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.

Quasistellar wrote:

 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.

I don't know the cost of the Raider. It certainly could be undercosted. But I also see folks saying that a Dark Lance is too good, when I can stick a Multimelta on an Attack Bike or Land Speeder, in addition to mounting three AT weapons on a Transport.

Quasistellar wrote:

 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.

The Raider is certainly undercosted for the current meta, and should probably 10-15 points more.

I'm poking fun at the complaints that the problem with the Raider is that it flies, it has a gun, and it carries troops....oh the humanity.

Does thd Land Speeder Storm still have the option to get a Multimelta? It's a flying transport, after all. . .

 harlokin wrote:
I'm poking fun at the complaints that the problem with the Raider is that it flies, it has a gun, and it carries troops....oh the humanity.

Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Does thd Land Speeder Storm still have the option to get a Multimelta? It's a flying transport, after all. . .

Does the LSS have any ability to carry models that aren't scouts? I don't think that it does and given how bad scouts are that should end the conversation here and now.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?

Can't comment on the Necrons. The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.

The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Does thd Land Speeder Storm still have the option to get a Multimelta? It's a flying transport, after all. . .

Does the LSS have any ability to carry models that aren't scouts? I don't think that it does and given how bad scouts are that should end the conversation here and now.

Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.

 harlokin wrote:
Can't comment on the Necrons.

The Monolith lost fly and literally can't move on a table with proper terrain density.

The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.

This is your subjective opinion.

The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.

Foot DE lists have been viable in the past, why shouldn't this style get equal design space? Do the arenas often feature both sides starting out in raiders? Are infiltration missions done by flying venom down a spire's hallways?

It's all well and good if you enjoy transports.list but that isn't the whole of DE lore.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?

Can't comment on the Necrons. The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.

The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.

Yes, because things aren't OP in a vacuum. For example, if Rhinos still had their firing port this would surely make a 5-man tactical squad with an MM vastly more powerful than they are under the current rules.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.

Yes, because things aren't OP in a vacuum. For example, if Rhinos still had their firing port this would surely make a 5-man tactical squad with an MM vastly more powerful than they are under the current rules.

Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?

No, the Marine vehicles should have never had Fly. It was nonsensical lorewise (since they couldn't do anything close to it in-lore) and gameplay-wise it was yet another instance of Marines cannibalizing other races design space.

Now, GW should have written in rules for Hover vehicles allowing them to ignore difficult terrain absolutely. But they didn't. Even so it's no excuse for Primaris vehicles to be flying over large gaps or balancing on the top of 8 storey buildings.

The Monolith OTOH is ridiculous, especially as every other Necron LOW kept the Fly keyword and there's artwork and lore going back 20 years of Monoliths being capable of proper flight.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?

So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 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?

I frankly don't care what the new super pro 40k players are doing in "competitive" events - largely they are the ones responsible for the terrible state of the game. Because they have clout. They get early model releases and their opinions matter and are part of the playtesting process that has developed. They will be the first to exploit the obviously busted Competitive edge ability which is clearly not intended and literally anyone using it is a certified D bag.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

The Dark Lance contributes to the Raider being OP. The Lance itself may be OP but is currently supplanted by other options due to larger sources of imbalance.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?

So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.

The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.

Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?

So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.

The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.

Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.

So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.

I'm also confused, you both say that the AP-4 matters . . . But that armor save isn't very important. . . Care to square that circle?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.

So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?

So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.

The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.

Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.

So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.

Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.

Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.

I dunno why people are still even arguing, everyone here seems to agree Raiders need to go up 10-15 points as part of the initial round of DE nerfs. Now it's just up to GW to get off the pot and actually do it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.

But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.

Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.

 Tyran wrote:
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.

 Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.

But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

Yeah I'd be more inclined to go that route, personally.

Quasistellar wrote:

 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.

Well, let's test it in any case. GW makes it harder now, but a DL on a Scourge is 15 making the vehicle version 20 ( most likely ). That makes the base raider 65.

TLC was previously 40 so that makes the Razorback 80. 15 points for +1T and +1Save, no 5++, -1M, less capacity, no FLY. Razorback is certainly worse, but simply worse guns notwithstanding.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.

Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.

It is significantly worse against vehicles and monsters with 4+ saves...Like a raider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.

But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

Is there a difference? Is there a target power level that everything should be aimed at? Cause I don't see it? I see far too many examples of units/weapons which the points are literally backwards based on ability. UP or OP is semantics. There is a big discrepancy is the issue.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.

The Dark Lance contributes to the Raider being OP. The Lance itself may be OP but is currently supplanted by other options due to larger sources of imbalance.

The Dark Lance on the Raider in particular is . . . just not priced appropriately. It's included in the price, but the Disintigrator costs 5 points.

It's just the cherry on top of the 85 point transport with T6, Fly, Open Topped, and 5++ Invuln. The real issue with Raiders is their cost versus their resiliency and utility. They carry obsec troops that are very effective on the primary objective, and if you manage to kill the Raider but not the contents, on the next turn they can advance and charge! Like, imagine Wave Serpents carrying Howling Banshees, but at 1/2 to 2/3 the price. It's a very well designed concept for Drukhari, and I applaud GW for it, but it's just a bit too aggressively priced, and I'm not even talking about the obviously broken/unintentional stuff that will get errata'd (razor flails + comp edge, extra 2 cp, dark technomancers + liquifiers).

Some of this could have been adjusted for if weapons that used to get bonuses vs FLY didn't change to get bonuses vs AIRCRAFT, so right now the Raider profile is almost strictly superior in effective defense to something like a Rhino, Impulsor, or Chimera, except vs like a couple niche weapons. And on top of that, they have Fly and Open Topped, and get a literally free best (arguably) anti-tank weapon in the game. Oh, and they can actually cause a wound or two in combat, but I think we can all agree that this last bit is cool and flavourful and not OP (seriously--I like bladevanes they're cool!). I almost wonder if T6 was the actual bridge too far here -- if they were T5, Heavy Bolters would still be pretty decent against them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.

The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.

That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...

Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?

The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.

The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.

That's good news, imo. Pulling the S10 from the Broadside Railguns back in 5th(?) was a real shame.