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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The raider is objectively far and away the best transport in the game at its current points cost. It's just brutally underpriced. If would still be one of the best transports if it cost the same points and just didn't have any guns at all. That it gets one of the best AT guns in the game on top of that is just crazy.

1) agreed, possibly in competition with a Starweaver

2) disagree, it is objectively not that undercosted

3) what?

I mean a dark lance is better than a single lascannon or missile launcher, but there are many better antitank guns. There's, you know, the obvious one that everyone is taking right now, the multi-melta. It's tough to argue that the range advantage a single dark lance has over a multimelta is enough of a game changer to account for the gulf in damage between them when the aspect of what's 'problematic' about raiders is their capacity to deliver glass cannon melee units to midboard. Presumably if you're doing that, you're within 24" of your target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:
Bearing in mind the Drukhari are very transport dependant, I think the popularity of the Raider is also due to the miserable state of Venoms. The -1 to hit cap hurt them, as did the detrimental changes to Splinter Cannons (would you like one subpar Heavy Bolter on your boat or two?), and the fact that Wyches only get their special weapons if the squad is at least 10 strong.

There are still plenty of units you would take in a venom if raiders were 10-15pts more expensive than they currently are. Incubi are IMO excessive in over 5-man squads, courts+archons, wracks, and kabalites particularly PT shredder kabs, the only reason they're not seeing any play is how good raiders are.

@The_Scotsman: Got it. And agreed, especially on the "fiddly waste of time" point. Same for Vict0988.

 the_scotsman wrote:


There are still plenty of units you would take in a venom if raiders were 10-15pts more expensive than they currently are. Incubi are IMO excessive in over 5-man squads, courts+archons, wracks, and kabalites particularly PT shredder kabs, the only reason they're not seeing any play is how good raiders are.

I agree. I was looking at my lil 1300 point list, and I feel that it would be better if I found 10 points to move my 5 incubi into a Raider, rather than the Venom they are in. That certianly would be less the case if we were talking about 20-25 points instead.

I think the line gets drawn when the Venom isn't just slightly more durable for the points than the Raider, and venoms become a problem when their damage output massively outstrips what the raider puts out.

 the_scotsman wrote:


3) what?

I mean a dark lance is better than a single lascannon or missile launcher, but there are many better antitank guns. There's, you know, the obvious one that everyone is taking right now, the multi-melta. It's tough to argue that the range advantage a single dark lance has over a multimelta is enough of a game changer to account for the gulf in damage between them when the aspect of what's 'problematic' about raiders is their capacity to deliver glass cannon melee units to midboard. Presumably if you're doing that, you're within 24" of your target.=

Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.

I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances?.

That may be true, but some faction will bring the most Multimela per point, and if it aint the 'glass cannon faction', then something is wrong.

 harlokin wrote:
Bearing in mind the Drukhari are very transport dependant, I think the popularity of the Raider is also due to the miserable state of Venoms. The -1 to hit cap hurt them, as did the detrimental changes to Splinter Cannons (would you like one subpar Heavy Bolter on your boat or two?), and the fact that Wyches only get their special weapons if the squad is at least 10 strong.

It's effing stupid that you can trigger a -1 to hit on yourself and then just ignore any enemy penalties. It makes the rules real wonky balance-wise. Don't want -2 to hit? Don't advance and shoot Assault weapons/move and shoot heavy weapons with infantry. Take Ophydian Destroyers, -1 to hit in melee, completely useless because the thing that is most likely to completely splat them (thunder hammer) is already -1 to hit. It just feels bad.

 harlokin wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances?.

That may be true, but some faction will bring the most Multimela per point, and if it aint the 'glass cannon faction', then something is wrong.

Well, I think that's the crux of it; due to point efficiencies, Deldar is not the glass cannon faction anymore, it's just a cannon.

 vict0988 wrote:

It's effing stupid that you can trigger a -1 to hit on yourself and then just ignore any enemy penalties. It makes the rules real wonky balance-wise. Don't want -2 to hit? Don't advance and shoot Assault weapons/move and shoot heavy weapons with infantry. Take Ophydian Destroyers, -1 to hit in melee, completely useless because the thing that is most likely to completely splat them (thunder hammer) is already -1 to hit. It just feels bad.

Agree totally. I get the hate for Alaitoc flyer spam, but it seems like the usual GW overeaction.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:


3) what?

I mean a dark lance is better than a single lascannon or missile launcher, but there are many better antitank guns. There's, you know, the obvious one that everyone is taking right now, the multi-melta. It's tough to argue that the range advantage a single dark lance has over a multimelta is enough of a game changer to account for the gulf in damage between them when the aspect of what's 'problematic' about raiders is their capacity to deliver glass cannon melee units to midboard. Presumably if you're doing that, you're within 24" of your target.=

Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.

I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.

