vs 1 match up and equal or worst vs all others.
Saying raiders haven't changed is a bit of a joke. 11 transport capacity and a gun that went from 1d6 to 3+d3 are both significant changes.
Raiders are clearly underpointed right now compared to something like a rhino - which is widely regarded as a pretty good transport. Even if raiders didn't have a DL and had no weapons at all, they'd still be arguably better for their points than a rhino is - the fact that they also get an extremely good gun on top of that is just icing on the cake.
+5 for the base chasis, another +5 for the DL, and we're starting to get to the right ballpark relative to the pricing on other transports in the game.
Amishprn86 wrote: If they add +5pts to the DL you'll just see DTDC's again, if you want the raider to go up it need to be +5pts in general not the DL.
EDIT: which brings me back to DT is the problem.
Why are you taking dark lances on all your Raiders if you believe that disintegrator cannons are equally worth the points? Re-instating limits on which units can go in which transports would make it harder to have enough DTDCs assuming DT liquifier Wracks do not remain OP.
It's not just DT that is a problem, it's the whole chapter tactic system that makes the game impossible to balance.
In DT it is better b.c its 3 shots for 3D and most players don't have transport/tanks, so I can kill up to 3 Marines even with 3 wounds vs 1 marine with a DL. And if you do have vehicles it still wounds on a 4+ (3+ vs Starweavers, venoms, etc..) if you get 2 through compare to 1 DL its 6D vs 5-7D so on average its about the same, against vehicles with Invuls the DC gets even better.
So the problem is DT still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Saying raiders haven't changed is a bit of a joke. 11 transport capacity and a gun that went from 1d6 to 3+d3 are both significant changes.
Raiders are clearly underpointed right now compared to something like a rhino - which is widely regarded as a pretty good transport. Even if raiders didn't have a DL and had no weapons at all, they'd still be arguably better for their points than a rhino is - the fact that they also get an extremely good gun on top of that is just icing on the cake.
+5 for the base chasis, another +5 for the DL, and we're starting to get to the right ballpark relative to the pricing on other transports in the game.
And I've been arguing the Rhino (as well as others) are crap, you didn't see much of them before the new DE book and if DE didn't come out you still didn't see any more transports. So how is that a DE problem? We spent almost all of 9th new SM book with almost 0 vehicles and transports, why are you not talking about that? Now that there is a good enough transport to play you want to nerf it, well why not ask for buffs first to those that are bad?
DE needs 3 nerfs 100% for sure, DT, Comp Edge, Fly-by. Nerf those, buff other transports and see what happens first.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/02 17:02:32
Vehicles are "crap", not entirely true but whatever, because of Attack Bikes and Retributors with multi-meltas, Eradicators and now dark lances are undercosted. You could buff vehicles, but then you also need to buff every other anti-vehicle weapon because most anti-tank weapons cannot keep up.
Another option for nerfing Raiders would be taking away <HAEMONCULUS COVEN> or <KABAL> or <WYCH CULT>, they're already ignoring the rule that most transports have to abide by (not being able to transport units from multiple chapters). That also gets rid of the DT dissie problem. Remove the cost of dissies and leave them at their current cost with this nerf.
vict0988 wrote: Vehicles are "crap", not entirely true but whatever, because of Attack Bikes and Retributors with multi-meltas, Eradicators and now dark lances are undercosted. You could buff vehicles, but then you also need to buff every other anti-vehicle weapon because most anti-tank weapons cannot keep up.
Another option for nerfing Raiders would be taking away <HAEMONCULUS COVEN> or <KABAL> or <WYCH CULT>, they're already ignoring the rule that most transports have to abide by (not being able to transport units from multiple chapters). That also gets rid of the DT dissie problem. Remove the cost of dissies and leave them at their current cost with this nerf.
Before any of those got buffed did marines take vehicles still? No, they have not been in the meta for a long time now. If that means all anti-tank needs to be nerf fine, but over all most vehicles are not being played and hasn't been played for awhile now.
Amishprn86 wrote: People are just jealous their transports are crap (and they are lol, look at the Impulsor, literally pointless to take) what really needs to happen is GW needs to make 80% of all other transports cheaper or better.
Even if Raiders are +5 or +10pts you will still see 6 of them on the table and you will still complain about the real problem, DT Wrackifiers.
I don't think the impulsor is pointless. People just don't like paying what they think is a tax. And the raider might be a touch too cheap ( they should be paying for the lance ). In any case...
Impulsor stubber, skytalon, and storm bolters. 5 Helblasters with the 3 shot assault guns. Captain w/ Relic Shield probably with the Shield Indomitus.
15 * .777 * .666 * .666 * 2 = 10 damage - that's a dead raider.
The impulsor then puts twenty S4 shots ( 12 are AP2 turn 1 - both will be AP1 turn 2 ) into the occupants -
20 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 7.4 wyches - almost gone after morale
12 * .666 * .5 = 4 wracks
8 * .666 * .5 * .833 = 2.2 wracks -- if they're carrying 2x5s you can break a whole unit
Then you have a super durable captain to HI and tank any left over units.
165 points plus a reroll aura pulled off 85.
125 points pulls off 70 to 100 points of wyches.
Maybe you don't want to expose a captain. Run a dreadnought alongside and pop wisdom. Then you have a dreadnought great at tanking liquifiers and some extra guns incase the raider doesn't go down.
What about losing the helblasters? What guns do DE have usually? A small handful of lances, liquifiers, a small handful of blasters, and melee. If you place the Impulsor to block visibility to the Helblasters they will be unlikely to get enough units in range to get to them without killing the Impulsor first. And are they really going to put lances on an Impulsor with Dreadnoughts walking around?
Okay I gotta call this out. That strategy would likely get destroyed. First you have to get into position with the impulsor, which on today’s tables isn’t easy since they no longer have fly. Next, if you get even slightly unlucky and don’t kill that raider, then congrats you just gave your opponent 300 points of free kills. Let’s not forget DE can redeploy raiders if they pick the one kabal and find their position unfavorable or end up going second.
This might actually all be okay if the units that DE used to kill the space marine stuff actually cost enough.
Some people are saying horde is the answer as well—how don’t wyches do well into hordes?
If you don't think people take rhinos...lol. Rhinos are solid, literally the only reason you don't see them in almost every space marine list is that GW's new, better version of Space Marines can't ride in them. If primaris could be in rhinos you'd see them in almost every list.
It's a rare SoB list that doesn't take a rhino, because they're fundamentally solid. Rhinos don't need a buff, raiders need a 10-15 point nerf. I don't want a game where everybody has to take 5 transports because they're criminally undercosted.
Buffing transports just knocks other vehicles out of the meta even harder, BTW, because it requires everyone to gear harder for antitank that just ends up hurting non-transport vehicles even more as they're much more expensive but typically with very little more defense.
You've already seen the result of undercosted raiders in DE in terms of pushing other vehicles out of competition - ravagers don't get much of a look-in because just spamming raiders till the sunset is all you need to do.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
