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.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 16:51:14
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Some people think they are under by as little as 10 points. I'm on the other end and think they are at least 30 points under costed. I also think that the bump to T6 is a significant reason why they became overpowered over night.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Yeah, you could absolutely bring 95pt impulsors to a game against me. That's much closer to what they should actually cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: Some people think they are under by as little as 10 points. I'm on the other end and think they are at least 30 points under costed. I also think that the bump to T6 is a significant reason why they became overpowered over night.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 17:02:13
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
The top DE army which was mix of CWE and DE, he also didn't use the +CP 2-3 patrols, he used a Battalion, he paid for a Patrol, and then paid for a Spearhead. So he is down 4CP.
Players don't seem to understand that taking only Patrols is not a buff, its more or less equal to a Battalion with musical chairs as to what gets the limited 2 fast and heavy slots (If you take 2 Coven patrols and 1 wych patrol, well the Coven has 4 fast and 4 heavy slots but the Wych has only 2 and if you wanted Beasts, Hellions, and Reavers then you are out of luck), if you take 3 Patrols yes over all its more troops but its also more tax in HQ's and less slots, especially if you want Kabal, coven, and wych, now its only 2 heavy, elite, and fast for each. Really by limiting the FoC slots the DE player is getting only 2 free CP.
When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
If Wrackifiers wasn't so strong or even a thing no one would notice or care that DE gets 2 more CP.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
It's 2 free CP for just building a list. And you're complaining that it makes it hard to get everything you want?
Ultras need to spend the points for Gulliman for their extra CP (unless you're talking about something else that I don't know about). And I just checked the rules for Red Scorpions in the Compendium. Where are they getting this free LoW detachment?
Yes I am complaining b.c I've been asking GW to undo the Subfaction mess from day one, i hate it. 2CP isn't game breaking either.
Well if it isn't that big of a deal why are you defending it so hard? And you still haven't explained how Red Scorpions are getting that free LoW detachment.
Xenomancers wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
You only disagree because you're comparing them to the currently overpriced Impuslor. Raiders need to go UP (but not by as much as you think), and Impulsors need to come DOWN.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Me? Yes, 100%, I think its way over costed and bringing them opens up an entirely new playstyle that marines are not able to do right now effectively at all, b.c why take them when another squad is better. It gives you less boots on the ground but equal wounds and protection for less for a turn of huge movement. I also think Tauroxs and Primes are 10-15pts too much, Rhino are 10pts over, Ghost Arks 25-30pts over costed, Devilfish 10pts over, Trukks 10pts over, and some others.
PS: My favorite game in the history of all of 40k was 7th against White Scar when they got free Rhinos and filled them full of Tac marines with 2 specials, Disembark, shoot and getting a free re-embarkment back into the rhino. Good times, games are more fun with different levels of armor on the table.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 17:23:30
Before this iteration of the Raider, *ALL* APC/IFVs were grossly overcosted. So much so that there's even a colloquialism for the phenomenon: Land Raider Syndrome.
The premium hybrid-transports have paid has been ridiculous, and absolutely should be rectified. The game would be much better off if more factions could viably field a mechanized infantry formation should the player choose to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 19:03:39
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Me? Yes, 100%, I think its way over costed and bringing them opens up an entirely new playstyle that marines are not able to do right now effectively at all, b.c why take them when another squad is better. It gives you less boots on the ground but equal wounds and protection for less for a turn of huge movement. I also think Tauroxs and Primes are 10-15pts too much, Rhino are 10pts over, Ghost Arks 25-30pts over costed, Devilfish 10pts over, Trukks 10pts over, and some others.
PS: My favorite game in the history of all of 40k was 7th against White Scar when they got free Rhinos and filled them full of Tac marines with 2 specials, Disembark, shoot and getting a free re-embarkment back into the rhino. Good times, games are more fun with different levels of armor on the table.
Well then that is the answer. Not much point playing the game if everyone knows the rules are unfair. Be adults - discuss what needs to change. Institute the change. GW has proven again and again to suck at making rules. Who cares if it is house rules? You will be having more fun - you might even get a following if enough people start doing it.
