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.

 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.

I don't think they will be disgustingly OP but I think you'll be able to do well with just a Tac list instead of a skew list

Ishagu, you can be pretty unnecessarily combative, but I do agree with you a lot of the time, here included. I've used 1 5-man squad quite a few times, and usually deploy them T3 to threaten a de-wrapped HVT, an objective, etc., or T2 in ITC for linebreaker.

I may be biased because I run DW 50% of the time, and so they get access to our lovely ammo, but I think they fundamentally fulfill a needed role. They're better now, and so I might try and squeeze them in some more lists... BUT to be honest, VanVets are very solid now, and have a great new strat meaning even the blender double chainsword build can threaten a bit of damage on heavies.

I'm torn to be honest with you. Different roles, but VVs can do a reiver's obj-sitting for a turn then fly off to tie, wrap or blend, all with 3++.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

T3 point accrual is a hail mary type manuever in 40k. If you played right/dice god is in your favor/had a good match up gathering points in T3 is inconsequential to your victory.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

By comparing it against other Deep Striking 3+? And Infiltrating 3+? And Infiltrating 4+ with Camo Cloaks? The way I've been doing since Ishagu started coming up with reasons they're good at 10 points per wound but 11.5 for Infiltrators was bad?

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.

No, "everyone" is not. I haven't said that at all, unless I was replying to someone else that said it.

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

I daresay moreso as the same weapons that kill Primaris fast will kill 1.0's just as fast. I'm not seeing your point?

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.

We don't see Reivers often in tournaments because they're lackluster, in an overcrowded slot, with better options. For the reason Ishagu claimed, a Drop Pod is a better choice - taking an empty objective and scoring line breaker - the Drop Pod is cheaper, and doesn't take a slot.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Silver144 wrote:
Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Agreed, Assault Bolt rifles now being 50% more effective than Bolt Carbines is definitely a knock for Reivers

Silver144 wrote:
Now with droppod arriving on t1 I am seriously thinking about taking one for a tough 65pts local antiDS ~20" round zone.

It's really wierd, that intercessors have assault 3 bolters now, while their "elite" primaris option still assault 2...

Assuming your 20" estimate is correct 9 inches left, 9 inches right, 2 inches base - depending on how you want to count the doors as well), each drop pod will Deep Strike Deny 314 square inches. A 4x8 table is 4608 Square inches - Your half is 2304. A 4x6 table is 3456 square inches, and your half is 1728 square inches. Obviously with a 20 inch diameter you can't block your entire half, but even 2 or 3 drop pods can ruin half the board for deep striking, leaving them preselected spots to drop, or not drop on your side at all. Drop on your side of the board, or in the corner 60 inches away from everything would be a sucky choice to have to make. Potentially enough to buy your Repulsors time to drive around as they open up your side of the board again by focusing their anti-tank on your pods. .

As for Assault Bolt Rifles. I'm unconvinced, but curious. Stalker Bolt Rifles had half or 1 less shot and double or 1 more AP than Bolt Rifles. Was it the 1 more or the double that kept them fairly close to each other? Auto Bolt Rifles will have the one more but not the double. And they may STILL cost more.

I think more like cover my devastators from one side, or deny DS in some ruin, something like that.
I will never put it near the objective, because it will be free movement and anti shooting bunker for my opponent, but to prevent DS on some random place... Well, why not. Still pricy tho.

Silver144 wrote:
I think more like cover my devastators from one side, or deny DS in some ruin, something like that.
I will never put it near the objective, because it will be free movement and anti shooting bunker for my opponent, but to prevent DS on some random place... Well, why not. Still pricy tho.

Put the objective in the corner, Deep Strike the Pod further out towards midfield with your Intercessors on the objective. The Intercessors prevent DS onto the objective directly, the Pod prevents another 15 or so inches of nearby but not quite direct Deep Strike. If you do it right you can use one Pod to shield two objectives and hold them both with one intercessor squad, and your opponent has gotta slow walk the whole way there.

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

After the leaks, I'm giving reivers C+. They have their uses, but far from autotake. On some boards, the grapples can turn into huge amounts of movement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

Hiding 90 points isn't likely to harm your ability to kill more / hold more. It's quite unlikely for hold more to be activated in early rounds unless your opponent has a really aggressive army. And if you're going second your ability to respond in-kind is pretty crucial.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

In progressive scoring, it's better to have a unit eligible to score active on the battlefield, rather than having the unit in reserves waiting for "just as planned".

In both CA2018 & ITC progressive scoring, majority of points are awarded for 1. controlling objectives 'better' than your opponent, and 2. killing 'better' than your opponent.

Slow playing Reivers doesn't benefit you under either winning (or towards-winning) conditions.

If 'fast-playing' Reivers, while they may net you some favorable conditions, others units fare far better due to the underlying mechanics progressive scoring tends to promote.

With maximum 4-points awarded for playing secondaries under ITC format, your primary goal is to contest the objective as best as possible (which requires more units on battlefield than less) and kill as best as you can (by having most dakka on board as long as possible). That extra 4 points is going to be your tie breaker for the round/circuit at best.

Hiding 90 points isn't likely to harm your ability to kill more / hold more. It's quite unlikely for hold more to be activated in early rounds unless your opponent has a really aggressive army. And if you're going second your ability to respond in-kind is pretty crucial.

Going second is all the craze right now. Alpha strikes now happen at bottom of 1st round. Better to have everything possible on board than not after deep strike nerf to round 2, even if its just "90 points".

The epithet "best defense is strong offense" holds very true for current 8th ed.

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

I was under the impression he meant we should tell a new player asking a generic question an answer based on a tiny fraction of a rare subset of rules because that's the only thing that matters, not the far more common BRB set of rules you'll find being used in the FLGS the OP is far more likely to be playing in.

Breton wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:


Considering I've never seen a game end on Turn 3 when VP mattered, I'm not sure anyone can score Linebreaker on Turn 3. You can only score Linebreaker at the end of the game. "If, at the end of the battle,..."

The differences of opinion seems like it may stem from the formats we play. ITC has progressive scoring where things like Linebreaker can be scored 4 times over the course of the game.

I'm sure you mean ITC secondary called 'Behind Enemy Lines', but either way, that's precisely the point.

I was under the impression he meant we should tell a new player asking a generic question an answer based on a tiny fraction of a rare subset of rules because that's the only thing that matters, not the far more common BRB set of rules you'll find being used in the FLGS the OP is far more likely to be playing in.

agreed, it baffles me the number of times we get a thread that essentially has a structure like this..

"Hi guys I'm a brand new player, I'm playing with my brother and his friend in our garage. my brother plays Necrons and his friend plays Grey Knights, I'm playing Space Marines. any basic advice?"
"HI! Welcome to DakkaDakka. your army sucks and you suck. your brother and his friend clearly suck by their army choices. your entire army is worthless and you need to build it this way because thats the meta in a tourny"
etc