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.

In my last game against a member of the Canadian ETC team Reivers scored me objectives and line breaker and won me the game, and ironically one took off the last wound off a tough unit by getting a lucky 6 with a Carbine shot.

They did almost no damage the whole game but with them it's not about math hammer. It's about utility.

10 points per wound with a 3+ that can arrive anywhere on the tabletop. I literally don't care about their killing power. Having said that, in the game prior to that my two Reiver units removed two Guard squads from objectives and once again scored points for me, helping me achieve a 20-0 win in ETC scoring. In cover they are surprisingly durable and require more than an off-hand shooting attack to remove so they are either ignored or they draw fire away from other more important units.

There is more to playing than using meta units, and sometimes the units that people aren't spamming can be the most surprising and ultimately useful in certain situations.

 Ishagu wrote:
In my last game against a member of the Canadian ETC team Reivers scored me objectives and line breaker and won me the game, and ironically one took off the last wound off a tough unit by getting a lucky 6 with a Carbine shot.

They did almost no damage the whole game but with them it's not about math hammer. It's about utility.

Called it back when their codex came out, they exist to make your opponent's backfield paranoid. And I'll keep leaning on it because it's exactly what I do with GSC neophytes, only they die a crap load faster so they aren't nearly the same problem.

Just hurt some objective camper enough that it's highly unlikely to do serious damage to the reivers, pop them in there and keep the point through numbers during contested CC, either forcing your opponent to withdraw from the point, lose it for a turn, and then turn however much fire power against them to get rid of them, drag something over there that can kill them, or give you the point.

It may not translate to damage, but if I can pull that off with neophytes for a turn or two, I'm dead sure a squad of reivers can do it.

Exactly.

I see a lot of naysayers who literally have Zero experience with the unit, or have played it wrong, or don't really play the game all that often. Ironically these are the people who are the most vocal and hyperbolic and it becomes very tiresome to see.

People need to look beyond math hammer and remember that movement, scoring, objectives and positioning are all part of the game.

Will Reivers work on every game? Nope! But they are only a modest investment in a list.

While your theory is correct, short cuts across the field, and surprise uses for surprise units are potent...

Your application is wrong.

A lucky 6 with a Reiver Carbine is still just a lucky 6. A 6 triggers no special ability for a Reiver, like it does for the infiltrators. Linebreaker can be accomplished by any deep striking or infiltrating unit. The Reivers lose to even one guardsman on the objective.

You say the Reivers are only 10 points a wound. Infiltrators are only eleven and a half or so, infiltrate instead of deep strike which isn’t quite as good overall though it is situationally better, have the same 3+ in cover durability, and their own medic to strengthen that durability, screen out a large bubble for deep strike, are objective secured and beat out that last guardsman, plus their shooting is arguably better.

Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Were you playing in southport this weekend ishagu?

I was indeed lol
Were you there?

There are two problems with your approach to reivers here:
1. Charge. You still have to make this 9" charge to contest the objective. I mean, yeah, they are pretty tough, sure. But do they have anything to help them get out from reserve AND charge to contest objective? Or they will just fail this and stay in the open like 100pts dead weight? I am ready to try, sure, but for the 100 pts? Probably I'll use someone else for that task.
2. They are not troop, so a single guardsman survivor, or ork boy will ruin the plan.

Nice looking guys, but too bad at their work. Give them rerollable charge and obj sec, and they are good.

Who's charging? I run mine with Carbines. The few times I've charged them into Guadsmen they have indeed cleared the unit out.

If you're looking for a fool proof, meta-busting unit this is not it. It has flaws and shortcomings, but It has still served me well in a lot of games against a great variety of lists. I'm not telling anyone to spam Reivers - I'm saying they are simply another tool in the toolbox.

Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

 Ishagu wrote:
I was indeed lol
Were you there?

Yep I was the guy getting my behind handed to me with 18 wulfen and 30 intecessors which were a glorious plastic grey.

Your last game did look pretty funny, myself and my opponent, looked over at your table after our first turn, and your table had already removed all 7 Repulsors that were on the board, we were very confused.

Silver144 wrote:
Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

Two 5 man.

What objectives are they not clearing? Have you seen a table at turn 3? Its full of depleted units scattered around and damaged vehicles. I've cleared out plenty of depleted 5 man tau/guard/chaos, etc units with them.

Are you assuming that there are no objectives on the table that aren't being camped on? That's not always the case either. Maybe I want the Reivers to re-take an objective in my own deployment zone that was lost after a unit was destroyed and I can't get my other units back in time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

secretForge wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I was indeed lol
Were you there?

Yep I was the guy getting my behind handed to me with 18 wulfen and 30 intecessors which were a glorious plastic grey.

Your last game did look pretty funny, myself and my opponent, looked over at your table after our first turn, and your table had already removed all 7 Repulsors that were on the board, we were very confused.

Hey man, glad to speak to you here! Lol these forums are a real hive of scum and villainy.
I have to play up the snooty persona! :-P

I'm perfectly reasonable in person lol

Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

Anecdotal evidence from dozens of games against top players from the UK, USA and other countries. What's your evidence? You haven't seen someone win a tournament with them?

Read what I say - Reivers are not a meta-busting unit. They will not make your list unbeatable. They can be played in a way to make them useful if you want to run them, that is all.

Ok. They probably will be buffed in this new codex, so could work that way good, will see soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only reason I didn't use them in game yet - I still have no idea what will they become eventually - shooty or choppy unit, so I simply don't know how to build them.

And I don't believe the crap with 2 builds, it's GW, there is only one way the unit will work, the other build is a fake choice.

 Ishagu wrote:
Exactly.

