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 way it is worded right now, 2 ripper bases can inflict 3 hull points on a vehicle.
Stopping a vehicle is nice and fluffy, but wrecking it this easily could be a bit too much

Most of these models are fair to discuss, but i have to agree on Deathleaper. He is truly too much. I see no reason not to take him in every single list.
Maybe a little point increase and gets overwatched as usual if he charges in the first turn?

For Raveners, instead of making them melee specialists with the deep strike rule as an afterthought, i suggest we focus more on that rule.
Let's leave them at the actual point cost and stat line they have on the official codex, then we enhance the deep strike capabilites. Fluff wise, deep strike mishaps and randomness is dumb when you are just emerging, in particular if you are guided by someone. I suggest that they can decide on which turn they come onto the table and if the result of the deep strike is a mishap, they reduce the scattering accordlngly, like trygons. If they elect to deep strike in an area covered by synapse, they do not scatter.

Now they have a clear role which is not in contrast with the shrikes, the cost is justified and they are more respecting of the fluff.