Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

How long has the book been out?
How much experience do you think it takes to get an objective view on the worthiness of a unit?

Theoryhammer is nice, but theoryhammer with little to no TIME for experience to accumulate leads me to think whatever advice or opinions you get now may(likely) will not be useful.

As I see it, it's cool and the nifty missiles add flavor, but if you are looking for a work horse: the Ravager fits the bill. I'm not so sure more points into something as fragile as it is any good.

In addition, the model is rather unwieldy to use...with respect to Forgeworld models, IIRC.

Indeed, its a bit early for a statement.
But I see the potential of such a skimmer. It can come from reserve and fire all its weapons (2 dark lances and 4 missiles).
Could be brutal.

Problem is the lances are anti tank, while all the missiles are anti infantry.
And true, but the stats/costs/particulars of units have been known for a while now. There's even battle reports.
I'm just trying to brainstorm a bit, since I started scratch building one.

To me, it seems that its roles are mixed up. It has void lances, which will make land raiders cry, but it also has missiles, which are best used against infantry.

To me, it seems that the Razorwing is preferrable for the anti-infantry, and the Ravager is ideal anti-tank. I guess if you wanted a generalist craft, the Voidraven is the way to go.

The void raven is about the same as a ravager when it comes to Anti-Tank, but it costs 40 Pts. more. What do you get for 40 pts?

1) 36" turboboost.
2) Not open Topped
3) The large blast with d6 scatter
4) option to take missiles

If the model is low to the table, you can boost from building to building getting saves and staying out of sight and dropping the large blast. I think the ravager is great value for anti-tank, but if you want a large blast for extra anti-infantry it might be worth while.

It has mixed roles, and is a lot more expensive than the Ravager.

Back when the Ravager was "supposed" to be 10 10 10, the Void Raven was a more enticing choice.

But after GW changed the Ravager to 11 11 10 last minute, I'm more inclined to say the Ravager is just plain worth it for the extreme point decrease.

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

go with your gut. both of the new dark eldar flyers are 2nd rate at best.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

go with your gut. both of the new dark eldar flyers are 2nd rate at best.

I disagree on the Razorwing.

4 monoscythe missiles, 2 Dicintegrator cannons and a splinter cannon will drop most infantry off the map.

Agreed on the Razorwing. It is a potential shock and awe weapon with the ability to enter from reserves and unload everything at cruising speed. The problem I am seeing is with the missile options being geared for anti-infantry. So that along with the 2 dark lances being mixed message on the purpose. Hoard opponents will get devastated by this but it is not configurable to an anti-tank role as I see it.

The one Void Bomb and 2 Void Cannons looks good but not having the base missiles makes this more pricey to even play the thing. The void bomb looks good but the weapon mechanic makes it of limited value as I have to overfly the target. 12" move this is probably not going to work very much. 36" move it is game questionable if I can even fire it RAW even though I think RAI you can. So wait for the FAQ,

Brother-Thunder wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

go with your gut. both of the new dark eldar flyers are 2nd rate at best.

I disagree on the Razorwing.

4 monoscythe missiles, 2 Dicintegrator cannons and a splinter cannon will drop most infantry off the map.

dont have my book in front of me.... monoscythe missiles are ap 4+ right? small blast? disintegrator cannons are good. splinter cannons? eh.
what kills badguys is autohit/twin linked, high strength, low ap, ignores cover. a gun that doesnt have at least two of those things is something that I just wouldnt be interested in. volume of fire attacks just dont work. you rarely get to roll enough dice to get past high toughness or heavy armor. the new poisoned weapons may turn out to be an exception since they knock down monstrous creatures pretty quick. liquifier guns are a good instance of what I think a good gun looks like. they're cheap, you can take a lot of them, they ignore cover, they automatically hit, they have a 50% chance of cutting through power armor and a 50% chance of wounding marines on a 4 or better. sometimes you'll roll poorly for their attributes but if you hit a squad with 3 or 4 then one of them will probably go off and then the whole squad gets liquified. its not so much the attributes of the razorwing itself as the opportunity cost. within the codex I see some stronger options for about the same points.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

go with your gut. both of the new dark eldar flyers are 2nd rate at best.

I disagree on the Razorwing.