The issue with gladius is it was a marine horde. It worked. The army should play more like custodians and less like AM though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 19:17:24
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
115 would be on the high end of where they should be. 5 intercessors is 100 points...110 with a dessie...you realize 5 intercessors will never kill a raider in game right? So many units need fixes. I havnt seen a single ravager in 9th ed being played ether...I wonder why...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Imagine with the Ravager was like the Falcon and Razorback that could transport 6 models and loses open top lol. I think it would break the community.
Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though and it's transport ability is not that useful but you'll take it as it really doesn't pay for it. Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/05 19:45:39
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 20:05:09
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
You say that like it is trivial. It's not and the meta obviously agrees, as every DE player is taking a lot of them and other players are struggling with them specifically. The durability increase is also against S10 weapons, even if they are relatively rare. The more breakpoints that change as result of a toughness increase, the more valuable it is and 5 to 6 is a big one because of how many weapons it effects. If an Infantry unit that is T5 saw a jump to T6 I would expect a decent price jump, not 5 points for the entire squad. We have to remember that this mid strength tier catergory of weapons represents the largest in the game, I think?
An obvious unit comparison that has been brought up a lot is the Ghost Ark which is clearly overpriced at 145 points but, even a more reasonable 130 points is still over 50% more than a Raider. So yes, I do believe that the Raider in its current form is undercosted by a significant amount.
As I said it would not be hard for most factions in the game to adjust to a strong DE if their Heavy Bolters were wounding Raiders on 4's. We'd even see a a meta shift away from melta to something more balanced.
Or just up the price by more than a token amount. Either is fine.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
I'm saying it is currently worth between 100 and 115 to be in the playable range. I have no issue with it's stats. It just needs to pay proper points.
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
I was merely demonstrating the power of open topped. It is not trivial at all. It probably should represent at least 20-30% increase in cost to a comparable unit that isn't open topped.
FNP is better than an invune in some situations but a 5++ I would say is probably worth double to a 6+++ on a vehicle. It is possible they will just change spirit stones to be 5++ saves but I kinda like them with 6+ FNP. My ulthwe would really appreciate a 5++ on those serpents though . I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 20:42:06
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
If Raiders were raised to 120 points *AND THAT WAS IT* then okay, lets see how that works.
The concern is we get 120 point raiders and 20 point Incubi and 12 point Wyches and DT is just removed and Competitive Edge is just removed while Drazar/Archon/Succubus all go up 30 points. etc etc etc.
Basically a current DE army is moved from 2000 points to 2500 points and actively made worse at the same time. And sorry - they don't need nerfs anywhere like that.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
Yea, I'm pretty sure putting them at 120 would break the army. That's an extra 210 points for the standard build -- 720 points in total. People are indeed focusing on raiders too much.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
A DL does on average a wound to an ark. But obviously it would be one shot through for 5 damage once a game. The Ark does .7 to 1.5 to a Raider.
A nonsensical scenario, but there it is. Then the Ark brings back 26 points a turn. If you presume it resurrects once then the Ark and Raider are only 34 points apart for healing, 3+, and 4 wounds.
I take an Ark in place of a Technomancer, because when the Warriors get low I can rez them and stuff them inside to ship them off elsewhere. The utility is quite large. I basically get a technomancer and then a durable transport for an extra 65 points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/05 23:31:39
Youre not getting it. Im saying that, right now, shooting a lascannon, melta, autocannon, bolter, missile launcher, any weapon youd care to name at a Raider removes more points from the board than if you shot the same gun at a ghost ark. It is not more durable in general, it's nearly twice as durable for roughly 1.5x the cost.
Youre making the argument that raiders durability is somehow a problem, yet a whole class of much MUCH more durable vehicles, which are durable in exactly the same way, are in no way problematic.
Awww, you can only wound a raider on 4s with a s6 weapon? Same with a necron vehicle. You can also only wound a necron vehicle on 4s with a S7, S8, S9 or S12 weapon.
Your preference for having 1 S8 ap-4 d3+3 shot rather than 20 s4 ap-1 d1 shots is also pretty funny, because they happen to do the same exact damage to a rhino. Cant wipe a MEQ or GEQ squad with a dark lance though.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
A DL does on average a wound to an ark. But obviously it would be one shot through for 5 damage once a game. The Ark does .7 to 1.5 to a Raider.
