Gunboat Raiders or Venom Platforms?

I generally use a mixture - mostly depending on what other units/formations I'm using - since many have dibs on Raiders or Venoms.

In the case of gunboats, I usually run them pretty light - with Splinter Racks and Dark Lance on the Raider, and nothing else. On the off-chance I have spare points, I might give the squad a Blaster.

[quote="Thor665"]

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I've described it a few times and in in a few ways, but there are a handful of core elements. I would say it comes down to the following 3 bullet points;

• Cost
  
• Threat Bubble
  
• Target Spread
  

The first is relatively simple - the basic Gunboat build is 185 points or so. The Basic Venom build is 120. So for the cost of 2 Gunboats I can afford 3 Venom builds and have points left over-ish.

The Gunboats get 2 lances and 26 poison shots (44 within 12") in 6 hull points.
The Venoms get 3 lances and 36 poison shots in 6 hull points (12/24 more if I count the inside Troops).

So, with BS 4 and the twin linking as a consideration - the Gunboats will hit with 1.33 lances and 23.1 poison shots (39 within 12").
The Venoms will hit with 2 lances and 24 poison shots (32/40 if counting the inside Troops).

The second point is a huge one as well - as the above numbers reflect, the Gunboats are only able to do more damage than the Venoms within 12" - outside of 12" the Venoms are superior, and the Venoms can do that with a 42" threat bubble, whereas the Gunboat only has an 18" threat bubble. So Gunboats are markedly slower than the Venoms, and not able to bring their poison to bear remotely as well in my opinion.

Finally, there is the art of overkilling. In a perfect world you never want to overkill a foe. With 3 Venoms I can focus fire if needed, or split amongst three opponents. Also, as shown in the above numbers the troops inside the Venoms are their own tools as well, their firepower, when added to the Venoms' actually exceeds the Gunboats' optimal firing situation - showing that I ma getting more firepower for equal points expenditure in literally every way imaginable. I have more anti-mech or more anti-infantry by taking the Venoms depending on where I wish to target the Troops. What this does is give me more options and a better overall TAC build than Gunboats can manage as I am getting more units, and more adaptable units, for equal or less cost than what the Gunboat brings.

That is, in a nutshell, why I consider the Gunboat a pretty 'meh' build. It's not bad, really, it's just that the Venom build is superior.

You've given me much to think about.

Thor665 wrote:

That is, in a nutshell, why I consider the Gunboat a pretty 'meh' build. It's not bad, really, it's just that the Venom build is superior.

Thank you for explaining Thor, and I imagine this is subconsciously why gunboats don't fit into my lists very often, even though I love them. They really showcase what Dark Eldar are supposed to represent in terms of fire power. But yeah they may just be a little overcosted.

Vasara wrote:

I agree with Thor on all points except one:

FMC:s

Splinter racks makes gun boats efficient FMC hunters that DE normally lack.

And to prove my point I calculated the wounds using 2 gunboats with racks and 3 venoms for several threath ranges (movement 12" + shooting splinter. Dark light not included)

Threath range 24" Gunboats 12,2 wounds, Venoms 10 wounds
Threath range 36" Gunboats 6,1 wounds, Venoms 8 wounds
Threath range 48" Gunboats 0 wounds, Venoms 6 wounds

I have to revice even that aspect. Venoms are better.

Raider looks cooler though

I coundn't quite make these numbers fit, so I made my own spreadsheet. These numbers are using 3 Venoms with 4 splinter rifles and a blaster inside, vs 2 raiders with racks with 9 splinter rifles and a splinter cannon inside. All are assuming the vehicle is moving to the most advantageous position for optimizing wounds (usually closer).

