They are useless as CC units, their anti-overwatch grenades are hardly ever going to be used. All they are are crap Intecessors that can jump about a lot, why you would take these instead of intecessors which are actually useful boggles the mind. I wonder what genius made the rules for this unit.
If Reivers had access to some real CC-weapon they'd fulfil a role as Primaris-CC unit. Right now they're not doing anything really, just ripping off Nightlords.
I'd say Mutilators are the most pointless unit. With their point decrease they are possibly not even bad per se, they're just... not needed. GW tried to justify them by taking away the obliterator's powerfist. But they're still just bad looking terminators.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If Reivers had access to some real CC-weapon they'd fulfil a role as Primaris-CC unit. Right now they're not doing anything really, just ripping off Nightlords.
I'd say Mutilators are the most pointless unit. With their point decrease they are possibly not even bad per se, they're just... not needed. GW tried to justify them by taking away the obliterator's powerfist. But they're still just bad looking terminators.
Mutilators at least fit a role, its just their points that are gak. They couldn't make reivers a good unit, not unless they gave them access to CC weapons.
I do actually find Reivers work for me - I don't look for them to be a melee specialist unit, or even alpha striking. I see them as more mobile Intercessors with assault bolt rifle. I'd never want assault bolt rifle Intercessors when I can take Reivers instead.
I don't ask much of them, but I certainly wouldn't complain if they could have more specialised melee weapons.
Why would you want assault bolters, period? Especially ones that aren’t filling troop slots in a battalion for you. Reivers are the worst Primaris unit by a mile. Primaris in general need access to real CC weapons. Fists on sergeants is nice. Fists on characters isn’t enough; and power swords on lieutenants is hilariously bad.
Bremon wrote: Why would you want assault bolters, period? Especially ones that aren’t filling troop slots in a battalion for you. Reivers are the worst Primaris unit by a mile. Primaris in general need access to real CC weapons. Fists on sergeants is nice. Fists on characters isn’t enough; and power swords on lieutenants is hilariously bad.
Lots of shots at short range? I find assault bolt rifles on Intercessors are lacklustre because they lack the maneuverability to make them have a function over regular bolt rifles.
Assault bolt rifles aren't great, but I find they have a role, and I put them on Reivers instead of Intercessors because A, they have more maneuverability, and B, I already have Intercessors, my Reivers are for my 10th Company Vanguard detachment.
I'm guessing you'd take assault bolters if you want manoeuvrability and a guaranteed two shots rather than -1 ap? Assault bolters give marine armies good speed and the ability to jump around isn't game winning but good for winkling out objectives up high or getting up onto high cover with good fields of fire.
Eldar manage to make S4 assault 2 weapons, albeit with a slim chance of -3 ap, the backbone of their shooting and they're half decent from what I've heard.
Reivers seem like decent skirmishers, they can out melee most shooting units and out shoot most melee units with the manoeuvrability to get into advantageous situations. They're not a gold standard unit but they're hardly trash.
It is such a shame as they're really cool models. I really don't understand why GW wants them to be so bad. They gave the Intercessors (the shooty unit) an ability to upgrade them to have an extra attack and power sword or fist for a sergeant. Giving those two things would have instantly made the Reivers much better (not great, but better.) It is just crazy how much more capable the Intercesors are in the melee than the supposed melee unit.
Bremon wrote: Why would you want assault bolters, period? Especially ones that aren’t filling troop slots in a battalion for you. Reivers are the worst Primaris unit by a mile. Primaris in general need access to real CC weapons. Fists on sergeants is nice. Fists on characters isn’t enough; and power swords on lieutenants is hilariously bad.
Lots of shots at short range? I find assault bolt rifles on Intercessors are lacklustre because they lack the maneuverability to make them have a function over regular bolt rifles.
Assault bolt rifles aren't great, but I find they have a role, and I put them on Reivers instead of Intercessors because A, they have more maneuverability, and B, I already have Intercessors, my Reivers are for my 10th Company Vanguard detachment.
...but being able to come in on a board edge or deep strike makes the equivalent of a stormbolter at long range “fill a role”? Couldn’t disagree more. There are cheaper and more efficient ways to spam mass S4 small arms fire if that’s what floats your boat.
kingheff wrote: I'm guessing you'd take assault bolters if you want manoeuvrability and a guaranteed two shots rather than -1 ap? Assault bolters give marine armies good speed and the ability to jump around isn't game winning but good for winkling out objectives up high or getting up onto high cover with good fields of fire.
Eldar manage to make S4 assault 2 weapons, albeit with a slim chance of -3 ap, the backbone of their shooting and they're half decent from what I've heard.
Reivers seem like decent skirmishers, they can out melee most shooting units and out shoot most melee units with the manoeuvrability to get into advantageous situations. They're not a gold standard unit but they're hardly trash.
...Are eldar spamming that S4 on 18 point models? Is that what’s winning them games? To be a “decent skirmisher” a reiver is at least 20 points. They are slightly modified generalists in a game that rewards specialists. “They can outmelee shooting units!”. So can a VV squad. “They can outshoot melee squads”... again, so can VV. “Theyre not a gold standard unit”. No, they’re not even a bronze standard unit; they’re trash. They’re more S4 attacks in a faction that has plenty of places to get S4 attacks, and they take an elite slot. As troops a case could be made for them. As elites, to call them a foolish choice is being generous.
They're an extremely underwhelming unit. I love models (I know many don't) but really struggle to justify taking them.
Give their knives some AP, make them power knives or something. That would help a lot.
Also I wish they hadn't nerfed their grapnels in the Big FAQ 2. I understand they don't want guaranteed charges from deep strike, but it was only possible in very specific circumstances and was at least a reason to take the unit. Now they have nothing.
I hate the fact that it seems like GW is trying to push Reivers with every Primaris box set. I think out of the 9 or so combined box sets 8 of them have Reivers in them...It's like 'we get it, you made too many Reiver models, we still don't want them'...
Also I wish they hadn't nerfed their grapnels in the Big FAQ 2. I understand they don't want guaranteed charges from deep strike, but it was only possible in very specific circumstances and was at least a reason to take the unit. Now they have nothing.
I don't get what the deal with them is. I'm quite an advocate of Reivers. 200pts gets you 10 2W 2A T4 dudes that can Deep Strike or Outflank/Ignore verticals, each with 3A and a decent Ap-1 pistol.
They're not miracle-makers I agree with you there, but they can be a decent harassment unit or to tie up the enemy big guns. I used a squad in one of my last games. They arrived in his deployment zone, took out 5 Tacticals holding an objective, which forced him to divert his Flamer Aggressors to take them out. I managed to kill 2 Aggressors in CC while losing a few Reivers, but it prevented his Aggressors doing anything else for the rest of the game.
Also I wish they hadn't nerfed their grapnels in the Big FAQ 2. I understand they don't want guaranteed charges from deep strike, but it was only possible in very specific circumstances and was at least a reason to take the unit. Now they have nothing.
How were the grapnels nerfed?
They now only work in the movement phase, just like FLY units got changed. So no grapnel charges.
If they had even -1 rend on their knives they could be useful. I think a rule like the Ork kommando throat slittas would upgrade them greatly. They are forward CC units, they need weapons and rules to match.
Their knives don't have AP for WYSIWYG reasons, they don't have power cords. If a chainsword doesn't have AP then a big knife certainly doesn't either. I know that giving them AP is a popular suggestion, but I think that is unlikely to happen for this reason. Giving them access to the same veteran upgrade and sergeant weapon options than the Intercesors would be an easy fix though.
Crimson wrote: Their knives don't have AP for WYSIWYG reasons, they don't have power cords. If a chainsword doesn't have AP then a big knife certainly doesn't either. I know that giving them AP is a popular suggestion, but I think that is unlikely to happen for this reason. Giving them access to the same veteran upgrade and sergeant weapon options than the Intercesors would be an easy fix though.
But like Buddha said, you could give the unit a special rule that their knife attacks are made at AP -1.
Fluff is that the unit are specially trained with knives to find critical weaknesses.
20pts inefficient melee and shoting hybdrid, when did I seen those. Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
Personally I'm not a huge fan of AP knives here. Where you see knives used in armored combat is when things get into grappling, usually once a fight has gone to the ground and typically involves controlling an appendage of some sort (head/arm/leg) and leveraging it to allow stabbing through a gap in the armor, really among the most chaotic, ugly, and desperate fighting one can get.
What a knife has in a fight over other weapons is speed and maneuver, if you can get properly stuck in, you can stick someone with a knife a dozen times in the same time it would take to thrust someone with a sword, withdraw, and thrust again (albeit from a much longer range). I think the +1A does fine there.
I think adding a different utility to Reivers may make them more interesting. Accent that terror troop role in a manner more directly related to mission victory, perhaps adding something anti-obsec, maybe not allowing enemy units within 6" to count as holding objectives (regardless of number or other scoring abilities) or something. Maybe something that turns off chatacter aura abilities as nearby troops are panicked or distracted. Their utility need not come from raw killing power. That could make them an interesting distraction unit that has lots of utility without having to be just another CC blender unit.
I picked up a box when they first came out, and frankly I wish I didn't right now. I love the unit's concept, and the ability to drop behind enemy lines to tie up the valuable units an enemy has in it's back line is nice.... but I just don't see them as effective enough to justify the elite slot. They are also a little on the high side points wise I think.
I really like the models and the fluff. So tend to include them in every army I have. I play primaris only and the grapple and deep strike rules are very handy in such a limited army. And their close combat abilities aren’t too bad if you pick a suitable target. I’ve had some very cool use out of the stun grenades too. I tend to use them to attack my opponents scout type units.
I like the model a lot. Every time I look for the model I will use in a game, I see them and ask my self why they are supose to be an especialist cc unit.
Morale, okay, they Could kill one more due morale.
His pistols are AP -1, well, that`s something.
Shok grenade, well, helps a bit.
They have fly for a couple of points, thats good.
For another couple of points they can also deep strike.
They are not terrible, but they are not good for the points they cost. They need something more, cc weapons. More expensive but more powerfull.
Karol wrote: 20pts inefficient melee and shoting hybdrid, when did I seen those. Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
They're worse than strike squads in most ways if that's what you're inferring. That should tell you how poor Reivers are.
Reivers have no AP and if they want a bolter they can't have the knife, and it has half as many shots as a storm bolter in rapid fire range.
The extra wound isn't worth much if the unit isn't actually doing much of anything.
Karol wrote: 20pts inefficient melee and shoting hybdrid, when did I seen those. Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
They're worse than strike squads in most ways if that's what you're inferring. That should tell you how poor Reivers are.
Reivers have no AP and if they want a bolter they can't have the knife, and it has half as many shots as a storm bolter in rapid fire range.
The extra wound isn't worth much if the unit isn't actually doing much of anything.
Reivers are a bit all over the place, conceptually. It strikes me that they are meant to be able to either blunt a charge from the enemy(the LD modifier within a certain range and carbines) or set up for one on your part(the Shock Grenades denying Overwatch).
I think if the LD modifier was changed to casualties inflicted rather than just at a certain range, it would go a long way to alleviate that problem.
