I've heard some negative things about them, but can someone break it down for me why they are "bad"?

They have two cardinal sins against them. One they are in a slot that is packed with better units and two even in a vacuum they don't do their intended job all that well.

They're essentially assault marines 2.0, not bad at ripping up light infantry/ things that don't want to get tied up in melee, but no were near good enough to be a main line assault unit for what your paying for price wise. In a game that generally speaking doesn't reward generalist units they land on the weaker side.

Depends on the situation. They're pretty awesome in kill-team...

Essentially, they're a primarily melee-armed squad, but:

1] they lack speed (they have the ability to appear by surprise, and kitted out with climbing gear can basically ignore terrain, but they don't actually move that fast)

2] they have 2 attacks, combat blades and their leadership tricks - meaning they're great at chopping up low-leadership mobs. However they have no melee weapon options like power swords or power fists so they're really going to struggle if they hit a heavily armoured opponent or, god forbid, a walker like a knight or dreadnought.

In kill team, 90% of your opponents are light-to-medium infantry, and the game is played on a small, often highly vertical board with restricted lines of sight. Unsurprisingly rievers kick arse.

 Psionara wrote:
I've heard some negative things about them, but can someone break it down for me why they are "bad"?

They have two weapon options. A bolt carbine that isn't rapid fire (and thus doesn't get Beta Bolter) nor does it have an armor save mod. Or a pistol/combat knife. They can't do Bolter/Knife. They don't have Eviscerator type upgrades, or heavies, or specials. They have two "movement" options/upgrades that both cost as much as an Assault Marine jump pack, but only provide part about 1/3 of the rule/utility. i.e. Ignoring height, or deep strike, or faster movement. For the same points an ASM can do all three at once, while the Reaver can only do one of the first two. For double the points they can do both of the first do, but still not the last one. Their special ability Terror Troops isn't universally useful, and has a laughably small range all but necessitating the combat knife loadout.

But they're not quite bad. They're definitely not good. And they're going to get squeezed out fast in the Elite slot.

Other people have addressed their big issues (Spd, lack of a real melee weapon), so I'm not going to hold forth on those, although they're practically identical to Suppressors so there's hope onnthe Spd front. Having said that...

For the price point it's hard to fathom why they don't come with the Bolt Carbide, Heavy Pistol, and the Combat Knife instead of having to choose the rifle or the melee weapons.

It's also a little hard to figure why they don't have a Grenade Launcher option to make better use of the Shock Grenades. Inflicting a -1 to hit and denying Overwatch from even 24" out might be enough to put them on the table even without fixing their Spd stat, especially with the new Shock Attack rules. (Doubly so if they got their full weapon package instead of having to choose half of it.)

Has anyone run the math if Reivers are still better with their carbines than knives with the new Shock Assault rule?

 Apple Peel wrote:
Has anyone run the math if Reivers are still better with their carbines than knives with the new Shock Assault rule?

Table top is messier, but on pure math Reivers should always have been better with the Knife/Pistol combo.

My biggest peeve with the Reivers is that the Sergeant cannot have a proper melee weapon, he is stuck with his useless knife. Meanwhile the Intercessor Sergeant, a leader of a shooty squad can have a power sword or a fist, making him massively better in melee than his poor Reiver counterpart. And no, this is not even due 'no model, no rules' nonsense. Neither kit comes with those weapons and upgrade sprue bits fit either kit just fine. And when a Veteran Intercessors exist (sure it costs a CP, but they're troops, so they also generate CPs, unlike the Reivers) the Reivers are just completely outclassed by the intercessors at laughable degree.

I don't know about other chapters but turning them into Space Wolf Infiltrators makes them so much better.

Reivers are subpar at almost everything they can do. Their overwatch- negation ability has a laughable 6" range and their melee ability is underwhelming as well for a squad that has to get in close to use it's signature ability. The only time I could see them having any use is on a table with an obscene amount of buildings with multiple floors.

Because Suppressors already provide long-range overwatch negation my proposal for Reivers would be to turn them into infantry blenders and support character assassins: Give their combat knives AP-2 and +1 to wound vs. infantry and increase their movement stat by an inch or 2 (adjust points cost accordingly) and boom, we have a unit with an actual niche. Their 6" overwatch negation would also get a use because now they'll actually want to charge stuff.

I really like Reivers to the point they have replaced Terminators as my favorite 40k unit. That said, they do have a few issues in game.

At the moment, they aren't really taking up my Elites slots in my in my own personal Primaris only army. However, I am sure as the Primaris line expanses this will be more and more of an issue as Elites has historically been where 40k likes to stick most of the really fun stuff. At the same time, Reivers lacking Objective Secured has made their job as bullies even tougher if I use them to shift enemy infantry of an objective since I have to kill them all and Reivers don't really have the ability to do that all in one go.

Even if Reivers were made into a Troop option, I don't think at their current price point they are worth it compared to the far more versatile Intercessors. Either Reiver loadout just can't quite compete with Intercessors with Bolt Rifles especially when you have to pay more points for Reivers. The Carbine is just the Auto Bolt Rifle (which is already situational in use and not worth the extra point cost) and the knife pretty much requires buying mobility options be chutes, grapplers and/or vehicular transport. And all of these options are realistically are throwing good points after bad points.

I personally think at a minimum for Reivers to work, they should be moved to the Troop slot making them much easier to fit in an army and giving them Objective Secured. Additionally, I think Reivers should reduce their point price equal to Intercessors so it is more a matter of what you want out of your Troops rather than a points saving. This would also probably require the Auto Bolt Rifle (remember I think it isn't worth the extra 1 point) to be altered since it creates a situation players would have the same weapon loadout on two different units in the same Slot type. I personally think increasing the Range of the Auto Bolt Rifle to 30" while keeping the 1 point increase is fine (I really do feel like it is a 40k Browning Automatic Rifle), but I am sure that still would make the weapon a substandard choice compared to the Bolt Rifle. Conversely, the Auto Bolt Rifle could have AP -1 with everything else remaining the same which I think would make it more than worth 1 point since it still has assault. I seriously doubt GW is going to go that direction with Reivers if they bother doing anything at all with them. At least with Shock Troops they have a better chance of clearing chaff.

Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

Reivers have no utility though. Eldar can do literally the same LD shenanigans and with greater ease, and they still choose not to do it. Wonder why that is?

They're inferior to Intercessors in an almost fascinating manner.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

Nice straw man.

Experienced, veteran players agree they area very poor unit competitively.

If you like models, fine. There's more to the hobby than winning games. But they are extremely poor performance wise.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

So what utility do they bring to your list? I want specific examples of what kind of tactics you have used for them. Throwing out canned statements like that isn't helpful.

As others have pointed out, they are a melee unit that isn't all that good at fighting, can't take any weapons worth a dam in close combat, pay for abilities that marginally useful and suffer the same durability issues that most marine infantry have. Over all they are assault marines 2.0.

At least Assault Marines can catch a unit.

Reivers are really good at going obnoxious places, but once they get there your opponent can safely ignore them as they don't have the volume or the power to meaningfully contribute to the game besides being extra Primaris bodies. They also suffer because most of the time playing Space Marines involves leveraging your auras and the only thing they do that Intercessors don't do cheaper and better is pop up a long ways away from your auras.

I find Deathwatch Reivers actually worth using, since Mission Tactics reduces their aura-reliance and SIA carbines can actually kill things; they may still get casually swatted without accomplishing much but they're better at pulling attention and fire away from your main thrust than normal Reivers.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

So what utility do they bring to your list? I want specific examples of what kind of tactics you have used for them. Throwing out canned statements like that isn't helpful.

As others have pointed out, they are a melee unit that isn't all that good at fighting, can't take any weapons worth a dam in close combat, pay for abilities that marginally useful and suffer the same durability issues that most marine infantry have. Over all they are assault marines 2.0.

I won't say they are worthless. Like I said, they are my current favorite 40k unit and I will deployment them regardless if I can make them work or not. I have had some success with them being a roadblock (not exactly a tar pit but close) unit but that is about it.

Just the same, I haven't found them to have all that great having a slightly specialized purpose compared to the flexibility Intercessors offer. As mentioned, if you don't take chutes or grapplers with Carbine Reivers they are pretty much Auto Bolt Rifle Intercessors in an Elite slot. Maybe I am not making full use of Shock Grenades or Terror Troops though. I also don't feel the impact of the extra melee attack as much if I go knife compared to Intercessors. I will admit that could be due to me running only a couple minimum man squads of Reivers. I also haven't really given them all that much in they way of HQ support which could be the bigger problem I am having with them, but I don't know if a lieutenant, Chaplain or Apothecary is going to help or just make things worst for my army overall.

I want to pick up another box of Reivers to have the option to run full squads, but as of yet, I haven't figured a way to make Reivers work well enough that I think smaller squads are the big issue I am having. I will freely admit I am a pretty bad 40k player so I wouldn't mind tips and tactics to get Reivers to work better. So far, I have just found that Intercessors have been working out better for me since I don't have much in the way of solid strategies since they adapt situations far better than Reivers do while being Troops and cheaper points.

So, I would appreciate some ideas on how to make Reivers work. As long as it is for a Primaris only army, I am even willing to build the rest of the army around getting them to work. I just haven't seen anything that will noticeably improve their performance in my games.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

So what utility do they bring to your list? I want specific examples of what kind of tactics you have used for them. Throwing out canned statements like that isn't helpful.

As others have pointed out, they are a melee unit that isn't all that good at fighting, can't take any weapons worth a dam in close combat, pay for abilities that marginally useful and suffer the same durability issues that most marine infantry have. Over all they are assault marines 2.0.