.	Venom 12	Venom 24	Venom 36	Venom 48	Raider 12	Raider 24	Raider 36	Raider 48
vs ground targets
Lance hits	0,67	0,00	0,00	0,00	1,33	1,33	1,33	1,33
Poison hits	40,00	32,00	26,00	24,00	39,11	23,11	7,94	0,00
Lance wounds	0,56	0,00	0,00	0,00	1,11	1,11	1,11	1,11
Poison wounds	20,00	16,00	13,00	12,00	19,56	11,56	3,97	0,00
Total wounds	20,56	16,00	13,00	12,00	20,67	12,67	5,08	1,11
vs FMC
Lance hits	0,17	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,33	0,33	0,33	0,33
Poison hits	10,00	10,00	8,00	6,00	13,44	13,44	7,94	0,00
Lance wounds	0,14	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,28	0,28	0,28	0,28
Poison wounds	5,00	5,00	4,00	3,00	6,72	6,72	3,97	0,00
Total wounds	5,14	5,00	4,00	3,00	7,00	7,00	4,25	0,28

Vs ground targets the Raiders have a neglible advantage at 12" range, but other than that the Venoms beat them by a vide margin.

Snap shooting, on the other hand, the Raiders are better at all but the longest ranges. I wouldn't say they're so much better to warrant bringing them for this purpose, though.

Edit: Generally, I would say that the advantage for gunboats over Venoms doesn't lie with how many wounds they put out comparatively, but with how much you expect them to be jinking, since a jinking gunboat = full BS volley, whereas a jinking venom = mostly snapshooting volley.

Sigmaril wrote:

Edit: Generally, I would say that the advantage for gunboats over Venoms doesn't lie with how many wounds they put out comparatively, but with how much you expect them to be jinking, since a jinking gunboat = full BS volley, whereas a jinking venom = mostly snapshooting volley.

Jinking is not something I ever particularly do - and certainly do not do with a Venom with its inherent 5++.

Gunboats need to Jink because they are so expensive and the loss of one is a massive blow to the army.

For MSU - another dead skimmer is just the price of doing business.

I actually will honestly admit that I think the people who are obsessed with Jinking are the players who joined DE in 5th edition. Basically every player I've talked to who cut their teeth back in 3rd-4th-early 5th seem quite comfortable with not doing it. That's because we remember when our transports were actually fragile, and not the luxury cruisers of solid steel they are now. Sure, you lost out on the easy 5++ you used to put on everything, but c'mon, to paraphrase Frank Miller;

"They don't know how to take their time, aim carefull and look the devil in the eye."

Quote :

I actually will honestly admit that I think the people who are obsessed with Jinking are the players who joined DE in 5th edition. Basically every player I've talked to who cut their teeth back in 3rd-4th-early 5th seem quite comfortable with not doing it. That's because we remember when our transports were actually fragile, and not the luxury cruisers of solid steel they are now. Sure, you lost out on the easy 5++ you used to put on everything, but c'mon, to paraphrase Frank Miller;

Are you referring to not jinking our skimmers in general? Or are you just talking about our Venoms?

I would say that I'm saying both things. I see basically no reason to ever jink a Venom and also think jinking Raiders and Ravagers is a bit of poor play as well.

I don't quite follow the logic behind that. Well, for the low strength stuff, sure, but strength 6 and up? In many cases, a penetrating hit is almost guaranteed, and if that happens with no save, there is only one result that enables you to fire your guns at full strength anyway, and that is Immobilised. The rest will either leave you shaken/stunned, in which case you're shooting snapshots anyway, weaponless, which is slightly worse that snapshooting, or destroyed.

Are you just crossing your fingers and hoping for a miss/glancing hit? Or are the survival of our vehicles really that Meh?

Thor665 wrote:

I actually will honestly admit that I think the people who are obsessed with Jinking are the players who joined DE in 5th edition. Basically every player I've talked to who cut their teeth back in 3rd-4th-early 5th seem quite comfortable with not doing it. That's because we remember when our transports were actually fragile, and not the luxury cruisers of solid steel they are now.

I wish mine were cruisers of solid steel.

Mine are made of chocolate and protected by thin layers of whipped-cream.

