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.

The OP recommended the ravager as the best overall choice. It didn't even mention the jet.
I was talking with him and I think the razorwing makes an excellent anti troop selection, but that is not something that's in short supply in a standard DE list so there's just no competition in the heavy support slot for the ravager. With a mech DE list at least.

Razorwing is garbage... might as well go voidray bomber

If you take the average of two missiles hitting per Razorwing, that's six total hits

Seeing this breaks my heart. I JUST DID the math, and its not 6 total hits. I mean, you do have a point, but at least be bothered to put up accurate numbers.

And if it is only 1 pen and 1 glance if every single one of the 3 razors you took all had to shoot rhinos, what about the 3 extra dlance shots you could have instead?

3 DL shots averages 2 hits, which averages 1 pen and .33 glances. So... the razorwing is better, when you have nothing better to shoot but av11.

Here is the thing guys... what are you advocating when you say the Razorwing is garbage but the venom is good? If the only thing that is good in a DE list is dlances, then you should have raiders and ravagers. If you want a combo of ranged antitank and ranged antitroop, then venoms and razorwings are good. Its not possible to fairly say the venom is good in your list but the razorwing would be terrible... because the math proves otherwise.

Venoms are 5 pts cheaper than raiders and gets free flickerfield, you can load 5 warriors with a blaster and still able to anti-tank. At the same time venoms are alot better at anti-infantry than raiders.

Not saying venoms are alot better than raiders, people can go either one. BUT ravagers are to be fielded over razorcrap, its 40 pts cheaper(10 more pts gets you another venom), and although opened top has Av11 fronts/side. Arguing that they get good anti-infantry missiles that can also pop Av11 doesnt justify for 40 more pts. Thats why people spam venoms and blasters alongside ravagers.

SonsofVulkan wrote:Venoms are 5 pts cheaper than raiders and gets free flickerfield, you can load 5 warriors with a blaster and still able to anti-tank. At the same time venoms are alot better at anti-infantry than raiders.

Not saying venoms are alot better than raiders, people can go either one. BUT ravagers are to be fielded over razorcrap, its 40 pts cheaper(10 more pts gets you another venom), and although opened top has Av11 fronts/side. Arguing that they get good anti-infantry missiles that can also pop Av11 doesnt justify for 40 more pts. Thats why people spam venoms and blasters alongside ravagers.

The issue of whether blasters in venoms being the better choice than whatever in raiders is not as simple as what you make it out to be. Raiders can hold more, and their cargo can be anti infantry. The important part is the fact that the DL has a longer range, and can shoot anti tank shots first turn without disembarking. It is also bigger, which means it can screen other units better. Venoms are small, and so is their cargo. Its anti tank range bubble is small (without disembarking), but its anti infantry range is long.

People spam venoms with ravagers because it is the mathhammer way to run the army. Looking at the ranges, size of models, and concentration of first turn fire power, and you realize that maybe a bit more balance than spam actually gives you more options. I'll give up shots for better balance. Its why I think the razorwing is decent, assuming the points are there (and I can find more crap to cut in most peoples lists to pay for the difference).

Another factor that people dismiss with the razorwing is the fact the missiles are longer range than most shooting in the list. 48 is a big deal for xenos armies. Large blasts? Easily punch holes in mobs of orks, power guard blobs, and nid swarms. Heck, with as many shots you get you can even cripple marine squads.

Seeing this breaks my heart. I JUST DID the math, and its not 6 total hits. I mean, you do have a point, but at least be bothered to put up accurate numbers.

There's a lot of variables in the scatter die. You "hit" 33% of the time. 66% of the time you scatter. The average scatter is 7" so 3" when BS is factored. 3" is a big enough distance to take the center hole off of the Rhino. I used 2 per as the average. I didn't see a post where a bigger breakdown was done.

And if it is only 1 pen and 1 glance if every single one of the 3 razors you took all had to shoot rhinos, what about the 3 extra dlance shots you could have instead?

Here's the problem; you get those missiles once. So even if you are frontloadedly more efficient, over the course of the game that is untrue.

3 DL shots averages 2 hits, which averages 1 pen and .33 glances. So... the razorwing is better, when you have nothing better to shoot but av11.

2 DL and 4 Missiles wouldn't be much if at all better. And as I said before, it is one turn.

Here is the thing guys... what are you advocating when you say the Razorwing is garbage but the venom is good? If the only thing that is good in a DE list is dlances, then you should have raiders and ravagers. If you want a combo of ranged antitank and ranged antitroop, then venoms and razorwings are good. Its not possible to fairly say the venom is good in your list but the razorwing would be terrible... because the math proves otherwise.

For the record, I don't think the Razorwing is garbage. I would not question anyone who ran one Razor and two Ravagers. I think that that could be justified. Three is ridiculous. If we are talking pure efficiency then the Ravager is better at the anti tank role. Period. The Razorwing is a hybrid unit and pays to be one. I broke down the points before:

3 Ravagers with Dark Lances and FF and 3 Venoms-540
3 Razorwings with FF and 3 Raiders with FF-675

The Ravager choice is more points efficient and there is no confused role. The Ravagers shoot tanks (and heavy stuff) the Venoms kill infantry (and really anything with a T value). The Razorwings have to make a choice on what to shoot versus fully meched foes. Do you waste those missiles against tanks? Or do you take the gamble that they will be around turn 2 to shoot them? Chances are, they won't. The reason, they will never get a cover save.

If you look at the point cost and lack of cover save potential alone you can easily see that Ravagers are more efficient. Again, Razors on their own aren't "bad" they just aren't as good. Though I would argue that more than one is bad.