4 monoscythe missiles, 2 Dicintegrator cannons and a splinter cannon will drop most infantry off the map.

dont have my book in front of me.... monoscythe missiles are ap 4+ right? small blast? disintegrator cannons are good. splinter cannons? eh.
what kills badguys is autohit/twin linked, high strength, low ap, ignores cover. a gun that doesnt have at least two of those things is something that I just wouldnt be interested in. volume of fire attacks just dont work. you rarely get to roll enough dice to get past high toughness or heavy armor. the new poisoned weapons may turn out to be an exception since they knock down monstrous creatures pretty quick. liquifier guns are a good instance of what I think a good gun looks like. they're cheap, you can take a lot of them, they ignore cover, they automatically hit, they have a 50% chance of cutting through power armor and a 50% chance of wounding marines on a 4 or better. sometimes you'll roll poorly for their attributes but if you hit a squad with 3 or 4 then one of them will probably go off and then the whole squad gets liquified. its not so much the attributes of the razorwing itself as the opportunity cost. within the codex I see some stronger options for about the same points.

The missiles are strength 6, AP 5 with just enough stats to do maximum damage to any of it's preferred targets. It's also a large blast.

Against blobs of cheap, low quality troops not in cover, it's a death sentence. Against marines it's still enough to cause mass wounds on 2+.

AbaddonFidelis - Why exactly are you so combative? I've noticed this now in multiple threads.

OP - I'd like to add that the differences between the Ravager and VoidRaven don't become apparent until you hit higher points games. I thought it was quite obvious Ravager = optimal for 1000 points and less, RazorWing = 1000-1500 points and the Void-Raven excels in higher cost games with larger maps and generally higher armor.

I also echo the statement about the worth of the void raven being determined by whether or not it can drop its bomb while traveling super sonic. I personally lean towards it can.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

go with your gut. both of the new dark eldar flyers are 2nd rate at best.

I disagree on the Razorwing.

4 monoscythe missiles, 2 Dicintegrator cannons and a splinter cannon will drop most infantry off the map.

dont have my book in front of me.... monoscythe missiles are ap 4+ right? small blast? disintegrator cannons are good. splinter cannons? eh.
what kills badguys is autohit/twin linked, high strength, low ap, ignores cover. a gun that doesnt have at least two of those things is something that I just wouldnt be interested in. volume of fire attacks just dont work. you rarely get to roll enough dice to get past high toughness or heavy armor. the new poisoned weapons may turn out to be an exception since they knock down monstrous creatures pretty quick. liquifier guns are a good instance of what I think a good gun looks like. they're cheap, you can take a lot of them, they ignore cover, they automatically hit, they have a 50% chance of cutting through power armor and a 50% chance of wounding marines on a 4 or better. sometimes you'll roll poorly for their attributes but if you hit a squad with 3 or 4 then one of them will probably go off and then the whole squad gets liquified. its not so much the attributes of the razorwing itself as the opportunity cost. within the codex I see some stronger options for about the same points.

monoscythe missile x4, S6 ap5, large blast. with Disintegrator cannons x2 (S5ap2) and a splinter cannon (ap5 4+ always), it WILL knock whatever unit it hits off the map. My favorite missile, honestly, is the shatterfield missile. S7 AP-, reroll wounds. the monoscythe or shatterfield WILL make guard blobs and ork boyz squads cry.

The thing is meant to slaughter infantry, and for about 155 points for all of that, it is a steal.

Defiler

well I think it partially has to do with me rejecting so many different units and strategies. No one likes to hear their favorite thing get knocked down so peoples feelings get hurt. Thats too bad but unavoidable I guess.... alot of times OP will ask "is this good?" and I'll say "no here's why" and some other guy will say "it's awesome AF doesnt know what he's talking about." well obviously that's going to offend me so they're going to get some feed back about it. why cant we just disagree about the unit? I get tired of being attacked personally, told I should shut up, I dont know what Im talking about, etc. I've been playing this game for a long time and I win most of my games. I do know what I'm talking about and I don't like being insulted any more than the next guy.