Reivers are actually pretty good. People are playing them wrong if they fail to see their use.
A unit of 5 with grav Chutes is only 100 points. This isn't far off from an Assasin or a similar unit.
You drop these guys in mid game and pick off light objective campers in the enemy deployment and score line breaker.
The Carbines are currently better options imo as you still get full shooting at a 24" range and 12 attacks in cc from a small squad of 5.
Not every unit is measured in raw killing power. This is a mistake people often make due to lack of experience and tactical know-how. This is a cheap way to clear out that pesky unit hiding out of line of sight, back in the enemy deployment. These guys cost less than Assault Marines and don't require a transport. Their use is obvious and effective. Just don't send them out after dedicated Elites and expect magic.
Ishagu wrote: Reivers are actually pretty good. People are playing them wrong if they fail to see their use.
A unit of 5 with grav Chutes is only 100 points. This isn't far off from an Assasin or a similar unit.
You drop these guys in mid game and pick off light objective campers in the enemy deployment and score line breaker.
The Carbines are currently better options imo as you still get full shooting at a 24" range and 12 attacks in cc from a small squad of 5.
Not every unit is measured in raw killing power. This is a mistake people often make due to lack of experience and tactical know-how. This is a cheap way to clear out that pesky unit hiding out of line of sight, back in the enemy deployment. These guys cost less than Assault Marines and don't require a transport. Their use is obvious and effective. Just don't send them out after dedicated Elites and expect magic.
LOL What unit are you going to clear for that price?
Ishagu wrote: Reivers are actually pretty good. People are playing them wrong if they fail to see their use.
A unit of 5 with grav Chutes is only 100 points. This isn't far off from an Assasin or a similar unit.
You drop these guys in mid game and pick off light objective campers in the enemy deployment and score line breaker.
The Carbines are currently better options imo as you still get full shooting at a 24" range and 12 attacks in cc from a small squad of 5.
Not every unit is measured in raw killing power. This is a mistake people often make due to lack of experience and tactical know-how. This is a cheap way to clear out that pesky unit hiding out of line of sight, back in the enemy deployment. These guys cost less than Assault Marines and don't require a transport. Their use is obvious and effective. Just don't send them out after dedicated Elites and expect magic.
LOL What unit are you going to clear for that price?
Ishagu wrote: Reivers are actually pretty good. People are playing them wrong if they fail to see their use.
A unit of 5 with grav Chutes is only 100 points. This isn't far off from an Assasin or a similar unit.
You drop these guys in mid game and pick off light objective campers in the enemy deployment and score line breaker.
The Carbines are currently better options imo as you still get full shooting at a 24" range and 12 attacks in cc from a small squad of 5.
Not every unit is measured in raw killing power. This is a mistake people often make due to lack of experience and tactical know-how. This is a cheap way to clear out that pesky unit hiding out of line of sight, back in the enemy deployment. These guys cost less than Assault Marines and don't require a transport. Their use is obvious and effective. Just don't send them out after dedicated Elites and expect magic.
LOL What unit are you going to clear for that price?
Eldar scouts, min squads of reapers using the tempest launchers to stay out of sight, guard mortars?
They are god awful, and I have no idea what GW sees their role as. I'd like to see their knives treated as power weapons, or their number of attacks doubled. Either event would bring their points cost into line with their effectiveness. As it stands, they are strictly worse than intercessors in every way, except deepstrike, which they pay for.
The real problem is that the current Primaris range is quite stiff, with very few options. It's a crime that one of those options is of no use, especially when they could be so cool. Pack em up and wait another year.
You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Great. So go to a big name tournament and get some consistent results for us.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Just because a unit is awful doesn't mean its impossible to put some in an army and win some games with them. Two 5-man squads would be something like 10% of your army.
You're second paragraph is just you jumping to conclusions to suit your narrative. I've come to my opinion of Reivers through independent analysis and actually using the unit in games and seeing how poorly they perform.
You enjoy using them, and have even had some luck doing that. And that's great, I genuinely hope you're having fun. That doesn't stop them being an extremely poorly tuned unit.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
You can't make an appeal to independent thinking when literally the only thing you're bringing to the table is anecdotes.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Let me take a wild guess how you used them, dropping them in the enemy's backfield as a distraction and/or charging them into units that stray to close to tie them up.
Between that or just dropping them onto unoccupied objectives there's definitely a couple uses for them. They're just entirely mobility based.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Let me take a wild guess how you used them, dropping them in the enemy's backfield as a distraction and/or charging them into units that stray to close to tie them up.
Between that or just dropping them onto unoccupied objectives there's definitely a couple uses for them. They're just entirely mobility based.
QFT.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm spoilt I suppose. DW lets me drop a squad of Intercessors in to do that same job, just better, for less points,, with trimmings if I so desire, at the cost of 1cp.
That's the problem in a nutshell though. The only viability Reivers have is derived from the stiffness & slowness of a standard Primaris list. Give that list some more options in terms of movement and Reivers would have zero functionality.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Just because you won with them doesn't mean anything, do you understand what a representative sample is? There are money reasons you might have won, your opponents were crap, maybe they all knew one another and took acid before playing, maybe you are a very good player, lucky etc, Its like saying 'I've never seen lightning strike someone; therefore that doesn't happen".
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Just because you won with them doesn't mean anything, do you understand what a representative sample is? There are money reasons you might have won, your opponents were crap, you are a very good player, luck etc, Its like saying 'I've never seen lightning strike someone; therefore that doesn't happen".
It kinda does when you’re calling them the most pointless unit in the game. You can’t say they’re pointless, then when someone points out their purpose and use say “well your opponents might have been gak” to invalidate it.
grouchoben wrote: That's the problem in a nutshell though. The only viability Reivers have is derived from the stiffness & slowness of a standard Primaris list. Give that list some more options in terms of movement and Reivers would have zero functionality.
That's probably part of what makes it so easy to see when trying to build a pure primaris list. Frankly if they gave them melta bombs I could have an absolute field day with them, but for some reason they didn't give the infiltrating saboteurs ways to blow things up...
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Just because you won with them doesn't mean anything, do you understand what a representative sample is? There are money reasons you might have won, your opponents were crap, you are a very good player, luck etc, Its like saying 'I've never seen lightning strike someone; therefore that doesn't happen".
It kinda does when you’re calling them the most pointless unit in the game. You can’t say they’re pointless, then when someone points out their purpose and use say “well your opponents might have been gak” to invalidate it.
There pointless because everything they are good at can be done with inteccessors, if you give them assault bolters they are obviously going to play as well as inteccessors, so yeah 100% pointless. They are good for sitting on objectives but they are elites and don't have objective secured and that's it, they are supposed to be a CC unit, striking behind enemy lines, which they suck at
Karol wrote: 20pts inefficient melee and shoting hybdrid, when did I seen those. Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
Assault plasmas, like those on Inceptors and a Power Fist option on a Sgt would make the unit actually awesome
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
You can achieve more by deepstriking Intercessors (if you're DW or SW), pay 1 CP and have a better unit (also a troop slot filler) do the job
Seriously, if they would occupy the troop slot, like Scouts do, I could justify them
It's sad because for me they're aesthetically the best new model to come out for space marines since the primaris advent
Karol wrote: 20pts inefficient melee and shoting hybdrid, when did I seen those. Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
Assault plasmas, like those on Inceptors and a Power Fist option on a Sgt would make the unit actually awesome
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
You can achieve more by deepstriking Intercessors (if you're DW or SW), pay 1 CP and have a better unit (also a troop slot filler) do the job
Seriously, if they would occupy the troop slot, like Scouts do, I could justify them
It's sad because for me they're aesthetically the best new model to come out for space marines since the primaris advent
Exactly being elite makes them as useless as Wolf Scouts. If Wolf Scouts where troops I'd take them in a heartbeat. Primaris are expensive units and all the troops you can take matter, there is no point spending slots on units like reivers, that are pointless. I'd rather take a unit of skyclaws than reivers, which is what I do.
Ishagu wrote: You guys say they are awful. Funny, I've taken lists with two 5 man squads into GT and Major sized ITC and ETC tournaments and have finished with 3/4 wins out of 5.
Independent thinking is in short supply these days unfortunately and everyone is rushing to copy net lists.
Congrats on your 60+% win rate with a self imposed Reiver handicap.
No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either.
Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with.
10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see.
These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
Ishagu wrote: No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either.
Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with.
10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see.
These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
Like CFE player i want to have unit like Reivers, give me give me.
Ishagu wrote: No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either.
Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with.
10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see.
These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
Mate you are just all types of wrong here, no one is missing anything, they are not a good unit. "They can be deployed 9inch's from an enemy" big whoop. Its like Burna boyz, they are gak now, but you can still get use out of them putting them in a trukk and sending them to burn something to death, doesn't mean they are a good unit. We all know exactly what they can do, they aren't a complex or original unit. Even their anti-overwatch isn't new.
Ishagu wrote: No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either.
Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with.
10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see.
These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
You're missing the point of the debate completely.
They are poorly designed from the datasheet standpoint, that is an objective fact and that fact is being lamented here.
Reivers are a specialist unit, that isn't particularly good at their specialty.
Ishagu wrote: No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either. Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with. 10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see. These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
When you say something like 'I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss', youre not gonna get many people to respect your opinion, as it does come across as a little condescending and narcissistic (you don't hear the guys who actually win major events, making statements that come across as this pompous).
But lets assess revers for the use that you are suggesting... and see what alternatives are available.
So the alternatives must be... 1. relatively cheap per wound, with a space marine toughness. 2.have some form of mobility, ideally a 'deep strike' like option.
The first alternative that springs to mind is suprisingly space wolf scouts... Similar deployment options, similar cost per wound, much higher damage output per point, and due to being 1 wound per model are less suceptible to any mid / heavy weapons that the enemy might decide to bring to bear / this is leveled vs the slighly worse save, So I will consider this unit superior, just due to its offensive power being almost double that of the revers (oh and they have options to be threatening to other things)
The second alternative that springs to mind is the eversor. It has a similar point cost per wound, it is cheaper as a unit, has the default of character protection, is much more effective at clearing back field infantry with its damage output. Again I would consider this a superior option.
The third alternative Space wolf intercessors, basically the same as revers with a strategem for deployment, yet with a cheaper cost and objective secured in order to take objectives off opponents better.
The 4th is the culexus, which while less offensively capable than the eversor, is by far the more reliably durable choice.
If playing imperium, and ignoring self imposed single codex stuff, there are imo many better options to fulfill the battlefield role that you're looking for (not that I am convinced that such a role is worth 1/20th of my total points cost).
The two assassin choices are IMO much much better options, as they will also generally be useful to you if your opponent also doesn't have vulnerable backfield units, sitting on high value objectives, which they are leaving open to backfield deepstrike attacks.
Ok, what unit that Marines have access to can fulfil the role of Reivers? A cheap, backfield disruption and point grab.
100 points or less, arrive from reserve without CP, enough wounds to be annoying to deal with mid to late game.
It's not Terminators, it's not Scouts (their role is very useful but different). I would argue Scouts don't have better offence as their bolters are only effective at 12" and they have far less cc output - they also can't be kept off the field but have objective secured. Reivers can be deployed in turn 2/3 in response to what has happened in the game and the movement of units. Inceptors have a different role and shouldn't be left on an objective or away from the fight.
