Gunboat Raiders or Venom Platforms?

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.

I'm not sure awesome is the word I'd use. Probably not even useful. Maybe helpful. The list you posted and the one I currently run are actually very similar. Save two things. I do not use Grotesques. I currently run a blaster archon with blasterborn, and a second squad of haywire scourges over a razorwing. Now granted, the blasterborn would have to keep their Raider, but when I look at the army as a whole if I switched those three raiders over to three venoms. I lose three lances but gain six splinter cannons and three flickerfields. Seems like trade up to me.

Maybe it's because I'm a newer player, but I've never found a single dark lance to be highly useful anti-mech. I honestly don't even find the ravager all that effective, but I take what I can get!

Edit: Oh, and thanks for expounding on the math, I get it now. And my math abilities are not able to figure out exactly the survivalness of a venom. So 66% of the time it's as durable and 33% of the time it isn't? And I never factor in cover for three reasons. 1) Assault 2) Ignore cover weapons 3) Terrain is sometimes thick, and sometimes it is sparse, and while I always try to find cover, sometimes it's just nowhere to be found... especially in a space marine heavy environment. I mean you can create cover with screening an stuff but... well, that's all off-topic.

The Shredder wrote:

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.

Markedly better firepower that is markedly better against markedly different targets - it holds true for both of them. Each is signifigantly superior to the other depending on what you are shooting at, and each can actually be quite close to each other, again, depending on what you are shooting at.

This is like arguing that Grots are superior to a pair of Ravagers. Well...they are and they aren't, and it really depends what you are trying to do with the given unit.

The Shredder wrote:

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.

I have presented a list where I have done this - do you think my list would be superior if I took Venoms instead of Raiders (and, in addition to that, what ideas do you have to shave the 15 point differential and what are your thoughts of my loss of three lances versus my gain of 6 s.cannons and how that does or doesn't effect what the list can do?)

The Shredder wrote:

But, 60pts for a single Dark Lance just seems too much to me.

60 points for a mobile dark lance platform that is also a transport that you would want to take anyway is a lot different than 60 points for a dark lance.

I can't think of any other way to get a transport and a dark lance for 60 points.
I would also say, I can't think of a cheaper way to get a mobile dark lance either, and certainly not one mobile with the same range capability.
The closest I can come is a Scourge squad with a single haywire blaster (90 points) or a Reaver squad with a Blaster (63 points) both of which have some benefits and penalties compared to the 60 for the Raider w. lance.

The Shredder wrote:

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?

No, it is not remotely what I'm doing.

There is a difference between taking one or the other as needs dictate and taking one only and never the other regardless.

I am advocating the first, not the second. I think it is poor play to advocate the second.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I've never found a single dark lance to be highly useful anti-mech.

I think you - and others - may be missing the point of what Thor is saying. A singular dark lance isn't particularly great, but as a source of long-range AT, a DE player should be taking several and their usefulness lies in numbers (granted, that's the case with most things).

However, the main thing I believe Thor is trying to get across, that people are possibly failing to grasp, is that the dark lance shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a component of the whole army list. You don't run a singular Raider just to get that one lance because you're short on AT, you run several to get a group of them to support your AI.

I like both - my gunboat build is only 155 (I don't like taking the splinter cannon) so I don't suffer quite the same from the cost comparison against the venom. In short though - what I've tended to find in my meta is that venoms aren't durable enough to be taken on their own, and as others have said, they don't bulk out my AT firepower early enough in the game to be useful (actually, by getting close enough to use the blaster on board, you're negating the very benefit of the longer range firepower in the first place. Gunboats however, with jink, are individually more of a threat to my opponent's infantry units and though I don't necessarily expect them to survive the whole game, that's why I take a couple of empty raiders - they advance alongside the gunboats to give mobile cover and if my opponent decides to focus on the occupied raider and wrecks it, the passengers simply get into the empty one for no loss of efficiency.

