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.

Brass eye wrote:
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.

There are better units to do that for 100 points though already. There's no point to the Reiver entry as is.

 Ishagu wrote:

 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.

This is true, but I do think people are equally susceptible of falling into the opposite trap of ignoring math entirely in favour of statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence.

Approach everything critically and with nuance basically!

Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

Not disagreeing slayer, i was just trying to expand on the point Ishagu was trying to offer with a bit more context and what I thought was trying to be discussed/ explained.
Any in particular you see as better value? i can see vanguards with jet pack may fill this gap here but outside of a mono faction army i am sure there are other imperial units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

Wow bad anecdotal evidence that didn't refute my point.

I can prove 100 points of Reivers do no damage compared to 100 points of Infantry. It isn't difficult.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

A guardsman has literally never wounded one of my models and I play against them every week, from what I can remember. I guess they are rubbish too.

Wow bad anecdotal evidence that didn't refute my point.

I can prove 100 points of Reivers do no damage compared to 100 points of Infantry. It isn't difficult.

Lol what are you talking about? You've literally missed the point of everything discussed over the last page.I think you need to grow up and stop being hyperbolic.

I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Point efficiency is very important but it is a very basic layer of the overall game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Can you read? I have outlined multiple uses for them. I have used them in multiple tournament and majors. You don't know what you are talking about.

If people only care about efficiency everyone would be playing an Eldar airforce with Alaitoc. People use the tools their faction of choice provides.

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

The main issue at hand is that mathhammer relies on 100% LOS and 100% within range cases, and the current system/majority of tournaments simply doesn't have enough terrain to let this theoretical case play itself out.

More often than not, a game is decided within the first turn. If it doesn't, then both players are slow playing their games.

In such scenario, the usefulness of such elements that add 'tactical' advantage is near nil - which is the standpoint of people who assert reiver's uselessness/worse choice.

All units on board MUST kill, survive, and scare the opponents. Any units that aren't able to do all three fall short in comparative analysis of the units.

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Point efficiency is very important but it is a very basic layer of the overall game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Can you read? I have outlined multiple uses for them. I have used them in multiple tournament and majors. You don't know what you are talking about.

If people only care about efficiency everyone would be playing an Eldar airforce with Alaitoc. People use the tools their faction of choice provides.

Yeah and they only use the good tools, or are you suggesting people are using their Flayed Ones wrong and they need to L2P?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

Have you actually played the game? I've done the math and I've used them. Is every objective on the board screened by 30 models by turn 3?

I worry about you. You seem to lack confidence to try out anything new. Variety is the spice of life, my friend. Don't cage yourself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Those masks and helmets.
If those masks and helmets were sold seperately I doubt Reivers would even be looked at by most people, I sold the masks and helmets for half the cost of the box when I kitbashed Wulfen out of a Reivers box.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

1. an example would be nice for comparison. i haven't disagreed but it would be nice to have something to compare against.
2. you have missed the point trying to be made here - maybe i was too vague as have other posters. Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

Brass eye wrote:
Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

I'm afraid this simply isn't true due to the escalation of lethality in the game currently. If your opponent is at least a bit competent, your army should be at about 20~30% of its starting strength top of 3rd round, unless you were able to cripple his army first.

It's not uncommon to lose anywhere between 700~1000 pts in the first turn.

 skchsan wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

The main issue at hand is that mathhammer relies on 100% LOS and 100% within range cases, and the current system/majority of tournaments simply doesn't have enough terrain to let this theoretical case play itself out.

More often than not, a game is decided within the first turn. If it doesn't, then both players are slow playing their games.

In such scenario, the usefulness of such elements that add 'tactical' advantage is near nil - which is the standpoint of people who assert reiver's uselessness/worse choice.

All units on board MUST kill, survive, and scare the opponents. Any units that aren't able to do all three fall short in comparative analysis of the units.

Mathhammer just gives you a kind of boundary on unit performance. Since all units for the most part are affected by LoS issues, over many games, these cancel out.

not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

Brass eye wrote:
not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

An inferior unit set up equally poorly does even worse. Deploying to mitigate damage sometimes runs counter to the objectives of the match or isn't even possible due to the shape and nature of terrain.

i would be less concerned about my reivers being set up poorly than i would me setting up my razorback with no LOS. just comparing two units with equal-ish points neither great for what you get).

my opinion is that hard hitting units suffer a larger swing than more meh units.

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Brass eye wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also nobody is scared of Reivers. Like, NOBODY. They do absolutely no damage and don't offer Objective Secured in that situation presented.

He didn't do well in the ETC for a reason and that's because he handicapped the list.

i never mentioned objective secured sorry if i gave that impression. A simple get onto an objective/ line breaker or a basic something else to shoot could be important. As the screen maybe thinner at that stage in a game the fear of stun locking your opponents shooting may be a consideration as well. not everything is about points and what price outside of a kill per point do you put on deep striking/ locking up units or grabbing objectives/ line breaker? I assume infantry squads on the board from turn 1 may struggle with a couple of those things. i agree starting with Reivers in your deployment from turn 1 and footslogging is a dreadful way to spend points - but no one has said that. I believe the point was around utility and later game turn options

1. There are already cheaper or more effective units for the price to go for those objectives or line breaker. Reivers basically pay for AP-1 on their pistols and their morale gimmick that's nothing more than a gimmick.
2. They couldn't even thin thinned screens. Have you actually done the math for their offensive capabilities?

There's simply no point to the unit entry. They could be removed and the only thing that would happen is people filling that void with the vastly superior Intercessors.