Sigmaril wrote:

I don't quite follow the logic behind that. Well, for the low strength stuff, sure, but strength 6 and up? In many cases, a penetrating hit is almost guaranteed, and if that happens with no save, there is only one result that enables you to fire your guns at full strength anyway, and that is Immobilised. The rest will either leave you shaken/stunned, in which case you're shooting snapshots anyway, weaponless, which is slightly worse that snapshooting, or destroyed.

Are you just crossing your fingers and hoping for a miss/glancing hit? Or are the survival of our vehicles really that Meh?

I suppose my counter question is - why is your vehicle in the open with an enemy vehicle firing multiple Str7+ shots able to fire upon it?

First off, against Str 6 - no, I wouldn't jink even if I was in the open unless he's firing a lot of Str 6 shots. If it was 2 of them, I wouldn't even think about it. Even with a 3+ to hit, he would need a 5+ afterwards to make jinking worthwhile.

Now, Str 7+ is where it gets nastier - but I tend to try to get my stuff into position to get cover saves. A 5+ no jink is, to my mind, infinitely superior to a 3+ jink. Both might save my boat - only one leaves me in position to press my attack afterwards though. There is also signifigant difference between a single Str 7 shot and 4 Str 7 shots, and also a difference as to what jink will even accomplish versus them in any case.

The Shredder wrote:

I wish mine were cruisers of solid steel.

Mine are made of chocolate and protected by thin layers of whipped-cream.

If you played the OG codex you would understand how durable our current Raiders/Venoms are compared to what they once were.

I think this direction of discussion is only going to illuminate that the venom is in fact the superior choice overall. There are two downsides to jinking. 1) It doesn't work against what's already a major problem for our codex: ignore cover. 2) It forces your unit to take snap shots.

I like mixing my transports but with this in mind, why ever take a Raider? The one Dark Lance isn't that great, and even with one less hullpoint, the venom is more survivable while maintining it's firepower. So then what does a raider offer aside from aiding assault units with aethersails?

Edit: Not to mention it's a lot easier to get a venom out of LOS than a raider.

Quote :

If you played the OG codex you would understand how durable our current Raiders/Venoms are compared to what they once were.

To be fair in over 50% of the DE armies Raiders did not have to be durable as they where only used to get your wychcult into CC in round 1. Afterwards they were completely insignificant.

Also I think it is dependent on the vehicles job if jinking is a valid consideration.
Warlord with 4 Grots on a Raider? I will jink the hell out of it till it reaches its destination. What do I waste? A few Dis shots? A non-issue compared to a lucky pen.
Same for my blasterborn or a Raider. As long as the Raider is intact they are a threat, mobile and hard to kill. As soon as the Raider dies the Truborn are basically out of the game.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I like mixing my transports but with this in mind, why ever take a Raider? The one Dark Lance isn't that great, and even with one less hullpoint, the venom is more survivable while maintining it's firepower. So then what does a raider offer aside from aiding assault units with aethersails?

The Raider has a number of very solid factors that contribute to its value;

1. More durable to small arms fire.
2. Transport capacity makes it optimal for assault units (specifically Grots, but really all of them)
3. The dark lance, by itself, is not an impressive weapon...but that is our only anti-mech weapon of real note, which is why we need to take a lot of them, and why every single one added to the army is helpful, and why the Raider's small contribution is measured as worthwhile. Yeah, 1 lance is meh, but if all 3-5 of your Raiders have them then it is 3-5 lances, which is actually pretty decent.
4. The lance on a mobile platform is also very good, and in many ways ungawdly useful compared to a blaster. The extra range makes a massive difference in the early stages of the game, which is when anti-mech firepower is most important.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

To be fair in over 50% of the DE armies Raiders did not have to be durable as they where only used to get your wychcult into CC in round 1. Afterwards they were completely insignificant.

