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.

Those are some amazing SW Reivers! I think the faces turned out real great and the mud adds a nice touch. Maybe with the new missions heavier focus on objectives these guys can actually make an appearance.

I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.

Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.

Terror troops is better than mandiblasters? Does not compute.

 grouchoben wrote:
Terror troops is better than mandiblasters? Does not compute.

Mandiblasters used to give an additional attack on base as well

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

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

And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.

Andykp wrote:
I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.

Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.

Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

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

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

And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.

Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.

You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.

Oh come on! People can paint them with blue and purple armor, yellowish skull faces and do Skeletor impersonations with them!

 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 may be gaff, but I'll still always field them, them and banshees are my favourite aspects, I will play them if they become as effective as gretchin lol

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.

Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.

Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.

I already have Intercessors. Intercessors also can't have the heavy bolt pistol/CCW combo, nor can they have gravchutes or grapnel launchers.

Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.

Except when you REALLY want to avoid Overwatch. Or if your enemy has boosted their abilities to do that Overwatch.

You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.

And what if you don't have an Attack Bike?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I really like the wolf Reivers. Looking good. The reiver haters on here keep missing my and others points. They might not be the best points wise but they look cool. I used them in a game recently moving through some ruined industrial terrain and wiped out eldar rangers with their carbines then shockgrenaded them and then finished them of in close combat. It’s was a very very memorable “forging the narrative” moment. Well worth their inclusion. How many points is that worth? I’d painted the terrain and the unit, made a back story for them and then they performed as I’d imagined they would in a game.

Also,I don’t play with points. I’m very much a power level guy. Then it doesn’t matter if grapples are expensive or this unit drops one point or not.

Well the nice thing is that, if you think Reivers look cool, you can do what a local gal did and use them as Intercessors.

I already have Intercessors. Intercessors also can't have the heavy bolt pistol/CCW combo, nor can they have gravchutes or grapnel launchers.

Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.

Except when you REALLY want to avoid Overwatch. Or if your enemy has boosted their abilities to do that Overwatch.

You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.

And what if you don't have an Attack Bike?

1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.

Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.
2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.
3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.

But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.

Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.

Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.

And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.

2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.

Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.

3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...

Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.

And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.

But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.

Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.

Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.

And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.

2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.

Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.

3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...

Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.

And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?

I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:

Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.

But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.

I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.

If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?

 Stux wrote:
I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:

Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.

But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.

I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.

If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?

The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:

Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.

But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.

I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.

If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?

The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".

I do agree on that point.

They are undertuned. They are not good enough in their niche to justify their place in an optimised army.

But conversely, they aren't the worst unit in the game by some margin, and taking a few isn't going to tank your list in a 'normal' game. Because most people don't completely optimise their lists, or play totally optimally, and so there is wiggle room for stuff like that if you like it.

There's a been a lot of hyperbole in this thread on both sides, but really what we have is a unit that is decidedly 'meh'.

I feel the same way about them as assault marines in prior editions. Not an optimal choice, but they should do OK as a backfield harassment bully unit. Would the points be better spent elsewhere? No doubt. Fun little unit? Yup.

If you are running pure primaris, they are one of the few ways to get some mobility into your list. Although Inceptors are also a thing. Probably more useful, but also less wounds/point to blow off the table. Different uses.

 Nevelon wrote:
I feel the same way about them as assault marines in prior editions. Not an optimal choice, but they should do OK as a backfield harassment bully unit. Would the points be better spent elsewhere? No doubt. Fun little unit? Yup.

If you are running pure primaris, they are one of the few ways to get some mobility into your list. Although Inceptors are also a thing. Probably more useful, but also less wounds/point to blow off the table. Different uses.

Reasonable assesment.

If I was giving units a letter grade for general viability, I would give Inceptors a B and Reivers a C-

But as you say, different roles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

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

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

And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.

Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.

You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.