I think if you look at some of the threads you're mentioning you'll see that its not me attacking other peoples ideas, its me defending my own. the tau vs csm thread is a good instance of that. some guy says he's playing csm and getting beat by tau all the time and asks for advice. I tell him he should consider switching codices becaus chaos doesnt have the mobility to deal with the tau. after all that's how I chose to handle the same problem and its working for me. but whether you agree or disagree it's just an opinion. why does everyone have to get hot and bothered about it? so a few posts later I've got 3 or 4 people telling me I'm not being helpful its a bad idea OP didnt want that advice etc. well I think it is helpful. chaos codex has some problems and it's alot easier to compete with a newer book. stuff like that happens alot. I dont run around contradicting other peoples points.... my own opinions get so much heat that I have plenty to do just defending them... and myself.

anyway yes it disappoints me that I'm not better liked here and that I get attacked so often. I like to find clever ways to use the language and since alot of my opinions are going to be attacked or ignored anyways alot of my posts are just ways to try to find a new or (what I think is) a clever way to say something I've said like 100 times before anyway. If it comes off like I'm trying to pick fights I'm really sorry about that. It's not my goal.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:







about the monoscythe missile strength 6 is good no doubt.... I think the ap5 is somewhat misleading. I mean its obvious to you that it will wipe out a squad of boys or guardsmen right? well its obvious to your opponent too, so you have to assume he'll try to keep his guys in cover to avoid getting wiped. and since cover is so abundant in 5th you've also got to assume he'll have some success with this. Its an ok blast weapon.... but nothing more. Its not the str 6 ap 3 ignores cover gun that that the guard have or the str 10 ap2 vindicator cannons that space marines get. its just... well... ok. dont take ok stuff. take great stuff.

the disintegrator cannons are good but you can have 3 of them for 105 points on a ravager, so I dont think they make a whole lot of sense here. especially since they're both heavy support units.

the splinter cannons are fine but you've got an army full of splinter weapons so I'm not really sure it's adding much.

the fighters lack focus (4 disintegrator cannons or 6 splinter cannons would be different, no?) and are overpriced imo. if you're only armor 10 you need to alpha strike them and completely eliminate their ability to respond or else you'll get blown away pretty fast. I dont see either DE flyer doing that, so I dont advocate those units.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
about the monoscythe missile strength 6 is good no doubt.... I think the ap5 is somewhat misleading. I mean its obvious to you that it will wipe out a squad of boys or guardsmen right? well its obvious to your opponent too, so you have to assume he'll try to keep his guys in cover to avoid getting wiped. and since cover is so abundant in 5th you've also got to assume he'll have some success with this. Its an ok blast weapon.... but nothing more. Its not the str 6 ap 3 ignores cover gun that that the guard have or the str 10 ap2 vindicator cannons that space marines get. its just... well... ok. dont take ok stuff. take great stuff.

Alright, so as a Dark Eldar player - I should try to get as many Battle/Earthshaker cannons as possible into my army list? This is the plan? You don't understand why that's ridiculous?

I think few people like you because you're condescending, quite clearly a power gamer, refuse to work to find solutions within the context of the actual problem - "I'd like help with my CSM army that always loses to my friend's Tau." Reply : "Take a different book."

Like really? You're serious? You have NO clue why you're not liked here?

sigh..... no defiler, the point isnt to take earth shaker and battle cannons... the point is to recognize that good guns have common characteristics and to look for those characterstics no matter what codex you're playing.

anyway this is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say I get tired of being attacked personally. I'm trying to talk about monoscythe missiles and the dark eldar codex in general. you're trying to talk about what a jerk I am. now even though you're being nasty to me I'm keeping my own side of things civil. so who is it thats really out of line here? all I'm doing is defending my own point of view.
AF

In the same way you're trying to put forward this image of being a straight-talking, unbiased, false opinion shooter downer, I'm just describing your posting habits in a very objective manner.

I've never said you're a bad person, but your posts are condescending and reek of power gaming. Do you disagree?

But I will humor you for a minute. Within the context of the DE book, you would say their one 48 inch range, Large blast with pretty good strength and ap for it's purposes is a bad weapon? Remember, the DE army can't roll out cover ignoring ordnance, or punisher gatling guns so comparing what they do have in the way of firepower to another book is totally irrelevant.

Against a blob of troops, I would rather have the missiles over the liquifier that you pointed out is one of the few acceptable weapons in the book.

To address a point directly, why do you think the appropriate response to someone asking for help is to suggest another book? Again, I'm just being unbiased and I have no emotional connection to the other thread. Suggesting something like that makes you come off like a jerk.

Response?

Your posts are walls of text, you generally insult anyone who disagrees with you, as well as any options you dislike, most of which are quite usable/good.

