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.

Oh yeah, looking back it's not the best. I totally agree.

They can access and leave cover pretty well with the hooks. They're pretty good at removing screens if you can keep the 2 dam weapons pointed elsewhere.

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.

I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait


People should experiment and try new things, not dismiss them. Remember what I said - Reivers are NOT the best unit by any stretch, but they have a strategic niche that can be useful. That is all. Outright dismissal as seen in this topic is outright stupidity on show.

Oh and I agree with above, if they were troops they'd be a lot more attractive at a glance!

Your first post was pretty condescending. You don't get to make sweeping negative judgements about people and then take the moral high ground when they don't like it.

You could have made your point differently. Maybe people would have reacted differently, and not dismissed it, if they didn't feel you were talking down to them. Sure, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but now we'll never know.

(For the record, there are people on both sides getting disproportionately personal and emotional about this now. I'm not putting this all on you by any means, just trying to demonstrate the other viewpoint.)

Good to know someone else noticed this, I normally get labeled an donkey-cave regardless of who started with the assholeness.

That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.

Dare I even google that while at work?

I think one of the important things to analyse here, is weather or not a 100, or 200 (if using the 2 squads that ishagu suggests) point investment in back field disruption, is a wise investment. Before beginning to decide what disruption to actually use.

Assumptions:
I will ignore that assassins fill this niche perfectly, and at 210 for 3 eversors, are essentially the perfect solution to this. As people want a pure marine solution.

Points For:
1. Units can annoyingly hide behind stuff for the entire game, and potentially stop you tabling people, or be held back for late game shenanigans.
2. Some powerful units can hide in the backfield while also being dangerous to your army. disrupting these units by engaging them in CC can be beneficial.
3. If held in reserve until turn 3, where hopefully each force will be spent, these units have a good chance of securing behind enemy lines, or whatever the missions equivalent might be.

Points against:
1. Its 1/10th of the cost of your army invested into units which are inefficient offensively, and are mediocre defensively (though their mediocre defence is offset, due to their relatively low threat profile)
2. Not all opponents have a 'back field' to disrupt.
3. The strategy is reliant upon the opponents vulnerable backfield units not being protected by some form of deep strike screen.

Now my bias comes in: I personally don't like strategies that rely upon my opponent being bad, or are dependant upon the mission. I am also very aware that if I'm playing pure marines, I'm already at a disadvantage against many opponents if they are trying hard. And to give up 1/10th of my armies offensive output, and defensive output (these units at the very least are not contributing to the defence of my armies core, whatever that might be) to something situational, where the majority of the time, if I'm loosing, I'm getting tabled anyway, and if I'm winning, my army will have advanced into my opponents lines.

My opinion is that for marines the concept of back field disruption, as a strategy is a flawed one to begin with, regardless of the chosen unit to fulfil the purpose.

When I add into that, that reivers are not the optimal choice for achieving this strategy. For myself personaly I come to the conclusion, that reivers are useless. (which is why I'm planning on converting mine into wulfen)

So, to summarise:

Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.

What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.

In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.

This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.

 Karthicus wrote:
That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.

Dare I even google that while at work?

Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.

 Ishagu wrote:
Oh yeah, looking back it's not the best. I totally agree.

That's big of you, and I respect that

 Ishagu wrote:
It's more disappointing that anything - the amount of negativity and refusal to accept a different viewpoint.

I guess Columbus was wrong when he said the world was round because everyone else said otherwise? Oh wait

No, people pointed and laughed at Columbus because he thought he was smarter than Eratosthenes, and believed there was no missing continent standing between the West and East.

Karthicus wrote:Credit to Ishagu for standing up to the abuse in this thread.

I think the main beef with the unit is that it takes up an elite slot. If they took up a troop slot you would see a lot more of them. I would agree that their role is more of a backline disruption slot, and I have seen a fair share of games where a small 5 man squad diving a premium back line target could play a vital role in securing victory.

Are they a great unit? Not even close, however if that type of role fits into your army strategy? I could see them being very useful. Just comes down to tactics.

This

Ishagu wrote:I responded to this topic by pointing out that the Reivers are not useless. For 200 points you can have two squads kept off the board that can arrive anywhere. This is certainly an asset for a Marine army.