I know my experience is statistically unlikely, but I've lost so many things to overwatch that I wrote melee off altogether until I noticed the Raven Guard warlord trait shut it down. I've lost a Captain and Lieutenant to overwatch on the same turn (admittedly vs a Knight, he hit with two shield-breaker missiles in a row). I've lost a full-health Redemptor dreadnaught charging Terminators. Heck, I lost three Vanguard Veterans charging an Ondager Dunecrawler with the d3-shot battle cannon; that's better than that thing should manage in it's own shooting phase. And it's not just confirmation bias either, my second to last game I wiped out a unit of Terminators with 5 Intercessors on overwatch.

In my experience anything that completely denies the Overwatch mechanic is worth doing. Yeah, I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything. I just know what I see on the table, and what I've seen on the table is that overwatch is plenty effective.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Well the models came out around the same time, so you could've done some converting. Think of the Grav Chutes and Grapnel as more fancy bitz.

But I like the effect of the grav chutes and grapnels. I *like* the idea of a harassing backfield unit more than I do about being 1% more effective. And Intercessors just won't do the backfield role for me.

Also doesn't matter if they don't get the CCW combo because it sucks. If you want 3 S4 attacks, Vanguard do it for quicker and cheaper.

Who cares if it's not the best option? I want that combo.

And I don't care if Vanguard do it better - I'm playing an all-Primaris list. Vanguard aren't Primaris.

2. Sorry, even boosted Overwatch isn't dangerous. You know what a Mordian Infantry squad with a Bolter, Plasma Gun, and Heavy Bolter does to a basic Power Armor dude? 1.5 deaths. That's it. Imagine if you had one of those cheap Storm Shields in that Vanguard squad to catch that Heavy Bolter! Only ONE dead.

Shame I don't have any Vanguard then, isn't it.

3. You're buying all these models at once obviously. They're easy to kitbash if that's your thing too. Many people have some left over from the previous edition so...

Am I buying them all at once? Because I'm not, actually. I buy a unit, paint it, play it, then go to another.

And what if I don't LIKE Attack Bikes? What if I LIKE Reivers?

1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.
2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?
3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.
4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.
5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

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

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

And Shock Grenades. Denying Overwatch is a thing.

Overwatch is hardly a danger outside super niche scenarios. Just take your chances and you're likely fine.

You know what else denies Overwatch? An Attack Bike charging a unit. They're durable to the Overwatch mechanic and cheap to include.

I know my experience is statistically unlikely, but I've lost so many things to overwatch that I wrote melee off altogether until I noticed the Raven Guard warlord trait shut it down. I've lost a Captain and Lieutenant to overwatch on the same turn (admittedly vs a Knight, he hit with two shield-breaker missiles in a row). I've lost a full-health Redemptor dreadnaught charging Terminators. Heck, I lost three Vanguard Veterans charging an Ondager Dunecrawler with the d3-shot battle cannon; that's better than that thing should manage in it's own shooting phase. And it's not just confirmation bias either, my second to last game I wiped out a unit of Terminators with 5 Intercessors on overwatch.

In my experience anything that completely denies the Overwatch mechanic is worth doing. Yeah, I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth anything. I just know what I see on the table, and what I've seen on the table is that overwatch is plenty effective.

Anecdotes here and there are none of my concern. I once had lost 4 Hellblasters in a single phase to their own guns. Am I gonna tell people not to run Plasma because this happened this one time?

No, because you should be reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I think that Slayer is being a bit over the top, but in defence of that side of the argument:

Sure. If you like a unit, bring. No one is saying not to. I want you to have fun playing the game whatever way you find most fun.

But what we are discussing here is the power and usefulness of the unit. You enjoying it is not especially relevant to that debate.

I think when people get annoyed at Dakka for being too psuedo-power gamey, they're missing the point a lot of the time. It's a given that if you like a unit you should use it. It doesn't need to be said. The meaningful discussion is, that as a given, how GOOD is the unit.