And yes, the ravager is obviously the cheaper anti-tank option. The Razorwing seems like a pretty good pure anti-infantry platform.
However, Voidravens seem to be quite good as a general support option. 200 Points nets you a vehicle that can sit at 36" - 48", either sniping vehicles or opening up a devastating barrage of missiles.
With a 36" flat out move, they might be quite useful as a late game objective contester. I'll definitely be trying one out at some point.

Edit: Punisher LR's suck. There is no good reason to ever take one.
Don't perpetuate the lies!

some of my posts are condescending. others aren't. like the rest of you I dont care to be insulted or made fun of. People who are easily stung probably shouldnt get that game started dont you think?

now take your second point. I'm a power gamer. look this is a tactics thread. what is it you think we're doing here? aren't we talking about how to win games? thats what I'm talking about. yeah I like to win. so what. don't you? now this is a good instance where it's perfectly ok to be condescending. you said something dumb and I'm letting you know about it. you probably feel offended but so what? you're the one who started ripping into me, so it's a little late to cry foul dont you think?

yes I think moonoscythe missiles are a mediocre gun. dark eldar can in fact take weapons that ignore cover, automatically hit, have a good chance of wounding on a 4 or better and of ignoring whole categories of armor. at 10 points a piece, with wide availability throughout the codex, and with a very effective set of delivery options, its a plainly better weapon than a monoscythe missiles. I think the math will bear me out that the liquifier guns are stronger against most targets than the monoscythe missiles vs both light and heavy infantry, assuming the infantry is in cover as light infantry often is.

I think its an appropriate response to suggest changing codices for a lot of reasons.
1. the original poster on that thread invited any and all opinions. it's right there in his 1st post. well I gave him what I think is a good suggestion, so how is that unfair?
2. the chaos codex is dated for reasons that were discussed on some other threads and in my opinion do not offer a chaos player a good set of tools for dealing with tau. under the circumstances the only other thing I could have told him was "I think you're at a terrible disadvantage why bother?" if he's going to stick with the chaos codex that is in fact what I think. which is less helpful?
3. there's nothing wrong with playing a counts as army. GW isnt paying good attention to play balance so they force players to do it if they want to be competitive. all of the best armies have come out in the last 18 months. so if you have an old codex you're supposed to.... what? just lose and not care? I dont think thats fair at all. people should be able to play the best options available to them with the models they own.

If suggesting something like that makes other people think I'm a jerk then its really their problem. I think its a fair suggestion.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irdiumstern wrote:Your posts are walls of text, you generally insult anyone who disagrees with you
, as well as any options you dislike, most of which are quite usable/good.

And yes, the ravager is obviously the cheaper anti-tank option. The Razorwing seems like a pretty good pure anti-infantry platform.
However, Voidravens seem to be quite good as a general support option. 200 Points nets you a vehicle that can sit at 36" - 48", either sniping vehicles or opening up a devastating barrage of missiles.
With a 36" flat out move, they might be quite useful as a late game objective contester. I'll definitely be trying one out at some point.

Edit: Punisher LR's suck. There is no good reason to ever take one.
Don't perpetuate the lies!

whatever. put me on ignore if you dont like it. I'm pretty much done explaining myself. I think its flattering that you all want to talk about me instead of 40k. really. but I'm moving on.

Irdiumstern wrote:

Edit: Punisher LR's suck. There is no good reason to ever take one.
Don't perpetuate the lies!

I always assume no one reads my posts, so I try to stick easter eggs in them.

On the next episode of Reality Dakka, AF finds love, Irdiumstern meets Defiler, and the mods do a 180 Facepalm.

Stay tuned!

From his posts, I like Irdiumstern. He knows what he's doing, is willing to see other viewpoints and isn't one of those "Your army sucks, take 9 Oblits and 2 Lash Princes instead." guys.

AF - let me address a few points, if you're willing.

1) Are you sure he wanted the advice : "Switch books."? Or possibly solutions within his chosen army?

2) I think that's counter productive, and an intellectual cop out. There are always ways to maximize match-ups, while minimizing weakness within any possible combination of opponents and armies. Other circumstances may limit the availability of options, and not everyone has access to every book/army or even all the models in their codex. I would generally assume that if someone asks for advice concerning their Chaos vs Tau, they actually want advice on how to maximize their chances within the proposed situation - this one being his Chaos list versus the general combat tendencies of the average Tau army. Yes, another book could propose better match-ups, but in real gaming situations I don't have the opportunity to tailor my list or switch lists if I don't like the amount of vehicles that show up, for example.