A nonsensical scenario, but there it is. Then the Ark brings back 26 points a turn. If you presume it resurrects once then the Ark and Raider are only 34 points apart for healing, 3+, and 4 wounds.
I take an Ark in place of a Technomancer, because when the Warriors get low I can rez them and stuff them inside to ship them off elsewhere. The utility is quite large. I basically get a technomancer and then a durable transport for an extra 65 points.
You have to factor in Open Topped as well. More than anything else, let the meta do the talking. Nobody takes Ghost Arks outside weird move blocking builds. This is just one comparison as well, Raiders compare extremely favourably to every other transport in the game
No, you're not getting it. Raider's durability isn't a problem, the durablity for the points cost is. That would still be an issue at 95 points and no amount of 5000 word essays will change that - and I won't read them
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/06 00:00:31
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
A LOT of those Raiders are carrying Wychs and Incubi. Open Topped doesn't do a lot for those (unless Splinter Pistols worry you). Fix DT and those Wracks get a lot less use from it too. Fix the broken stuff, kick DL Raiders to 95-100 PPM, then see what happens. I don't like the idea of slapping a 35% price hike on a unit in one fell swoop. I've had it happen, it isn't pleasant.
Raiders might well need to go up more than 10-15 points, but that seems like a good starting point. Raiders up 10-15, DT fixed to either not work with auto-hitting weapons or make them lose auto-hitting when you overcharge them, Stupid Succubus nerfed...that might be enough, it might not be, but it'd be a lot better to do that yesterday than to wait 3 months then suddenly nerf the faction into oblivion in one lazy stroke.
I've said many times in this thread that I wouldn't nerf anything outside of the broken interactions mentioned above. And what's more I don't think I'd hike the points for any other units apart from the Raider, because I think that would fundamentally fix the problem alone. I'm certainly not supporting the idea of GSC type nerfs and points hikes.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
I'm saying it is currently worth between 100 and 115 to be in the playable range. I have no issue with it's stats. It just needs to pay proper points.
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
I was merely demonstrating the power of open topped. It is not trivial at all. It probably should represent at least 20-30% increase in cost to a comparable unit that isn't open topped.
FNP is better than an invune in some situations but a 5++ I would say is probably worth double to a 6+++ on a vehicle. It is possible they will just change spirit stones to be 5++ saves but I kinda like them with 6+ FNP. My ulthwe would really appreciate a 5++ on those serpents though . I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
The value of open topped depends on the units eligible to be transported. DE have no transportable equivalent to Fire Dragons or Dark Reapers, so the comparison is pretty off, no?
There's no way that at the minute a Disintegrator is worth more than a Dark Lance, but check out those lists - the fat that will be trimmed is the "maybe CP a Phantasm" or "do I use the Comorragh Drift this turn" options first and foremost as they're nice but not a regular feature.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
So I think we're edging closer to the root problem. Most people in this thread agree that there's no point in taking empty Raiders, but everyone seems to agree that Raiders are really good for what they do (which is the job of a transport as the average person would expect--faster movement than on foot and a safer delivery method).
So, really, it comes down to the units inside the Raider that most people are tipping on. I think we can all agree that it's disingenuous to say that every unit combination with a raider is OP or overtuned.
Personally, I'm not too scared of a fully kitted out kabalite or even your base wyches in a raider. They'll hurt but not much more than other units, like Mortifiers, heavy weapon squads, repentia, etc. They'll rarely be able to guarantee a kill unless they're shooting at a five wound squad. Same with wracks.
Incubi and certain combos that GW should probably take a closer look at (DT wracks, certain succubus builds, etc.) though, I've resigned myself that if they get properly delivered, they'll murder whatever they target, which should be something of either greater points value or a high priority target.
But at the end of the day, cracking the transport is the hard part. Once out in the open, just about every Drukhari infantry will get neutered by even your average bolter fire. However, flat nerfing the raiders seems like a heavy handed approach which may encourage players to lean more heavily into 'broken' builds.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
. I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