Of course if you're mixing armies then sure, you can find a better unit. The Assassins require to be taken in greater number or you'd sacrifice CP, they are the closest comparison.
So please guys, do show me the other 100 point unit that arrives from reserve and has 10 wounds in the Marine codex.
Missing the point there. The big issue is that they are yet more strength 4 attacks in a codex that is over flowing with strength 4 attacks.
Sure they have movement abilities that are helpful in some situations. Objective grabbing is nice, but as all things can grab objectives that isn't anything unique to them. A deep striking unit of terminators can do the same. Marines have a few fast moving vehicles that can whizz around d and grab objectives.
So, again they don't really add anything new, other than being great models.
Scouts actually do have better offense. 22 points vs 20 is the same shots over 12" BUT Scouts get twice the amount below 12".
You either get 10 Scouts for 110 points or 5 Reivers with the Carbine for 100. The moment you have anything with more than D1 pointing at the Reivers they lose out on durability, AND the Scouts cover more ground.
Scouts are very good indeed, but the 110 points is misleading. That's without camo cloaks, and they are far easier to remove due to a max 3+ save in cover and being more difficult to hide due to larger model count.
As I said, they are pretty much stuck where you deploy them at the start of the game, but that might not be the most ideal locaton 2/3 turns in.
This is the point I'm making. Reivers are NOT useless. They are also not an auto include by any stretch. I was responding the hyperbolic comments of "They are the worst unit ever made" knocking around in this topic.
Pointing out the flaw in hyperbole, is ultimately as valuable as pointing out that the enjoyment of all art is subjective.
Reivers are basically at the same level of basic uselessness as a tactical squad, in that, while as they exist and have some wounds, they have some use, there are a myriad of things that people with some level of intellect will include before considering looking at them. Its not unreasonable for some people to equate this to being effectively useless.
I'd rather they shift to being more support personally.
1. Make their grenades last until the START of your next turn.
2. Give them the auxiliary grenade launcher.
3. Rework their Terror Troops aura: enemy units within 3" of a Reiver can never control objective markers.
This makes Reivers no more killy. But they can drop in on an objective. Locking it down while supporting the army by targeting key enemy INFANTRY and giving them -1 to hit.
You can still take Vanguard vets with power weapons if you want fast killy melee. These changes make Reivers go into a "unique" roll not currently filled in the Marine line-up.
I disagree. They are far more useful than a Tactical squad and have a place and strategic niche in the Marine range.
If you branch out to other factions their niche and usefulness is diminished, but if your only interest is to focus on the top unit then you shouldn't be playing Marines at all.
So which is it? Does your interest lie only in best of category units? You won't find those in the Marine codex
Ishagu wrote: Ok, what unit that Marines have access to can fulfil the role of Reivers? A cheap, backfield disruption and point grab.
100 points or less, arrive from reserve without CP, enough wounds to be annoying to deal with mid to late game.
It's not Terminators, it's not Scouts (their role is very useful but different). I would argue Scouts don't have better offence as their bolters are only effective at 12" and they have far less cc output - they also can't be kept off the field but have objective secured. Reivers can be deployed in turn 2/3 in response to what has happened in the game and the movement of units. Inceptors have a different role and shouldn't be left on an objective or away from the fight.
Of course if you're mixing armies then sure, you can find a better unit. The Assassins require to be taken in greater number or you'd sacrifice CP, they are the closest comparison.
So please guys, do show me the other 100 point unit that arrives from reserve and has 10 wounds in the Marine codex.
Interceptors are far more useful and fulfill anything that reivers can do, but do it better, its better using a good elite unit than wasting the slot for a unit that only punches as well as troops.
You mean Inceptors. They are very good, but they are strictly an offensive unit.
They are much more expensive if taken above 3 and have to be engaged with enemy units, it's a different role.
Do you only measure a unit's worth by it's killing potential? Would you say that Guardsmen are rubbish? They are pretty poor at removing models with their las guns.
Ishagu wrote: Scouts are very good indeed, but the 110 points is misleading. That's without camo cloaks, and they are far easier to remove due to a max 3+ save in cover and being more difficult to hide due to larger model count.
As I said, they are pretty much stuck where you deploy them at the start of the game, but that might not be the most ideal locaton 2/3 turns in.
This is the point I'm making. Reivers are NOT useless. They are also not an auto include by any stretch. I was responding the hyperbolic comments of "They are the worst unit ever made" knocking around in this topic.
Yeah so you don't buy Camo Cloaks because they're a bad upgrade. At least Sniper Rifles went down a couple of points, right?
Also you're talking strictly vs anything that's D1. Once you go into D2 and above, Reivers lose their supposed durability advantage. The main reason Intercessors work is because they're only paying 3-4 points for the extra wound and attack over other choices.
Ishagu wrote: You mean Inceptors. They are very good, but they are strictly an offensive unit.
They are much more expensive if taken above 3 and have to be engaged with enemy units, it's a different role.
Do you only measure a unit's worth by it's killing potential? Would you say that Guardsmen are rubbish? They are pretty poor at removing models with their las guns.
Yeah and you normally take an expensive unit that hits hard for an elite unit. Reivers are an offensive unit, they are just so bad at it that to get any use out of them you have to play them defensively. I think you just think they are a cool unit and therefore are trying to make them good in your head.
Ishagu wrote: They aren't an offensive unit. They are a backfield disruption unit.
I'm not saying they are the best at it I'm saying they have a strategic niche and a place in a list.
How much do you play? You seem to be theory crafting around offensive output only. The game is won with objectives more often than not.
Lol a backfield disruption unit is an offensive unit lol How do you disrupt standing on an objective and being defensive. Its like saying to the SAS during WW2 don't bother trying to damage that airfield, just sit in the sand and make sand castles. Listen I'm even going to bother trying to explain the level of play I'm at because its obvious its far better than yours lol But you've won a tournament 'guys we have a tournament king here' The majority of people say they suck but we are all suppose to take the tournament kings advice, because he understands the concept of 'defence'.
Typically you find some small infantry squads out of line of sight guarding objectives. This unit is perfect for whittling them down, winning you line breaker, table quarters, etc
It can easily remove 10 Guardsmen, Skitaari, Firewarriors, etc from a position on the board.
And yes, most people on online forums have limited experience and parrot each other. Is this a surprise to you? lol Maybe I'm too edgy and cool, setting trends too far ahead in time? You can think what you want lol
Ishagu wrote: Typically you find some small infantry squads out of line of sight guarding objectives. This unit is perfect for whittling them down, winning you line breaker, table quarters, etc
It can easily remove 10 Guardsmen, Skitaari, Firewarriors, etc from a position on the board.
And yes, most people on online forums have limited experience and parrot each other. Is this a surprise to you? lol
Yeah and if you don't kill all of them you can't even secure the objective because they are elites. thats them wasted a turn. Inceptors would kill all of them and sit nicely on the objective. Then their fast movement could see them to another objective, while the reivers are stuck moping up guardsmen.
Lots of ifs and buts there. Just theory crafting. How about you play two squads as I outlined in a few games and come back with what you've found? Maybe you'll be surprised, maybe you won't. Or are you to cool to experiment with something you don't think can win you the game? Gotta keep that 40k rep up? Lol
Stop hating, start experimenting with different units and tactics.
Ishagu wrote: Lots of ifs and buts there. Just theory crafting. How about you play two squads as I outlined in a few games and come back with what you've found? Maybe you'll be surprised, maybe you won't. Or are you to cool to experiment with something you don't think can win you the game? Gotta keep that 40k rep up? Lol
Stop hating, start experimenting with different units and tactics.
Ifs and buts are what you are peddling here, you use footslogging elites to grab objectives, when you have inceptors, you don't even know what you're doing. I try different things, not stupid things.
Credit to Ishagu for standing up to the abuse in this thread.
I think the main beef with the unit is that it takes up an elite slot. If they took up a troop slot you would see a lot more of them. I would agree that their role is more of a backline disruption slot, and I have seen a fair share of games where a small 5 man squad diving a premium back line target could play a vital role in securing victory.
Are they a great unit? Not even close, however if that type of role fits into your army strategy? I could see them being very useful. Just comes down to tactics.
It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.
Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah and if you don't kill all of them you can't even secure the objective because they are elites. thats them wasted a turn. Inceptors would kill all of them and sit nicely on the objective. Then their fast movement could see them to another objective, while the reivers are stuck moping up guardsmen.
The problem is you are even more fragile than the Reivers. Your opponent will almost certainly prioritise killing them.
The idea of a backfield unit that bullies min-sized troop objective holders who are isolated from support is a reasonable one and can work in certain games. (It would be significantly better if they had objective secured - and objective secured wasn't one model, one vote but there you go.)
Its just not effective in a lot of them.
Say Fire Warriors - well, odds are I'm going to have 30 or so of them (or pushing 100, but whose counting) in the backfield. And sure some of them may have died. But odds are if your 5 Reivers bully one unit, another 4-5 squads can quickly respond. You can say "its not fair, 100 points of reievers obviously can't face 200-300 points of fire warriors (or guardsmen or whatever)" - but this is the situation.
So then we can say "bring two squads, or a full 10 man squad" - but its starting to be a lot of points for a unit which just bullies troops fairly late into the game. A big squad becomes a justified target for a ravager or a riptide etc etc.
Karthicus wrote: Credit to Ishagu for standing up to the abuse in this thread.
I think the main beef with the unit is that it takes up an elite slot. If they took up a troop slot you would see a lot more of them. I would agree that their role is more of a backline disruption slot, and I have seen a fair share of games where a small 5 man squad diving a premium back line target could play a vital role in securing victory.
Are they a great unit? Not even close, however if that type of role fits into your army strategy? I could see them being very useful. Just comes down to tactics.
What abuse, I was being civil until he was trying to qualify his opinion with I play tournaments and trying to subtly accuse me of not knowing what I'm doing by even asking that and his whole do you not know how to play defensively speel. Rudeness is rudeness whatever what you go about it and I will combat subtle rudeness with donkey-cave level rudness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.
Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!
Ishagu wrote: You're the one dismissing units without trying them out.
On paper 10 guardsmen aren't much to look at, either.
As I said, I merely argued about their strategic niche whilst some outright dismiss them. The latter are not coming out looking favourable.
So having an different opinion is assaulting you some how. You are the one contradicting what I said, having made the thread, so I'm not dismissing your notions I had this opinion before you started commenting your speel. You contradicted my opinion and therefore have to prove it.
phillv85 wrote: Del, your threads crack me up. They all are basically you giving an opinion then shouting down anyone who disagrees, whether they are right or wrong.
You mean like everyone else on here? Do you want me to root around looking for threads where you do the same because I have the time to do that. People think I'm more of an donkey-cave than I am, because all use donkey-cave level rudness when sly people subtly insult, but try and find a thread where I started incivility and you might find a handful but thats it. I'm just honest and don't deny doing anything that you all do in your "polite" way. I at least never hold an argument against someone, next time I speak with them I forget about it and be civil again because we all have heated arguments where we act like donkey-caves.