I won't say they are worthless. Like I said, they are my current favorite 40k unit and I will deployment them regardless if I can make them work or not. I have had some success with them being a roadblock (not exactly a tar pit but close) unit but that is about it.

Just the same, I haven't found them to have all that great having a slightly specialized purpose compared to the flexibility Intercessors offer. As mentioned, if you don't take chutes or grapplers with Carbine Reivers they are pretty much Auto Bolt Rifle Intercessors in an Elite slot. Maybe I am not making full use of Shock Grenades or Terror Troops though. I also don't feel the impact of the extra melee attack as much if I go knife compared to Intercessors. I will admit that could be due to me running only a couple minimum man squads of Reivers. I also haven't really given them all that much in they way of HQ support which could be the bigger problem I am having with them, but I don't know if a lieutenant, Chaplain or Apothecary is going to help or just make things worst for my army overall.

I want to pick up another box of Reivers to have the option to run full squads, but as of yet, I haven't figured a way to make Reivers work well enough that I think smaller squads are the big issue I am having. I will freely admit I am a pretty bad 40k player so I wouldn't mind tips and tactics to get Reivers to work better. So far, I have just found that Intercessors have been working out better for me since I don't have much in the way of solid strategies since they adapt situations far better than Reivers do while being Troops and cheaper points.

So, I would appreciate some ideas on how to make Reivers work. As long as it is for a Primaris only army, I am even willing to build the rest of the army around getting them to work. I just haven't seen anything that will noticeably improve their performance in my games.

Throw in a Vanguard librarian to deepstrike with them and get -2 ld.

The best i have found is to use carbines, buff with phobos lib, and then shroud them.

Martel732 wrote:
The best i have found is to use carbines, buff with phobos lib, and then shroud them.

What unit are you generally using the screen them to make Shrouding work? I usually have my Reivers at the tip of the spear especially if I drop them in. Even if I don't, I can't guarantee I will have Intercessors in position to eat that fire since they usually like to hang back. I also have a repulsor I could being moving into position to screen, but I don't really think I have a unit worth loading into it. The best I have is 3 Flamer Aggressors and maybe a Captain in Gravis Armor. Or it is good enough to deny my opponent some of their units from firing on them so they decide not to just because they can't really focus fire. I haven't tried Shrouding for those reasons.

Ideally, i have tricornered some unit with dc or sg out front.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Throw in a Vanguard librarian to deepstrike with them and get -2 ld.

How are you deepstriking the Vanguard Libby? They infiltrate not deep strike.

Breton wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Throw in a Vanguard librarian to deepstrike with them and get -2 ld.

How are you deepstriking the Vanguard Libby? They infiltrate not deep strike.

I thought they had both.

No, the LT has deep strike, not infiltrate. The libby and capt infiltrate, no DS. I think.

Martel732 wrote:
No, the LT has deep strike, not infiltrate. The libby and capt infiltrate, no DS. I think.

Correct.

How terribly inconsistent.

It feels very strange, yes. I use jump LTs instead of that dude. The captain is a joke, but the libby is $$. Tenebrous curse alone has won me two games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How terribly inconsistent.

Yeah, the Lt they also revealed has a reivers mask. Lord knows what that means

So we have a Phobos Lt that can deep strike and has a unique helmet, and then this guy who I bet can infiltrate unlike other reivers...

 fraser1191 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How terribly inconsistent.

Yeah, the Lt they also revealed has a reivers mask. Lord knows what that means

So we have a Phobos Lt that can deep strike and has a unique helmet, and then this guy who I bet can infiltrate unlike other reivers...

Don't forget he's got a super dangerous knife for those amazing S4 attacks!

In my last game against a member of the Canadian ETC team Reivers scored me objectives and line breaker and won me the game, and ironically one took off the last wound off a tough unit by getting a lucky 6 with a Carbine shot.

They did almost no damage the whole game but with them it's not about math hammer. It's about utility.

10 points per wound with a 3+ that can arrive anywhere on the tabletop. I literally don't care about their killing power. Having said that, in the game prior to that my two Reiver units removed two Guard squads from objectives and once again scored points for me, helping me achieve a 20-0 win in ETC scoring. In cover they are surprisingly durable and require more than an off-hand shooting attack to remove so they are either ignored or they draw fire away from other more important units.

There is more to playing than using meta units, and sometimes the units that people aren't spamming can be the most surprising and ultimately useful in certain situations.

 Ishagu wrote:
In my last game against a member of the Canadian ETC team Reivers scored me objectives and line breaker and won me the game, and ironically one took off the last wound off a tough unit by getting a lucky 6 with a Carbine shot.

They did almost no damage the whole game but with them it's not about math hammer. It's about utility.

Called it back when their codex came out, they exist to make your opponent's backfield paranoid. And I'll keep leaning on it because it's exactly what I do with GSC neophytes, only they die a crap load faster so they aren't nearly the same problem.

Just hurt some objective camper enough that it's highly unlikely to do serious damage to the reivers, pop them in there and keep the point through numbers during contested CC, either forcing your opponent to withdraw from the point, lose it for a turn, and then turn however much fire power against them to get rid of them, drag something over there that can kill them, or give you the point.

It may not translate to damage, but if I can pull that off with neophytes for a turn or two, I'm dead sure a squad of reivers can do it.

Exactly.

I see a lot of naysayers who literally have Zero experience with the unit, or have played it wrong, or don't really play the game all that often. Ironically these are the people who are the most vocal and hyperbolic and it becomes very tiresome to see.

People need to look beyond math hammer and remember that movement, scoring, objectives and positioning are all part of the game.

Will Reivers work on every game? Nope! But they are only a modest investment in a list.

While your theory is correct, short cuts across the field, and surprise uses for surprise units are potent...

Your application is wrong.

A lucky 6 with a Reiver Carbine is still just a lucky 6. A 6 triggers no special ability for a Reiver, like it does for the infiltrators. Linebreaker can be accomplished by any deep striking or infiltrating unit. The Reivers lose to even one guardsman on the objective.

You say the Reivers are only 10 points a wound. Infiltrators are only eleven and a half or so, infiltrate instead of deep strike which isn’t quite as good overall though it is situationally better, have the same 3+ in cover durability, and their own medic to strengthen that durability, screen out a large bubble for deep strike, are objective secured and beat out that last guardsman, plus their shooting is arguably better.

Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Were you playing in southport this weekend ishagu?

I was indeed lol
Were you there?

There are two problems with your approach to reivers here:
1. Charge. You still have to make this 9" charge to contest the objective. I mean, yeah, they are pretty tough, sure. But do they have anything to help them get out from reserve AND charge to contest objective? Or they will just fail this and stay in the open like 100pts dead weight? I am ready to try, sure, but for the 100 pts? Probably I'll use someone else for that task.
2. They are not troop, so a single guardsman survivor, or ork boy will ruin the plan.

Nice looking guys, but too bad at their work. Give them rerollable charge and obj sec, and they are good.

Who's charging? I run mine with Carbines. The few times I've charged them into Guadsmen they have indeed cleared the unit out.

If you're looking for a fool proof, meta-busting unit this is not it. It has flaws and shortcomings, but It has still served me well in a lot of games against a great variety of lists. I'm not telling anyone to spam Reivers - I'm saying they are simply another tool in the toolbox.

Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

 Ishagu wrote:
I was indeed lol
Were you there?

Yep I was the guy getting my behind handed to me with 18 wulfen and 30 intecessors which were a glorious plastic grey.

Your last game did look pretty funny, myself and my opponent, looked over at your table after our first turn, and your table had already removed all 7 Repulsors that were on the board, we were very confused.

Silver144 wrote:
Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

Two 5 man.

What objectives are they not clearing? Have you seen a table at turn 3? Its full of depleted units scattered around and damaged vehicles. I've cleared out plenty of depleted 5 man tau/guard/chaos, etc units with them.

Are you assuming that there are no objectives on the table that aren't being camped on? That's not always the case either. Maybe I want the Reivers to re-take an objective in my own deployment zone that was lost after a unit was destroyed and I can't get my other units back in time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

secretForge wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I was indeed lol
Were you there?

Yep I was the guy getting my behind handed to me with 18 wulfen and 30 intecessors which were a glorious plastic grey.

Your last game did look pretty funny, myself and my opponent, looked over at your table after our first turn, and your table had already removed all 7 Repulsors that were on the board, we were very confused.

Hey man, glad to speak to you here! Lol these forums are a real hive of scum and villainy.
I have to play up the snooty persona! :-P

I'm perfectly reasonable in person lol

Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

Anecdotal evidence from dozens of games against top players from the UK, USA and other countries. What's your evidence? You haven't seen someone win a tournament with them?

Read what I say - Reivers are not a meta-busting unit. They will not make your list unbeatable. They can be played in a way to make them useful if you want to run them, that is all.

Ok. They probably will be buffed in this new codex, so could work that way good, will see soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only reason I didn't use them in game yet - I still have no idea what will they become eventually - shooty or choppy unit, so I simply don't know how to build them.

And I don't believe the crap with 2 builds, it's GW, there is only one way the unit will work, the other build is a fake choice.

 Ishagu wrote:
Exactly.

I see a lot of naysayers who literally have Zero experience with the unit, or have played it wrong, or don't really play the game all that often. Ironically these are the people who are the most vocal and hyperbolic and it becomes very tiresome to see.

People need to look beyond math hammer and remember that movement, scoring, objectives and positioning are all part of the game.

