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.

Ok, what unit that Marines have access to can fulfil the role of Reivers? A cheap, backfield disruption and point grab.

100 points or less, arrive from reserve without CP, enough wounds to be annoying to deal with mid to late game.

It's not Terminators, it's not Scouts (their role is very useful but different). I would argue Scouts don't have better offence as their bolters are only effective at 12" and they have far less cc output - they also can't be kept off the field but have objective secured. Reivers can be deployed in turn 2/3 in response to what has happened in the game and the movement of units. Inceptors have a different role and shouldn't be left on an objective or away from the fight.

Of course if you're mixing armies then sure, you can find a better unit. The Assassins require to be taken in greater number or you'd sacrifice CP, they are the closest comparison.

So please guys, do show me the other 100 point unit that arrives from reserve and has 10 wounds in the Marine codex.

Missing the point there. The big issue is that they are yet more strength 4 attacks in a codex that is over flowing with strength 4 attacks.

Sure they have movement abilities that are helpful in some situations. Objective grabbing is nice, but as all things can grab objectives that isn't anything unique to them. A deep striking unit of terminators can do the same. Marines have a few fast moving vehicles that can whizz around d and grab objectives.

So, again they don't really add anything new, other than being great models.

Scouts actually do have better offense. 22 points vs 20 is the same shots over 12" BUT Scouts get twice the amount below 12".
You either get 10 Scouts for 110 points or 5 Reivers with the Carbine for 100. The moment you have anything with more than D1 pointing at the Reivers they lose out on durability, AND the Scouts cover more ground.

Scouts are very good indeed, but the 110 points is misleading. That's without camo cloaks, and they are far easier to remove due to a max 3+ save in cover and being more difficult to hide due to larger model count.

As I said, they are pretty much stuck where you deploy them at the start of the game, but that might not be the most ideal locaton 2/3 turns in.

This is the point I'm making. Reivers are NOT useless. They are also not an auto include by any stretch. I was responding the hyperbolic comments of "They are the worst unit ever made" knocking around in this topic.

Pointing out the flaw in hyperbole, is ultimately as valuable as pointing out that the enjoyment of all art is subjective.

Reivers are basically at the same level of basic uselessness as a tactical squad, in that, while as they exist and have some wounds, they have some use, there are a myriad of things that people with some level of intellect will include before considering looking at them. Its not unreasonable for some people to equate this to being effectively useless.

I'd rather they shift to being more support personally.

1. Make their grenades last until the START of your next turn.
2. Give them the auxiliary grenade launcher.
3. Rework their Terror Troops aura: enemy units within 3" of a Reiver can never control objective markers.

This makes Reivers no more killy. But they can drop in on an objective. Locking it down while supporting the army by targeting key enemy INFANTRY and giving them -1 to hit.

You can still take Vanguard vets with power weapons if you want fast killy melee. These changes make Reivers go into a "unique" roll not currently filled in the Marine line-up.

Just my two cents

In response to secretForge

I disagree. They are far more useful than a Tactical squad and have a place and strategic niche in the Marine range.

If you branch out to other factions their niche and usefulness is diminished, but if your only interest is to focus on the top unit then you shouldn't be playing Marines at all.

So which is it? Does your interest lie only in best of category units? You won't find those in the Marine codex

 Ishagu wrote:
Ok, what unit that Marines have access to can fulfil the role of Reivers? A cheap, backfield disruption and point grab.

100 points or less, arrive from reserve without CP, enough wounds to be annoying to deal with mid to late game.

It's not Terminators, it's not Scouts (their role is very useful but different). I would argue Scouts don't have better offence as their bolters are only effective at 12" and they have far less cc output - they also can't be kept off the field but have objective secured. Reivers can be deployed in turn 2/3 in response to what has happened in the game and the movement of units. Inceptors have a different role and shouldn't be left on an objective or away from the fight.

Of course if you're mixing armies then sure, you can find a better unit. The Assassins require to be taken in greater number or you'd sacrifice CP, they are the closest comparison.