I responded to this topic by pointing out that the Reivers are not useless. For 200 points you can have two squads kept off the board that can arrive anywhere. This is certainly an asset for a Marine army.
I'd say Assault Marines are more useless, but that's a different topic entirely lol
To outright dismiss something utterly, to not accept that it might have even a slither of value when I've pointed out some strengths is not particularly great on your part.
Ishagu wrote: I responded to this topic by pointing out that the Reivers are not useless. For 200 points you can have two squads kept off the board that can arrive anywhere. This is certainly an asset for a Marine army.
I'd say Assault Marines are more useless lol
To outright dismiss something utterly, to not accept that it might have even a slither of value when I've pointed out some strengths is certainly very stupid.
For those 200pts I could get a sternguard squad, or company veterans with a ++3 invulnerable save (now that stormshields are 2pts) with storm bolters and the ability to prevent my warlord from dying and also having the veteran profile.
I could get two squads of them for 18pts each and have a squad that is both durable and can take a razorback each.
Ishagu wrote: I responded to this topic by pointing out that the Reivers are not useless. For 200 points you can have two squads kept off the board that can arrive anywhere. This is certainly an asset for a Marine army.
I'd say Assault Marines are more useless lol
To outright dismiss something utterly, to not accept that it might have even a slither of value when I've pointed out some strengths is certainly very stupid.
So you try every list someone puts up on here, give me a break and you've got to give me a good reason for using them other than 'defensive', or useless objective grabbers.
Karthicus wrote: Credit to Ishagu for standing up to the abuse in this thread.
I think the main beef with the unit is that it takes up an elite slot. If they took up a troop slot you would see a lot more of them. I would agree that their role is more of a backline disruption slot, and I have seen a fair share of games where a small 5 man squad diving a premium back line target could play a vital role in securing victory.
Are they a great unit? Not even close, however if that type of role fits into your army strategy? I could see them being very useful. Just comes down to tactics.
1. You defend bad units, you get called out on it. Simple as that.
2. What role are they filling that isn't already done by Scouts or Inceptors?
The answer is none. Morale gimmicks are just that: gimmicks. They have less offensive power than even Scouts for the points as I just showed earlier. Scouts do the SAME disruption but better. Inceptors are much quicker for harassment.
Reivers have no point in existing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.
Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!
Their niche is filled by Scouts, who have more offensive power for the points and are more durable against anything D2 and above.
Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
phillv85 wrote: Del, your threads crack me up. They all are basically you giving an opinion then shouting down anyone who disagrees, whether they are right or wrong.
You mean like everyone else on here? Do you want me to root around looking for threads where you do the same because I have the time to do that. People think I'm more of an donkey-cave than I am, because all use donkey-cave level rudness when sly people subtly insult, but try and find a thread where I started incivility and you might find a handful but thats it. I'm just honest and don't deny doing anything that you all do in your "polite" way. I at least never hold an argument against someone, next time I speak with them I forget about it and be civil again because we all have heated arguments where we act like donkey-caves.
Let's try to take it down a notch my friend. My post didn't call you out, but I can see why you might have thought that since you are the main one still railing on. I was speaking in general about the fire being thrown here. If you feel you are being flamed you shouldn't respond with more flames. That doesn't advance the conversation at all does it? Nope.
And yes... people will think you are a jerk if you act like a jerk.... regardless of WHY you might be acting like a jerk. That shouldn't be shocking.
Talinsin wrote: Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
Except Scouts already filled that strategic niche.
Disruption as a strategy only matters if the unit doing said disruption is actually a threat.
Talinsin wrote: Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
Talinsin wrote: Summary of thread so far: "Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer." "They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer." "They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math." "They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game." "Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god." ...
They still aren't useful, if I can get better options that deal more damage outside of niche cases then they aren't worth taking. If they were faster, or had -ap weapons, or had more options that made them far more viable then they would be great, honestly, they just need an ability that ALWAYS prevents overwatch and great AP weapons like power axes, or power swords. I think someone put it that Primaris's major problem is their over specializations, in a codex filled with generalists they are the only specialists in the space marine army.
They can be a good unit they just don't have any utility outside of niche cases because their weapons currently are just very terrible. People only ever go for their ranged capabilities which are counter to what the unit wants to do which is get into close combat.
But this also addresses the issue that space marines, in general, do not deal enough damage in melee combat to actually matter.
Talinsin wrote: Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
Yep, this is pretty accurate.
Someone keeps bringing Scouts up. They are very good, as I have said, but you can't keep them off the board and are less durable. Reivers are different enough.
Talinsin wrote: Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
Ishagu wrote: You can't keep Scouts off the board. They are less durable.
Prove me wrong.
Scouts are a cheap unit that can be spammed easily, they also have heavy weapon options and tank killing weapons if they so choose. They also have sniper rifles which outrange reviers and have more general abilities that make them worth taking. They are also a great smoke screen unit!
phillv85 wrote: Del, your threads crack me up. They all are basically you giving an opinion then shouting down anyone who disagrees, whether they are right or wrong.
You mean like everyone else on here? Do you want me to root around looking for threads where you do the same because I have the time to do that. People think I'm more of an donkey-cave than I am, because all use donkey-cave level rudness when sly people subtly insult, but try and find a thread where I started incivility and you might find a handful but thats it. I'm just honest and don't deny doing anything that you all do in your "polite" way. I at least never hold an argument against someone, next time I speak with them I forget about it and be civil again because we all have heated arguments where we act like donkey-caves.
Let's try to take it down a notch my friend. My post didn't call you out, but I can see why you might have thought that since you are the main one still railing on. I was speaking in general about the fire being thrown here. If you feel you are being flamed you shouldn't respond with more flames. That doesn't advance the conversation at all does it? Nope.
And yes... people will think you are a jerk if you act like a jerk.... regardless of WHY you might be acting like a jerk. That shouldn't be shocking.
Back on the topic of Reivers.....
No people that pretend to be polite think that, I get along with people on here that don't do the whole pretence thing. "I never do that" even though there are tonnes of threads that show otherwise.
They still aren't useful, if I can get better options that deal more damage outside of niche cases then they aren't worth taking. If they were faster, or had -ap weapons, or had more options that made them far more viable then they would be great, honestly, they just need an ability that ALWAYS prevents overwatch and great AP weapons like power axes, or power swords. I think someone put it that Primaris's major problem is their over specializations, in a codex filled with generalists they are the only specialists in the space marine army.
They can be a good unit they just don't have any utility outside of niche cases because their weapons currently are just very terrible. People only ever go for their ranged capabilities which are counter to what the unit wants to do which is get into close combat.
But this also addresses the issue that space marines, in general, do not deal enough damage in melee combat to actually matter.
My BT army begs to differ with that last part. Centurian Assault Dev lists that I am toying with right now have be absolutely melting a Chaos Khorne player, and a DA player I go up against the past month.
They still aren't useful, if I can get better options that deal more damage outside of niche cases then they aren't worth taking. If they were faster, or had -ap weapons, or had more options that made them far more viable then they would be great, honestly, they just need an ability that ALWAYS prevents overwatch and great AP weapons like power axes, or power swords. I think someone put it that Primaris's major problem is their over specializations, in a codex filled with generalists they are the only specialists in the space marine army.
They can be a good unit they just don't have any utility outside of niche cases because their weapons currently are just very terrible. People only ever go for their ranged capabilities which are counter to what the unit wants to do which is get into close combat.
But this also addresses the issue that space marines, in general, do not deal enough damage in melee combat to actually matter.
My BT army begs to differ with that last part. Centurian Assault Dev lists that I am toying with right now have be absolutely melting a Chaos Khorne player, and a DA player I go up against the past month.
Centurions are not really normal marines... Assault Marines, Vanguard, all marines are missing the critical +1 attack on charge that was universal to all factions. It gave a severe advantage to those who charged into combat. It should've stayed honestly.
Ishagu wrote: You can't keep Scouts off the board. They are less durable.
Prove me wrong.
Scouts are a cheap unit that can be spammed easily, they also have heavy weapon options and tank killing weapons if they so choose. They also have sniper rifles which outrange reviers and have more general abilities that make them worth taking. They are also a great smoke screen unit!
But that's not what he is talking about is it? You start taking heavy weapons and the cost goes up a fair bit for starters, and staying back with sniper rifles (which is a loadout I include a lot) , or smoke screening is a totally different role from the Reivers being a backline disruption.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
Everyone else didn't say otherwise. Scholars knew perfectly well that Earth was round; it had been known since the third century BC. They also knew how large Earth was, and thus dismissed Columbus' claims that he could sail to India as the voyage was obviously way too long. Columbus had made his own, completely erroneous, calculations about the size of the Earth, and assumed that it was much smaller than it actually was. If there had not been an unknown continent on his way, he and his men would have surely perished in the middle of the giant ocean. And he never even realised he had been wrong, he always though that he actually went to India. Columbus was a lucky idiot, much like a player winning games with Reivers.*
(* Ok, I will include them too, but I'm not under illusion that they're good. But I really like how they look, and I got the models, so I'm gonna use them in friendly games. It is fine to use bad units, just don't delude yourself about their actual worth.)
They still aren't useful, if I can get better options that deal more damage outside of niche cases then they aren't worth taking. If they were faster, or had -ap weapons, or had more options that made them far more viable then they would be great, honestly, they just need an ability that ALWAYS prevents overwatch and great AP weapons like power axes, or power swords. I think someone put it that Primaris's major problem is their over specializations, in a codex filled with generalists they are the only specialists in the space marine army.
They can be a good unit they just don't have any utility outside of niche cases because their weapons currently are just very terrible. People only ever go for their ranged capabilities which are counter to what the unit wants to do which is get into close combat.
But this also addresses the issue that space marines, in general, do not deal enough damage in melee combat to actually matter.
My BT army begs to differ with that last part. Centurian Assault Dev lists that I am toying with right now have be absolutely melting a Chaos Khorne player, and a DA player I go up against the past month.
Centurions are not really normal marines... Assault Marines, Vanguard, all marines are missing the critical +1 attack on charge that was universal to all factions. It gave a severe advantage to those who charged into combat. It should've stayed honestly.
I guess I missed the mark on your point. You are saying that in general SM isn't good enough in CC right? Well, between my crusader squad filled with Chain Swords and Combat Knifes, my Emperors Champion, Grimaldus, Ironclad Dread, and Certurian Assault.... looks to me like I can pack some punch in CC.
I will leave it at that since I am driving this off topic, but I don't think SM has a lack of CC punch - generally speaking.
Ishagu wrote: You can't keep Scouts off the board. They are less durable.
Prove me wrong.
Scouts are a cheap unit that can be spammed easily, they also have heavy weapon options and tank killing weapons if they so choose. They also have sniper rifles which outrange reviers and have more general abilities that make them worth taking. They are also a great smoke screen unit!
But that's not what he is talking about is it? You start taking heavy weapons and the cost goes up a fair bit for starters, and staying back with sniper rifles (which is a loadout I include a lot) , or smoke screening is a totally different role from the Reivers being a backline disruption.
Oh i agree. Scouts and Reivers occupy completely different roles.
