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.

Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

I've used everything from Vanilla SM but Centurions.

I'm going to assume from your reply you don't know what a False Appeal to a False Authority is either. But the highest level of the highest tournament thing does appear to be your go-to when you can't actually win the game on logic. To which, all I can say is...

 Ishagu wrote:


Don't get upset when others play the game at a more advanced level that is perhaps beyond you.

It's because I see so many loudmouthed players who don't even play all that often.

I also don't understand why it's your mission to talk a unit down. If you don't like it don't use it.
I like it - it fills a utility spot in my army. I win a lot, against many different factions, in many different places.

So when you talk a unit down, that does OK with me, and I have lots of real, tangible experience to fall back on, I guess I'm going to disagree.

Why do you think I can get a decent use out of the unit but you can't?

keep in mind the Indomatus disipline makes taking a pair of UM Libbys as your HQs a "not entirely bad idea"

 Ishagu wrote:
It's because I see so many loudmouthed players who don't even play all that often.

I also don't understand why it's your mission to talk a unit down. If you don't like it don't use it.

I'm not talking it down, I'm talking it accurately. Its not good, its not bad. It should be better.

I like it - it fills a utility spot in my army. I win a lot, against many different factions, in many different places.

So when you talk a unit down, that does OK with me, and I have lots of real, tangible experience to fall back on, I guess I'm going to disagree.

Why do you think I can get a decent use out of the unit but you can't?

Why do you think I didn't get decent use out of it? Because I'm more honest than you? I explained the issues most people have with the unit. I pointed out the flaws in your attempts to talk the unit up higher than it is.

10 points per wound.
But 11.5 is too high for better damage and more utility.

Its not utility, its deepstrike.
Drop Pods deep strike for cheaper.

Drop Pods can't move or hide.
Why do they need to, they're on the your Intercessors cleared?

I PLAY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE THE HIGHEST TOURNAMENTS AND YOU SUCK!.

The OP asked what was wrong with them, I told him. You tried to tell him nothing was wrong with them because of a litany of things other units do better, cheaper, or both.

I find a lot of people judge a unit by how effective it is vs space Marines. so a unit like Reivers, with a null AP close combat weapon, etc, that is clearly designed for say... killing stuff like a hoard of chaos cultists. isn't going to be seen in a terriably great light. even though I bet if someone did the math reivers would be reasonably good at disrupting a cultistst blob.

@Breton

8 points per wound now.

Have I not pointed out flaws? Am I not writing in English?

They don't put out a lot of damage and they don't have obsec.
I'm happy to overlook these flaws for good durability on a cheap unit that has access to deployment from reserves.

Show me where I said they are a must take unit, or the best in codex?

I'm saying they aren't useless and can have a place in a list. What are you trying to say?

 Ishagu wrote:
@Breton

8 points per wound now.

8 points per wound in about a week. And 10 points when you had to engage in your gymnastics over utiltiy, 10 points per wound, 11.5 points per wound and Infiltrators.

Have I not pointed out flaws? Am I not writing in English?

They don't put out a lot of damage and they don't have obsec.

Nope, you've been busy smugly telling people something along the lines of "Aha you're one of those damage people... when you're as good as I am, there's more to it than that". There's Utility. By which you meant not utility, but deepstrike. By which you didn't mean deepstrike because Drop Pods don't count, you meant there's... Reivers?

In fact your first reply was There's Nothing Wrong With Them before breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.

 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing wrong with them, if you know how to use them.

If you are an inexperienced and naive player you might look at math hammer and think they are worthless. Units have great utility beyond simply rolling dice.

I'm happy to overlook these flaws for good durability on a cheap unit that has access to deployment from reserves.

You are? That's shocking, because when a Deep Striking Drop Pod for fewer points was brought up you were.. unwilling to overlook it's flaws.

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move. It can't hide.

I'm just gonna say it straight. Reavers were bad with their release. They were bad with their multi-part kit. Then Shadowspear released. Infiltrators do literally everything they do better. Diversified deployment? Check. AP0 bolters? Check. A piece of wargear with a cute meme? Check.