I mean, considering the firepower difference, damn close.

DL Ravager: 140pts, 3 dark lances. 6.65 damage vs standard tank.
DL Scourges: 120pts, 4 dark lances (but note almost always fire on the move since they deep strike) - 6.66 damage vs standard tank
DL Raider: 85pts, 2.22 damage vs standard tank

Retributors: 150pts, 4 multi-meltas. Assuming firing on the move, 9.32 damage vs standard tank out of melta range, 14.65 damage in melta range.
Immolator: 145pts, 2 multi-meltas. 6.21 damage out of melta range, 9.76 in melta range.

Heck, you can even compare to:

Devil Dog: 110pts, effectively 2 multi-meltas, 4.66 damage out of melta range, 7.32 damage inside melta range.

True, I guess drukhari can get the most dark lances, per point, with open topped, and with fly. I don't particularly think 85pts per anti-tank gun is wildly unusual.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

It's effing stupid that you can trigger a -1 to hit on yourself and then just ignore any enemy penalties. It makes the rules real wonky balance-wise. Don't want -2 to hit? Don't advance and shoot Assault weapons/move and shoot heavy weapons with infantry. Take Ophydian Destroyers, -1 to hit in melee, completely useless because the thing that is most likely to completely splat them (thunder hammer) is already -1 to hit. It just feels bad.

Agree totally. I get the hate for Alaitoc flyer spam, but it seems like the usual GW overeaction.

I've long said that the cap should apply separately to abilities the target unit is claiming and penalties applying to the attacking unit. A unit suffering a -1 to hit penalty due to moving and firing a heavy weapon or advancing and firing an assault weapon should be able to suffer a further -1 to hit penalty from a target unit claiming dense cover or with a -1 to hit datasheet ability.

Having the -1/+1 cap be absolute immediately leads to bizarre situations like not worrying about moving your heavy weapons team around because you don't need to aim as carefully to hit a flying plane.

A DL is absolutely one of the best anti-tank weapons in the game. I can't believe you are actually disputing that. That it may or may not be better than a multi-melta is like saying "well repentia aren't one of the best melee units in the game because incubi might be better."

 the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, considering the firepower difference, damn close.

DL Ravager: 140pts, 3 dark lances. 6.65 damage vs standard tank.
DL Scourges: 120pts, 4 dark lances (but note almost always fire on the move since they deep strike) - 6.66 damage vs standard tank
DL Raider: 85pts, 2.22 damage vs standard tank

Retributors: 150pts, 4 multi-meltas. Assuming firing on the move, 9.32 damage vs standard tank out of melta range, 14.65 damage in melta range.
Immolator: 145pts, 2 multi-meltas. 6.21 damage out of melta range, 9.76 in melta range.

Heck, you can even compare to:

Devil Dog: 110pts, effectively 2 multi-meltas, 4.66 damage out of melta range, 7.32 damage inside melta range.

True, I guess drukhari can get the most dark lances, per point, with open topped, and with fly. I don't particularly think 85pts per anti-tank gun is wildly unusual.

The raider has the best of every rule for a transport and operates as an excellent gunboat even after it has delivered its cargo. It needs a hit to both of these areas.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The raider is objectively far and away the best transport in the game at its current points cost. It's just brutally underpriced. If would still be one of the best transports if it cost the same points and just didn't have any guns at all. That it gets one of the best AT guns in the game on top of that is just crazy.

I would be curious to see how useful the lance winds up being the first turn. If they run they can't shoot it. If they don't run and want to shoot it they'll be mostly out of cover. Maybe it doesn't matter.

yukishiro1 wrote:
A DL is absolutely one of the best anti-tank weapons in the game. I can't believe you are actually disputing that. That it may or may not be better than a multi-melta is like saying "well repentia aren't one of the best melee units in the game because incubi might be better."

I mean, it's better than a lascannon and (pending the stats almost certainly becoming the exact same as it) a bright lance, I'll give you that.

But its just kind of a weird meaningless statement. Compared to what? We can look at the damage of a squad of Dark Lance Scourges and compare to a squad of Lascannon Devastators and say 'yep, looks like the Scourges do more damage for less points" but the devs have +1T +1Sv and +5 wounds, such that you can use them as a turn 1 tempo piece and they can be standing stationary and taking advantage of their namesake doctrine turn 1, while scourges sit and wait til turn 2 to come down.

A Raider is not as good at AT shooting as highly competitive super meta unit the double-lascannon razorback, and we all know how those have been tearing it up (/s obviously).

It just kind of seems like you're hyperbolizing a fairly moderate amount of antitank firepower because you want to declare every aspect of Thing You Dont Like as Op and Bad and Needs to be Deleted From The Game like it's some champion you don't like in league of legends who you can get nerfed by whining to the devs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The raider is objectively far and away the best transport in the game at its current points cost. It's just brutally underpriced. If would still be one of the best transports if it cost the same points and just didn't have any guns at all. That it gets one of the best AT guns in the game on top of that is just crazy.