The only unit that is similar are Vanguard Vets or Terminator Assault Squads or Death Company or Deathwing Knights. Reviers have competitors but they are the cheaper of those five, but are less effective due to have less of a load out. If reivers go down the shooty path they start to try to be the smokescreen unit, but they don't have the scout rules or abilities to make them anywhere near worthwhile compared to a scout squads potential load out.
Reivers are in a weird spot they CAN be good, but they need a bit of a push to make them viable. And because of that they are useless until they receive their proper melee unit upgrades. (Read Power Weapons)
They still aren't useful, if I can get better options that deal more damage outside of niche cases then they aren't worth taking. If they were faster, or had -ap weapons, or had more options that made them far more viable then they would be great, honestly, they just need an ability that ALWAYS prevents overwatch and great AP weapons like power axes, or power swords. I think someone put it that Primaris's major problem is their over specializations, in a codex filled with generalists they are the only specialists in the space marine army.
They can be a good unit they just don't have any utility outside of niche cases because their weapons currently are just very terrible. People only ever go for their ranged capabilities which are counter to what the unit wants to do which is get into close combat.
But this also addresses the issue that space marines, in general, do not deal enough damage in melee combat to actually matter.
My BT army begs to differ with that last part. Centurian Assault Dev lists that I am toying with right now have be absolutely melting a Chaos Khorne player, and a DA player I go up against the past month.
Centurions are not really normal marines... Assault Marines, Vanguard, all marines are missing the critical +1 attack on charge that was universal to all factions. It gave a severe advantage to those who charged into combat. It should've stayed honestly.
I guess I missed the mark on your point. You are saying that in general SM isn't good enough in CC right? Well, between my crusader squad filled with Chain Swords and Combat Knifes, my Emperors Champion, Grimaldus, Ironclad Dread, and Certurian Assault.... looks to me like I can pack some punch in CC.
I will leave it at that since I am driving this off topic, but I don't think SM has a lack of CC punch - generally speaking.
We can start a new thread or you can check out my Power Armor Problem Thread.... Its a general "Whats wrong with space marines." has turned into a "Whats wrong with 8th edition."
Ishagu wrote: You can't keep Scouts off the board. They are less durable.
Prove me wrong.
Scouts are a cheap unit that can be spammed easily, they also have heavy weapon options and tank killing weapons if they so choose. They also have sniper rifles which outrange reviers and have more general abilities that make them worth taking. They are also a great smoke screen unit!
But that's not what he is talking about is it? You start taking heavy weapons and the cost goes up a fair bit for starters, and staying back with sniper rifles (which is a loadout I include a lot) , or smoke screening is a totally different role from the Reivers being a backline disruption.
Oh i agree. Scouts and Reivers occupy completely different roles.
The only unit that is similar are Vanguard Vets or Terminator Assault Squads or Death Company or Deathwing Knights. Reviers have competitors but they are the cheaper of those five, but are less effective due to have less of a load out. If reivers go down the shooty path they start to try to be the smokescreen unit, but they don't have the scout rules or abilities to make them anywhere near worthwhile compared to a scout squads potential load out.
Reivers are in a weird spot they CAN be good, but they need a bit of a push to make them viable. And because of that they are useless until they receive their proper melee unit upgrades. (Read Power Weapons)
I can 100% get behind you on that. Personally, I would rather take a 10 man Term squad with TH/SS - even MORE so with the recent point adjustments - to pop up in the back line and make some heretics cry.
Reivers are in a weird spot they CAN be good, but they need a bit of a push to make them viable. And because of that they are useless until they receive their proper melee unit upgrades. (Read Power Weapons)
I'd rather they be pushed into a bit more supportive role.
Let shock grenades last until the start of your turn (infantry hit by 1 get -1 to hit and can't overwatch.
Let Reivers take auxiliary grenade launchers. Lets them "throw" grenades 30". Now they have good range on their grenade.
Rework Terror Troops to be enemies cannot control objectives if they're within 3" of Reivers.
Now if they're on an objective it means the enemy cannot take it until all Reivers are dead.
Ishagu wrote: So to conclude this topic - Reivers are not the most pointless unit in the game.
Well, that is certainly true. They're still disappointingly bad.
No, they ARE pointless.
The moment your niche is filled by another unit that does it significantly better, you're automatically pointless. That's how it works.
Sure, they're pretty pointless. But "the most pointless unit in the game" is certainly hyperbole. There are more pointless units, Conscripts, for example.
Reivers are in a weird spot they CAN be good, but they need a bit of a push to make them viable. And because of that they are useless until they receive their proper melee unit upgrades. (Read Power Weapons)
I'd rather they be pushed into a bit more supportive role.
Let shock grenades last until the start of your turn (infantry hit by 1 get -1 to hit and can't overwatch.
Let Reivers take auxiliary grenade launchers. Lets them "throw" grenades 30". Now they have good range on their grenade.
Rework Terror Troops to be enemies cannot control objectives if they're within 3" of Reivers.
Now if they're on an objective it means the enemy cannot take it until all Reivers are dead.
They won't be a supportive role, there are no 'supportive' roles in space marine armies that isn't a character. Reivers are the future of space marines and we will see them become what they are emphasizing which close assault / close combat monsters.
Give it an edition and they will have their special close combat weapons.
Reivers are in a weird spot they CAN be good, but they need a bit of a push to make them viable. And because of that they are useless until they receive their proper melee unit upgrades. (Read Power Weapons)
I'd rather they be pushed into a bit more supportive role.
Let shock grenades last until the start of your turn (infantry hit by 1 get -1 to hit and can't overwatch.
Let Reivers take auxiliary grenade launchers. Lets them "throw" grenades 30". Now they have good range on their grenade.
Rework Terror Troops to be enemies cannot control objectives if they're within 3" of Reivers.
Now if they're on an objective it means the enemy cannot take it until all Reivers are dead.
I think these would be some nice changes. It would really improve their standing in an asset denial role.
Ishagu wrote: So to conclude this topic - Reivers are not the most pointless unit in the game.
Well, that is certainly true. They're still disappointingly bad.
No, they ARE pointless.
The moment your niche is filled by another unit that does it significantly better, you're automatically pointless. That's how it works.
Sure, they're pretty pointless. But "the most pointless unit in the game" is certainly hyperbole. There are more pointless units, Conscripts, for example.
To be fair, we have to thank CA2018 for the Conscript mess. Otherwise in the codex they were...alright.
Ishagu wrote: No stratagem required to deliver them. People are completely missing this aspect. Scouts are certainly not more durable as you'll need to pay for camo cloaks to even get the same save in cover, and ignore cover isn't hard to com by either.
Get Reivers into position on turn 2 or 3 when the opposing player's fiepower has been diminished.
10 wounds in cover with a 2+ save become very hard to dislodge when your army is reduced to half it's size and the most threatening units have been dealt with.
10 points per wound delivered behind enemy lines without the use of Strats or Transport. They job is NOT to kill tough units.
So many haters in here who don't really understand the game and only measure the effectiveness of something by how many models it can kill. . Maybe stop following tournament meta lists and play for yourself and see.
These guys certainly aren't the best infantry in the Imperium's arsenal, but if all you care about is the top choice then you'd be better be playing Guard with a Castellan. I play more often than most and see the finer details that a lot seem to miss, but it's fine to ignore them. There are plenty of meta lists online for people to copy.
Congratulations on your superior intellect and tactical acumen. Truly the great tacticians of history have nothing on you. I’m sure GW will find solace in selling Reivers solely to geniuses such as yourself, while the masses of idiots like myself leave them on the shelf because they’re garbage and unusable without a PhD in 40k.
Ishagu wrote: It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.
Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!
Your first post was pretty condescending. You don't get to make sweeping negative judgements about people and then take the moral high ground when they don't like it.
You could have made your point differently. Maybe people would have reacted differently, and not dismissed it, if they didn't feel you were talking down to them. Sure, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but now we'll never know.
(For the record, there are people on both sides getting disproportionately personal and emotional about this now. I'm not putting this all on you by any means, just trying to demonstrate the other viewpoint.)
They can access and leave cover pretty well with the hooks. They're pretty good at removing screens if you can keep the 2 dam weapons pointed elsewhere.
Ishagu wrote: It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.
Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!
Your first post was pretty condescending. You don't get to make sweeping negative judgements about people and then take the moral high ground when they don't like it.
You could have made your point differently. Maybe people would have reacted differently, and not dismissed it, if they didn't feel you were talking down to them. Sure, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but now we'll never know.
(For the record, there are people on both sides getting disproportionately personal and emotional about this now. I'm not putting this all on you by any means, just trying to demonstrate the other viewpoint.)
Good to know someone else noticed this, I normally get labeled an donkey-cave regardless of who started with the assholeness.
I think one of the important things to analyse here, is weather or not a 100, or 200 (if using the 2 squads that ishagu suggests) point investment in back field disruption, is a wise investment. Before beginning to decide what disruption to actually use.
Assumptions:
I will ignore that assassins fill this niche perfectly, and at 210 for 3 eversors, are essentially the perfect solution to this. As people want a pure marine solution.
Points For:
1. Units can annoyingly hide behind stuff for the entire game, and potentially stop you tabling people, or be held back for late game shenanigans.
2. Some powerful units can hide in the backfield while also being dangerous to your army. disrupting these units by engaging them in CC can be beneficial.
3. If held in reserve until turn 3, where hopefully each force will be spent, these units have a good chance of securing behind enemy lines, or whatever the missions equivalent might be.
Points against:
1. Its 1/10th of the cost of your army invested into units which are inefficient offensively, and are mediocre defensively (though their mediocre defence is offset, due to their relatively low threat profile)
2. Not all opponents have a 'back field' to disrupt.
3. The strategy is reliant upon the opponents vulnerable backfield units not being protected by some form of deep strike screen.
Now my bias comes in: I personally don't like strategies that rely upon my opponent being bad, or are dependant upon the mission. I am also very aware that if I'm playing pure marines, I'm already at a disadvantage against many opponents if they are trying hard. And to give up 1/10th of my armies offensive output, and defensive output (these units at the very least are not contributing to the defence of my armies core, whatever that might be) to something situational, where the majority of the time, if I'm loosing, I'm getting tabled anyway, and if I'm winning, my army will have advanced into my opponents lines.
My opinion is that for marines the concept of back field disruption, as a strategy is a flawed one to begin with, regardless of the chosen unit to fulfil the purpose.
When I add into that, that reivers are not the optimal choice for achieving this strategy. For myself personaly I come to the conclusion, that reivers are useless. (which is why I'm planning on converting mine into wulfen)
Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.
What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.
In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.
This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.
Karthicus wrote: That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.
Dare I even google that while at work?
Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.
Ishagu wrote: It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.
I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait
No, people pointed and laughed at Columbus because he thought he was smarter than Eratosthenes, and believed there was no missing continent standing between the West and East.
Karthicus wrote:Credit to Ishagu for standing up to the abuse in this thread.
I think the main beef with the unit is that it takes up an elite slot. If they took up a troop slot you would see a lot more of them. I would agree that their role is more of a backline disruption slot, and I have seen a fair share of games where a small 5 man squad diving a premium back line target could play a vital role in securing victory.