1. an example would be nice for comparison. i haven't disagreed but it would be nice to have something to compare against.
2. you have missed the point trying to be made here - maybe i was too vague as have other posters. Its not about mathhammer and damage all the time (again a point that has tried to be made)

1. Well the easiest example by far for these purposes would be Scouts (who have better durability to multi-damage weapons and complete the troop tax), Infiltrators (who get bonuses with their Bolt weapons, fulfill a particular niche with their 12" denial, and once again a troop tax) and Vanguard (who can start behind a building and get anywhere with Fly + superior movement, allowing actual tarpitting, and can fly away and still shoot if you go dual Bolt Pistols or Plasma Pistols). Raven Guard have the ability to Infiltrate units (or get a Scout move depending on if you follow that Errata), Space Wolves get Outflank for 1CP, and Deathwatch can Deep Strike anything in a similar manner for up to 3 units.
2. I know it isn't. However there are mathematically superior units doing that same thing. That's why I'm saying Reivers pay for useless gimmicks like the grapple and morale and Deep Strike. The AP-1 Bolt Pistols are at least a nice touch at least.

Reivers do get some additional utility with the phobos stuff from vanguard. If I just want to remove screens, I think they are better than DC for BA. Now vanilla has vet intercessors, so that might ruin everything for the reivers.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think that points efficiency is massively overblown online. Ok, if throughout the whole list you are taking the absolute most "efficient" option for every conceivable role then yeah it'll likely make a huge difference. A few points here and there over a similar unit, meh. Reavers are a visually interesting addition to the range and sold like hotcakes according to Jes Goodwin, when I have used them I haven't found them to be useless although I am certainly not facing OP lists.

Something else being slightly more efficient (don't know how true that actually is and I suspect most who make the statement don't either beyond some theory) doesn't equate to "useless", it's a strange and increasing popular sentiment.

They were only bought because they look cool. They're useless otherwise.

Tons of models have sold like hotcakes and still do terribly. Not even sure why you'd bring that up.

Those masks and helmets.
If those masks and helmets were sold seperately I doubt Reivers would even be looked at by most people, I sold the masks and helmets for half the cost of the box when I kitbashed Wulfen out of a Reivers box.

Skull helmets are still cool no matter how old you are, to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Reivers do get some additional utility with the phobos stuff from vanguard. If I just want to remove screens, I think they are better than DC for BA. Now vanilla has vet intercessors, so that might ruin everything for the reivers.

Honestly there's not much they gain that you REALLY shouldn't just use on anything else Phobos.

Also Death Company can at least reach a unit without much help. You can't say the same for Reivers and you know that as much as you have a hateboner for Death Company.

Brass eye wrote:
not disagreeing that there should have been some heavy slaps administered by turn 3 by both players but where does
a good deployment/ counter deployment and counter striking later in the game sit within mathhammer?

A hard hitting unit not set up correctly or in range or its desired unit type suffers at mathhammer surely, if for instance those dakka bots cant shoot the optimal unit for them to achieve mathhammer perfection are they as effective outside of papercraft? maybe, i don't know?

Well, the magnitude of alpha strikes got toned down considerably from CA18 deployments for sure. Like I've mentioned however, the typical terrain coverage for many of the major tournament scene are typically less than 10% of the 24 SF. Typically, we're working with about 3 LOS terrains and 4~5 covers - this is not nearly sufficient, which is why the - to hit traits are one of the top tier abilities at the moment.

The game is still by and large Napoleonic standoff. With bigger and badder guns.

I'm using the carbines, so I'm not counting on the charge as much. Sometimes hitting towards the back of the DZ with some ignore cover shots is very worthwhile. Much better than trying to chop my way there. Infiltrators can't move and get full shots out to 24", but their ability is way better.

There's a lot of mortal wounds in the game, and reivers soak them much better than most of my other BA units.

If you want a unit that...

...can deepstrike
...is highly durable
...has a modest amount of shooting
...is competent at melee
...doesn't use more than 5% of your points for a single unit

Then you have certain options.

VV w/ JP are 3 points less than Grav Reivers. They have the same melee attacks, a more basic pistol, and 1 wound less. Reivers are better for the job.
Bolter Inceptors are 35 points and so trade durability for shooting. Reivers are better for the job.
Terminators are 34 points. They're certainly durable and shooty, but for 100 points you can't take 5. Reivers are better for the job.

There are many games I've lost, because my opponent had cheap options to sneak into corners and my deployment late game scoring them secondaries. Reivers may not be as cheap as 5 assault marines, but they're certainly more useful overall.

If you want a unit that comes screeching down with a gakload of toys - VV or terminators might be your thing, but that's not the goal here. Besides all this there are certainly other updates coming in the new codex.

I've used 10 before to stack on unleash rage and the shooting buff. I lost, but not because of them. They were...okay.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If you want a unit that...

...can deepstrike
...is highly durable
...has a modest amount of shooting
...is competent at melee
...doesn't use more than 5% of your points for a single unit

Then you have certain options.

VV w/ JP are 3 points less than Grav Reivers. They have the same melee attacks, a more basic pistol, and 1 wound less. Reivers are better for the job.
Bolter Inceptors are 35 points and so trade durability for shooting. Reivers are better for the job.
Terminators are 34 points. They're certainly durable and shooty, but for 100 points you can't take 5. Reivers are better for the job.

There are many games I've lost, because my opponent had cheap options to sneak into corners and my deployment late game scoring them secondaries. Reivers may not be as cheap as 5 assault marines, but they're certainly more useful overall.

If you want a unit that comes screeching down with a gakload of toys - VV or terminators might be your thing, but that's not the goal here. Besides all this there are certainly other updates coming in the new codex.

Call me old fashioned but I use my AB w/ HB for that role. Nobody seems to prioritize them and usually survives to turn 3. You crawl them over near mid way then advance them forward to contest objectives (because all the troop choices are dead by then).

AB? Is that a dark angel abbrev?