I'd say Assault Marines are more useless, but that's a different topic entirely lol

To outright dismiss something utterly, to not accept that it might have even a slither of value when I've pointed out some strengths is not particularly great on your part.[/quote]
bold statements never turn out well.

Talinsin wrote:Summary of thread so far:
"Reivers are terrible, because mathhammer."
"They have utility that isn't related to the mathhammer."
"They're the worst unit in the game, look at this math."
"They have great utility, math isn't everything in an objective game."
"Only offence and defense exists. Strategy is a lie, math is god."
...

This is hilarious.

I think they need the grenade launcher and power knives to be more effective . it really just depends on what you're throwing them at and what you need them to do.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.

Dare I even google that while at work?

Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.

Dude, you do realize that Ishagu actually did admit that he might have come across badly? Can you do the same? Walk the walk friend.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, to summarise:

Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.

What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.

In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.

This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.

I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.

 Karthicus wrote:

I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.

The unit has a good concept, it could work. They're just too lacklustre for their points, they should be either cheaper or better. Thing is they've just gotten worse, the deepstrike got nerfed, and their grapnels got nerfed. So they're actually worse now, than when they were first introduced. Meanwhile the Intercessors have gotten both cheaper and better (they have received dedicated stratagems, new weapon options and point cuts.) I just wish that the GW had paid the same amount of attention the Reivers than they did to the Intercessors.

 Crimson wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:

I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.

The unit has a good concept, it could work. They're just too lacklustre for their points, they should be either cheaper or better. Thing is they've just gotten worse, the deepstrike got nerfed, and their grapnels got nerfed. So they're actually worse now, than when they were first introduced. Meanwhile the Intercessors have gotten both cheaper and better (they have received dedicated stratagems, new weapon options and point cuts.) I just wish that the GW had paid the same amount of attention the Reivers than they did to the Intercessors.

Agreed. The movement is still solid and useful. But they just really need some more oomph offensively to justify the slot.

I'm not saying they need to be super killy or anything, but they need to do SOMETHING against comparable enemies.

 Karthicus wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Karthicus wrote:
That's because it doesn't matter who started it Del. If you go full donkey-cave, then you went Donkey-cave.

Dare I even google that while at work?

Yes it does matter lol So you just take it, when people do that... A bigger man would simply apologise but you like to emulate what other people do, so I hear the old 'you're an donkey-cave' chestnut. I even said I'm rarely the first and look, you give me gak but say nothing to the person that started it, classic behaviour in this forum I've found. Its become predictable.

Dude, you do realize that Ishagu actually did admit that he might have come across badly? Can you do the same? Walk the walk friend.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, to summarise:

Reivers aren't a good melee unit, they're not any more innately durable against the things that kill Primaris dead (D2 weaponry), and their general killiness isn't on par with things like Hellblasters or even Intercessors.

What Reivers are is a harrassing backfield unit with rapid deployment and a penchant for maneuverability (not speed) and force application. Sure, they carry bolt carbines, but they're not designed to be tackling Terminator Squads head on and hoping to wipe them off the table. They're looking to act as a threat against things like Scouts, Mortar Teams, Cultists etc etc holding onto objectives, and generally messing up the backline.

In my experience of Reivers (anecdote time) I've always used them when my opponents have committed their forces forward against mine, and generally are pushing to focus on the rest of my army. My Reivers come down, and go for things like Cultists guarding objectives. I've even had success using them to assassinate characters who get stranded when their retinue move ahead of them or get killed by my other units. Sure, they've got no power weapons, and they're not going to be great at killing someone like Guilliman or Slamguinius, but Tallymen, Senior Officers, Fireblades and the like are all still going to be at threat when there's 10 Wounds of Primaris at their throat.

This is my experience, take it as you will, but for me, I find they're pretty useful when I use them for what I think they're good at.

I haven't used mine just yet, but this is pretty much how I envisioned them being used.

Yeah and I have no problem with him and it was good of him to say so and we can move on. You are the little man that can't do that and use his 'being a man' to try and conclude this with magnamity but also using a rather than you 'actually' be a man and apologise to me and then I will let bygones be bygones, but your ego won't let you do that. I'll make it easy for you, you don't even have to apologise, just admit you're wrong and I'll respect you.

Is this thread done now? I think everyone has said their piece at this point.

 Stux wrote:
Is this thread done now? I think everyone has said their piece at this point.