Are they a great unit? Not even close, however if that type of role fits into your army strategy? I could see them being very useful. Just comes down to tactics.
This
Ishagu wrote:I responded to this topic by pointing out that the Reivers are not useless. For 200 points you can have two squads kept off the board that can arrive anywhere. This is certainly an asset for a Marine army.
I'd say Assault Marines are more useless, but that's a different topic entirely lol
To outright dismiss something utterly, to not accept that it might have even a slither of value when I've pointed out some strengths is not particularly great on your part.[/quote]
bold statements never turn out well.
Talinsin wrote:Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...
This is hilarious.
I think they need the grenade launcher and power knives to be more effective . it really just depends on what you're throwing them at and what you need them to do.
Karthicus wrote: That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.
Dare I even google that while at work?
Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.
Dude, you do realize that Ishagu actually did admit that he might have come across badly? Can you do the same? Walk the walk friend.
Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.
What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.
In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.
This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.
I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.
I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.
The unit has a good concept, it could work. They're just too lacklustre for their points, they should be either cheaper or better. Thing is they've just gotten worse, the deepstrike got nerfed, and their grapnels got nerfed. So they're actually worse now, than when they were first introduced. Meanwhile the Intercessors have gotten both cheaper and better (they have received dedicated stratagems, new weapon options and point cuts.) I just wish that the GW had paid the same amount of attention the Reivers than they did to the Intercessors.
I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.
The unit has a good concept, it could work. They're just too lacklustre for their points, they should be either cheaper or better. Thing is they've just gotten worse, the deepstrike got nerfed, and their grapnels got nerfed. So they're actually worse now, than when they were first introduced. Meanwhile the Intercessors have gotten both cheaper and better (they have received dedicated stratagems, new weapon options and point cuts.) I just wish that the GW had paid the same amount of attention the Reivers than they did to the Intercessors.
Agreed. The movement is still solid and useful. But they just really need some more oomph offensively to justify the slot.
I'm not saying they need to be super killy or anything, but they need to do SOMETHING against comparable enemies.
Karthicus wrote: That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.
Dare I even google that while at work?
Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.
Dude, you do realize that Ishagu actually did admit that he might have come across badly? Can you do the same? Walk the walk friend.
Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.
What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.
In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.
This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.
I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.
Yeah and I have no problem with him and it was good of him to say so and we can move on. You are the little man that can't do that and use his 'being a man' to try and conclude this with magnamity but also using a rather than you 'actually' be a man and apologise to me and then I will let bygones be bygones, but your ego won't let you do that. I'll make it easy for you, you don't even have to apologise, just admit you're wrong and I'll respect you.
Andykp wrote: I like Reivers. They look cool. And have guns with extra grips on them. They look cool too. Cool guys with cool guns beats maths and tactics any day.
Yeah, sure. That's basically the reason I've got some Reivers.
Andykp wrote: I like Reivers. They look cool. And have guns with extra grips on them. They look cool too. Cool guys with cool guns beats maths and tactics any day.
I have them but I've modelled them as blood claws, when reivers get good rules I'll just use them as reivers. Doing some skyclaw ones at the moment, they look awesome. I hope GW don't do away with jump packs.
Topic is done, but I just gotta say; Del, the whole "people just think I'm an ***hole, cus I'm honest", thing is a a cliche at this point. Just state your piece with some thought to how it comes off and respect the other person and most people will respond in kind. That's all; now go right ahead; accuse me of being conceited and disregard my comment.
rooster92 wrote: Topic is done, but I just gotta say; Del, the whole "people just think I'm an ***hole, cus I'm honest", thing is a a cliche at this point. Just state your piece with some thought to how it comes off and respect the other person and most people will respond in kind. That's all; now go right ahead; accuse me of being conceited and disregard my comment.
I respect everyone that respects me, if someone shows me disrespect why would I or anyone for that matter show them respect. It is a cliche because there have been many people being rude on here but like a cliche its only me that is mentioned, no one else is called out, because I have so many hypocrites accusing me of exactly what they do, but I don't try to be liked so everyone just parrots back the same gak, even those that try so hard to be "civil" act like donkey-caves they just do it subtly, you can't show me a single person that doesn't or hasn't been an donkey-cave once or twice. I have to be an donkey-cave more though because of my sparkling and infectious personality. Its like "Del just takes phrases out of context" then I start showing large quotes to include as much context as possible and then its "Del posts too much text" Give me a break. If I didn't find it equally amusing as I do annoying I wouldn't be on this forum lol
Ishagu wrote: Lots of ifs and buts there. Just theory crafting. How about you play two squads as I outlined in a few games and come back with what you've found? Maybe you'll be surprised, maybe you won't. Or are you to cool to experiment with something you don't think can win you the game? Gotta keep that 40k rep up? Lol
Stop hating, start experimenting with different units and tactics.
That's actually a challenge I can support, I'll take my Reivers for a spin next game if not for efficiency, at least cause they look cool
I like them, they are not perfect, the models are "ok" but they are useful occasionally and to be honest if the game is all about "efficiency" you may as well give each faction one troop unit, one elite, one fast attack and hone heavy, with a single HQ to command them, forget rule of three and then your army is simple and you can forget about list building.
indeed could have fixed armies.
you need units that are only occasionally useful in a list, in effect you need the ability to build a poor army, otherwise the skill in selecting a better one is negated as as noted, you may as well have fixed armies (as games like DBA do, with a few options perhaps but largely static)
once you get into special abilities they in effect need to cost something otherwise the non-specialists are never seen, so sort of by default you end up with something over costed the rest of the time.
just about every single game I have ever played that has a points system has this issue to various extents, especially ones with as many choices as we have here.
short of taking points away from the unit and putting them into the armies (so a Reivers unit could cost "x" here but "y" here and "z" here, which is good but complicated) this problem will always exist, if Reivers were "good", something else wouldn't be, and fixing one alone doesn't work.
Del you started an interesting and engaging topic on a unit I'd never seen fielded outside of Kill Team and really hardly cared for until now; even inspiring people to bring it to the table and experiment. Probably best to keep pushing in that direction rather than informing the community why you must be so candid and expecting apologies from random folk on the interwebz. Happen to have any pictures of those Bloodclaw Reivers? Which great company are you playing?
I love how Reivers look. A little cheesy but the assimetry of their shoulder pads plus the skull helmets us just, hmmmm...
But I cant make them work. To clear backline objetive gravers I preffer 3 heavy bolter Inceptors. They melt any min infantry unit the enemy lefts there, and once deployed are much more movile. They keep jumping from objetive to objetive clearing the field and I advance with others units like scout bikers to grav the objetived.
Sleep Spell wrote: Del you started an interesting and engaging topic on a unit I'd never seen fielded outside of Kill Team and really hardly cared for until now; even inspiring people to bring it to the table and experiment. Probably best to keep pushing in that direction rather than informing the community why you must be so candid and expecting apologies from random folk on the interwebz. Happen to have any pictures of those Bloodclaw Reivers? Which great company are you playing?
I don't need an apology, just seeing if he had the courage of his convictions. Sure I'll post a pic tomorrow of them, they aren't painted yet, meanwhile here are some of my bloodclaws
Light is terrible, I'll post another pic tomorrow.
People who like Reivers are acting like dropping in 5-10 reavers in someone's face is scary. Ok you spend 200 points, make 10 pistol shots and 31 S4 melee attacks while harassing something.
Just an anecdotal shot in the dark but I can deep strike 20 wyches with a net and 2 gauntlets. roughly 175 points. I get 16 better pistol shots, reroll the charge, and make 61 S4 attack, 9 are ap -1, 3 d2, and 6 reroll wounds. It's unlikely you will be able to fall back from melee and they have a 4++/6+++
What's also roughly 200 points and has 2 different ways to deep strike, including one of the few turn 1 deep strikes left in the game? a 30 man ork mob. Which is both far more deadly in both shooting and melee, can harass back line stuff better due to a huge foot print and lots of bodies to chew through, and is super fast. If you haven't played against new orks it feel like they fly across the table now. A 30 man ork mob can clear like 20", still making 60 shots with no penalty to hit.
Other less in depth units that fill a similar role, but good.
Swooping Hawks, tons of cheap shots
Scourges, lots of cheap shard carbine shots or 4 blasters
Striking Scorpions, who are now 10ppm in CA 2018. They infiltrate, have a 3+ save, have basically an equal gun, and will out melee reivers. While being faster than reivers. Plus the exarch has a no penalty power fist
40 guardsmen plus an officer. Drop 40 bodies with 4 plasmas on someone's back line. Definitely a distraction. Edit: or if you're really crazy pop up with 1 officer and 120 conscripts on the enemy's back line.
Stealth Suits. cheap model, lots of shots. more durable Not a melee threat.
The game is full of units that fill the same tactical roles as Reivers, but do a better job and are usually more deadly.
The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.
I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.
Funny you say this btw, most eldar players consider these units "total garbage" (Scorpions in particular), for same reasons marines don't like rievers - i.e. what are they going to kill, or what is so dangerous about these units with their basic 2 attacks or S3 shooting?
I applaud Ishagu for standing up to all the bs though, I have somewhat similar opinion on these sort of units - they are to kill a bunch of kroot hounds running to your side trying to make line breaker and some fire warriors camping on another objective and then survive; not to "terrify" anyone with their raw damage output. You spend 5-10% of your points for these lategame grabbers so they don't hurt your list too much and play them strategically after all the major fighting ends (turn 3).
Funny you say this btw, most eldar players consider these units total garbage (Scorpions in particular), for same reasons marines don't like rievers - i.e. what are they going to kill, or what is so dangerous about these units with their basic 2 attacks or S3 shooting?
I applaud Ishagu for standing up to all the bs though, I have somewhat similar opinion on these sort of units - they are to kill a bunch of kroot hounds running to your side trying to make line breaker and some fire warriors camping on another objective and then survive; not to "terrify" anyone with their raw damage output. You spend 5-10% of your points for these lategame grabbers so they don't hurt your list too much and play them strategically after all the major fighting ends (turn 3).
Scorpions have less toughness and less wounds , so they are more easily removed.
Reivers pistol is better since it have -1 AP.
Reivers have 24 inch A2 rifle and if the game is not good for deepstrike you can still get better value. For instance you can deepstrike in enemy line under cover get +1 to save and shell the enemy from save distance.
Reivers Terror troop ability is also better than the Mandibalsters, atleast for me since i never roll much sixes.
If only graphel was cheaper, 10 pts for it seem to much and if only you could take both rifle and combat knife.
Those are some amazing SW Reivers! I think the faces turned out real great and the mud adds a nice touch. Maybe with the new missions heavier focus on objectives these guys can actually make an appearance.
I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.
Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.
AnomanderRake wrote: The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.
I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.
Andykp wrote: I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.
Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.
Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.
AnomanderRake wrote: The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.
I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.
And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.
Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.
You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.
Funny you say this btw, most eldar players consider these units "total garbage" (Scorpions in particular), for same reasons marines don't like rievers - i.e. what are they going to kill, or what is so dangerous about these units with their basic 2 attacks or S3 shooting?