If you don't want to partake in that discussion, then what is the point of talking about optimisation at all? Maybe just leave threads like this alone?

The issue is when people like Slayer instead say thing like "why bother taking X, just take Y instead". That's not helpful in talking about X. As I've said, I don't really think Reivers are THAT bad, they could have some extra stuff, but they're not "the most pointless unit in the game".

I do agree on that point.

They are undertuned. They are not good enough in their niche to justify their place in an optimised army.

But conversely, they aren't the worst unit in the game by some margin, and taking a few isn't going to tank your list in a 'normal' game. Because most people don't completely optimise their lists, or play totally optimally, and so there is wiggle room for stuff like that if you like it.

There's a been a lot of hyperbole in this thread on both sides, but really what we have is a unit that is decidedly 'meh'.

They're easily one of the worst units in the codex though. Anything compared to Storm Guardians looks good, obviously. Internally, Reivers are an entry that might as well not exist.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.

But they have a different role and cost. The Reivers are cheap harassment units with wide mobility options. The Inceptors are fast, hard hitting hammers, more akin to Bikers, with fast movement. Not the same role. That would be like comparing Assault Marines to Bikers.

2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?

I've not asked for advice. I've said why I like using Reivers and the role I think suits them. You've come in and said "if you want to do this, get this instead", when I've already expressed that I think Reivers are fine.

Please, if I want advice, I'll ask for it.

3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.

And I've said how Overwatch has been a threat, and cost me quite pivotal moments in the game quite a few times.

Regardless of how often "statistically" is can be a threat, when you know from experience what can happen from it, I'd rather trust my experience. I'm not asking you to do the same, only asking that you respect that I've had that experience.

4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.

I saw the models, and I liked them. When I saw what I thought their role was, I played them to that way, and liked it. I still do. Do you really think I judge my purchases based on how good they are?

5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.

I "need" to, do I?
I've got a word for you. No.

I'll play the game how I want to play it, thank you. I don't "need" to do anything if I'm happy how I am.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. If you like those effects, check out Inceptors. Simple. They move all around terrain and can drop in.

But they have a different role and cost. The Reivers are cheap harassment units with wide mobility options. The Inceptors are fast, hard hitting hammers, more akin to Bikers, with fast movement. Not the same role. That would be like comparing Assault Marines to Bikers.

2. So you want a combo, the best combo is presented, and then you say "No I want the other one".
Why bother asking for advice at all if you simply ignore everything?
Also you limiting yourself in your army choices is NONE of my concern. Reivers are so bad for the role you want that you might as well ignore the role entirely. How about that?

I've not asked for advice. I've said why I like using Reivers and the role I think suits them. You've come in and said "if you want to do this, get this instead", when I've already expressed that I think Reivers are fine.

Please, if I want advice, I'll ask for it.

3. Once again, not my concern. I presented how Overwatch wasn't dangerous.

And I've said how Overwatch has been a threat, and cost me quite pivotal moments in the game quite a few times.

Regardless of how often "statistically" is can be a threat, when you know from experience what can happen from it, I'd rather trust my experience. I'm not asking you to do the same, only asking that you respect that I've had that experience.

4. Well all the Primaris came out at once. Once you looked at the unit entry maybe more than once and realized they're terrible, you'd not have bought them for anything outside bitz.

I saw the models, and I liked them. When I saw what I thought their role was, I played them to that way, and liked it. I still do. Do you really think I judge my purchases based on how good they are?

5. Convert then. You need to think of matching models to a profile, not the other way around. You CAN make an Attack Bike stand-in if you wanna keep a Primaris theme. Someone would just need to be more creative than you, apparently.

I "need" to, do I?
I've got a word for you. No.

I'll play the game how I want to play it, thank you. I don't "need" to do anything if I'm happy how I am.

1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.
2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.
3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.
4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.

I disagree that they're that bad. But that's my opinion.

2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.