I usually take 2 full units of kabalites with splinter cannon and sybarite inside of a raider with dark lance and splinter racks. They put out an impressive amount of reliable firepower and are usually not targeted until late game because of my melee units being up in my enemy's face.

My armies usually have a mix of raiders and venoms. I always have 3 venoms. Then I usually have 1-2 raiders. Usually for GROTS or gunboat's depending on the list. I love gunboats. I think that they are underrated. They do have their place in many lists. I just don't think they should replace venoms entirely. Deep striking a gun boat or reserving one against aggressive enemy armies can prove invaluable at times. I've had daemon birds/cav/beasts, bikes/fmcs etc drop in my face more than a few times. A gun boat coming in where you want it can do nasty things to these units.

Its just mix and match. For me i like my venoms as far away as possible while the gunboat should be at >12" thats part of the reason I rarely have blasters in venoms. Because we're almost limited to a lance or blaster for AT we kinda need to take the raider for that extra shot. There id take a 5 man blaster team. Why do you say no one takes empty venoms? If im building á list and have some spare points and think i need more AI thats the cheapest way i think. If I need more AT its blaster/raider combo because we dont have that many cost effective options on AT

Erebus wrote:

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I've never found a single dark lance to be highly useful anti-mech.

I think you - and others - may be missing the point of what Thor is saying. A singular dark lance isn't particularly great, but as a source of long-range AT, a DE player should be taking several and their usefulness lies in numbers (granted, that's the case with most things).

However, the main thing I believe Thor is trying to get across, that people are possibly failing to grasp, is that the dark lance shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a component of the whole army list. You don't run a singular Raider just to get that one lance because you're short on AT, you run several to get a group of them to support your AI.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. My reply to the original question is "Both." I have gone 50/50 in the past for my Venom/Raider selections, but have truly come to realize that I need massed DL shots far more than I need more poisoned ranged attacks. Not that the Venom is anything to sneeze at, I just find that we are one of the better AI armies in the game and truly need all the AT that we can lay our hands on to makes sure that our poisoned ranged attacks actually have something to shoot at(lots of mech in my local meta)

Erebus wrote:

Expletive Deleted wrote:

I've never found a single dark lance to be highly useful anti-mech.

I think you - and others - may be missing the point of what Thor is saying. A singular dark lance isn't particularly great, but as a source of long-range AT, a DE player should be taking several and their usefulness lies in numbers (granted, that's the case with most things).

However, the main thing I believe Thor is trying to get across, that people are possibly failing to grasp, is that the dark lance shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a component of the whole army list. You don't run a singular Raider just to get that one lance because you're short on AT, you run several to get a group of them to support your AI.

I never missed that point, I'm sorry, the point I was trying to make is that venoms are far more effective at destroying infantry than raiders are at destroying tanks. By taking more venoms you can bring more effective tank busting units. At least in theory. That's all I was proposing. Afterall, I can bring three razorwings and three voidravens to take care of flyers, but is that a good idea? Is that an effective use of points? Again all just conjecture but I totally got the "point."

The funny thing is, if you count how many venom and how many raider players there are in this poll. Then the amount of raider players is far greater than the amount of venom players.

That could also be because venoms didn't exist until 4 years ago

Expletive Deleted wrote:

the point I was trying to make is that venoms are far more effective at destroying infantry than raiders are at destroying tanks. By taking more venoms you can bring more effective tank busting units. At least in theory.

What are the more effective tank busting units? Because we only really have four tank busting weapons unless you wish to start talking allies. Two of them are the Blaster/Dark Lance which are really the same weapon with minor adjustments. The other two are the haywire blaster (with very limited fieldability) and the heat lance (which is the same limited fieldability). There are the wildcards of HWGs and blast pistols, but they're not really worth talking about.

Of the main ones, the lance, which is what the Raider packs, is unique for its range. So if the goal is long range anti-tank...there are actually *not* that many other options. There are Ravagers, Raiders, the flyers (albeit only starting on turn 2+) and sort of the haywire blaster when equipped specifically to Scourges.