I applaud Ishagu for standing up to all the bs though, I have somewhat similar opinion on these sort of units - they are to kill a bunch of kroot hounds running to your side trying to make line breaker and some fire warriors camping on another objective and then survive; not to "terrify" anyone with their raw damage output. You spend 5-10% of your points for these lategame grabbers so they don't hurt your list too much and play them strategically after all the major fighting ends (turn 3).
Scorpions may be gaff, but I'll still always field them, them and banshees are my favourite aspects, I will play them if they become as effective as gretchin lol
Andykp wrote: I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.
Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.
Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.
I already have Intercessors. Intercessors also can't have the heavy bolt pistol/CCW combo, nor can they have gravchutes or grapnel launchers.
Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.
Except when you REALLY want to avoid Overwatch. Or if your enemy has boosted their abilities to do that Overwatch.
You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.
Andykp wrote: I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.
Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.
Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.
I already have Intercessors. Intercessors also can't have the heavy bolt pistol/CCW combo, nor can they have gravchutes or grapnel launchers.
Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.
Except when you REALLY want to avoid Overwatch. Or if your enemy has boosted their abilities to do that Overwatch.
You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.
And what if you don't have an Attack Bike?
1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.
Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.
2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.
3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.
But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.
Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.
Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.
And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.
2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.
Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.
3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...
Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.
And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.
But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.
Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.
Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.
And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.
2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.
Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.
3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...
Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.
And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?
I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:
Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.
But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.
I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.
If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?
Stux wrote: I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:
Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.
But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.
I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.
If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?
The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".
Stux wrote: I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:
Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.
But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.
I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.
If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?
The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".
I do agree on that point.
They are undertuned. They are not good enough in their niche to justify their place in an optimised army.
But conversely, they aren't the worst unit in the game by some margin, and taking a few isn't going to tank your list in a 'normal' game. Because most people don't completely optimise their lists, or play totally optimally, and so there is wiggle room for stuff like that if you like it.
There's a been a lot of hyperbole in this thread on both sides, but really what we have is a unit that is decidedly 'meh'.
I feel the same way about them as assault marines in prior editions. Not an optimal choice, but they should do OK as a backfield harassment bully unit. Would the points be better spent elsewhere? No doubt. Fun little unit? Yup.
If you are running pure primaris, they are one of the few ways to get some mobility into your list. Although Inceptors are also a thing. Probably more useful, but also less wounds/point to blow off the table. Different uses.
Nevelon wrote: I feel the same way about them as assault marines in prior editions. Not an optimal choice, but they should do OK as a backfield harassment bully unit. Would the points be better spent elsewhere? No doubt. Fun little unit? Yup.
If you are running pure primaris, they are one of the few ways to get some mobility into your list. Although Inceptors are also a thing. Probably more useful, but also less wounds/point to blow off the table. Different uses.
Reasonable assesment.
If I was giving units a letter grade for general viability, I would give Inceptors a B and Reivers a C-
AnomanderRake wrote: The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.
I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.
And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.
Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.
You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.
I know my experience is statistically unlikely, but I've lost so many things to overwatch that I wrote melee off altogether until I noticed the Raven Guard warlord trait shut it down. I've lost a Captain and Lieutenant to overwatch on the same turn (admittedly vs a Knight, he hit with two shield-breaker missiles in a row). I've lost a full-health Redemptor dreadnaught charging Terminators. Heck, I lost three Vanguard Veterans charging an Ondager Dunecrawler with the d3-shot battle cannon; that's better than that thing should manage in it's own shooting phase. And it's not just confirmation bias either, my second to last game I wiped out a unit of Terminators with 5 Intercessors on overwatch.
In my experience anything that completely denies the Overwatch mechanic is worth doing. Yeah, I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything. I just know what I see on the table, and what I've seen on the table is that overwatch is plenty effective.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.
But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.
Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.
Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.
And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.
2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.
Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.
3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...
Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.
And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?
1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.
2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?
3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.
4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.
5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.
AnomanderRake wrote: The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.
I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.
And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.
Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.
You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.
I know my experience is statistically unlikely, but I've lost so many things to overwatch that I wrote melee off altogether until I noticed the Raven Guard warlord trait shut it down. I've lost a Captain and Lieutenant to overwatch on the same turn (admittedly vs a Knight, he hit with two shield-breaker missiles in a row). I've lost a full-health Redemptor dreadnaught charging Terminators. Heck, I lost three Vanguard Veterans charging an Ondager Dunecrawler with the d3-shot battle cannon; that's better than that thing should manage in it's own shooting phase. And it's not just confirmation bias either, my second to last game I wiped out a unit of Terminators with 5 Intercessors on overwatch.
In my experience anything that completely denies the Overwatch mechanic is worth doing. Yeah, I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything. I just know what I see on the table, and what I've seen on the table is that overwatch is plenty effective.
Anecdotes here and there are none of my concern. I once had lost 4 Hellblasters in a single phase to their own guns. Am I gonna tell people not to run Plasma because this happened this one time?
Stux wrote: I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:
Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.
But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.
I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.
If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?
The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".
I do agree on that point.
They are undertuned. They are not good enough in their niche to justify their place in an optimised army.
But conversely, they aren't the worst unit in the game by some margin, and taking a few isn't going to tank your list in a 'normal' game. Because most people don't completely optimise their lists, or play totally optimally, and so there is wiggle room for stuff like that if you like it.
There's a been a lot of hyperbole in this thread on both sides, but really what we have is a unit that is decidedly 'meh'.
They're easily one of the worst units in the codex though. Anything compared to Storm Guardians looks good, obviously. Internally, Reivers are an entry that might as well not exist.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.
But they have a different role and cost. The Reivers are cheap harassment units with wide mobility options. The Inceptors are fast, hard hitting hammers, more akin to Bikers, with fast movement. Not the same role. That would be like comparing Assault Marines to Bikers.
2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?
I've not asked for advice. I've said why I like using Reivers and the role I think suits them. You've come in and said "if you want to do this, get this instead", when I've already expressed that I think Reivers are fine.
Please, if I want advice, I'll ask for it.
3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.
And I've said how Overwatch has been a threat, and cost me quite pivotal moments in the game quite a few times.
Regardless of how often "statistically" is can be a threat, when you know from experience what can happen from it, I'd rather trust my experience. I'm not asking you to do the same, only asking that you respect that I've had that experience.
4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.
I saw the models, and I liked them. When I saw what I thought their role was, I played them to that way, and liked it. I still do. Do you really think I judge my purchases based on how good they are?
5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.
I "need" to, do I?
I've got a word for you. No.
I'll play the game how I want to play it, thank you. I don't "need" to do anything if I'm happy how I am.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.
But they have a different role and cost. The Reivers are cheap harassment units with wide mobility options. The Inceptors are fast, hard hitting hammers, more akin to Bikers, with fast movement. Not the same role. That would be like comparing Assault Marines to Bikers.
2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?
I've not asked for advice. I've said why I like using Reivers and the role I think suits them. You've come in and said "if you want to do this, get this instead", when I've already expressed that I think Reivers are fine.
Please, if I want advice, I'll ask for it.
3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.
And I've said how Overwatch has been a threat, and cost me quite pivotal moments in the game quite a few times.
Regardless of how often "statistically" is can be a threat, when you know from experience what can happen from it, I'd rather trust my experience. I'm not asking you to do the same, only asking that you respect that I've had that experience.
4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.
I saw the models, and I liked them. When I saw what I thought their role was, I played them to that way, and liked it. I still do. Do you really think I judge my purchases based on how good they are?
5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.
I "need" to, do I?
I've got a word for you. No.
I'll play the game how I want to play it, thank you. I don't "need" to do anything if I'm happy how I am.
1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.
2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.
3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.
4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.
I disagree that they're that bad. But that's my opinion.
2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.
I think we have different definitions of harass. I don't expect harassing units to do massive damage. I don't even expect them to be a threat. If anything, I don't WANT them to be a massive threat like Inceptors are.
The amount of damage Inceptors do is very good. Therefore, the enemy will dedicate lots of energy to bring them down. If I put the Inceptors in to do what I have my Reivers do, then they'd be focus fired and dealt with too soon. My Reivers, because they aren't as much of a threat, can get away with literally murder. Sure, could Inceptors do more damage in a round of shooting? You bet! But they'd be destroyed before they get to shoot again. My Reivers can act meek, avoid direct conflict as much as possible while still keeping close to the enemy, and then when the enemy focus on things like the Inceptors, my Redemptor, my Repulsor, my Hellblasters, etc etc - my Reivers come in, as a cheap and nasty surprise, and knock an enemy off an objective, or take out an enemy leader isolated from his troops.
That works for me, and I'll keep doing it. If other people want to try it, you're more than welcome to!
3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.
If those couple of moments defy the expectations of maths, you bet I'm going to worry about that more. I don't care if maths says X is unlikely, if X keeps happening, I'm going to worry about X.
4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.
You're comparing people having their own experiences and opinions and ideas of fun in a tabletop wargame as being the same as Flat Earthers?
Reiver grenades only shut down infantry in overwatch, and that's often not your main worry when declaring charges. If they worked more widely thay would definitely be a usp. Likewise I don't think it works on greater good - the other units can still declare overwatch on you, just not the unit that ate the grenade. More niche than people are making out.
grouchoben wrote: Reiver grenades only shut down infantry in overwatch, and that's often not your main worry when declaring charges. If they worked more widely thay would definitely be a usp. Likewise I don't think it works on greater good - the other units can still declare overwatch on you, just not the unit that ate the grenade. More niche than people are making out.
Definitely niche, I'll agree, but it's always been a niche I value. YMMV, I guess.
I’m not making out they are anything other than what they are. The question in the OP was are they the most pointless unit? The answer is no. Depending on how I rate units. Looks, fluff, etc are more important to me than their damage per point out put or how much better less cool looking older models are.
To me, not pointless, almost a must have. Can’t wait to use them in city fights. And the grenades are very useful in certain circumstances. Not all. I will target some wraithguards with d scythes so they don’t get slaughtered charging in and can tie up a nasty unit for a we while. For example.
And again you cannot put a price on elite terror troops with carbines with a fore grip. That right there is solid gold.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.
I disagree that they're that bad. But that's my opinion.
2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.
I think we have different definitions of harass. I don't expect harassing units to do massive damage. I don't even expect them to be a threat. If anything, I don't WANT them to be a massive threat like Inceptors are.
The amount of damage Inceptors do is very good. Therefore, the enemy will dedicate lots of energy to bring them down. If I put the Inceptors in to do what I have my Reivers do, then they'd be focus fired and dealt with too soon. My Reivers, because they aren't as much of a threat, can get away with literally murder. Sure, could Inceptors do more damage in a round of shooting? You bet! But they'd be destroyed before they get to shoot again. My Reivers can act meek, avoid direct conflict as much as possible while still keeping close to the enemy, and then when the enemy focus on things like the Inceptors, my Redemptor, my Repulsor, my Hellblasters, etc etc - my Reivers come in, as a cheap and nasty surprise, and knock an enemy off an objective, or take out an enemy leader isolated from his troops.
That works for me, and I'll keep doing it. If other people want to try it, you're more than welcome to!
3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.