3) There isn't anything wrong with playing a counts-as army, but a lot of people still have old, crazy notions of army loyalty, refusing to min-max their armies and spam the best units in an attempt to create the best possible chance for winning. I think assuming every situation calls for tournament style army list construction regardless of "soft" variables (Loyalty, I like this model, I like this model's back story, I simply don't want to load my heavy choices with 9 Obliterators) is disingenuous to the discussion at hand.

Was I a misguided, foolish gamer for playing the old DE codex for the last 6 years? I could have converted it to something much more modern and had a counts-as party. Is it possible I actually prefer a challenge or I want my jetbikes to actually be Reavers, and not craftworld equivalents?

I mean, as long as you can't grasp these notions that a gaming experience doesn't always have to encapsulate Win's and losses and the most direct route to those said W's, I feel that's where the disconnect comes from.

Basically, Defiler, you are saying there are shades of grey.

But we already know that 'shades of grey' does not compute for some.

I would suggest ignoring it and getting back on topic...the OP can decide what is good and bad for him/her/it-self.

@Defiler:

I think your only real mistake is expecting a well developed set of social interaction skills from every member of a large group of table-top wargamers....

^Nice one, so innocent, and yet, it says something about everyone.

So I'm going to repsond to AF's argument about DE missiles. I frankly don't care if he's a good person, because he made an interesting point.

So you think monoscythe missiles will get the opponent to keep his squads in cover. 2 things:

1. The fighter will probably be off-board until the turn it unloads its missiles (unless you get first turn and it's not DoW). If you're playing a good sized game (say, 2000 points), there's a good chance your opponent will just forget it exists.

2. So the missiles force your opponent into cover. Hooray! That means they're probably bunched up and ready for a liquifier. It also means you're moving your opponent's pieces around for him.

As for the assertion that you can't put out enough wounds with the missiles, 4 S6 large blasts will usually hit a lot of models. Especially if they just disembarked. Given the DE's access to AT, I expect your opponent will have a lot of recently-disembarked models.

But if you're not convinced, just take the shatterfield missiles.

Finally, you think things would be different if the razorwing could take 6 splinter cannons. I don't think it would be that different. Here's why:

6 splinter cannons will cause approx. 12 wounds in a turn.

In order to cause 12 wounds in a turn, 4 monoscythe missiles need to hit approx. 3.5 models each, assuming you shoot all 4 and the models are T4 or less. That is a very reasonable number for a large blast weapon.

If you have a 10/10/10 vehicle with 6 splinter cannons, there's a very low chance it will make it to more than one shooting phase. High priority, low defense.

For what it's worth, if you read Toxic Wisdom's battle reports, he has had a very high degree of success with running three Void Ravens with 4xShatterfield missiles each. The alpha-strike capability of the four missiles should not be underestimated. Death by armor save is a completely valid tactic, and these missiles continue to prove it. In his battle reports and those from other players using the VRB/SFMissile combo, I have seen a single shooting phase by one bomber resulting in 30+ wounds to a single unit quite often.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/324026.page

Sure, back to the thread.

Irdiumstern wrote:I've been looking through the new codex, and I really liked the fluff for the new voidraven.
However . . . it seems to be a somewhat sub-par option. The 2 Void Lances are mathhammer equivalent to 3 Dark Lances, but the points difference is rather large.
Does anyone have any ideas how to use it effectively/make up for its shortcomings?

Irdiumstern - I feel to find uses for the Void-Raven, we should clearly list all the pro's and cons for the alternatives, and that will illuminate what it brings to the table they do not. Seems logical right?

