Reaper better than a Ravager?

BOLS over exaggerate tho.... they are talking about 1 local club that for all we know arent even playing correctly....

I mean most people has been playing cover wrong from what i've seen before the FAQ.

Ive only lost like 6-7 out of 30 games, and ive gone 2nd almost every game..... 11% my ass.

Well I cannot but confirm what was written on BOLS. Comparing lists of similar strength and players of similar skill ofc.

In addition to this - around here armies that have few drops are largely FW-heavy elite armies in the hands of people who know what they are doing. That alone intimidates players to the point of defensive play. Most ppl see Fire Raptor and go "OMFG! Half of my army is dead T1!".

Again... we dont know if they even know the rules well enough to be a good judge.

Its 1 local that has no batreps or lists for those games, we dont know how many are "trying out" new things, we dont know if they are playing with correctly rules or even knows the other players rules enough to make a good tactical plan.

Im just saying BOLS extremely over exaggerated this one local problems and made it a world problem.

Our local has no problems and we actually feel ITC changing the rules to "player with smaller army only gets +1 to the 1st turn roll" is more hurtful to the game than just going 1st (At least from our Experiences so far).

My experimces so far have not supported the BOLS conclusion that Seize wins you the game.

BoLS isn't exactly a good place to get good information from. That seems to also be the most whiney crowd on the Internet for nerd related stuff.


I think I will be playing the reaper as my 3rd ravager. It is slight cheaper. Has more wounds which is great, more attacks in combat and a more versatile gun.

The potential to get 5 or 6 Lance shots is really good. Especially when not in the move. Rolling a 4+ for the number of shots you get from the reaper make it as good or better than a ravager on the move. And better when not moving. I really like the little extra something that is brings to the army.

colinsherlow wrote:

BoLS isn't exactly a good place to get good information from. That seems to also be the most whiney crowd on the Internet for nerd related stuff.


I think I will be playing the reaper as my 3rd ravager. It is slight cheaper. Has more wounds which is great, more attacks in combat and a more versatile gun.

The potential to get 5 or 6 Lance shots is really good. Especially when not in the move. Rolling a 4+ for the number of shots you get from the reaper make it as good or better than a ravager on the move. And better when not moving. I really like the little extra something that is brings to the army.

As of this moment, I feel that our heavy support slot(i.e:Ravagers) are actually the only slots that matter. With Dissie Ravagers, we have the best anti-infantry gun that works as anti light vehicle and MCs on a dime, while triple lance Ravagers are as always our best shot at killing MCs and vehicles in a quick manner. The Reaper only further alleviate it by providing us with the more temperamental but significantly more powerful Vortex gun which can complement both types of ravagers at a dime.

As stupid as it goes, I personally just want to use ravagers in this edition as it is the most versatile Dark Eldar tool that we have, and poison is kinda moot when you could have Dissies and Lances en-mass. Only time I would see poison being awesome is when a particular MC is like T15 and above.

I play with either a Tantalus or Starweavers, so i dont use Dis Cannon Ravagers.

I keep thinking about taking Tantalus and 3 Reapers with a Haemonculus tho. I think i will next game let you know how it goes.

amishprn86 wrote:

I play with either a Tantalus or Starweavers, so i dont use Dis Cannon Ravagers.

I keep thinking about taking Tantalus and 3 Reapers with a Haemonculus tho. I think i will next game let you know how it goes.

That is provided if you have got the dough to throw into FW(for the former) and play Ynnari/clowns(for the latter).

But Dissies with their 2 damage makes a world of difference, and now I started to like them a lot, with the tri-lance Ravs/Reapers cracking open the transports/hurting the MC and the Dissies killing the passengers/finishing the MCs off.

Where do you put the Dissis at?

The D2 of them doesn´t matter against most troops. Sadly.

CptMetal wrote:

Where do you put the Dissis at?

The D2 of them doesn´t matter against most troops. Sadly.

This ^ i dont need 2D AI 99% the time. If swarms, bikes and termies where very popular i i might look into doing that as Ynnari.... But as Ynnari i'd go Specters and Blaster spam, sense i could dbl shoot.

And if you havent played Specters in Ynnari yet.... its insane lol.

CptMetal wrote:

Where do you put the Dissis at?

The D2 of them doesn´t matter against most troops. Sadly.