In 3rd you didn't have wych cult till near the end, and not many wanted to run that in 4th, and with good reason.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Same for my blasterborn or a Raider. As long as the Raider is intact they are a threat, mobile and hard to kill. As soon as the Raider dies the Truborn are basically out of the game.

I actually like my mid-game footslogging Trueborn. They usually work their angle and are often ignored for more pressing threats.

Though I will also admit I'm starting to move away from Trueborn as a valid army choice. There is too much at similar point costs to really justify them anymore, in my opinion.

Thor665 wrote:

Though I will also admit I'm starting to move away from Trueborn as a valid army choice. There is too much at similar point costs to really justify them anymore, in my opinion.

What similarly-costed units are you switching to?

Quote :

What similarly-costed units are you switching to?

Me personally Either Eldar Fire Dragons (better all around and cheaper) or Scourges.

I would second Fire Dragons, and also toss out Razorwings.

Thor665 wrote:

1. More durable to small arms fire.
2. Transport capacity makes it optimal for assault units (specifically Grots, but really all of them)
3. The dark lance, by itself, is not an impressive weapon...but that is our only anti-mech weapon of real note, which is why we need to take a lot of them, and why every single one added to the army is helpful, and why the Raider's small contribution is measured as worthwhile. Yeah, 1 lance is meh, but if all 3-5 of your Raiders have them then it is 3-5 lances, which is actually pretty decent.
4. The lance on a mobile platform is also very good, and in many ways ungawdly useful compared to a blaster. The extra range makes a massive difference in the early stages of the game, which is when anti-mech firepower is most important.

Is it more durable though? According to my bad mathhammer it would take just as many bolter shots to take down a venom as it would a raider, with the Venom's 5++. Plus the 5++ works in assault!

I also see the raider's cost as a steep price to pay for one dark lance. 3-5 lances are good especially on turn one but aren't there better ways to spend 180-300 points?

I'm playing devil's advocate sort of, but also trying to convince myself to keep using raiders. After all I do own more raiders than venoms.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Is it more durable though? According to my bad mathhammer it would take just as many bolter shots to take down a venom as it would a raider, with the Venom's 5++.

Your mathammer is wrong, methinks and is probably looking at the averages while not paying attention to the idea that the second failed FF save means downed Venom, whereas the Raider doesn't have that problem at all. The Venom only really has the buffer on the first hull point, not so much the second, when averages are concerned.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I also see the raider's cost as a steep price to pay for one dark lance. 3-5 lances are good especially on turn one but aren't there better ways to spend 180-300 points?

The cost of the lance is 5 points on a transport you would be taking in any case. Functionally it's cheaper to get the lance than 2 s.cannons. Yes - the cost is quite functional.
I wouldn't really advocate buying empty Raiders just for lances - but that's not what we're doing here.

Personally, I only ever use Raiders for large squads (4-5 Grotesques, 10 Wracks or Warrior-gunboats).

If my squad can fit in a Venom, it gets a Venom.

I know some people seem to like 5-man squads in Raiders, but I just never saw the attraction.

Thor665 wrote:

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Is it more durable though? According to my bad mathhammer it would take just as many bolter shots to take down a venom as it would a raider, with the Venom's 5++.

Your mathammer is wrong, methinks and is probably looking at the averages while not paying attention to the idea that the first failed FF save means downed Venom, whereas the Raider doesn't have that problem at all.

His mathhamer is exactly correct.

Also, I don't understand what you mean. Why is the Venom downed by the first failed FF save? Surely it takes 2 failed saves?

Or, are you talking about penetrating hits? If so, surely a Raider is equally susceptible?

Thor665 wrote:

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Is it more durable though? According to my bad mathhammer it would take just as many bolter shots to take down a venom as it would a raider, with the Venom's 5++.