Ravager
Pros
Maximizes effectiveness in lower points games
Can take upgrades to increase utility (Ram, Tank shock, Fly over attacks when shaken, etc)
Math-hammers to the equivalent of 2 Void Lances, when using 3 Dark Lances (I'm still weary of this though, I feel there is more information to infer from the numbers)
Can function as any shade of grey concerning anti-tank/anti-infantry with free weapon swaps
Standard 11 armor

Cons
Open topped
Cannot take missiles
Cannot be maximized in higher points games

RazorWing Jet-Fighter
Pros
Comes standard with 40 points of free missiles, effectively putting it's cost in line with the Ravager
Can move 36 inches in lieu of shooting (Constant threat of objective contention)
Potentially better anti-infantry than the ravager if lances are swapped to Disintegrators
Versatility in stock load out being able to snipe vehicles, or obliterate units with mass missile fire
Close topped

Cons
Armor 10
Cannot take utility upgrades, only defensive ones
Cannot take theoretically higher end upgrades, such as the Implosion missile
Despite versatility the Ravager doesn't have, inferior anti-tank capabilities
Armor 10 on a relatively expensive vehicle is a liability

Void-Raven Bomber
Pros
Strength 9 Lance weapons
Potential to maximize destruction within a single heavy slot for higher points games
Armor 11
Close topped
Can make a fairly accurate Strength 9, AP 2 small blast appear during a *supersonic move (allowing it to contribute offensively during an off turn used to get into a better position or contest objectives, or when coming from reserves)
Can move 36 inches in lieu of shooting (Constant threat of objective contention)
Can purchase missiles making it an almost superior choice compared to the Razorwing, at the trade-off of points cost

*Pending FAQ clarification

Cons
Inability to take utility upgrades (Although you most likely don't want a 200 point model with 11 armor tank shocking or ramming outside of desperate situations)
Cannot swap Lances for Anti-infantry options (although with the role of the unit, you would want anti-tank before considering anti-infantry)
Cost prohibitive in smaller games


So from the information, what can we infer?

I think the Razorwing, at the expense of a point of armor is a flat out superior choice to the Ravager. I think it's capable of much more than a 3 lance Ravager sitting on the field after its Armored targets are destroyed.

I think the Ravager excels in lower points games, where something like 40 points is a big deal. I also think that it has much, much more utility due to it's 11 armor and the ability to Ram and Tank shock, much more than a Raider with shock prow uprgades, torment grenade launchers and Chain snares.

As for the VoidRaven, I feel that if you find your army lacks the flat out high end destructive power of stronger lances, a high quality low ap blast for elite units or potentially deep-striking ones that can also dual purpose as another anti-tank shot on the move - it's a superior choice.

I don't think that any one of the heavy support skimmers are out-right superior choices, and even to an extent their advantages and disadvantages are minuscule to the point that any combination of them would function almost identically against an all comers opponent.

The advantages come from the subtleties though, and I think that if you have infantry covered with the rest of your army - the Void-Raven will shine due to it's lack of versatility, leaving you to focus on using them exclusively on their role of anti-tank.

To finally give your original question a straight answer, it's my opinion that the Void-Raven cannot be compensated for it's points difference. If you want more power in your slot, you take it over the other two. If you want to save points and feel that you don't need the highest end weapon in your heavy, you take the Ravager.

I do think that armor 11, close topped is something of a huge deal within our army though. Shrugging off basic weapons means it has more positioning options on the field, although with it's price tag kitted up - it's going to be drawing Missile Launchers/Lascannons/Railguns anyways. So once again, it's armor relatively doesn't matter and meticulous positioning and usage of tempo is more valuable than it's flicker field, night shield or Armor 11 close topped status combined.

Satisfactory reply?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:For what it's worth, if you read Toxic Wisdom's battle reports, he has had a very high degree of success with running three Void Ravens with 4xShatterfield missiles each. The alpha-strike capability of the four missiles should not be underestimated. Death by armor save is a completely valid tactic, and these missiles continue to prove it. In his battle reports and those from other players using the VRB/SFMissile combo, I have seen a single shooting phase by one bomber resulting in 30+ wounds to a single unit quite often.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/324026.page

I want to second this statement. The ability to alpha-strike a unit off the table before it can respond covers up high points and vulnerability issues for the army as a whole, than trying to play it safe and keeping your units moderately costed.

I think this above is a very valid point about the strength of something like the Void Raven, versus other more moderate heavy support weapons.

Hesperus wrote:So I'm going to repsond to AF's argument about DE missiles. I frankly don't care if he's a good person, because he made an interesting point.

the voice of reason

So you think monoscythe missiles will get the opponent to keep his squads in cover. 2 things:

1. The fighter will probably be off-board until the turn it unloads its missiles (unless you get first turn and it's not DoW). If you're playing a good sized game (say, 2000 points), there's a good chance your opponent will just forget it exists.