UnlessReavers get something to help them with their supposed 'msu harassment' role, then they are going to be worse assault marines, whichs is saying something. Maybe if their grenades could be used within 1" of an enemy and prevented units from falling back they could be useful. But as it stands if you REALLY want to tie up a backfield unit, get some VGV or assault marines. Both do the same job but with more utility, either in the form of real melee weapons or the ability to take meaningful special weapons.

Reavers are bad. So bad they get ignored on every table I've seen them on because of how ineffectual they are. Bad enough that after I built my first 5, the rest are still sitting on their sprue. Stop defending crap units and giving potential new people a false impression. You don't see anyone defending mutilators here do you? In fact... I'm going to say it. Reavers are worse than Mutailators. Because if you ignore Reavers you might take a few ap-1 pistol shots or *gasp* wont be able to fire overwatch against a unit with crap melee weapons. Ignore mutilators too long and they can actually do appreciable damage if they roll high on their lolrandomchaosweapons table. over.

That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

There is a significant difference between deploying outside of normal limitations and being able to arrive anywhere mid game.

People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

Hopefully 1 each. Both only give at best a third of the utility of a 2 point Jump Pack. If you take both and get to count as a jump pack using the grapplegun to launch you into the air, and the grav chute to coast along at 12" per turn it wouldn't suck. Like the grapple gun in Assassin's Creed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
There is a significant difference between deploying outside of normal limitations and being able to arrive anywhere mid game.

You mean like a Drop Pod?

Drop Pod can't move, hide or fight, can't be dropped inside a ruin.

I've used an opponent's drop pod to keep my units from getting shot by assaulting it.

If you prefer it go right ahead.

 Ishagu wrote:
Drop Pod can't move, hide or fight, can't be dropped inside a ruin.

You do know that you're allowed to put an unit in a drop pod that can move and fight?

Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

You play at higher than 2k usually?

Because if you want to Deep Strike Reivers, they're 100 points minimum.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Drop pod and unit(s) one puts in it. What’s the percentage?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You play at higher than 2k usually?

Because if you want to Deep Strike Reivers, they're 100 points minimum.

He plays at the highest level of the highest tournaments. Maybe they get a discount or bonus points.

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

I typically only take one of the upgrades or the other usually taking grav chutes as it is generally more useful. Grapplers are something I take if I find I have extra points after including everything I want in my list since the upgrade doesn't always get much use depending on the table layout and where I place them but they are only an extra 5-10 points. Grapplers really remind me of games where you can upgrade a unit to be amphibious. Worth 5 times its points on some tables worth nothing most of the time.

For me, I find Reivers marginally more useful than Infiltrators, but I don't think I am very good at using Infiltrators yet. Even with all of the upgrades, Reivers were a noticeable amount cheaper. I haven't dropped Reivers later than turn two, so I don't how much that makes a difference. I can say there have been the rare times my knife (well chainsword in my case) Reivers almost stole an objective from chaff troops. They just didn't quite have the killing power to wipe out the chaff quickly to take it away but did have greater numbers. I only have 7 knife Reiver models and one is modeled to indicate that they have grapplers, so I usually run them in a squad of 6 (it is a bit of a fluff reason for 6 man squads with me). Previously, I wondered if just upping the squad size would cover it as 3-4 x3 attacks might have been the difference. With Shock Assault that might push them over the top as well. I will have to find out when I get the new codex.

Just the same I would feel more comfortable in Reivers doing their job if they had Objective Secured. Which would mean they would have to be moved to the Troop slot, and I don't really see GW doing that as Primaris seem to be tripling the number of Troop options for space marines without them. I will admit, I still don't believe that Incursors are Troops. They feel very Elites to me, more so that Reivers in any case.

I do think that 16 points (well 17 since you probably are going to take at least one of their move upgrades) is pretty good spot for them. I still don't quite agree as I don't find the non-upgraded Reiver brings anything extra to the basic Intercessor (they are going to be 15 points right?), but points saved are points saved.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, but then if starts to get more expensive. One reason I argue for Reivers is because a unit is less than 5% of the typical army cost.