I think we have different definitions of harass. I don't expect harassing units to do massive damage. I don't even expect them to be a threat. If anything, I don't WANT them to be a massive threat like Inceptors are.

The amount of damage Inceptors do is very good. Therefore, the enemy will dedicate lots of energy to bring them down. If I put the Inceptors in to do what I have my Reivers do, then they'd be focus fired and dealt with too soon. My Reivers, because they aren't as much of a threat, can get away with literally murder. Sure, could Inceptors do more damage in a round of shooting? You bet! But they'd be destroyed before they get to shoot again. My Reivers can act meek, avoid direct conflict as much as possible while still keeping close to the enemy, and then when the enemy focus on things like the Inceptors, my Redemptor, my Repulsor, my Hellblasters, etc etc - my Reivers come in, as a cheap and nasty surprise, and knock an enemy off an objective, or take out an enemy leader isolated from his troops.

That works for me, and I'll keep doing it. If other people want to try it, you're more than welcome to!

3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.

If those couple of moments defy the expectations of maths, you bet I'm going to worry about that more. I don't care if maths says X is unlikely, if X keeps happening, I'm going to worry about X.

4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.

You're comparing people having their own experiences and opinions and ideas of fun in a tabletop wargame as being the same as Flat Earthers?

Jesus.

Reiver grenades only shut down infantry in overwatch, and that's often not your main worry when declaring charges. If they worked more widely thay would definitely be a usp. Likewise I don't think it works on greater good - the other units can still declare overwatch on you, just not the unit that ate the grenade. More niche than people are making out.

 grouchoben wrote:
Reiver grenades only shut down infantry in overwatch, and that's often not your main worry when declaring charges. If they worked more widely thay would definitely be a usp. Likewise I don't think it works on greater good - the other units can still declare overwatch on you, just not the unit that ate the grenade. More niche than people are making out.

Definitely niche, I'll agree, but it's always been a niche I value. YMMV, I guess.

I’m not making out they are anything other than what they are. The question in the OP was are they the most pointless unit? The answer is no. Depending on how I rate units. Looks, fluff, etc are more important to me than their damage per point out put or how much better less cool looking older models are.

To me, not pointless, almost a must have. Can’t wait to use them in city fights. And the grenades are very useful in certain circumstances. Not all. I will target some wraithguards with d scythes so they don’t get slaughtered charging in and can tie up a nasty unit for a we while. For example.

And again you cannot put a price on elite terror troops with carbines with a fore grip. That right there is solid gold.

They should have put Reivers on bikes. Their dumb skull masks look right at home in motocross.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. I would've told people not to use Assault Marines last edition either. Stick with either Bikers or Vanguard.
In this situation, Reivers are SO BAD you want another unit to do the role.

I disagree that they're that bad. But that's my opinion.

2. Except they don't do that role. You can only harass if you are a threat. Reivers are like the opposite.
Either the role is important enough that you'll bring in a unit to do it properly, or don't bring a unit at all. It's actually that simple.

I think we have different definitions of harass. I don't expect harassing units to do massive damage. I don't even expect them to be a threat. If anything, I don't WANT them to be a massive threat like Inceptors are.

The amount of damage Inceptors do is very good. Therefore, the enemy will dedicate lots of energy to bring them down. If I put the Inceptors in to do what I have my Reivers do, then they'd be focus fired and dealt with too soon. My Reivers, because they aren't as much of a threat, can get away with literally murder. Sure, could Inceptors do more damage in a round of shooting? You bet! But they'd be destroyed before they get to shoot again. My Reivers can act meek, avoid direct conflict as much as possible while still keeping close to the enemy, and then when the enemy focus on things like the Inceptors, my Redemptor, my Repulsor, my Hellblasters, etc etc - my Reivers come in, as a cheap and nasty surprise, and knock an enemy off an objective, or take out an enemy leader isolated from his troops.

That works for me, and I'll keep doing it. If other people want to try it, you're more than welcome to!