I think a thread lock is good

I like Reivers. They look cool. And have guns with extra grips on them. They look cool too. Cool guys with cool guns beats maths and tactics any day.

Andykp wrote:
I like Reivers. They look cool. And have guns with extra grips on them. They look cool too. Cool guys with cool guns beats maths and tactics any day.

Yeah, sure. That's basically the reason I've got some Reivers.

Andykp wrote:
I like Reivers. They look cool. And have guns with extra grips on them. They look cool too. Cool guys with cool guns beats maths and tactics any day.

I have them but I've modelled them as blood claws, when reivers get good rules I'll just use them as reivers. Doing some skyclaw ones at the moment, they look awesome. I hope GW don't do away with jump packs.

Topic is done, but I just gotta say; Del, the whole "people just think I'm an ***hole, cus I'm honest", thing is a a cliche at this point. Just state your piece with some thought to how it comes off and respect the other person and most people will respond in kind. That's all; now go right ahead; accuse me of being conceited and disregard my comment.

rooster92 wrote:
Topic is done, but I just gotta say; Del, the whole "people just think I'm an ***hole, cus I'm honest", thing is a a cliche at this point. Just state your piece with some thought to how it comes off and respect the other person and most people will respond in kind. That's all; now go right ahead; accuse me of being conceited and disregard my comment.

I respect everyone that respects me, if someone shows me disrespect why would I or anyone for that matter show them respect. It is a cliche because there have been many people being rude on here but like a cliche its only me that is mentioned, no one else is called out, because I have so many hypocrites accusing me of exactly what they do, but I don't try to be liked so everyone just parrots back the same gak, even those that try so hard to be "civil" act like donkey-caves they just do it subtly, you can't show me a single person that doesn't or hasn't been an donkey-cave once or twice. I have to be an donkey-cave more though because of my sparkling and infectious personality. Its like "Del just takes phrases out of context" then I start showing large quotes to include as much context as possible and then its "Del posts too much text" Give me a break. If I didn't find it equally amusing as I do annoying I wouldn't be on this forum lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Lots of ifs and buts there. Just theory crafting. How about you play two squads as I outlined in a few games and come back with what you've found? Maybe you'll be surprised, maybe you won't. Or are you to cool to experiment with something you don't think can win you the game? Gotta keep that 40k rep up? Lol

Stop hating, start experimenting with different units and tactics.

That's actually a challenge I can support, I'll take my Reivers for a spin next game if not for efficiency, at least cause they look cool

I like them, they are not perfect, the models are "ok" but they are useful occasionally and to be honest if the game is all about "efficiency" you may as well give each faction one troop unit, one elite, one fast attack and hone heavy, with a single HQ to command them, forget rule of three and then your army is simple and you can forget about list building.

indeed could have fixed armies.

you need units that are only occasionally useful in a list, in effect you need the ability to build a poor army, otherwise the skill in selecting a better one is negated as as noted, you may as well have fixed armies (as games like DBA do, with a few options perhaps but largely static)

once you get into special abilities they in effect need to cost something otherwise the non-specialists are never seen, so sort of by default you end up with something over costed the rest of the time.

just about every single game I have ever played that has a points system has this issue to various extents, especially ones with as many choices as we have here.

short of taking points away from the unit and putting them into the armies (so a Reivers unit could cost "x" here but "y" here and "z" here, which is good but complicated) this problem will always exist, if Reivers were "good", something else wouldn't be, and fixing one alone doesn't work.

Del you started an interesting and engaging topic on a unit I'd never seen fielded outside of Kill Team and really hardly cared for until now; even inspiring people to bring it to the table and experiment. Probably best to keep pushing in that direction rather than informing the community why you must be so candid and expecting apologies from random folk on the interwebz. Happen to have any pictures of those Bloodclaw Reivers? Which great company are you playing?

I love how Reivers look. A little cheesy but the assimetry of their shoulder pads plus the skull helmets us just, hmmmm...

But I cant make them work. To clear backline objetive gravers I preffer 3 heavy bolter Inceptors. They melt any min infantry unit the enemy lefts there, and once deployed are much more movile. They keep jumping from objetive to objetive clearing the field and I advance with others units like scout bikers to grav the objetived.