I would be curious to see how useful the lance winds up being the first turn. If they run they can't shoot it. If they don't run and want to shoot it they'll be mostly out of cover. Maybe it doesn't matter.

A lot of people do advance with their raiders turn 1 from what I've seen. It's actually pretty common practice to slap a phantasm grenade launcher on one of your raiders because it's an assault weapon and it lets you use a stratagem for extra movement after you shoot it after advancing.

yukishiro1 wrote:
A DL is absolutely one of the best anti-tank weapons in the game. I can't believe you are actually disputing that. That it may or may not be better than a multi-melta is like saying "well repentia aren't one of the best melee units in the game because incubi might be better."

Scotsman knows he is wrong. He is literally comparing an open topped transports shooting potential to dedicated shooting platforms. I assure you - a raider loaded with khabalites with 2 blasters and a DL - outshoots a ravager and some when you consider the splinter rifles.

All while carrying an objective seccured unit with 20 CC attacks that are ap -1 on 6's to wound with 10 additional wounds. The Ravager is literally unplayable with the raider costing this much.

I will care less and less the longer this game can't make simple balancing moves. Impuslor is a brand new unit which should be getting attention. It is infeiror to the raider in most respects. It should not cost 50% more. With such flagrant misbalance of the game going on in plane sight. Why should we care about anything balance related? The game is not balanced and therefore you should not care to discuss balance about it.

 the_scotsman wrote:


It just kind of seems like you're hyperbolizing a fairly moderate amount of antitank firepower because you want to declare every aspect of Thing You Dont Like as Op and Bad and Needs to be Deleted From The Game like it's some champion you don't like in league of legends who you can get nerfed by whining to the devs.

Sigh. Back to the ridiculous straw man style of dakka debating. I regret wasting my time, should have known better.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.

I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.

Of the top DE lists they had between 6 and 7 lances.

6 * .666 * .666 * 5.5 = 14.6

8 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 12.3

All the dark lances in a DE army are not terribly much more damage than a single unit of eradicators with a MM at 24".

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, considering the firepower difference, damn close.

DL Ravager: 140pts, 3 dark lances. 6.65 damage vs standard tank.
DL Scourges: 120pts, 4 dark lances (but note almost always fire on the move since they deep strike) - 6.66 damage vs standard tank
DL Raider: 85pts, 2.22 damage vs standard tank

Retributors: 150pts, 4 multi-meltas. Assuming firing on the move, 9.32 damage vs standard tank out of melta range, 14.65 damage in melta range.
Immolator: 145pts, 2 multi-meltas. 6.21 damage out of melta range, 9.76 in melta range.

Heck, you can even compare to:

Devil Dog: 110pts, effectively 2 multi-meltas, 4.66 damage out of melta range, 7.32 damage inside melta range.

True, I guess drukhari can get the most dark lances, per point, with open topped, and with fly. I don't particularly think 85pts per anti-tank gun is wildly unusual.

The raider has the best of every rule for a transport and operates as an excellent gunboat even after it has delivered its cargo. It needs a hit to both of these areas.

An increase to its points cost would seem to reduce both those areas (or at least, charge more of a premium for that first one).

Before it became the thing du jour to complain about, people seemed to be under the impression that swingy damage antitank weapons were bad game design, and what led to dedicated AT guns being outclassed by reliable damage anti-elite guns at their intended job. (Joker voice) "and then GW added one. little. dark lance. andeverybodylosestheirminds!"

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.

I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.

Of the top DE lists they had between 6 and 7 lances.

6 * .666 * .666 * 5.5 = 14.6

8 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 12.3

All the dark lances in a DE army are not terribly much more damage than a single unit of eradicators with a MM at 24".

No one is saying a DL is better than a MM. It is not. It is certainly more mobile and has longer range. Plus it does a reliable minimum 4 damage to make it a much superior heavy infantry killer. You can also split all these shots up at different targets...not a trivial thing ether.

Also...A pure Khabal list can easily get 12 DL and 12 blasters out of 6 raiders with khabs with DL and 2x blaster. Plus you can still fit in drazar a master archon a succubus min wych and a few squad of incubi and a VRB.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.

I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.

Of the top DE lists they had between 6 and 7 lances.

6 * .666 * .666 * 5.5 = 14.6

8 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 12.3

All the dark lances in a DE army are not terribly much more damage than a single unit of eradicators with a MM at 24".

No one is saying a DL is better than a MM. It is not. It is certainly more mobile and has longer range. Plus it does a reliable minimum 4 damage to make it a much superior heavy infantry killer. You can also split all these shots up at different targets...not a trivial thing ether.