. What % is a Drop Pod?

Drop pod and unit(s) one puts in it. What’s the percentage?

Don’t know, I’m not the one pushing Reivers to take an empty objective after my intercessors have cleared it, and score Line Breaker, because they’re cheap, yet more expensive than an empty drop pod that does both cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
People keep saying that they're 16 points, but surely they still need to buy grav-chutes and/or grapple guns? What do those cost now?

I typically only take one of the upgrades or the other usually taking grav chutes as it is generally more useful.

Don’t overlook the Grapplers. They don’t allow deepstrike, but they do allow outflank, which can be an even bigger monkey wrench if you can take advantage of deployment psychology.

Breton wrote:
That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

Nah they're actually bad. All those bonuses you named can apply to Vanguard, an actually dangerous unit now. Dual Chainswords is pretty dangerous with them under the Assault Doctrine and the pistols don't matter much, especially when things you might want to shoot at are the thing you need to charge at (aka your opponent removing the closest models).

If they aren't good under Deathwatch, they still won't be good now.

I've proxied them several times and they are a meh unit in a crowded slot. Especially with some of the more recent changes coming down the pipe. There are a lot of units, (dreadnoughts, Sternguard, apothecary both on foot or a bike and FW units) i'd spend points on.

There a bully unit that really only do one thing well, show up late to the party any were on the field. Two wounds doesn't mean much this edition, a bunch of S4 attacks scares nothing tougher than a guardsmen and marines have other things that can just pop up where they want.

 Ishagu wrote:
Have you ever used Reivers?

I think you live in Theory land which is why you can't grasp that utility isn't always related to math hammer.
I don't want to waste my time arguing with inexperienced players.

Tell me about how many games you've played with the unit and in what context, and against what list?

You're the one saying you go to tournaments yet we have no spectacular results from you doing this. Wonder why that is.

Breton wrote:
That's not fair either. They're not bad. They're just not good. They're below average. Before Shock Assault and before Assault Doctrine they were between average and bad. After, they could pop up to average. Maybe. Stacking Terror Troops was also nice, but kind of... backwards. You want to drop 10 and let them shock and awe their target with a ginsu storm of HBP/CN damage. Stacking Terror Troops now means MSU'ing them yourself.

This concept of "below average" - how do you measure the averageness of deep striking and being hard to remove?

Sure, every is just going to point and say "look at all the D2 weapons!", but that isn't an accounting of how they perform in games.

I'd bet I can call out more weapons that kill old marines fast and theyd be just as common.

We dont see reivers often in tournaments or we dont take notice, because they're not game changers- nor should they be. And that's the problem with the perfidious internet opinion that keeps models off the table - it keeps people from trying the unit.

It's the same thing with rubric marines. People bashed them almost universally, but then some took the time to let them develop in a list and took them to top tables several times.

The point is, Reivers have 2 niche applications:
1. Grab uncontested back line objectives.
2. Rush units camped within upper levels of ruin.

The issue is that, whatever the case that a tactical manuever may be called upon, simply shooting at the units kingdom come solves the problem faster and better.

Reivers are fancy pants units that offer another dimension to seemingly "strategic" wargame, but the fact of matter stands: 40K is a game of shooting thing dead as primary means of defense and offense.

Oh you have cover? let me either swamp you with weight of dice or mortal wounds.
Oh you have no los? let me bombard you weapons that ignore los.
Oh you're grabbing that objective? let me kill you before you can progressively score.

You have to still have those models on the board to employ weight of dice. And those units are quite unlikely to be able to get linebreaker turn 3 and on.

Reivers still suck but a good thing about the marines now most likely being disgustingly OP is that in a casual environment you can afford to include some dud units.

 Crimson wrote:
Reivers still suck but a good thing about the marines now most likely being disgustingly OP is that in a casual environment you can afford to include some dud units.

This might be coloring a lot of this conversation. Up until marine 2.0 if you were really in a competitive game, marines didn't have the luxury of taking a unit just cause it was cool or you liked the models. My initial opinion is GW might have over corrected a bit but until I play a few games with the new book, the jury is still out.