So please guys, do show me the other 100 point unit that arrives from reserve and has 10 wounds in the Marine codex.

Interceptors are far more useful and fulfill anything that reivers can do, but do it better, its better using a good elite unit than wasting the slot for a unit that only punches as well as troops.

You mean Inceptors. They are very good, but they are strictly an offensive unit.

They are much more expensive if taken above 3 and have to be engaged with enemy units, it's a different role.

Do you only measure a unit's worth by it's killing potential? Would you say that Guardsmen are rubbish? They are pretty poor at removing models with their las guns.

 Ishagu wrote:
Scouts are very good indeed, but the 110 points is misleading. That's without camo cloaks, and they are far easier to remove due to a max 3+ save in cover and being more difficult to hide due to larger model count.

As I said, they are pretty much stuck where you deploy them at the start of the game, but that might not be the most ideal locaton 2/3 turns in.

This is the point I'm making. Reivers are NOT useless. They are also not an auto include by any stretch. I was responding the hyperbolic comments of "They are the worst unit ever made" knocking around in this topic.

Yeah so you don't buy Camo Cloaks because they're a bad upgrade. At least Sniper Rifles went down a couple of points, right?

Also you're talking strictly vs anything that's D1. Once you go into D2 and above, Reivers lose their supposed durability advantage. The main reason Intercessors work is because they're only paying 3-4 points for the extra wound and attack over other choices.

Yeah, Damage 2 is a big deal.

How many units firing mass damage 2 weapons are typically left after 3 turns? Not many, I'm assuming you'd have good target priority.

It really isn't a massive deal. Reivers are easy enough to hide and if they cause a distraction then even better.

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean Inceptors. They are very good, but they are strictly an offensive unit.

They are much more expensive if taken above 3 and have to be engaged with enemy units, it's a different role.

Do you only measure a unit's worth by it's killing potential? Would you say that Guardsmen are rubbish? They are pretty poor at removing models with their las guns.

Yeah and you normally take an expensive unit that hits hard for an elite unit. Reivers are an offensive unit, they are just so bad at it that to get any use out of them you have to play them defensively. I think you just think they are a cool unit and therefore are trying to make them good in your head.

They aren't an offensive unit. They are a backfield disruption unit.

I'm not saying they are the best at it I'm saying they have a strategic niche and a place in a list.

How much do you play? You seem to be theory crafting around offensive output only. The game is won with objectives more often than not.

 Ishagu wrote:
They aren't an offensive unit. They are a backfield disruption unit.

I'm not saying they are the best at it I'm saying they have a strategic niche and a place in a list.

How much do you play? You seem to be theory crafting around offensive output only. The game is won with objectives more often than not.

Lol a backfield disruption unit is an offensive unit lol How do you disrupt standing on an objective and being defensive. Its like saying to the SAS during WW2 don't bother trying to damage that airfield, just sit in the sand and make sand castles. Listen I'm even going to bother trying to explain the level of play I'm at because its obvious its far better than yours lol But you've won a tournament 'guys we have a tournament king here' The majority of people say they suck but we are all suppose to take the tournament kings advice, because he understands the concept of 'defence'.

Typically you find some small infantry squads out of line of sight guarding objectives. This unit is perfect for whittling them down, winning you line breaker, table quarters, etc

It can easily remove 10 Guardsmen, Skitaari, Firewarriors, etc from a position on the board.

And yes, most people on online forums have limited experience and parrot each other. Is this a surprise to you? lol
Maybe I'm too edgy and cool, setting trends too far ahead in time? You can think what you want lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Typically you find some small infantry squads out of line of sight guarding objectives. This unit is perfect for whittling them down, winning you line breaker, table quarters, etc

It can easily remove 10 Guardsmen, Skitaari, Firewarriors, etc from a position on the board.

And yes, most people on online forums have limited experience and parrot each other. Is this a surprise to you? lol

Yeah and if you don't kill all of them you can't even secure the objective because they are elites. thats them wasted a turn. Inceptors would kill all of them and sit nicely on the objective. Then their fast movement could see them to another objective, while the reivers are stuck moping up guardsmen.