Also...A pure Khabal list can easily get 12 DL and 12 blasters out of 6 raiders with khabs with DL and 2x blaster. Plus you can still fit in drazar a master archon a succubus min wych and a few squad of incubi and a VRB.

Fantastic - out of curiosity, is anyone actually doing that to win events? Or are you just kind of...listing a thing you can do with a 2000pt army?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Fantastic - out of curiosity, is anyone actually doing that to win events? Or are you just kind of...listing a thing you can do with a 2000pt army?

Is your essay still only at 27 pages?

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is saying a DL is better than a MM. It is not. It is certainly more mobile and has longer range. Plus it does a reliable minimum 4 damage to make it a much superior heavy infantry killer. You can also split all these shots up at different targets...not a trivial thing ether.

Also...A pure Khabal list can easily get 12 DL and 12 blasters out of 6 raiders with khabs with DL and 2x blaster. Plus you can still fit in drazar a master archon a succubus min wych and a few squad of incubi and a VRB.

I think it matters to consider the value of the attached gun based on how dense it is. You're talking about 6 shots after spending 510 points against 145 of Eradicators. Note that I am not claiming that Raiders are "fine".

Surely there will be blasters and other AT out of necessity, because those lances won't cut it on their own. All those other AT guns are reasonably short ranged as well, which requires one to stick them in a raider to make them work before you get shot off the table.

There's a really delicate situation here that can easily make DE terrible without carefully considering the variables.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it matters to consider the value of the attached gun based on how dense it is. You're talking about 6 shots after spending 510 points against 145 of Eradicators. Note that I am not claiming that Raiders are "fine".

Surely there will be blasters and other AT out of necessity, because those lances won't cut it on their own. All those other AT guns are reasonably short ranged as well, which requires one to stick them in a raider to make them work before you get shot off the table.

There's a really delicate situation here that can easily make DE terrible without carefully considering the variables.

Density only matters if that density isn't producing overkill. Lances are tuned almost perfectly to take nice bites out of things and to hit specific wound breakpoints. Melta, and the units that carry it, is tuned to melt exactly one hard target per turn while having a secondary role against elite infantry which is something both lances and blasters also excel at.

I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think it matters to consider the value of the attached gun based on how dense it is. You're talking about 6 shots after spending 510 points against 145 of Eradicators. Note that I am not claiming that Raiders are "fine".

Surely there will be blasters and other AT out of necessity, because those lances won't cut it on their own. All those other AT guns are reasonably short ranged as well, which requires one to stick them in a raider to make them work before you get shot off the table.

There's a really delicate situation here that can easily make DE terrible without carefully considering the variables.

Density only matters if that density isn't producing overkill. Lances are tuned almost perfectly to take nice bites out of things and to hit specific wound breakpoints. Melta, and the units that carry it, is tuned to melt exactly one hard target per turn while having a secondary role against elite infantry which is something both lances and blasters also excel at.

Is the argument here that minimum damage 4 is better than minimum damage 3?

....How? I would say there's vastly more W3 infantry running around than W4. What's W4? A primaris outrider?

Also, wasn't Strength 9 considered to be one of the few things a lascannon could really claim as an advantage over other AT weapons? Strength 8 as a dedicated AT weapon means you're wounding on 4s the second you run up against T8 targets.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.

Yes, yes but it can like...fly for realz....and totally carry lots of xenos...won't somebody please think of the Mehreens!

DA termies with -1 damage, DG termies with -1 damage, elite custodes, attack bikes, dreadnoughts with -1 damage, just to name a few. There's tons of stuff running around right now where 4D is way better than 3D.

Additionally, a melta is only minimum 3 within 12", and that makes a huge difference.

 harlokin wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.

Yes, yes but it can like...fly for realz....and totally carry lots of xenos...won't somebody please think of the Mehreens!

. . .

I'm not sure if either of these are serious. I mean, I know the second one is trolling, but I can't tell if he seriously thinks the Raider is not undercosted.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.

The issue with the raider is it just does too much for its points cost. The problem isn't firepower in the abstract, it's that it does all the other stuff it does AND happens to pack an excellent AT weapon thrown on top essentially for free when you look at how undercosted it is.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Is the argument here that minimum damage 4 is better than minimum damage 3?

....How? I would say there's vastly more W3 infantry running around than W4. What's W4? A primaris outrider?

D4 is better against any -1 damage abilities which have started to become more common. It also does better against models that take a fixed number of wounds per phase and vehicles that have damage breakpoints or total wounds in multiples of 4, while being equal against any values that aren't multiples of 3. These are very strong advantages.

Also, wasn't Strength 9 considered to be one of the few things a lascannon could really claim as an advantage over other AT weapons? Strength 8 as a dedicated AT weapon means you're wounding on 4s the second you run up against T8 targets.

In theory, this should help. In practice, it doesn't seem to matter due to many high wound targets being T7 or lower.