Will Reivers work on every game? Nope! But they are only a modest investment in a list.

The problem is that other units do this job better.

With the old rules for grapnels that let them sometimes get guaranteed turn 1 charges they at least had something, but not anymore.

And yes I have used them. Of course it's possible for them to do work, but that isn't the point. The point is the odds are stacked against them, and the cost of the unit can generally be spent on other things for more impact in most games.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you put Reivers on the table? I ask because my (admittedly limited) experience with them has more or less lined up with Ishago's. They're not a great backfield bully with DS, but they're either better or significantly cheaper per wound than the alternatives.

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Because it wasn’t relevant? It didn’t trigger anything, you didn’t need to be a Reiver to use it?

I repeat - Infiltrators are 11.5 per wound when you said Reivers were an attractive 10 points per wound, have Infiltrate and a Anti Deep Strike bubble. And better shooting though Beta Bolter, and their natural 6 gimmick. And a medic. AND objective secured. Why is 10 points great, and 11.5 for far more bad?

Probably he values their ability to arrive turn three.
But this also means you have 200pts less firepower on the table 1st and 2nd turns, and this is pretty rough, marines are already outnumbered in almost every matchup.

Silver144 wrote:
Probably he values their ability to arrive turn three.
But this also means you have 200pts less firepower on the table 1st and 2nd turns, and this is pretty rough, marines are already outnumbered in almost every matchup.

Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k. There are armies that win without ever firing a shot. There are units that make a difference without ever attacking an enemy.

The game is much more than maths and shooting.

i think you are still missing the point Ishagu is trying to make.

late in the game the prospect of deep striking a unit (or two) with the utility to harass the opponents objectives, get line breaker sown up, grab objectives is - as it potentially curbing their moves in case they leave gaps. its the fear they offer an d the versatility. Infiltrators cant do this, yes they are powerful turn 1 but you are comparing apples and oranges here.
like he says its not all about meta and kills off the bat sometimes.

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Because it wasn’t relevant? It didn’t trigger anything, you didn’t need to be a Reiver to use it?

I repeat - Infiltrators are 11.5 per wound when you said Reivers were an attractive 10 points per wound, have Infiltrate and a Anti Deep Strike bubble. And better shooting though Beta Bolter, and their natural 6 gimmick. And a medic. AND objective secured. Why is 10 points great, and 11.5 for far more bad?

Deploying outside of your zone and arriving on turn 3 are two completely different things. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I have no problem with Infiltrators but they perform a different role.

Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Silver144 wrote:
Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Have you not seen Jim Vesal's tournament crushing, mixed daemon army? I believe it has one or maybe two units with ranged weapons in the whole list?
There are literally factions who don't have guns in 40k.

Arguably a bad deployment or use of objective placing/ movements can cost you a game - or very much hinder yourself greatly before any dice have been rolled

Brass eye wrote:
Arguably a bad deployment or use of objective placing/ movements can cost you a game - or very much hinder yourself greatly before any dice have been rolled

Very true. It has happened to me and each time is a learning experience.

 Ishagu wrote:


Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k.

If you want a reasonable discussion with people - because you do have a fair point at the heart of a lot of your posts - you should really try to dial back your tone here. It's very condescending and regardless of whether you are in the right people will react badly to it.

 Ishagu wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Have you not seen Jim Vesal's tournament crushing, mixed daemon army? I believe it has one or maybe two units with ranged weapons in the whole list?
There are literally factions who don't have guns in 40k.

I totally forgot about all-melee armies like daemons, to be honest. Well, in that case your words are true, such armies exist.
For such late purpose SW army have JP veterans with SS and SB, who could arrive t3 and bring better daka for same points. Also I use a single dirtcheap cyberwolfs for the late scoring, just hiding him behind los 1st or 2nd turn (with ETC rules all 1rst floors are los blocks).

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:


Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k.

If you want a reasonable discussion with people - because you do have a fair point at the heart of a lot of your posts - you should really try to dial back your tone here. It's very condescending and regardless of whether you are in the right people will react badly to it.

I see what you mean here, I didn't actually mean it as an insult.

There are multiple levels associated with 40k, the basics and advanced play.

Building a balanced list, learning the rules, optimising - these are all natural progressions. Eventually you come across someone who has also mastered all those points, and advanced play comes in. Out-manoeuvring your opponent, surprising them, deploying with an advantage, etc. This is what I mean. Eventually things which seemed less important becomes the same things that win you the game.

Silver144 wrote:
Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

I see this logic all the time lately.

"That's knight level points"
"Almost a knight"
etc

It's such a terrible way to measure the usefulness of a unit.

Brass eye wrote:
i think you are still missing the point Ishagu is trying to make.

late in the game the prospect of deep striking a unit (or two) with the utility to harass the opponents objectives, get line breaker sown up, grab objectives is - as it potentially curbing their moves in case they leave gaps. its the fear they offer an d the versatility. Infiltrators cant do this, yes they are powerful turn 1 but you are comparing apples and oranges here.
like he says its not all about meta and kills off the bat sometimes.

There are better units to do that for 100 points though already. There's no point to the Reiver entry as is.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:


Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k.

If you want a reasonable discussion with people - because you do have a fair point at the heart of a lot of your posts - you should really try to dial back your tone here. It's very condescending and regardless of whether you are in the right people will react badly to it.

I see what you mean here, I didn't actually mean it as an insult.

There are multiple levels associated with 40k, the basics and advanced play.

Building a balanced list, learning the rules, optimising - these are all natural progressions. Eventually you come across someone who has also mastered all those points, and advanced play comes in. Out-manoeuvring your opponent, surprising them, deploying with an advantage, etc. This is what I mean. Eventually things which seemed less important becomes the same things that win you the game.

This is true, but I do think people are equally susceptible of falling into the opposite trap of ignoring math entirely in favour of statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence.

Approach everything critically and with nuance basically!

Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

Not disagreeing slayer, i was just trying to expand on the point Ishagu was trying to offer with a bit more context and what I thought was trying to be discussed/ explained.
Any in particular you see as better value? i can see vanguards with jet pack may fill this gap here but outside of a mono faction army i am sure there are other imperial units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

Wow bad anecdotal evidence that didn't refute my point.

I can prove 100 points of Reivers do no damage compared to 100 points of Infantry. It isn't difficult.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

Wow bad anecdotal evidence that didn't refute my point.

I can prove 100 points of Reivers do no damage compared to 100 points of Infantry. It isn't difficult.

Lol what are you talking about? You've literally missed the point of everything discussed over the last page.I think you need to grow up and stop being hyperbolic.

I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Point efficiency is very important but it is a very basic layer of the overall game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Can you read? I have outlined multiple uses for them. I have used them in multiple tournament and majors. You don't know what you are talking about.

If people only care about efficiency everyone would be playing an Eldar airforce with Alaitoc. People use the tools their faction of choice provides.

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

The main issue at hand is that mathhammer relies on 100% LOS and 100% within range cases, and the current system/majority of tournaments simply doesn't have enough terrain to let this theoretical case play itself out.

More often than not, a game is decided within the first turn. If it doesn't, then both players are slow playing their games.

In such scenario, the usefulness of such elements that add 'tactical' advantage is near nil - which is the standpoint of people who assert reiver's uselessness/worse choice.

All units on board MUST kill, survive, and scare the opponents. Any units that aren't able to do all three fall short in comparative analysis of the units.

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Point efficiency is very important but it is a very basic layer of the overall game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Can you read? I have outlined multiple uses for them. I have used them in multiple tournament and majors. You don't know what you are talking about.

If people only care about efficiency everyone would be playing an Eldar airforce with Alaitoc. People use the tools their faction of choice provides.

Yeah and they only use the good tools, or are you suggesting people are using their Flayed Ones wrong and they need to L2P?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

Have you actually played the game? I've done the math and I've used them. Is every objective on the board screened by 30 models by turn 3?

I worry about you. You seem to lack confidence to try out anything new. Variety is the spice of life, my friend. Don't cage yourself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Those masks and helmets.
If those masks and helmets were sold seperately I doubt Reivers would even be looked at by most people, I sold the masks and helmets for half the cost of the box when I kitbashed Wulfen out of a Reivers box.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

1. an example would be nice for comparison. i haven't disagreed but it would be nice to have something to compare against.
2. you have missed the point trying to be made here - maybe i was too vague as have other posters. Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

Brass eye wrote:
Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

I'm afraid this simply isn't true due to the escalation of lethality in the game currently. If your opponent is at least a bit competent, your army should be at about 20~30% of its starting strength top of 3rd round, unless you were able to cripple his army first.

It's not uncommon to lose anywhere between 700~1000 pts in the first turn.

 skchsan wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

The main issue at hand is that mathhammer relies on 100% LOS and 100% within range cases, and the current system/majority of tournaments simply doesn't have enough terrain to let this theoretical case play itself out.

More often than not, a game is decided within the first turn. If it doesn't, then both players are slow playing their games.

In such scenario, the usefulness of such elements that add 'tactical' advantage is near nil - which is the standpoint of people who assert reiver's uselessness/worse choice.

All units on board MUST kill, survive, and scare the opponents. Any units that aren't able to do all three fall short in comparative analysis of the units.

Mathhammer just gives you a kind of boundary on unit performance. Since all units for the most part are affected by LoS issues, over many games, these cancel out.

not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

Brass eye wrote:
not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

An inferior unit set up equally poorly does even worse. Deploying to mitigate damage sometimes runs counter to the objectives of the match or isn't even possible due to the shape and nature of terrain.

i would be less concerned about my reivers being set up poorly than i would me setting up my razorback with no LOS. just comparing two units with equal-ish points neither great for what you get).

my opinion is that hard hitting units suffer a larger swing than more meh units.