I see a lot of naysayers who literally have Zero experience with the unit, or have played it wrong, or don't really play the game all that often. Ironically these are the people who are the most vocal and hyperbolic and it becomes very tiresome to see.

People need to look beyond math hammer and remember that movement, scoring, objectives and positioning are all part of the game.

Will Reivers work on every game? Nope! But they are only a modest investment in a list.

The problem is that other units do this job better.

With the old rules for grapnels that let them sometimes get guaranteed turn 1 charges they at least had something, but not anymore.

And yes I have used them. Of course it's possible for them to do work, but that isn't the point. The point is the odds are stacked against them, and the cost of the unit can generally be spent on other things for more impact in most games.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Anecdotal evidence is not very good at holding up to scrutiny. You're just using them as backfield harassment which you can use a number of other things for, some of which do a better job than Reivers.

They are just not a good unit, regardless of straw man arguments.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you put Reivers on the table? I ask because my (admittedly limited) experience with them has more or less lined up with Ishago's. They're not a great backfield bully with DS, but they're either better or significantly cheaper per wound than the alternatives.

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Because it wasn’t relevant? It didn’t trigger anything, you didn’t need to be a Reiver to use it?

I repeat - Infiltrators are 11.5 per wound when you said Reivers were an attractive 10 points per wound, have Infiltrate and a Anti Deep Strike bubble. And better shooting though Beta Bolter, and their natural 6 gimmick. And a medic. AND objective secured. Why is 10 points great, and 11.5 for far more bad?

Probably he values their ability to arrive turn three.
But this also means you have 200pts less firepower on the table 1st and 2nd turns, and this is pretty rough, marines are already outnumbered in almost every matchup.

Silver144 wrote:
Probably he values their ability to arrive turn three.
But this also means you have 200pts less firepower on the table 1st and 2nd turns, and this is pretty rough, marines are already outnumbered in almost every matchup.

Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k. There are armies that win without ever firing a shot. There are units that make a difference without ever attacking an enemy.

The game is much more than maths and shooting.

i think you are still missing the point Ishagu is trying to make.

late in the game the prospect of deep striking a unit (or two) with the utility to harass the opponents objectives, get line breaker sown up, grab objectives is - as it potentially curbing their moves in case they leave gaps. its the fear they offer an d the versatility. Infiltrators cant do this, yes they are powerful turn 1 but you are comparing apples and oranges here.
like he says its not all about meta and kills off the bat sometimes.

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are you focusing on the lucky 6? I literally explained that I don't care about the damage. That was just a funny quirk in the game.

Infiltrators are great, a bit too pricey at the moment. The infiltrate is very useful but it''s also very different from arriving in the later turns. The Reivers are there to respond to shifts in the battlefield and grab objectives that might not be apparent or possible on turn 1.

Because it wasn’t relevant? It didn’t trigger anything, you didn’t need to be a Reiver to use it?

I repeat - Infiltrators are 11.5 per wound when you said Reivers were an attractive 10 points per wound, have Infiltrate and a Anti Deep Strike bubble. And better shooting though Beta Bolter, and their natural 6 gimmick. And a medic. AND objective secured. Why is 10 points great, and 11.5 for far more bad?

Deploying outside of your zone and arriving on turn 3 are two completely different things. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I have no problem with Infiltrators but they perform a different role.

Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Silver144 wrote:
Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Have you not seen Jim Vesal's tournament crushing, mixed daemon army? I believe it has one or maybe two units with ranged weapons in the whole list?
There are literally factions who don't have guns in 40k.

Arguably a bad deployment or use of objective placing/ movements can cost you a game - or very much hinder yourself greatly before any dice have been rolled

Brass eye wrote:
Arguably a bad deployment or use of objective placing/ movements can cost you a game - or very much hinder yourself greatly before any dice have been rolled

Very true. It has happened to me and each time is a learning experience.

 Ishagu wrote:


Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k.

If you want a reasonable discussion with people - because you do have a fair point at the heart of a lot of your posts - you should really try to dial back your tone here. It's very condescending and regardless of whether you are in the right people will react badly to it.

 Ishagu wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Sounds like a malifaux, a good game indeed.
Never saw a 40k army, that wins without firing a shoot, maybe I am just bad at thus game. Who knows.

Have you not seen Jim Vesal's tournament crushing, mixed daemon army? I believe it has one or maybe two units with ranged weapons in the whole list?
There are literally factions who don't have guns in 40k.

I totally forgot about all-melee armies like daemons, to be honest. Well, in that case your words are true, such armies exist.
For such late purpose SW army have JP veterans with SS and SB, who could arrive t3 and bring better daka for same points. Also I use a single dirtcheap cyberwolfs for the late scoring, just hiding him behind los 1st or 2nd turn (with ETC rules all 1rst floors are los blocks).

 Stux wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:


Aha. You're only concerned with firepower?

Very basic way to play 40k.

If you want a reasonable discussion with people - because you do have a fair point at the heart of a lot of your posts - you should really try to dial back your tone here. It's very condescending and regardless of whether you are in the right people will react badly to it.

I see what you mean here, I didn't actually mean it as an insult.

There are multiple levels associated with 40k, the basics and advanced play.

Building a balanced list, learning the rules, optimising - these are all natural progressions. Eventually you come across someone who has also mastered all those points, and advanced play comes in. Out-manoeuvring your opponent, surprising them, deploying with an advantage, etc. This is what I mean. Eventually things which seemed less important becomes the same things that win you the game.

Silver144 wrote:
Do you take them in 10 man unit and sinking 200pts in it (half of the knight), or the 5 man with 10 str4 no rend shoot is enouth to clear objectives in your meta? Just curious.

I see this logic all the time lately.

"That's knight level points"
"Almost a knight"
etc

It's such a terrible way to measure the usefulness of a unit.