2. So the missiles force your opponent into cover. Hooray! That means they're probably bunched up and ready for a liquifier. It also means you're moving your opponent's pieces around for him.

As for the assertion that you can't put out enough wounds with the missiles, 4 S6 large blasts will usually hit a lot of models. Especially if they just disembarked. Given the DE's access to AT, I expect your opponent will have a lot of recently-disembarked models.

But if you're not convinced, just take the shatterfield missiles.

Finally, you think things would be different if the razorwing could take 6 splinter cannons. I don't think it would be that different. Here's why:

6 splinter cannons will cause approx. 12 wounds in a turn.

In order to cause 12 wounds in a turn, 4 monoscythe missiles need to hit approx. 3.5 models each, assuming you shoot all 4 and the models are T4 or less. That is a very reasonable number for a large blast weapon.

If you have a 10/10/10 vehicle with 6 splinter cannons, there's a very low chance it will make it to more than one shooting phase. High priority, low defense.

1. sure thats possible.
2. I wouldnt go so far as to say forced... when I play light infantry I stick to cover as much as possible just as a matter of course. what I'm getting shot with is besides the point. 4++ is better than 5+ pretty much all the time right? as far as bunched up. maybe. depends on the board. since you only need half the models in cover to get the benefit you can get cover from a fairly loose formation, depending on the terrain.

the shatterfield missile is probably one of the better options for this vehicle, I dont dispute that. but it doesnt ignore cover, it doesnt have low ap, it doesnt automatically hit etc etc. wounding on a 2 with a reroll is good but by itself it just doesnt make the gun. it would be great at killing light infantry if it ignored cover, but since cover is everywhere in 5th I won't call any gun a great anti horde gun that doesnt do that. you might think I'm being unrealistic in my expectations for a gun but then every template weapon and a couple of blast weapons already do that, and there's at least one of said "ignores cover" gun in almost every codex, so I think its fair to set the bar at that height.

look its just conjecture. I'm not a DE player and I probably wont play the codex. I'm just offering opinions. If people start winning tournies with these things or I start getting wiped at my FLGS by void ravens then I'll change my mind.

the point about splinter cannons was regarding the lack of focus of the vehicle. a vehicle with 6 splinter cannons is obviously a dedicated volume of attack troop killer. the void raven has so many different guns it doesnt seem to know what it wants to do. specialization, not flexibility, is the hallmark of a great unit.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Defiler wrote:
Was I a misguided, foolish gamer for playing the old DE codex for the last 6 years? I could have converted it to something much more modern and had a counts-as party. Is it possible I actually prefer a challenge or I want my jetbikes to actually be Reavers, and not craftworld equivalents?

no... of course not. its a game you should play it in whatever way brings you pleasure. its a tacitcs thread I just assume that we're posting here because we want to talk about the most competitive options available. if you say "man, no matter how hard I try with my dark eldar I just cant beat xyz army" then if I think you're overlooking something in the DE book I'll say that. If I dont think you have a good answer in the DE book I'll say that too. Its nothing to get upset about. I dont take it personally if other people voice differing opinions. why do you?

Why does a unit need to be focused if it can do a particular job as well as one focused on that job? Or do you think the cost of a Razorwing is too high for, let's say, 12 wounds and a platform for its remaining weapons? Let's say a Dark Lance is worth 15 points on that platform. Comparing the Razorwing to the Ravager, then, you have 55 points to make up. You don't think 12 wounds is worth 55 points? I'm not saying it definitely is, just that it can be.

I agree that specialization is generally better, but I think the razorwing's a special case, for two reasons. First, it's roughly as good as the available specialists for anti-infantry, point for point. Consider that, using my conservative wounds estimate, a Razorwing with the Splinter Cannon upgrades can put out as many wounds as 4 Venoms (with 2 Splinter Cannons each). It costs nearly 100 points less, and doesn't require you to buy min-sized squads or use 4 troop/elite slots. Yes, it has no transport capacity and is much more vulnerable, but the two options are comparable.

Second, the Razorwing's primary anti-infantry weapons are one-shot, so it's only a generalist for one turn. If you don't upgrade to Splinter Cannons, you'll waste 2 Dark Lance shots on infantry. In subsequent turns it'll be shooting at tanks, so you'll be wasting 4 splinter rifle shots/turn. Big deal.