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

1. an example would be nice for comparison. i haven't disagreed but it would be nice to have something to compare against.
2. you have missed the point trying to be made here - maybe i was too vague as have other posters. Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

1. Well the easiest example by far for these purposes would be Scouts (who have better durability to multi-damage weapons and complete the troop tax), Infiltrators (who get bonuses with their Bolt weapons, fulfill a particular niche with their 12" denial, and once again a troop tax) and Vanguard (who can start behind a building and get anywhere with Fly + superior movement, allowing actual tarpitting, and can fly away and still shoot if you go dual Bolt Pistols or Plasma Pistols). Raven Guard have the ability to Infiltrate units (or get a Scout move depending on if you follow that Errata), Space Wolves get Outflank for 1CP, and Deathwatch can Deep Strike anything in a similar manner for up to 3 units.
2. I know it isn't. However there are mathematically superior units doing that same thing. That's why I'm saying Reivers pay for useless gimmicks like the grapple and morale and Deep Strike. The AP-1 Bolt Pistols are at least a nice touch at least.

Reivers do get some additional utility with the phobos stuff from vanguard. If I just want to remove screens, I think they are better than DC for BA. Now vanilla has vet intercessors, so that might ruin everything for the reivers.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Those masks and helmets.
If those masks and helmets were sold seperately I doubt Reivers would even be looked at by most people, I sold the masks and helmets for half the cost of the box when I kitbashed Wulfen out of a Reivers box.

Skull helmets are still cool no matter how old you are, to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Reivers do get some additional utility with the phobos stuff from vanguard. If I just want to remove screens, I think they are better than DC for BA. Now vanilla has vet intercessors, so that might ruin everything for the reivers.

Honestly there's not much they gain that you REALLY shouldn't just use on anything else Phobos.

Also Death Company can at least reach a unit without much help. You can't say the same for Reivers and you know that as much as you have a hateboner for Death Company.

Brass eye wrote:
not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

Well, the magnitude of alpha strikes got toned down considerably from CA18 deployments for sure. Like I've mentioned however, the typical terrain coverage for many of the major tournament scene are typically less than 10% of the 24 SF. Typically, we're working with about 3 LOS terrains and 4~5 covers - this is not nearly sufficient, which is why the - to hit traits are one of the top tier abilities at the moment.

The game is still by and large Napoleonic standoff. With bigger and badder guns.

I'm using the carbines, so I'm not counting on the charge as much. Sometimes hitting towards the back of the DZ with some ignore cover shots is very worthwhile. Much better than trying to chop my way there. Infiltrators can't move and get full shots out to 24", but their ability is way better.

There's a lot of mortal wounds in the game, and reivers soak them much better than most of my other BA units.

If you want a unit that...

...can deepstrike
...is highly durable
...has a modest amount of shooting
...is competent at melee
...doesn't use more than 5% of your points for a single unit

Then you have certain options.

VV w/ JP are 3 points less than Grav Reivers. They have the same melee attacks, a more basic pistol, and 1 wound less. Reivers are better for the job.
Bolter Inceptors are 35 points and so trade durability for shooting. Reivers are better for the job.
Terminators are 34 points. They're certainly durable and shooty, but for 100 points you can't take 5. Reivers are better for the job.

There are many games I've lost, because my opponent had cheap options to sneak into corners and my deployment late game scoring them secondaries. Reivers may not be as cheap as 5 assault marines, but they're certainly more useful overall.

If you want a unit that comes screeching down with a gakload of toys - VV or terminators might be your thing, but that's not the goal here. Besides all this there are certainly other updates coming in the new codex.

I've used 10 before to stack on unleash rage and the shooting buff. I lost, but not because of them. They were...okay.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If you want a unit that...

...can deepstrike
...is highly durable
...has a modest amount of shooting
...is competent at melee
...doesn't use more than 5% of your points for a single unit

Then you have certain options.

VV w/ JP are 3 points less than Grav Reivers. They have the same melee attacks, a more basic pistol, and 1 wound less. Reivers are better for the job.
Bolter Inceptors are 35 points and so trade durability for shooting. Reivers are better for the job.
Terminators are 34 points. They're certainly durable and shooty, but for 100 points you can't take 5. Reivers are better for the job.

There are many games I've lost, because my opponent had cheap options to sneak into corners and my deployment late game scoring them secondaries. Reivers may not be as cheap as 5 assault marines, but they're certainly more useful overall.

If you want a unit that comes screeching down with a gakload of toys - VV or terminators might be your thing, but that's not the goal here. Besides all this there are certainly other updates coming in the new codex.

Call me old fashioned but I use my AB w/ HB for that role. Nobody seems to prioritize them and usually survives to turn 3. You crawl them over near mid way then advance them forward to contest objectives (because all the troop choices are dead by then).

AB? Is that a dark angel abbrev?

Martel732 wrote:
AB? Is that a dark angel abbrev?

Attack Bike. FWIW, its T5 4W Sv3+ with jink makes it quite durable for early game screening (I use the 100mm base version supplied with the 2017 battleforce which provides it ridiculous amount of DS denial coverage) and late game obj grabber.

Oh yeah, attack bikes. I use them a lot now after the CA price drop. And mine aren't fancy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If you want a unit that...

...can deepstrike
...is highly durable
...has a modest amount of shooting
...is competent at melee
...doesn't use more than 5% of your points for a single unit

Then you have certain options.

VV w/ JP are 3 points less than Grav Reivers. They have the same melee attacks, a more basic pistol, and 1 wound less. Reivers are better for the job.
Bolter Inceptors are 35 points and so trade durability for shooting. Reivers are better for the job.
Terminators are 34 points. They're certainly durable and shooty, but for 100 points you can't take 5. Reivers are better for the job.

There are many games I've lost, because my opponent had cheap options to sneak into corners and my deployment late game scoring them secondaries. Reivers may not be as cheap as 5 assault marines, but they're certainly more useful overall.

If you want a unit that comes screeching down with a gakload of toys - VV or terminators might be your thing, but that's not the goal here. Besides all this there are certainly other updates coming in the new codex.

D2 weapons and abilities are so common having a second wound doesn't matter half the time. If most of what I'm fielding is going to die on an average roll, I'd rather have more cheap bodies than pay for stats that don't matter.

Martel732 wrote:
AB? Is that a dark angel abbrev?

assault Bike.

I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

My biggest issue with them in both theory and in practice is that I have other tools both within the marine book and the wider IOM soup kitchen that can do their job better. Additionally, they are in a FOC slot that is incredibly crowded at this point,

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

this is assuming they don't buff the stats of bolt carbines. we've heard rumor assault bolt rifles are getting buffed

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Ehh IMO DW players aren't that smart. They take vets to much and not enough primaris.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Ehh IMO DW players aren't that smart. They take vets to much and not enough primaris.

DW players are usually Spike players.
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew the game more than yourself.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Ehh IMO DW players aren't that smart. They take vets to much and not enough primaris.

DW players are usually Spike players.
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew the game more than yourself.

I know the game pretty well dude. DW players aren't winning gak with a really good codex they aren't doing something right.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Ehh IMO DW players aren't that smart. They take vets to much and not enough primaris.

DW players are usually Spike players.
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew the game more than yourself.

Not even close to accurate. Most DW players are fotm SS/SB vet players who forget 90% of the strats available to them. I haven't seen a single streamed competitive game at any level where the DW player knew what they were doing.

And I have long been trying to find one. The majority aren't anywhere near open minded enough to even try Primaris. This full on fallacy that everyone takes 2 damage weapons in the dozens keeps them away.

Lemondish wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I feel like with doctrines they are pretty dang good now. You can put them in a really safe place and dump ap-1 downrange.While intercessors can do ap2 - they probably wont be in range of the unit you want. Reivers can target them. I think as imperial fist they will be quite good.

They could already do that under Deathwatch and weren't taken. Bad assessment.

Ehh IMO DW players aren't that smart. They take vets to much and not enough primaris.

DW players are usually Spike players.
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew the game more than yourself.

Not even close to accurate. Most DW players are fotm SS/SB vet players who forget 90% of the strats available to them. I haven't seen a single streamed competitive game at any level where the DW player knew what they were doing.

And I have long been trying to find one. The majority aren't anywhere near open minded enough to even try Primaris. This full on fallacy that everyone takes 2 damage weapons in the dozens keeps them away.

I am sure there are some good DW players but you are right. Most don't even consider primaris. In many cases primaris are better than vets.

I think a 5 man Reiver with HBolt Pistols and Combat knives will be one of my assault units for later game. Perhaps with a Chaplain. if I can delay the assault till the Melee doctrine is up, 20x Str 4 ATK at -1AP rerolling to hit has some clearing possibilities.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

Having utility =/= 'nothing wrong with them'. What's wromg with them is that dozens of units can do what they do either better or cheaper. You can fellate yourself as much as you want about successes you've had with them, but the fact of the matter is that other units just do more for the investment than Reivers do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
I think a 5 man Reiver with HBolt Pistols and Combat knives will be one of my assault units for later game. Perhaps with a Chaplain. if I can delay the assault till the Melee doctrine is up, 20x Str 4 ATK at -1AP rerolling to hit has some clearing possibilities.

You'd be better off taking a unit that's good at assault. Also, isn't a chaplain almost the same price as a unit of reivers? Why wouldn't you just take two units of reivers? Or two chaplains?

Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

This is a big issue with them, they are primarily a melee unit that has no options for taking useful melee weapons. Anything that is scared of S4 ap- attacks is something I can probably just shoot to death and not deal with having to hold a somewhat costly unit in reserves for multiple turns who might not get a charge off anyway. It's a weakness of most of the primaris units in general, GW has basically killed unit options.

 Ishagu wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Probably he values their ability to arrive turn three.
But this also means you have 200pts less firepower on the table 1st and 2nd turns, and this is pretty rough, marines are already outnumbered in almost every matchup.

Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k. There are armies that win without ever firing a shot. There are units that make a difference without ever attacking an enemy.

The game is much more than maths and shooting.

Its not just their firepower you don't get to use for multiple turns. Its that utility. Their potential to draw fire and spread out casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Because it wasn’t relevant? It didn’t trigger anything, you didn’t need to be a Reiver to use it?

I repeat - Infiltrators are 11.5 per wound when you said Reivers were an attractive 10 points per wound, have Infiltrate and a Anti Deep Strike bubble. And better shooting though Beta Bolter, and their natural 6 gimmick. And a medic. AND objective secured. Why is 10 points great, and 11.5 for far more bad?

Deploying outside of your zone and arriving on turn 3 are two completely different things. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I have no problem with Infiltrators but they perform a different role.

No, I'm comparing you drooling over 10 points a wound, and complaining about 11.5 points a wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

I frequently take things that aren't points efficient. That doesn't mean I don't know they're not points efficient, and I could have taken something better.

What's with their name? It sits far outside the theme of the other names.

It's like having mates called maximus, thor, belephon and Bob....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

Intercessors have neither Deep Strike nor Infiltrate, no shortcut across the board - which is the "utility" he's talking about.

Of course, they pay as much for one third of a Jump Pack utility as Assault Marines pay for all three thirds - Deep Strike, ignore height, Movement Speed.

But it's hard to figure out the thinking. 10 points per model for a little utility is good, 11.5 for more is over-costed. A drop Pod is 8 points per wound, and has the same deep strike rule as the Reivers, giving you linebreaker and scoring an undefended objective - but Drop Pods are bad I'm being told.

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

Intercessors have neither Deep Strike nor Infiltrate, no shortcut across the board - which is the "utility" he's talking about.

Of course, they pay as much for one third of a Jump Pack utility as Assault Marines pay for all three thirds - Deep Strike, ignore height, Movement Speed.

But it's hard to figure out the thinking. 10 points per model for a little utility is good, 11.5 for more is over-costed. A drop Pod is 8 points per wound, and has the same deep strike rule as the Reivers, giving you linebreaker and scoring an undefended objective - but Drop Pods are bad I'm being told.

Pods are horrendous when used offensively, largely because there's really nothing you can put it in to make 65 pts deepstrike upgrade worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My biggest issue with them in both theory and in practice is that I have other tools both within the marine book and the wider IOM soup kitchen that can do their job better. Additionally, they are in a FOC slot that is incredibly crowded at this point,

What other elite slot units are you taking may I ask? I always find SM elite slot largely unused because they're typically overcosted.

I gotta admit, I was pretty dead set at ranking Reivers are garbage, but this thread has changed my mind somewhat. Primaris heavy armies really struggle with late game mobility, so I could see the reivers making a difference there.

Like others, I'm concerned about the loss of early game firepower, as well as thinking you could hedge your bets with attack bikes as a late turn objective grabber.

Thing is, with the new buffs, White Scar reivers look amazing. extra attacks, extra damage on hits, etc. Their biggest weakness is still their low-strength attacks.

The only time i've seen them used close to their purpose is in a game of UM vs AM+, clearing out sniper units clumped on the top of a tower. They are in my mind an anti squatter unit. They can easily tie up snipers and what not in places it would take 1-2 turns for normal infantry to do, for a lot less cost.

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

Intercessors have neither Deep Strike nor Infiltrate, no shortcut across the board - which is the "utility" he's talking about.

Of course, they pay as much for one third of a Jump Pack utility as Assault Marines pay for all three thirds - Deep Strike, ignore height, Movement Speed.

But it's hard to figure out the thinking. 10 points per model for a little utility is good, 11.5 for more is over-costed. A drop Pod is 8 points per wound, and has the same deep strike rule as the Reivers, giving you linebreaker and scoring an undefended objective - but Drop Pods are bad I'm being told.

Reivers don't have Infiltrate either so...
Also the utility that Infiltrators offer is a LOT better for those couple of points. Denying Deep Strike space is better than morale stuff that doesn't do anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Intercessors are better at assault as they can be Vets and have a Power Sword/Fist

Intercessors have neither Deep Strike nor Infiltrate, no shortcut across the board - which is the "utility" he's talking about.

Of course, they pay as much for one third of a Jump Pack utility as Assault Marines pay for all three thirds - Deep Strike, ignore height, Movement Speed.

But it's hard to figure out the thinking. 10 points per model for a little utility is good, 11.5 for more is over-costed. A drop Pod is 8 points per wound, and has the same deep strike rule as the Reivers, giving you linebreaker and scoring an undefended objective - but Drop Pods are bad I'm being told.

Reivers don't have Infiltrate either so...
Also the utility that Infiltrators offer is a LOT better for those couple of points. Denying Deep Strike space is better than morale stuff that doesn't do anything.

For me, Infiltrators are a bit of a tough sell as they command a premium on points for features I don't know I will make very good use of. I am far more comfortable with what Intercessors bring to the table and have accepted how much of my budget they are going to cost me. I am not that bothered by my opponent's deep strike much since it doesn't really disrupt my army that much (flying tanks and infantry that has been hitting decently well in close combat). Plus, anything I put into deep strike usually does affect what my opponent does with his. I also think I am fairly weak at deployment (I have been in any other wargame) so it is easy enough for me to position Infiltrators where they are basically cut off from the rest of my force and can be easily defeated in detail. I am trying to include them in my army more often, but every time I feel like I am using them poorly. So there is a good chance I am not making the best use of Infiltrators to want to use them in place of Reviers. Besides I like the Reviers models more.

I think there is something to be said for Reivers being forced to deploy (unless in your deployment zone) no earlier than turn 2 and possibly turn 3 being a better time to bring them in if you can manage the fight 10% or less than you would have otherwise. Part of me think Reivers might be pretty good as mop up teams for enemy units that have been beat up during previous rounds. I just need the rest of my army to be able to make that opportunity happen, but I am willing to give it a go. I can, and have, see Reivers being much better taking and holding an objective compared to assault marines. Reivers have just a little more killing power (that Terror Troops thing can have a little bit of use on occasion) and much better staying power. I am pretty sure you say that Damage 2 weapons are everywhere, but I haven't had that issue as much as it had been stated on Dakka Dakka. I don't play on the bleeding edge of the meta, so Hakuna Matata.

It is possible that Reivers work pretty well on a 'come from behind strategy for progressive scoring missions if they deep strike late. I have always leaned toward an alpha strike play style and trying not to run out of steam late game so I don't have much experience with it. I do appreciate the feedback from Ishagu and Martel732. Both of them have given me things to consider I previously didn't.

BT reivers can use vanguard hq to charge pretty reliably too.

 skchsan wrote:


Pods are horrendous when used offensively, largely because there's really nothing you can put it in to make 65 pts deepstrike upgrade worthwhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
My biggest issue with them in both theory and in practice is that I have other tools both within the marine book and the wider IOM soup kitchen that can do their job better. Additionally, they are in a FOC slot that is incredibly crowded at this point,

What other elite slot units are you taking may I ask? I always find SM elite slot largely unused because they're typically overcosted.

You can make the pod worthwhile, but that wasn't the point. A pod is 8 points per wound and deep strikes. Equal or better to the criteria for thinking Reivers are good.

The Elite slot is overstuffed after the breakup of the Command Squad. Your Command Squad now take four Elite Slots - assuming you make the entire thing. Plus Aggressors, Vanguard Vets, Sternguard, Termies, and Dreads.

Dreads, apothecaries (especially on a bike) , FW units of all kinds and stern guard are still solid with the new bolter rules and now the new assault rules. Biggest thing is if I need a unit to magically appear on turn 2 or 3 I have other slots and units that can do that.

If they had a way to access to a real melee weapon or short range plasma I'd buy into them more. Another issue I have with them is that their movement rules are either clutch or useless depending on what the board has as terrain.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Reivers don't have Infiltrate either so...
Also the utility that Infiltrators offer is a LOT better for those couple of points. Denying Deep Strike space is better than morale stuff that doesn't do anything.

That was the point I was making.

Well, now there are ways to get +2 to the charge using CT combinations.

This means you can have Reivers arriving from reserve, charging reliably and hitting with 41 Attacks at Ap-1

Sounds great by any measure

 Ishagu wrote:
Well, now there are ways to get +2 to the charge using CT combinations.

This means you can have Reivers arriving from reserve, charging reliably and hitting with 41 Attacks at Ap-1

Sounds great by any measure

For about the same points 13-15 Assault Marines will arrive from reserve and get 41 to 49 AP-1 attacks with the full utility of Jump Packs - including the FLY.

But they have only 1 wound and inferior shooting. Those are big downsides.

 Ishagu wrote:
But they have only 1 wound and inferior shooting. Those are big downsides.

How do you put it? Aha you're one of those who only cares about killing. There's more to this game at the highest levels of the highest tournaments than maths. There's the utility of FLY

They have fewer wounds, and more models nullifying most Multi-wound damage weapons.