3. Your anecdotes are not my concern. Math says Overwatch isn't a threat even to charging Wyches.
You're letting a couple of moments dictate your army building and what rules you think are good. That's entirely silly.

If those couple of moments defy the expectations of maths, you bet I'm going to worry about that more. I don't care if maths says X is unlikely, if X keeps happening, I'm going to worry about X.

4. Ah yes the ultimate shut-out. "Lemme believe what I wanna believe". That kinda attribute is the ultimate form of "ignorance is bliss" and lets silly thoughts like Flat Earth continue.

You're comparing people having their own experiences and opinions and ideas of fun in a tabletop wargame as being the same as Flat Earthers?

Jesus.

1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.
2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.
You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.
3. So you'd rather rely on superstition. Is it any wonder I'm starting to find this conversation harder to take serious?
4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.

They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".

2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.

They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.

You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.

Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.

3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.

If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.

4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.

If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.

Bremon wrote:
They should have put Reivers on bikes. Their dumb skull masks look right at home in motocross.

I’d buy a box or two of reiver scout bikers.

Totally fits their fluff role of fast moving terror disruption troops. And would look cool

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Seeing as they're mathematically bad for the job you want them to do, that's just you being in plain denial.

They work for me, and are still not "the most pointless unit in the game".

2. Then you don't expect harassing units to do anything. At that point, Reivers are just a 90-100 point kill point.
Once again, you can only get away with "literally murder" IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUT DAMAGE.

They physically can put out damage. Not as much as you want, but they do put out damage.

You say you're glad they're not considered a threat (because they aren't) and then make this claim they're a threat and kill HQ units. You gotta pick one or the other.

Okay, allow me to clarify. They don't represent such an immediate threat as Inceptors do. Inceptors hit harder, but by doing so, make themselves a bigger target. Reivers do less damage, but because they do, they are often underestimated. Therefore, by underestimating them, they become a threat to isolated units and weak HQs.

3. So you'd rather rely on superstition.

If relying on superstition works better for me, then yes, I do.

4. In a way, yes. Allowing people to have their delusions because "it's my beliefs and you need to accept that" creates this issue where all beliefs are valid.
That's literally the opposite of progress.

If you can't separate different values in wargaming from rejecting all available scientific knowledge, with a far different set of implications beyond simple preference about which plastic toy you prefer, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.

1. They are pointless, as other units do the job better. If something is doing the unit's job better, the unit is now pointless.
Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp I wouldn't think. For example, Assault Marines are pointless because of Vanguard doing their job significantly better. Until Assault Marines are made to actually do a defined role, they're pointless. The same goes for Reivers, a unit that really shouldn't have people defending them.
2. Storm Guardians also physically put out damage. Please make a thread defending THAT unit entry, please.
They can barely threaten a Astra Commander. If they ALL had knives, they don't even inflict 5 wounds to kill said Commander. Even if they had line of sight to shoot said Commander, they get only close to 3 wounds. Now imagine those scenarios with proper screening and the Commander doesn't get touched until later in the game. That means your 180-200 points is doing even less in the game until you can actually place them on the field. Compare that to Inceptors or Vanguard, which both have Fly and have enough movement to help guarantee a successful charge.
3. So you admit, by merely being superstitious, you're likely to not have actual clarity on the situation on hand, and merely letting bias clouding your judgment in this unit assessment.
4. Seeing as you're superstitious and would rather rely on THAT than the hard facts of math behind Overwatch, me thinks this concept actually applies.

 Nevelon wrote:

Bremon wrote:
They should have put Reivers on bikes. Their dumb skull masks look right at home in motocross.

I’d buy a box or two of reiver scout bikers.

Totally fits their fluff role of fast moving terror disruption troops. And would look cool

They would certainly look better than current scout bikers. I’d like GW to make some more traditional roles for Primaris. Ideally they don’t get “mini repulsor” anti grav bikes lol.