So, to my mind the debate is between Raiders, Ravagers, and Scourges.

To bring back my point - I presented a brief army list earlier. How would/could you change my Raiders to Venoms and then also leave me with an equal tank hunting component? I don't think you could, you'd need to redo the whole list, and in that redo basically what you'd end up needing to do is drop an entire Troop selection for Scourges and *also* trim points elsewhere. So at that point it's -3 lance, -1 blaster -1 ObjSec -x where 'x' equates to the other upgrades lost to make up the difference for +4 Haaywires and +4 s.cannons.

I don't think that is remotely 'better' for the list.
What are your thoughts?

Not so, good friend, and for the record I think raiders are great transports, the unit analysis here is straight up me talking about cost and output. But to your list, in an earlier post I told you what I run which is very similar and I can change my raiders to venoms with ease.

1 Archon w/ Blaster
5 Trueborn w. 4 Blasters in Raider

1x Razorwing w. Lances

6x Warriors w. Blaster in Venoms

3x Ravager w. Lances

2x Scourges w. Haywire Blasters

Now yes, you're -5 lances but now you're +5 blasters(one at BS7!) + 4 Haywire Blasters and +6 Splinter cannons.

Pros:
More weapons on the field turn one
More damage output for tanks
More damage output for infantry
More flickerfields

Cons:
You lose range on tank weapons
More overkill, or less ability to target separate units. I.E. you don't have three separate lances but (but they'd probably all be fired at the same unit to strip a hullpoint anyway...)
And um... no assault presence, but I don't think that's much of a con personally.

If you replace three venoms for raiders that is straight up the list I currently run. So that's why in my thinking venoms might be better, at least for just my list.

Klaivex Charondyr recently taught me about a nice piece of Eldar trickery: Dark Reapers in a Venom.

Imagin Blasterborn with 48'' pinning and skyfire missiles instead of 18'' lances, for 120 points more (150 for 5 DRs + 40 for Starshot Missiles + 55 for the Venom + 45 for an Exarch with Eldar Missile Launcher, Flakk Missiles, Fast Shot and Night Vision). Also, their shots ignore jink saves!
Yes, that really is both as fun and as riskey as it sounds; an extremely mobile but fragile mini-death-star with great anti-everything potential.

Occupants are what really raises the question. And frankly what your shooting at is pretty important.
If we specify the question and say the occupants will be kabalite warriors. They will have a blaster and there will be 5 and 10 in each respectively. Upgrades are cannon on the venom,dark lance, night Shields and splinter racks on the raider. So 120 points per venom and 185 per raider. So to roughly even points out lets say 2 raider squads and 3 venom squads.

Scenario is this: Each set against 10 marines in a rhino and 10 footslogging marines each with a lascannon. What would theoretically be better. Start 24" away, dark eldar go first, assume rhino marines wont get out. Gunboat or platform?

(know this is a very situational question but its an effort to quantify the original question and facing a small variety of opponents)

Grub wrote:

Occupants are what really raises the question. And frankly what your shooting at is pretty important.
If we specify the question and say the occupants will be kabalite warriors. They will have a blaster and there will be 5 and 10 in each respectively. Upgrades are cannon on the venom,dark lance, night Shields and splinter racks on the raider. So 120 points per venom and 185 per raider. So to roughly even points out lets say 2 raider squads and 3 venom squads.

Scenario is this: Each set against 10 marines in a rhino and 10 footslogging marines each with a lascannon.  What would theoretically be better. Start 24" away, dark eldar go first, assume rhino marines wont get out.  Gunboat or platform?

(know this is a very situational question but its an effort to quantify the original question and facing a small variety of opponents)

Gunboats: 4 S8 lances and 36 twin-linked poison shots.

Platforms: 3 S8 lances, 36 poison shots (vehicles) + 24 poison shots (passengers).