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.

 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.

Ifs and buts are what you are peddling here, you use footslogging elites to grab objectives, when you have inceptors, you don't even know what you're doing. I try different things, not stupid things.

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.

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!

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yeah and if you don't kill all of them you can't even secure the objective because they are elites. thats them wasted a turn. Inceptors would kill all of them and sit nicely on the objective. Then their fast movement could see them to another objective, while the reivers are stuck moping up guardsmen.

The problem is you are even more fragile than the Reivers. Your opponent will almost certainly prioritise killing them.

The idea of a backfield unit that bullies min-sized troop objective holders who are isolated from support is a reasonable one and can work in certain games. (It would be significantly better if they had objective secured - and objective secured wasn't one model, one vote but there you go.)
Its just not effective in a lot of them.

Say Fire Warriors - well, odds are I'm going to have 30 or so of them (or pushing 100, but whose counting) in the backfield. And sure some of them may have died. But odds are if your 5 Reivers bully one unit, another 4-5 squads can quickly respond. You can say "its not fair, 100 points of reievers obviously can't face 200-300 points of fire warriors (or guardsmen or whatever)" - but this is the situation.
So then we can say "bring two squads, or a full 10 man squad" - but its starting to be a lot of points for a unit which just bullies troops fairly late into the game. A big squad becomes a justified target for a ravager or a riptide etc etc.

 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.

What abuse, I was being civil until he was trying to qualify his opinion with I play tournaments and trying to subtly accuse me of not knowing what I'm doing by even asking that and his whole do you not know how to play defensively speel. Rudeness is rudeness whatever what you go about it and I will combat subtle rudeness with donkey-cave level rudness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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!

Stop playing the victim you started it.

You're the one dismissing units without trying them out.

On paper 10 guardsmen aren't much to look at, either.


As I said, I merely argued about their strategic niche whilst some outright dismiss them. The latter are not coming out looking favourable.

 Ishagu wrote:
You're the one dismissing units without trying them out.

On paper 10 guardsmen aren't much to look at, either.


As I said, I merely argued about their strategic niche whilst some outright dismiss them. The latter are not coming out looking favourable.

So having an different opinion is assaulting you some how. You are the one contradicting what I said, having made the thread, so I'm not dismissing your notions I had this opinion before you started commenting your speel. You contradicted my opinion and therefore have to prove it.

Del, your threads crack me up. They all are basically you giving an opinion then shouting down anyone who disagrees, whether they are right or wrong.

phillv85 wrote:
Del, your threads crack me up. They all are basically you giving an opinion then shouting down anyone who disagrees, whether they are right or wrong.

You mean like everyone else on here? Do you want me to root around looking for threads where you do the same because I have the time to do that. People think I'm more of an donkey-cave than I am, because all use donkey-cave level rudness when sly people subtly insult, but try and find a thread where I started incivility and you might find a handful but thats it. I'm just honest and don't deny doing anything that you all do in your "polite" way. I at least never hold an argument against someone, next time I speak with them I forget about it and be civil again because we all have heated arguments where we act like donkey-caves.

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.

 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 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 certainly very stupid.

For those 200pts I could get a sternguard squad, or company veterans with a ++3 invulnerable save (now that stormshields are 2pts) with storm bolters and the ability to prevent my warlord from dying and also having the veteran profile.

I could get two squads of them for 18pts each and have a squad that is both durable and can take a razorback each.

 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 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 certainly very stupid.

So you try every list someone puts up on here, give me a break and you've got to give me a good reason for using them other than 'defensive', or useless objective grabbers.

 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.

1. You defend bad units, you get called out on it. Simple as that.
2. What role are they filling that isn't already done by Scouts or Inceptors?

The answer is none. Morale gimmicks are just that: gimmicks. They have less offensive power than even Scouts for the points as I just showed earlier. Scouts do the SAME disruption but better. Inceptors are much quicker for harassment.

Reivers have no point in existing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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!

Their niche is filled by Scouts, who have more offensive power for the points and are more durable against anything D2 and above.

Prove me wrong.