If those couple of moments defy the expectations of maths, you bet I'm going to worry about that more. I don't care if maths says X is unlikely, if X keeps happening, I'm going to worry about X.
4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.
You're comparing people having their own experiences and opinions and ideas of fun in a tabletop wargame as being the same as Flat Earthers?
Jesus.
1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition. Is it any wonder I'm starting to find this conversation harder to take serious?
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.
Bremon wrote: They should have put Reivers on bikes. Their dumb skull masks look right at home in motocross.
I’d buy a box or two of reiver scout bikers.
Totally fits their fluff role of fast moving terror disruption troops. And would look cool
They would certainly look better than current scout bikers. I’d like GW to make some more traditional roles for Primaris. Ideally they don’t get “mini repulsor” anti grav bikes lol.
Bremon wrote: They should have put Reivers on bikes. Their dumb skull masks look right at home in motocross.
I’d buy a box or two of reiver scout bikers.
Totally fits their fluff role of fast moving terror disruption troops. And would look cool
They would certainly look better than current scout bikers. I’d like GW to make some more traditional roles for Primaris. Ideally they don’t get “mini repulsor” anti grav bikes lol.
All the Biker kits are due to be redone I wager. At least if you get the FW ones those guys look like their bikes are super armored and stuff.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.
They aren’t pointless. They are aesetically and narratively very useful depending upon your tastes. But they have a definite point. I personally can’t wait until the old marines are binned completely.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.
They aren’t pointless. They are aesetically and narratively very useful depending upon your tastes. But they have a definite point. I personally can’t wait until the old marines are binned completely.
Like I said, you can use their bitz for converting your Intercessors or Hellblasters. Their role is better covered by several other units though, which makes them pointless.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.
They aren’t pointless. They are aesetically and narratively very useful depending upon your tastes. But they have a definite point. I personally can’t wait until the old marines are binned completely.
Like I said, you can use their bitz for converting your Intercessors or Hellblasters. Their role is better covered by several other units though, which makes them pointless.
No. That just makes them pointless to you and the way you like to play. To me an intercessor with a skull helmet isn’t a special forces style space marine grappling into combat with two handled carbine. A reiver is and is the only thing that is and that’s the point of them to me and the way I enjoy the game. Of you are only bothered by power efficiency then that’s fine. Me like a bit of story and style to the games I play. And when I use Reivers they do things and do them pretty well. Not amazingly game shatteringly well but well enough. ThTs the point. To some more narrative style players they fill a narrative role. It’s not for u, I get that but it s for me and others out there.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.
If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.
If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.
1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.
They aren’t pointless. They are aesetically and narratively very useful depending upon your tastes. But they have a definite point. I personally can’t wait until the old marines are binned completely.
Like I said, you can use their bitz for converting your Intercessors or Hellblasters. Their role is better covered by several other units though, which makes them pointless.
No. That just makes them pointless to you and the way you like to play. To me an intercessor with a skull helmet isn’t a special forces style space marine grappling into combat with two handled carbine. A reiver is and is the only thing that is and that’s the point of them to me and the way I enjoy the game. Of you are only bothered by power efficiency then that’s fine. Me like a bit of story and style to the games I play. And when I use Reivers they do things and do them pretty well. Not amazingly game shatteringly well but well enough. ThTs the point. To some more narrative style players they fill a narrative role. It’s not for u, I get that but it s for me and others out there.
Other units will work fine for your "narrative" needs. You simply have a bizarre need to stick to the unit model + profile put together when you need to look at them separately.
I mean, you think I bought a box of PA Grey Knights because I plan to use Grey Knights at this point?
Carbine Reivers could indeed be used as Intercessors. However, the Reivers are the only Primaris unit which can equip pistol and CCW, so if that's the sort of Primaris Marine you want you need to use them as Reivers. And no, there will not be any single wound marines in my army.
Crimson wrote: Carbine Reivers could indeed be used as Intercessors. However, the Reivers are the only Primaris unit which can equip pistol and CCW, so if that's the sort of Primaris Marine you want you need to use them as Reivers. And no, there will not be any single wound marines in my army.
It isn't my problem you're so stuck on everything needing to have two wounds. You've got literally an entire codex to choose from where units WILL do the role of Reivers but better. You saying they fill a role only happens if you decide to say "I don't want this unit because of no good reason".
That's not a way to defend a unit. It's a desperate way to try and gain something out of it.
Crimson wrote: Carbine Reivers could indeed be used as Intercessors. However, the Reivers are the only Primaris unit which can equip pistol and CCW, so if that's the sort of Primaris Marine you want you need to use them as Reivers. And no, there will not be any single wound marines in my army.
It isn't my problem you're so stuck on everything needing to have two wounds. You've got literally an entire codex to choose from where units WILL do the role of Reivers but better. You saying they fill a role only happens if you decide to say "I don't want this unit because of no good reason".
That's not a way to defend a unit. It's a desperate way to try and gain something out of it.
You said in another thread that you have a Necron army. I hope you're not trying to use them with Necron rules, as everyone knows they're trash. If you don't run them as counts as Eldar, you're bad and should feel bad.
Crimson wrote: Carbine Reivers could indeed be used as Intercessors. However, the Reivers are the only Primaris unit which can equip pistol and CCW, so if that's the sort of Primaris Marine you want you need to use them as Reivers. And no, there will not be any single wound marines in my army.
It isn't my problem you're so stuck on everything needing to have two wounds. You've got literally an entire codex to choose from where units WILL do the role of Reivers but better. You saying they fill a role only happens if you decide to say "I don't want this unit because of no good reason".
That's not a way to defend a unit. It's a desperate way to try and gain something out of it.
You said in another thread that you have a Necron army. I hope you're not trying to use them with Necron rules, as everyone knows they're trash. If you don't run them as counts as Eldar, you're bad and should feel bad.
I have actually proxied my Necrons before in 6th/7th to see how Dark Eldar and Ynari function as a whole. Special weapons were harder to represent (Immortals kinda did the work there). The play styles were interesting at least.
That said, using a PA Marine for another is hardly the same thing as going for another army. Your hyperbole was super fantastic though, so I do commend you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it's HAD a Necron army. I've only 1000 or so built up again from the 9000 I lost.
That said, using a PA Marine for another is hardly the same thing as going for another army.
Different people have different tolerance to WYSIWYG violations.
Your hyperbole was super fantastic though, so I do commend you.
I'm glad you appreciated it.
The only tolerance here is being so strict you can't even convert models. Hell, most Marines don't have their pistols and grenades represented but they're still part of the profile.
The only tolerance here is being so strict you can't even convert models. Hell, most Marines don't have their pistols and grenades represented but they're still part of the profile.
Of course you can convert. I just don't want to use primaris bodies to represent normal marines (except maybe characters, who have more than two wounds and attacks anyway.) It would be like using Ork nob models to represent boys. And trust me, all my marines have their pistols and grenades! Why wouldn't they? It's really not my problem if you build your models sloppily, but don't expect other people to lower themselves to your standards.
The only tolerance here is being so strict you can't even convert models. Hell, most Marines don't have their pistols and grenades represented but they're still part of the profile.
Of course you can convert. I just don't want to use primaris bodies to represent normal marines (except maybe characters, who have more than two wounds and attacks anyway.) It would be like using Ork nob models to represent boys. And trust me, all my marines have their pistols and grenades! Why wouldn't they? It's really not my problem if you build your models sloppily, but don't expect other people to lower themselves to your standards.
You can use the Skull helmets and weapons still. The main thing out of proportion is the body sizes, otherwise with a little knifework you're fine.
I'm not the biggest fan of the current Marines outside the older armor Mks so I don't see your point.
What's there not to get? I don't want to use primaris marines as minimarines, nor I want to use minimarine models. Ergo, I will not use minimarine units. The end.
I'm not the biggest fan of the current Marines outside the older armor Mks so I don't see your point.
What's there not to get? I don't want to use primaris marines as minimarines, nor I want to use minimarine models. Ergo, I will not use minimarine units. The end.
Well if you were really the creative type you'd make it work. I found a way to get Intercessors into my army without using the Intercessor models. You can probably find a way to use the Reiver models and bitz the same way.
Well if you were really the creative type you'd make it work. I found a way to get Intercessors into my army without using the Intercessor models. You can probably find a way to use the Reiver models and bitz the same way.
But I don't care that much. Sure, I actually wish Reivers were better, but in the grand scheme of things it is not such a big deal. Space marines as a whole are pretty questionable competively, so if I really cared that much, I should just ditch them all for Eldar or IG.
Talk about laziness.
LOL. You don't obviously know me. Nearly every model in my army is converted. The goal just is to make them look as cool as possible, and not to squeeze some negligible advantage in the game.
Well if you were really the creative type you'd make it work. I found a way to get Intercessors into my army without using the Intercessor models. You can probably find a way to use the Reiver models and bitz the same way.
But I don't care that much. Sure, I actually wish Reivers were better, but in the grand scheme of things it is not such a big deal. Space marines as a whole are pretty questionable competively, so if I really cared that much, I should just ditch them all for Eldar or IG.
Talk about laziness.
LOL. You don't obviously know me. Nearly every model in my army is converted. The goal just is to make them look as cool as possible, and not to squeeze some negligible advantage in the game.
So why go this far to defend the unit if you admit that aren't good?
So why go this far to defend the unit if you admit that aren't good?
If you have read the thread you know that I said early on that the unit isn't very good. This current line of discussion started when Andykp said that for them the Reivers were worth aesthetically and thematically (which I agree with,) and you couldn't accept that as an answer.
Aesthetically Reivers look great their legs are a bit jarring and they need more movement, but otherwise rules wise they are lackluster to what they should be able to do. I see them as the striking scorpions of space marines.
Well if you were really the creative type you'd make it work. I found a way to get Intercessors into my army without using the Intercessor models. You can probably find a way to use the Reiver models and bitz the same way.
But I don't care that much. Sure, I actually wish Reivers were better, but in the grand scheme of things it is not such a big deal. Space marines as a whole are pretty questionable competively, so if I really cared that much, I should just ditch them all for Eldar or IG.
Talk about laziness.
LOL. You don't obviously know me. Nearly every model in my army is converted. The goal just is to make them look as cool as possible, and not to squeeze some negligible advantage in the game.
So why go this far to defend the unit if you admit that aren't good?
U really are missing the point. By a mile. So badly so I’m sure you are just doing it on purpose. I don’t view the game the way you do. I’m not saying you are wrong but your are refusing to accept that I many others are valid in our view of the game. I don’t rate any unit on its mathematical prowess. I don’t use points, I set myself restrictions in my army composition to drive a narrative. That gives a given unit a “point”.
I convert many models, but not so I can use cool new models as the most powerful units. But to again to drive a narrative. All my armies contain conversions, but sometimes I go as far as to convert them to have less than optimal war gear, because it looks good or fits their character. There is more to this hobby than winning games. I’ve said my piece there isn’t much oountbrepeating it again again.
Well at least they have 2 wounds and not one. Would they be better if they got access to 2 fists per 5 dudes, or some sort of assault hellblaster weapon ?
Dude, you do realize that Ishagu actually did admit that he might have come across badly? Can you do the same? Walk the walk friend.