I get you're trying to make the case they're good. They're not. They're not bad either but everything you're trying to show them being good because of can be done cheaper or better. A Drop Pod deepstrikes for 8 points per wound. Assault Marines - point for point - will drop roughly 75% of the wounds on 150% of the models for the same or so cost and deal another 20% or so of the attacks. Infiltrators have far more utility that is far more useful. You've moved the goalposts on Reivers several times now trying to make the case that they're good at 10 points per wound while Infiltrators are too expensive at 11.5.

Phobos lieutenants get Terror troops and Terror Troops stacks like Night Lords now. I think I heard in a review that Reivers went down a point or two.

 Ishagu wrote:
But they have only 1 wound and inferior shooting. Those are big downsides.

Again, given how common 2d weapons or other tricks are, having two wounds is often paying points for something that doesn't matter.

Make a custom chapter with Hungry for Battle and Fearsome Aspect. +1 to advance and charge and -1 ld while in 3”, respectively. Take a Phobos lieutenant, give him a hero of the chapter warlord trait (master of the vanguard for +1 to advance and charge)

With two units of Reivers, that’s what? -4 ld and +2 to advance and charge? Has anyone seen the max of how much just Terror Troops stacks now? Add a Phobos Librarian for another -1 leadership by using Hallucination.

I haven’t run the math, but I still think carbines are better than knives, though the different phases may change this. Heavy bolt pistols are -2 AP in the assault phase, right?

If you get lucky with a chaplain, get Canticle of Hate off for +2 to charge and additional 3” consolidation.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Heavy bolt pistols are -2 AP in the assault phase, right?

If you get lucky with a chaplain, get Canticle of Hate off for +2 to charge and additional 3” consolidation.

Heavy Bolt Pistols are Pistol 1 -2 with the Assault Doctrine in the shooting phase. The Combat knife is 4A/5A (Sgt) -1 on the charge. You should get both if you're getting the charge. The Carbine is what Assault 2 -1 With Tactical Doctrine in the shooting phase? Devastator and Tactical Doctrines are where you'll likely spend most of your time, of course, but you're getting a LOT more dice with the pistol and knife.

Or you can just go for Vanguard and get 5 AP-1 attacks on the charge.

Reivers have dropped in points. Only 16 points per man.

I'm going to continue running two squads. Very cheap for what they do now.

They're still crap at 16 points.

Primaris heavy armies are unlikely to ever want to switch to Assault Doctrine, so Reivers likely won't benefit.

Point drop is nice, but they need that AP to be actually good.

 Stux wrote:
Primaris heavy armies are unlikely to ever want to switch to Assault Doctrine, so Reivers likely won't benefit.

Point drop is nice, but they need that AP to be actually good.

I'm running mine with Carbines to steal objectives and line breaker. Fantastic to get 10 3+ save wounds anywhere on the table for 90 points. As far as I'm concerned they got Ap-1 on the gun and fell by 10 points. If they get into cc they have an extra attack. All good.

I love Reivers by concept but in use, I don't know I'm not thrilled. I get the point of them but they tend to leave me feeling meh. I hope they are awesome one day.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Primaris heavy armies are unlikely to ever want to switch to Assault Doctrine, so Reivers likely won't benefit.

Point drop is nice, but they need that AP to be actually good.

I'm running mine with Carbines to steal objectives and line breaker. Fantastic to get 10 3+ save wounds anywhere on the table for 90 points. As far as I'm concerned they got Ap-1 on the gun and fell by 10 points. If they get into cc they have an extra attack. All good.

Still not convinced that's great in all honesty. Ok ish I suppose.

Also mine are assembled with pistol and knife, so guess they'll stay on the shelf.

They aren't killing Knights or slaying Custodes, but they are pretty darn cheap for the inbuilt rules.

The cheapest Primaris infantry. It's affordable board control.

 Ishagu wrote:
They aren't killing Knights or slaying Custodes, but they are pretty darn cheap for the inbuilt rules.

The cheapest Primaris infantry. It's affordable board control.

You would have a point now if they were Troops. As it is you still have to take a bunch of that other Primaris infantry.

Maybe I want to run a Vanguard detachment?

 Ishagu wrote:
Maybe I want to run a Vanguard detachment?

Maybe you do, but you still don't get ObSec on those Reivers and you're losing a LOT of CP.

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Maybe I want to run a Vanguard detachment?

Maybe you do, but you still don't get ObSec on those Reivers and you're losing a LOT of CP.

So what makes you think that any objective they capture has to be contested? Have you ever played the game? Lots are not contested by turn 3/4 as armies take casualties.

You do realise there are many situations where you can shoot a Troop unit off an objective, but that doesn't mean the unit that did the shooting can capture it.

This is where Reivers come in. I can fire my Intercessors from 30" away, and the Reivers can mop up or actually take the objective that the Intercessors cleared out, which could be on the other side of the table or in the enemy deployment.

The Reivers are a tool on the chest, a single cog in the machine, a piece of the puzzle. You need to stop thinking about everything in a vacuum and try to consider how the units can work alongside others.

As it stands the Reivers are the CHEAPEST 2 wound infantry in the book that can arrive anywhere on the board. This is their utility, I will be using it. Think bigger than just the unit in a vacuum by itself.

Stop it with the personal insults. Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously if you're going to behave like that. Anyone can 'imagine' a situation where they work. That doesn't make them a good choice.

I'm not saying they are terrible like some are. I'm saying they are meh. In an ideal situation they can do alright I'm sure. But only in an ideal situation. In many lists they will be a liability still.

What are you expecting from a 16 point model? 10 attacks that ignore armour and wound on a 2+?

It's a 2 wound marine with a ld debuff and 3/4 attacks on the charge. For 16 points.

 Ishagu wrote:
What are you expecting from a 16 point model? 10 attacks that ignore armour and wound on a 2+?

It's a 2 wound marine with a ld debuff and 3/4 attacks on the charge. For 16 points.

3/4 poor quality attacks. LD debuffs rarely do much except in specific matchups. The second wound often doesn't help. If they can drop anywhere useful that often means your opponent failed to screen properly.

What I expect is the ability to take special weapons or power weapons. That would instantly make the unit far more attractive.

If you can't see what else your list could be doing, maybe you lack imagination?

We had a discussion about judging units simply by their damage output.
If that's the stage you're at as a player I suggest you need more experience actually playing. That's my advice to you.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Maybe I want to run a Vanguard detachment?

Maybe you do, but you still don't get ObSec on those Reivers and you're losing a LOT of CP.

So what makes you think that any objective they capture has to be contested? Have you ever played the game? Lots are not contested by turn 3/4 as armies take casualties.

You do realise there are many situations where you can shoot a Troop unit off an objective, but that doesn't mean the unit that did the shooting can capture it.

This is where Reivers come in. I can fire my Intercessors from 30" away, and the Reivers can mop up or actually take the objective that the Intercessors cleared out, which could be on the other side of the table or in the enemy deployment.

The Reivers are a tool on the chest, a single cog in the machine, a piece of the puzzle. You need to stop thinking about everything in a vacuum and try to consider how the units can work alongside others.

As it stands the Reivers are the CHEAPEST 2 wound infantry in the book that can arrive anywhere on the board. This is their utility, I will be using it. Think bigger than just the unit in a vacuum by itself.

If you shot the infantry off the objective with some other unit, you can take it and Linebreaker with a 65 point Drop Pod. Even cheaper than your Reivers.

Drop Pod can't move. It can't hide.

 Ishagu wrote:
We had a discussion about judging units simply by their damage output.
If that's the stage you're at as a player I suggest you need more experience actually playing. That's my advice to you.

Again with the condescending attitude. You are very toxic to this community.

I have plenty of experience thank you, though I continue to add to it and re-evaluate with new evidence.. Your disregard for anyone else's experience or advice in the face of a poor unit is really quite worrying.

 Ishagu wrote:
We had a discussion about judging units simply by their damage output.
If that's the stage you're at as a player I suggest you need more experience actually playing. That's my advice to you.

We have had several discussions:
- where you said 10 points per wound was outstanding, yet 11.5 was too high for a unit with more damage output and more utility
- where you claim it's the cheap deep striking and not really "utility" after all. But a Drop Pod strikes cheaper.
- where you constantly move your goalposts when your reasoning doesn't work
- where when even that doesn't work, you try and pin it on your vast experience playing at a high level in high level tournaments, even though you fail at the lowest levels of geometry and addition. How are you coming on that 450 square inches of aura you can get for cheaper than 350 and a 6 CP swing?

Perhaps if you just said you like them, even though they're at best average, and at worst slightly below average for personal reasons instead of trying to make up a logical rationale that falls apart time and again? You know, the honest approach. It'll do far more for your credibility than some smug "you just suck" come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move. It can't hide.

But it can take that empty objective. You keep changing your rules when your rules don't work for you.

Breton wrote:


Perhaps if you just said you like them, even though they're at best average, and at worst slightly below average for personal reasons instead of trying to make up a logical rationale that falls apart time and again? You know, the honest approach. It'll do far more for your credibility than some smug "you just suck" come back.

100% this.

I think they look cool too. I probably will use them again, as with the new rules while they still aren't great they aren't hobbling my list any more - and I like them.

It's totally ok to want to get the most out of an underperforming unit, there is more to the hobby than maximising wins after all.

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
We had a discussion about judging units simply by their damage output.
If that's the stage you're at as a player I suggest you need more experience actually playing. That's my advice to you.