Ravagers for me is the best platform for Dissies.

I guess it is the meta in my area these days where more vehicles of the ground and flying variant and also the prevalence of multiple wound models running around, especially MCs and behicles.

Dissies can do double time as sweeper units to kill off very badly injured models. If you can spare the shots, and they generally bring down

Reaper is surprisingly deadly in melee.

aurynn wrote:

Well given recent experiences of myself and according to the article on BOLS I think its not only mine perception - there is only one critical roll in the game - Seize the Initiative.

And well... yes I prefer surety over chance. Mitigating chance was always one of the most important steps towards winning for as long as I play W40K. And the more the variance of the weapon, the less likely it is to have reliable results.

Everything on BOLS is wrong and they are a bunch of clickbait whiners. Your dark lance scourge comparison earlier was really off the mark because what really determines success is volume. I rather have 4 dice at reduced chance to hit than 3 more accurate ones, because even though on average it works out the same, the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to have a critical success that actually impacts the game. This has been a lesson learned by many an opponent that spam disintegrators on everything because they are more “reliable” than lances, and then wonder why they are getting smashed by those Knights or Russes the disintegrators managed to “reliably” plink for a few damage points.

colinsherlow wrote:

It is slight cheaper.

Has the Forgeworld Index been modified since the big faq? My copy has Reapers at 10pts more than a triple lance Ravager.

lcfr wrote:

colinsherlow wrote:

It is slight cheaper.

Has the Forgeworld Index been modified since the big faq? My copy has Reapers at 10pts more than a triple lance Ravager.

This thread's from the start of 8th edition, a lot of the discussion in it is outdated.

withershadow wrote:

Reaper is surprisingly deadly in melee.

Everything on BOLS is wrong and they are a bunch of clickbait whiners. Your dark lance scourge comparison earlier was really off the mark because what really determines success is volume. I rather have 4 dice at reduced chance to hit than 3 more accurate ones, because even though on average it works out the same, the more dice you roll, the more likely you are to have a critical success that actually impacts the game. This has been a lesson learned by many an opponent that spam disintegrators on everything because they are more “reliable” than lances, and then wonder why they are getting smashed by those Knights or Russes the disintegrators managed to “reliably” plink for a few damage points.

I think this goes both ways. If you do not have enough shots the unreliability of the lances makes that maybe you kill in round one and probably have killed at least 1 in round 2. VS not having killed one round 1 and having killed one round 2 with dissies. Factor in that possibly some of your shots have died themselves the lances are better, if you are on the low end of what you need.
But if you do have more than enough shots, you will reliably kill in round 1 with dissies and possibly not kill in round 1 with lances.
Thus lances become the "equalizer". Do you fight against more tanks that you can handle you might still kill enough of them and pull out ahead.
Dissies are reliable. If you have enough shots to handle the tanks there is limited risk that you will fail your rolls and lose because of it. Which lances do much easier since it is less dice rolls.

Both have their advantages
If you meet an unbalanced tank army*, the lances might be lucky and win you the game, while otherwise you will lose.
If you meet a balanced army* the lances might be unlucky and lose you the game.
If you meet an unbalanced infantry army*, the dissies might still prove slightly usefull while the lances are probably nearly useless, thus the loss will be less severe with dissies.

This makes that investing in a lot of lances usually pays of worse than investing in lot's of dissies. If you take crap of dissies they can still deal a bit with infantry armies while dealing significant damage to tanks, while if you invest the same amount in lances the infantry armies will be very difficult to deal with and tank armies might still beat you if you roll bad.

Now this sounds really bad for lances (like they are a crutch weapon for bad players), but this is not neccesary the case.
Take a small game of 500 points. Here you will be hard pressed to kill/ cripple a tank in 1 turn with dissies or you severy lack bodies for objectives and anti infantry. Thus lances might help you kill the tank in 1 turn (or bring it in a low bracket with command points) while dissies will probably need another turn for this.
In larger battles you can often just pour more firepower in it and kill the most pressing matters with dissies. But expecially in small games this is often not an option since you do not have enough points to build in the redundency you can have in larger games to kill a few things that need dying for certain.

* an unbalanced army in this case is an army with to much of a certain type for you to deal with, leading to a loss unless luck plays a major part in the game.