A single Raider packs potentially more firepower than a single Venom, especially if it was armed with a Disintegrator Cannon instead of a Dark Lance, which is a decent anti-MEQ weapon. 3 Venoms clearly outgun 2 Raiders though.

What can also make a big difference is that the vehicles and passengers don't have to fire at the same target. That would mean the Raiders could only either shoot 2 Dark Lances at the Rhino and leave the footslogging Marines to the passengers, or all shoot at the Rhino with 4 Lance weapons and not at the Marines at all.
The Venoms, on the other hand, could just let the passengers fire their 3 Blasters at the Rhino while pumping their own 36 Splinter Cannon shots into the Marines.

Afterwards, the Venoms have a slightly higher chance of surviving the return fire, due to a 5+ safe as opposed to the Raiders' 6+, but the squads inside the Raiders have a higher chance of surviving due to the number of models. But since there are 3 Venoms, that means one will, at most, be shot at with only the Rhino's Storm Bolter. That is assuming the Rhino survived.

So, platforms win, but only in greater numbers.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

But to your list, in an earlier post I told you what I run which is very similar and I can change my raiders to venoms with ease.

The question isn't whether your list can be changed, it's whether my list can be changed. We have different lists with different needs. Let's look at the two side by side;

Expletive Deleted wrote:

1 Archon w/ Blaster
5 Trueborn w. 4 Blasters in Raider

1x Razorwing w. Lances

6x Warriors w. Blaster in Venoms

3x Ravager w. Lances

2x Scourges w. Haywire Blasters

And here is mine;

Thor665 wrote:

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

First off, let's respond to this;

Expletive Deleted wrote:

Now yes, you're -5 lances but now you're +5 blasters(one at BS7!) + 4 Haywire Blasters and +6 Splinter cannons.

No, that is not accurate. What I actually am is;

-5 lances
-4 Missiles
-all assault capability

for

+5 Blasters in a single unit
+4 Haywire Blasters
+6 S.cannons.

So I'm losing out on my assault tool and my missiles, both of which I am of the strong belief are actually better at killing infantry than those 6 s.cannons. I also give up a flier, which weakens my anti-air tools quite drastically and opens up my then single Razorwing to sharper shutdown from interceptor. I gain Haywire scourges which are better versus Knights than my lances, but not as good versus Serpent Spam. And I get a massive amount of my anti tank (1 lance and 5 Blasters) tied up in a single, fairly vulnerable, unit.

I see a very slight bump in anti-mech shooting paired with a moderate loss of anti-infantry firepower and a marked loss in range.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

And um... no assault presence, but I don't think that's much of a con personally.

Really? I strongly disagree. There are many very important duties filled by assault units, especially in objective games.

But the core point holds - to switch my army over to Venoms from Raiders involves having to re-work my army to bring in anti-mech in some ways and to trim away some of the anti-infantry there.

Therein lies the core point. The Venom/Raider thing is really not so much a debate about which is better, it's just a tool to allow you to bring anti-mech or anti-infantry into your list. You can do either as your list and design concepts need - and both are quite viable for doing what they do.

Thor665 wrote:

Therein lies the core point. The Venom/Raider thing is really not so much a debate about which is better, it's just a tool to allow you to bring anti-mech or anti-infantry into your list. You can do either as your list and design concepts need - and both are quite viable for doing what they do.

I yield. The min/maxer in me wants to include more venoms, because they are better than raiders. At killing their targets and saving glances/penetrating hits. But when your army has hundreds of chainsaws and minimal shotguns, there's no point in bringing more chainsaws, even if you can get them cheaper than shotguns.

I would like to mention here that a crucial factor in this debate is also the metagame of one's community/guild/friend group.

For example in my playing group we do not use that many vehicles, so a more "poisonous" approach is in order me thinks. If one player is part of a gaming group that has a more mech theme going around then a little bit more AT is probably the way to go...