We have had several discussions:
- where you said 10 points per wound was outstanding, yet 11.5 was too high for a unit with more damage output and more utility
- where you claim it's the cheap deep striking and not really "utility" after all. But a Drop Pod strikes cheaper.
- where you constantly move your goalposts when your reasoning doesn't work
- where when even that doesn't work, you try and pin it on your vast experience playing at a high level in high level tournaments, even though you fail at the lowest levels of geometry and addition. How are you coming on that 450 square inches of aura you can get for cheaper than 350 and a 6 CP swing?

Perhaps if you just said you like them, even though they're at best average, and at worst slightly below average for personal reasons instead of trying to make up a logical rationale that falls apart time and again? You know, the honest approach. It'll do far more for your credibility than some smug "you just suck" come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move. It can't hide.

But it can take that empty objective. You keep changing your rules when your rules don't work for you.

Never moved a goal post once. Maybe you can't read?

Reivers were usable before, they are better now. My reasoning for using them has not chanted once.

If you don't like them don't use them. Don't get upset when others play the game at a more advanced level that is perhaps beyond you.

 Ishagu wrote:


Don't get upset when others play the game at a more advanced level that is perhaps beyond you.

Irony Alert!

Maybe you can't read?

I should probably tell you "moving goalposts" doesn't mean LITERALLY moving goal posts. Its a euphemism for changing what you said when what you said turns out to be wrong. And that's all you do. When you aren't trying a false appeal to authority or an appeal to a false authority, or a false appeal to a false authority.

We have had several discussions:
- where you said 10 points per wound was outstanding, yet 11.5 was too high for a unit with more damage output and more utility
- where you claim it's the cheap deep striking and not really "utility" after all. But a Drop Pod strikes cheaper.
- where you constantly move your goalposts when your reasoning doesn't work
- where when even that doesn't work, you try and pin it on your vast experience playing at a high level in high level tournaments, even though you fail at the lowest levels of geometry and addition. How are you coming on that 450 square inches of aura you can get for cheaper than 350 and a 6 CP swing?

Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

I've used everything from Vanilla SM but Centurions.

I'm going to assume from your reply you don't know what a False Appeal to a False Authority is either. But the highest level of the highest tournament thing does appear to be your go-to when you can't actually win the game on logic. To which, all I can say is...

 Ishagu wrote:


Don't get upset when others play the game at a more advanced level that is perhaps beyond you.

It's because I see so many loudmouthed players who don't even play all that often.

I also don't understand why it's your mission to talk a unit down. If you don't like it don't use it.
I like it - it fills a utility spot in my army. I win a lot, against many different factions, in many different places.

So when you talk a unit down, that does OK with me, and I have lots of real, tangible experience to fall back on, I guess I'm going to disagree.

Why do you think I can get a decent use out of the unit but you can't?

keep in mind the Indomatus disipline makes taking a pair of UM Libbys as your HQs a "not entirely bad idea"

 Ishagu wrote:
It's because I see so many loudmouthed players who don't even play all that often.

I also don't understand why it's your mission to talk a unit down. If you don't like it don't use it.

I'm not talking it down, I'm talking it accurately. Its not good, its not bad. It should be better.

I like it - it fills a utility spot in my army. I win a lot, against many different factions, in many different places.

So when you talk a unit down, that does OK with me, and I have lots of real, tangible experience to fall back on, I guess I'm going to disagree.

Why do you think I can get a decent use out of the unit but you can't?

Why do you think I didn't get decent use out of it? Because I'm more honest than you? I explained the issues most people have with the unit. I pointed out the flaws in your attempts to talk the unit up higher than it is.

10 points per wound.
But 11.5 is too high for better damage and more utility.

Its not utility, its deepstrike.
Drop Pods deep strike for cheaper.

Drop Pods can't move or hide.
Why do they need to, they're on the your Intercessors cleared?

I PLAY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE THE HIGHEST TOURNAMENTS AND YOU SUCK!.

The OP asked what was wrong with them, I told him. You tried to tell him nothing was wrong with them because of a litany of things other units do better, cheaper, or both.

I find a lot of people judge a unit by how effective it is vs space Marines. so a unit like Reivers, with a null AP close combat weapon, etc, that is clearly designed for say... killing stuff like a hoard of chaos cultists. isn't going to be seen in a terriably great light. even though I bet if someone did the math reivers would be reasonably good at disrupting a cultistst blob.

@Breton

8 points per wound now.

Have I not pointed out flaws? Am I not writing in English?

They don't put out a lot of damage and they don't have obsec.
I'm happy to overlook these flaws for good durability on a cheap unit that has access to deployment from reserves.

Show me where I said they are a must take unit, or the best in codex?

I'm saying they aren't useless and can have a place in a list. What are you trying to say?

 Ishagu wrote:
@Breton

8 points per wound now.

8 points per wound in about a week. And 10 points when you had to engage in your gymnastics over utiltiy, 10 points per wound, 11.5 points per wound and Infiltrators.

Have I not pointed out flaws? Am I not writing in English?

They don't put out a lot of damage and they don't have obsec.

Nope, you've been busy smugly telling people something along the lines of "Aha you're one of those damage people... when you're as good as I am, there's more to it than that". There's Utility. By which you meant not utility, but deepstrike. By which you didn't mean deepstrike because Drop Pods don't count, you meant there's... Reivers?

In fact your first reply was There's Nothing Wrong With Them before breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

I'm happy to overlook these flaws for good durability on a cheap unit that has access to deployment from reserves.

You are? That's shocking, because when a Deep Striking Drop Pod for fewer points was brought up you were.. unwilling to overlook it's flaws.

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move. It can't hide.

I'm just gonna say it straight. Reavers were bad with their release. They were bad with their multi-part kit. Then Shadowspear released. Infiltrators do literally everything they do better. Diversified deployment? Check. AP0 bolters? Check. A piece of wargear with a cute meme? Check.

UnlessReavers get something to help them with their supposed 'msu harassment' role, then they are going to be worse assault marines, whichs is saying something. Maybe if their grenades could be used within 1" of an enemy and prevented units from falling back they could be useful. But as it stands if you REALLY want to tie up a backfield unit, get some VGV or assault marines. Both do the same job but with more utility, either in the form of real melee weapons or the ability to take meaningful special weapons.

Reavers are bad. So bad they get ignored on every table I've seen them on because of how ineffectual they are. Bad enough that after I built my first 5, the rest are still sitting on their sprue. Stop defending crap units and giving potential new people a false impression. You don't see anyone defending mutilators here do you? In fact... I'm going to say it. Reavers are worse than Mutailators. Because if you ignore Reavers you might take a few ap-1 pistol shots or *gasp* wont be able to fire overwatch against a unit with crap melee weapons. Ignore mutilators too long and they can actually do appreciable damage if they roll high on their lolrandomchaosweapons table. over.

That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

There is a significant difference between deploying outside of normal limitations and being able to arrive anywhere mid game.

People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

Hopefully 1 each. Both only give at best a third of the utility of a 2 point Jump Pack. If you take both and get to count as a jump pack using the grapplegun to launch you into the air, and the grav chute to coast along at 12" per turn it wouldn't suck. Like the grapple gun in Assassin's Creed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
There is a significant difference between deploying outside of normal limitations and being able to arrive anywhere mid game.

You mean like a Drop Pod?

Drop Pod can't move, hide or fight, can't be dropped inside a ruin.

I've used an opponent's drop pod to keep my units from getting shot by assaulting it.

If you prefer it go right ahead.

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move, hide or fight, can't be dropped inside a ruin.

You do know that you're allowed to put an unit in a drop pod that can move and fight?

Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

You play at higher than 2k usually?

Because if you want to Deep Strike Reivers, they're 100 points minimum.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Drop pod and unit(s) one puts in it. What’s the percentage?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You play at higher than 2k usually?

Because if you want to Deep Strike Reivers, they're 100 points minimum.

He plays at the highest level of the highest tournaments. Maybe they get a discount or bonus points.

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

I typically only take one of the upgrades or the other usually taking grav chutes as it is generally more useful. Grapplers are something I take if I find I have extra points after including everything I want in my list since the upgrade doesn't always get much use depending on the table layout and where I place them but they are only an extra 5-10 points. Grapplers really remind me of games where you can upgrade a unit to be amphibious. Worth 5 times its points on some tables worth nothing most of the time.

For me, I find Reivers marginally more useful than Infiltrators, but I don't think I am very good at using Infiltrators yet. Even with all of the upgrades, Reivers were a noticeable amount cheaper. I haven't dropped Reivers later than turn two, so I don't how much that makes a difference. I can say there have been the rare times my knife (well chainsword in my case) Reivers almost stole an objective from chaff troops. They just didn't quite have the killing power to wipe out the chaff quickly to take it away but did have greater numbers. I only have 7 knife Reiver models and one is modeled to indicate that they have grapplers, so I usually run them in a squad of 6 (it is a bit of a fluff reason for 6 man squads with me). Previously, I wondered if just upping the squad size would cover it as 3-4 x3 attacks might have been the difference. With Shock Assault that might push them over the top as well. I will have to find out when I get the new codex.

Just the same I would feel more comfortable in Reivers doing their job if they had Objective Secured. Which would mean they would have to be moved to the Troop slot, and I don't really see GW doing that as Primaris seem to be tripling the number of Troop options for space marines without them. I will admit, I still don't believe that Incursors are Troops. They feel very Elites to me, more so that Reivers in any case.

I do think that 16 points (well 17 since you probably are going to take at least one of their move upgrades) is pretty good spot for them. I still don't quite agree as I don't find the non-upgraded Reiver brings anything extra to the basic Intercessor (they are going to be 15 points right?), but points saved are points saved.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Drop pod and unit(s) one puts in it. What’s the percentage?