Your mathammer is wrong, methinks and is probably looking at the averages while not paying attention to the idea that the second failed FF save means downed Venom, whereas the Raider doesn't have that problem at all. The Venom only really has the buffer on the first hull point, not so much the second, when averages are concerned.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I also see the raider's cost as a steep price to pay for one dark lance. 3-5 lances are good especially on turn one but aren't there better ways to spend 180-300 points?

The cost of the lance is 5 points on a transport you would be taking in any case. Functionally it's cheaper to get the lance than 2 s.cannons. Yes - the cost is quite functional.
I wouldn't really advocate buying empty Raiders just for lances - but that's not what we're doing here.

I'm not sure I get the logic behind the survivability as well. If it takes just as many shots to cause three hull points to a raider than it does a venom are they not equally durable. And while I get after the second failed save the venom is down, on the other hat if you're opponent rolls three sixes your raider is down while the venom has three chances to save those hullpoints.

No one buys empty venoms either, so what that means is for every raider you do buy that is a venom you did not buy. And if a venom is just as durable against small arms and more durable against heavy arms there are only two reasons to take a raider. 1) For assault units 2) for the lance. I suspect few competitive Dark Eldar lists are assault heavy. And while two splinter cannons are 5 points more than a raider with a lance, it's a far better deal when you include the flickerfield. I suppose if you just have to squeeze in a little more AT it makes sense,but I think you'd be better off looking at other units in the force org for that!

The Shredder wrote:

I know some people seem to like 5-man squads in Raiders, but I just never saw the attraction.

The lance.

The Shredder wrote:

]Also, I don't understand what you mean. Why is the Venom downed by the first failed FF save? Surely it takes 2 failed saves?

That was a mistype that I corrected (and added thoughts to) apparently scant moments after you quoted it.

I'll address the math in the next bit, since two of you are questioning it;

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I'm not sure I get the logic behind the survivability as well. If it takes just as many shots to cause three hull points to a raider than it does a venom are they not equally durable. And while I get after the second failed save the venom is down, on the other hat if you're opponent rolls three sixes your raider is down while the venom has three chances to save those hullpoints.

Okay, let's run these numbers then;

3 glances will down a Raider presuming no cover.
3 glances with a 5+ invuln save will, on average, also down a Venom.
The problem is - on the Venom, the numbers are skewed by average because what we are actually saying there is that out of 3 glances, he will successfully save 1 of them.
Okay...which one?
Because if he saves the third one - it doesn't matter at all because he was already dead and the opponent never had to put the third one onto him.

So, statistically, he has an equal chance to pass any 1 of the three given, and consequently 33% of the time it will only take 2 glances to down him, not 3 - making the Raider more durable. There is also the other extreme, naturally, where he passes 2 saves, or all 3 saves, making him vastly more durable. That said, 2 glances can mean a dead Venom some of the time (33% on average, to be specific) while 100% of the time it does not mean a dead Raider. That is what I meant by 'more durable'. This also always presumes there are no cover saves, which I don't personally take to be particularly true in most games.

That is why I find the math wrong and why I find the statement supportable.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

No one buys empty venoms either, so what that means is for every raider you do buy that is a venom you did not buy. And if a venom is just as durable against small arms and more durable against heavy arms there are only two reasons to take a raider. 1) For assault units 2) for the lance. I suspect few competitive Dark Eldar lists are assault heavy. And while two splinter cannons are 5 points more than a raider with a lance, it's a far better deal when you include the flickerfield. I suppose if you just have to squeeze in a little more AT it makes sense,but I think you'd be better off looking at other units in the force org for that!

1. Many DE competitive lists are assault present though - it doesn't matter if they're heavy, if they have assault a Raider is darn useful. Unless their assault is arriving via DS or is an MC, natch.

2. Do you think we are better off looking at other units in the force org for anti-tank? Because I do not. Just as an example of a list I recently played;

Succubus w. Glaive
4 Grots in Raider w. some gak

2x Razorwing w. Lances

3x Warriors w. Blaster in Raiders

3x Warriors w. Blaster in Venoms

3x Ravager w. lances

1x Scourges w. Haywire

The Scourges, Ravagers, Raiders (and Razorwings and Warriors squads if needed) are my anti-mech.
The Succubus, Grots, Venoms, Razorwings (and warriors if needed) are my anti-infantry.