 Sleep Spell wrote:
Del you started an interesting and engaging topic on a unit I'd never seen fielded outside of Kill Team and really hardly cared for until now; even inspiring people to bring it to the table and experiment. Probably best to keep pushing in that direction rather than informing the community why you must be so candid and expecting apologies from random folk on the interwebz. Happen to have any pictures of those Bloodclaw Reivers? Which great company are you playing?

I don't need an apology, just seeing if he had the courage of his convictions. Sure I'll post a pic tomorrow of them, they aren't painted yet, meanwhile here are some of my bloodclaws

Light is terrible, I'll post another pic tomorrow.

People who like Reivers are acting like dropping in 5-10 reavers in someone's face is scary. Ok you spend 200 points, make 10 pistol shots and 31 S4 melee attacks while harassing something.

Just an anecdotal shot in the dark but I can deep strike 20 wyches with a net and 2 gauntlets. roughly 175 points. I get 16 better pistol shots, reroll the charge, and make 61 S4 attack, 9 are ap -1, 3 d2, and 6 reroll wounds. It's unlikely you will be able to fall back from melee and they have a 4++/6+++

What's also roughly 200 points and has 2 different ways to deep strike, including one of the few turn 1 deep strikes left in the game? a 30 man ork mob. Which is both far more deadly in both shooting and melee, can harass back line stuff better due to a huge foot print and lots of bodies to chew through, and is super fast. If you haven't played against new orks it feel like they fly across the table now. A 30 man ork mob can clear like 20", still making 60 shots with no penalty to hit.

Other less in depth units that fill a similar role, but good.

Swooping Hawks, tons of cheap shots

Scourges, lots of cheap shard carbine shots or 4 blasters

Striking Scorpions, who are now 10ppm in CA 2018. They infiltrate, have a 3+ save, have basically an equal gun, and will out melee reivers. While being faster than reivers. Plus the exarch has a no penalty power fist

40 guardsmen plus an officer. Drop 40 bodies with 4 plasmas on someone's back line. Definitely a distraction. Edit: or if you're really crazy pop up with 1 officer and 120 conscripts on the enemy's back line.

Stealth Suits. cheap model, lots of shots. more durable Not a melee threat.

The game is full of units that fill the same tactical roles as Reivers, but do a better job and are usually more deadly.

The point of Reivers is to stick Deathwatch pauldrons on them and watch your flanking unit come in with 18"/AP-2 carbines or 2+ poison carbines and actually kill something.

I've certainly never seen base-Codex Reivers do anything.

cmspano wrote:
Swooping Hawks, tons of cheap shots

Striking Scorpions, who are now 10ppm

11 + claw

Funny you say this btw, most eldar players consider these units "total garbage" (Scorpions in particular), for same reasons marines don't like rievers - i.e. what are they going to kill, or what is so dangerous about these units with their basic 2 attacks or S3 shooting?

I applaud Ishagu for standing up to all the bs though, I have somewhat similar opinion on these sort of units - they are to kill a bunch of kroot hounds running to your side trying to make line breaker and some fire warriors camping on another objective and then survive; not to "terrify" anyone with their raw damage output. You spend 5-10% of your points for these lategame grabbers so they don't hurt your list too much and play them strategically after all the major fighting ends (turn 3).

 Shadenuat wrote:

cmspano wrote:
Swooping Hawks, tons of cheap shots

Striking Scorpions, who are now 10ppm

11 + claw

Funny you say this btw, most eldar players consider these units total garbage (Scorpions in particular), for same reasons marines don't like rievers - i.e. what are they going to kill, or what is so dangerous about these units with their basic 2 attacks or S3 shooting?

I applaud Ishagu for standing up to all the bs though, I have somewhat similar opinion on these sort of units - they are to kill a bunch of kroot hounds running to your side trying to make line breaker and some fire warriors camping on another objective and then survive; not to "terrify" anyone with their raw damage output. You spend 5-10% of your points for these lategame grabbers so they don't hurt your list too much and play them strategically after all the major fighting ends (turn 3).

Scorpions have less toughness and less wounds , so they are more easily removed.
Reivers pistol is better since it have -1 AP.
Reivers have 24 inch A2 rifle and if the game is not good for deepstrike you can still get better value. For instance you can deepstrike in enemy line under cover get +1 to save and shell the enemy from save distance.
Reivers Terror troop ability is also better than the Mandibalsters, atleast for me since i never roll much sixes.

If only graphel was cheaper, 10 pts for it seem to much and if only you could take both rifle and combat knife.