Don’t know, I’m not the one pushing Reivers to take an empty objective after my intercessors have cleared it, and score Line Breaker, because they’re cheap, yet more expensive than an empty drop pod that does both cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

I typically only take one of the upgrades or the other usually taking grav chutes as it is generally more useful.

Don’t overlook the Grapplers. They don’t allow deepstrike, but they do allow outflank, which can be an even bigger monkey wrench if you can take advantage of deployment psychology.

Breton wrote:
That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

Nah they're actually bad. All those bonuses you named can apply to Vanguard, an actually dangerous unit now. Dual Chainswords is pretty dangerous with them under the Assault Doctrine and the pistols don't matter much, especially when things you might want to shoot at are the thing you need to charge at (aka your opponent removing the closest models).

If they aren't good under Deathwatch, they still won't be good now.

I've proxied them several times and they are a meh unit in a crowded slot. Especially with some of the more recent changes coming down the pipe. There are a lot of units, (dreadnoughts, Sternguard, apothecary both on foot or a bike and FW units) i'd spend points on.

There a bully unit that really only do one thing well, show up late to the party any were on the field. Two wounds doesn't mean much this edition, a bunch of S4 attacks scares nothing tougher than a guardsmen and marines have other things that can just pop up where they want.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

You're the one saying you go to tournaments yet we have no spectacular results from you doing this. Wonder why that is.

Breton wrote:
That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

This concept of "below average" - how do you measure the averageness of deep striking and being hard to remove?

Sure, every is just going to point and say "look at all the D2 weapons!", but that isn't an accounting of how they perform in games.

I'd bet I can call out more weapons that kill old marines fast and theyd be just as common.

We dont see reivers often in tournaments or we dont take notice, because they're not game changers- nor should they be. And that's the problem with the perfidious internet opinion that keeps models off the table - it keeps people from trying the unit.

It's the same thing with rubric marines. People bashed them almost universally, but then some took the time to let them develop in a list and took them to top tables several times.

The point is, Reivers have 2 niche applications:
1. Grab uncontested back line objectives.
2. Rush units camped within upper levels of ruin.

The issue is that, whatever the case that a tactical manuever may be called upon, simply shooting at the units kingdom come solves the problem faster and better.

Reivers are fancy pants units that offer another dimension to seemingly "strategic" wargame, but the fact of matter stands: 40K is a game of shooting thing dead as primary means of defense and offense.

Oh you have cover? let me either swamp you with weight of dice or mortal wounds.
Oh you have no los? let me bombard you weapons that ignore los.
Oh you're grabbing that objective? let me kill you before you can progressively score.

You have to still have those models on the board to employ weight of dice. And those units are quite unlikely to be able to get linebreaker turn 3 and on.

Reivers still suck but a good thing about the marines now most likely being disgustingly OP is that in a casual environment you can afford to include some dud units.

 Crimson wrote:
Reivers still suck but a good thing about the marines now most likely being disgustingly OP is that in a casual environment you can afford to include some dud units.

This might be coloring a lot of this conversation. Up until marine 2.0 if you were really in a competitive game, marines didn't have the luxury of taking a unit just cause it was cool or you liked the models. My initial opinion is GW might have over corrected a bit but until I play a few games with the new book, the jury is still out.

 Crimson wrote:
Reivers still suck but a good thing about the marines now most likely being disgustingly OP is that in a casual environment you can afford to include some dud units.

I don't think they will be disgustingly OP but I think you'll be able to do well with just a Tac list instead of a skew list

Ishagu, you can be pretty unnecessarily combative, but I do agree with you a lot of the time, here included. I've used 1 5-man squad quite a few times, and usually deploy them T3 to threaten a de-wrapped HVT, an objective, etc., or T2 in ITC for linebreaker.

I may be biased because I run DW 50% of the time, and so they get access to our lovely ammo, but I think they fundamentally fulfill a needed role. They're better now, and so I might try and squeeze them in some more lists... BUT to be honest, VanVets are very solid now, and have a great new strat meaning even the blender double chainsword build can threaten a bit of damage on heavies.

I'm torn to be honest with you. Different roles, but VVs can do a reiver's obj-sitting for a turn then fly off to tie, wrap or blend, all with 3++.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You have to still have those models on the board to employ weight of dice. And those units are quite unlikely to be able to get linebreaker turn 3 and on.

T3 point accrual is a hail mary type manuever in 40k. If you played right/dice god is in your favor/had a good match up gathering points in T3 is inconsequential to your victory.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

This concept of "below average" - how do you measure the averageness of deep striking and being hard to remove?

By comparing it against other Deep Striking 3+? And Infiltrating 3+? And Infiltrating 4+ with Camo Cloaks? The way I've been doing since Ishagu started coming up with reasons they're good at 10 points per wound but 11.5 for Infiltrators was bad?

Sure, every is just going to point and say "look at all the D2 weapons!", but that isn't an accounting of how they perform in games.

No, "everyone" is not. I haven't said that at all, unless I was replying to someone else that said it.

I'd bet I can call out more weapons that kill old marines fast and theyd be just as common.

I daresay moreso as the same weapons that kill Primaris fast will kill 1.0's just as fast. I'm not seeing your point?

We dont see reivers often in tournaments or we dont take notice, because they're not game changers- nor should they be. And that's the problem with the perfidious internet opinion that keeps models off the table - it keeps people from trying the unit.

We don't see Reivers often in tournaments because they're lackluster, in an overcrowded slot, with better options. For the reason Ishagu claimed, a Drop Pod is a better choice - taking an empty objective and scoring line breaker - the Drop Pod is cheaper, and doesn't take a slot.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You have to still have those models on the board to employ weight of dice. And those units are quite unlikely to be able to get linebreaker turn 3 and on.

Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Silver144 wrote:
Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Agreed, Assault Bolt rifles now being 50% more effective than Bolt Carbines is definitely a knock for Reivers

Silver144 wrote:
Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Assuming your 20" estimate is correct 9 inches left, 9 inches right, 2 inches base - depending on how you want to count the doors as well), each drop pod will Deep Strike Deny 314 square inches. A 4x8 table is 4608 Square inches - Your half is 2304. A 4x6 table is 3456 square inches, and your half is 1728 square inches. Obviously with a 20 inch diameter you can't block your entire half, but even 2 or 3 drop pods can ruin half the board for deep striking, leaving them preselected spots to drop, or not drop on your side at all. Drop on your side of the board, or in the corner 60 inches away from everything would be a sucky choice to have to make. Potentially enough to buy your Repulsors time to drive around as they open up your side of the board again by focusing their anti-tank on your pods. .

As for Assault Bolt Rifles. I'm unconvinced, but curious. Stalker Bolt Rifles had half or 1 less shot and double or 1 more AP than Bolt Rifles. Was it the 1 more or the double that kept them fairly close to each other? Auto Bolt Rifles will have the one more but not the double. And they may STILL cost more.

I think more like cover my devastators from one side, or deny DS in some ruin, something like that.
I will never put it near the objective, because it will be free movement and anti shooting bunker for my opponent, but to prevent DS on some random place... Well, why not. Still pricy tho.

Silver144 wrote:
I think more like cover my devastators from one side, or deny DS in some ruin, something like that.
I will never put it near the objective, because it will be free movement and anti shooting bunker for my opponent, but to prevent DS on some random place... Well, why not. Still pricy tho.

Put the objective in the corner, Deep Strike the Pod further out towards midfield with your Intercessors on the objective. The Intercessors prevent DS onto the objective directly, the Pod prevents another 15 or so inches of nearby but not quite direct Deep Strike. If you do it right you can use one Pod to shield two objectives and hold them both with one intercessor squad, and your opponent has gotta slow walk the whole way there.

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

After the leaks, I'm giving reivers C+. They have their uses, but far from autotake. On some boards, the grapples can turn into huge amounts of movement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

Hiding 90 points isn't likely to harm your ability to kill more / hold more. It's quite unlikely for hold more to be activated in early rounds unless your opponent has a really aggressive army. And if you're going second your ability to respond in-kind is pretty crucial.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

Hiding 90 points isn't likely to harm your ability to kill more / hold more. It's quite unlikely for hold more to be activated in early rounds unless your opponent has a really aggressive army. And if you're going second your ability to respond in-kind is pretty crucial.

Going second is all the craze right now. Alpha strikes now happen at bottom of 1st round. Better to have everything possible on board than not after deep strike nerf to round 2, even if its just "90 points".

The epithet "best defense is strong offense" holds very true for current 8th ed.

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

I was under the impression he meant we should tell a new player asking a generic question an answer based on a tiny fraction of a rare subset of rules because that's the only thing that matters, not the far more common BRB set of rules you'll find being used in the FLGS the OP is far more likely to be playing in.

Breton wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

I was under the impression he meant we should tell a new player asking a generic question an answer based on a tiny fraction of a rare subset of rules because that's the only thing that matters, not the far more common BRB set of rules you'll find being used in the FLGS the OP is far more likely to be playing in.

agreed, it baffles me the number of times we get a thread that essentially has a structure like this..

"Hi guys I'm a brand new player, I'm playing with my brother and his friend in our garage. my brother plays Necrons and his friend plays Grey Knights, I'm playing Space Marines. any basic advice?"
"HI! Welcome to DakkaDakka. your army sucks and you suck. your brother and his friend clearly suck by their army choices. your entire army is worthless and you need to build it this way because thats the meta in a tourny"
etc