I am specifically taking extra Raiders in order to increase my ability to hurt and damage vehicles on turn 1 to allow me to accomplish a handful of tasks;

1. disembark units from transports to set up assaults for my Grots.
2. dismantle walkers that I do not wish to assault my Grots.
3. destroy vehicles capable of shooting apart my army aggressively.

Now, do I want to stick my 3x Warrior Raiders into Venoms and get my anti-mech somewhere else? Well...how? I'd have to sack Troop options to do so and remove ObjSec units that serve a vital purpose to the army. Also, the Troop options are my bread and butter TAC options, able to deal with anything I see across the table, do I really want to give up that (and 2 lance weapons) in order to field a unit of...what, Scourges with 4 haywire blasters that are only good against mech and not good at all against infantry, not ObjSec, and debatably less maneuverable and survivable?

No - what I want is some more long range lance options, the Raiders do that, and do it well, and fit in with the rest of the army as a beautiful TAC choice as opposed to a specialized unit. That's why just saying 'get it elsewhere' isn't really a valid answer to my way of thinking, because getting it in Troop slots is pretty darn powerful in ways generic anti-mech isn't. Also, at the end of the day, that's 115 for 2 lance weapons...I can't even buy Scourges for that, nor a Ravager, it's a pretty nice bargain on weaponry in addition to its other benefits.

That's why I think they are very useful as anti-mech tools still.

Thor665 wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

I know some people seem to like 5-man squads in Raiders, but I just never saw the attraction.

The lance.

And, as I said, I don't see the attraction.

If there is a Razorback you need to destroy then a Venom is useless, whereas a Raider is awesome.

That is the attraction.

Thor665 wrote:

If there is a Razorback you need to destroy then a Venom is useless, whereas a Raider is awesome.

That is the attraction.

By that logic, there is no reason to use anything that doesn't come with a dark lance or blaster.

That is not the logic presented because I did not claim that infantry does not exist in the game, against infantry mobs a Venom is awesome and a Raider is pretty useless.

But to say 'I don't see the attraction' when discussing our army's base anti-mech tool and only long range anti-mech tool is an odd stance to take. Do you not like long range anti-mech? Is that not part of your army builds? Okay...but can you really not see how some people find that useful? I mean, what sort of info are you looking for as an answer here? A ranged weapon that is good at killing multi wound and/or high armor save/toughness models and also is our army's basically only long range vehicle killer weapon...that is a good thing to have in the army. You don't need to take it to the exclusion of other things, but it's a good weapon with multiple uses and can make many army lists better by its inclusion.

Does that make sense as to why some people like dark lances in their army?

Thor665 wrote:

But to say 'I don't see the attraction' when discussing our army's base anti-mech tool and only long range anti-mech tool is an odd stance to take. Do you not like long range anti-mech? Is that not part of your army builds?

I do not like a crappy, single-shot anti-tank gun as a reason for taking an otherwise unremarkable transport, over one with markedly better firepower.

Thor665 wrote:

Okay...but can you really not see how some people find that useful?

I can see it being useful as an extra. But, again, I just don't think it presents enough of a reason to take a Raider if you're not even using the extra capacity.

Thor665 wrote:

A ranged weapon that is good at killing multi wound and/or high armor save/toughness models and also is our army's basically only long range vehicle killer weapon...that is a good thing to have in the army.

It is, hence why I still think Ravagers are reasonable (even if they're now overcosted and GW has taken a dump on their fluff). But, 60pts for a single Dark Lance just seems too much to me.

Thor665 wrote:

You don't need to take it to the exclusion of other things

Isn't that exactly what you are doing if you're taking Raiders instead of Venoms just for the Dark Lances?