Splinter Racks, dubious hidden mobility upgrade?!

Now stick with me for a second, I may be reading this wrong and please feel free to mock me if I am. The idea is only situational at best anyway.

Moving 12" in a skimmer means the passengers may only snapfire. 6's to hit.
Chuck in splinter Racks, re-rolls to hit with rifles.

Now here is where it gets situational.

Lets say you are rapidly redistributing your force to take advantage of a mistake, bad deployment, vulnerability etc.
You want to move quickly to make sure you are in cover, or those vulnerable troops are out of LOS/obscured if you only move 6". Now all that is stopping you moving 12" is the knowledge that you are losing a lot of the damage potential of your warriors, which in an ideal world you want to use to expose this situation.
Well what if at the same time it happens that the extra 6" movement might just allow you to get into rapid fire range, into LOS and perhaps even remove anything obscuring LOS (i.e. removing that cover save they might have gotten)?

10 Warriors @ 24" without Racks = 10 shots, 6.66 hits, 3.33 wounds
10 Warriors @ 24" with Racks = 10 shots, 8.88 hits, 4.44 wounds
10 Warriors @ 12" with Racks = 20 Shots, 6.11 hits, 3.055 wounds

Now those racks suddenly appear to gift you the chance at an extra 6" movement at the price of 0.278 wounds caused. For the cost of the Splinter Racks upgrade you gain this increased damage output at range and this obscure opportunity for extra movement at little cost. Admittedly you still suffer the negatives over moving 12" and having to snapshot the raiders DL or Dissi.


Personally I don't use Splinter Racks, though I have always been tempted. Is this odd set of events too obscure to be taken into consideration at all? Or does it add a little extra weight to the pro-Splinter Racks argument?

I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts.

ST

A valid argument. A small mistake though even if the raider moves 12" the dizzie/lance can still fire at full BS as it's a fast vehicle. Splinter racks are also great for overwatch. My problem is raiders are too fragile this edition for you to keep warriors in them all the time.

I have found the trick with warrior raiders, is to only have your warriors embark on the raider when they really need too. You want your warriors spending as little time in that raider death trap as possible. It's also a good idea not to make a raider more expensive than it needs to be, they are fine without upgrades. When you realise they are going to be empty most of the game it make it a lot apparent that it's not worth spending extra points on them.

Area terrain also makes your warriors a real pain to deal with as they can go to ground for a 3+ cover save and still put out some decent snapshot fire thanks to their splinter cannon. Also an empty raider more often than not gets ignored, meaning It's far more likely to be around late game, giving you more mobility on turn 4+ when it really matters.

Warriors in area terrain with an empty raider near by are deceptively mobile. They can redeploy to an objective that is between 49-59" away in two turns (T4: 2d6 pick the highest + 2" embark range + 12" raider move + 18" flat out + T5: 6" raider move + 6" disembark + 1d6 re-rollable fleet run + 3" objective capture range). Perfect for capturing objectives in the late game.

When you consider the above I find splinter racks, flicker fields and even night shields to be a bit of a trap on raiders, as they are not cheap and encourage your warriors to stay in their raiders. This reduces your target saturation and lets your opponent kill two birds with one stone (suddenly not only is that autocannon destroying your raider but it's also killing 5-6 warriors).

But a lot of players swear by splinter racks, so whatever works for you!

I think it's perfectly fine to leave units inside the Raiders.
That said, I run small enough squads that the value of the rack is not really there for me regardless.
Probably if I ran larger squads and ran the risk of losing more men I'd agree with Mush's basic strategy - and, at that point, is the rack remotely worth it as it's only really a boon for bigger squads, and bigger squads are at the highest risk when a vehicle detonates with them inside of it.

@Mush - FFs are a trap on Raiders? It's still a mobile gun platform and also still valuable to keep alive till the start of Turn 2 even if you wish to jump out of it immediately, I think the FFs are a solid investment that way with the way the meta is settling currently. Why do you disagree?

Thor665 wrote:

I think the FFs are a solid investment that way with the way the meta is settling currently. Why do you disagree?

I'm just stingy on points mostly because I play at 1500 points. Also I find a 5++ won't really do much against the ignore cover weapons that are out there as they generally have such a high volume of fire. As for getting a cover save on first turn, I have never found that to be a problem. I guess it depends on how much terrain you have.

Maybe "trap" was too strong a word.  

Well, definitely a 1500 build is different from the 1850-2000 I usually build for, and also makes a difference what you see facing you (how I wish my FLGS would run more 1250-1500 games, where DE are a much stronger build inherently )

Terrain is terrain - I have to admit in the current meta for me it's either no line of sight or FFs as the optimal goal. Cover is nice and all, but isn't what it used to be on a couple of levels now. I see what you mean about the weapons you're dealing with, but for me by the time those are in play usually I'm happy because my Raiders have done a lot of their work - I don't mind losing a Raider mid-field, I loathe losing one in my deployment zone though, because usually my Blaster will survive and be there as a niggling threat and do its job thereafter. I consider the FFs important for situations where I don't want first turn and cover is an issue (certainly a problem at local tournaments wherein there is always a desert/ice/both board it seems) and also as a tool against DSing melta type assaults, which can usually bypass terrain and yet are able to be blunted quite well via 5++.

Then again, I'm not spending all those points on bikes  

But, yeah, I suppose spelling it out it's more about melta drop than cover save ignoring weaponry on turn 1, by Turn 2 the FF (And indeed, any save) is simply gravy for my Raiders, as I played for ages without either.

Maybe I'm still just addicted to the idea of even having a save?

Mushkilla wrote:

I have found the trick with warrior raiders, is to only have your warriors embark on the raider when they really need too. You want your warriors spending as little time in that raider death trap as possible. It's also a good idea not to make a raider more expensive than it needs to be, they are fine without upgrades. When you realise they are going to be empty most of the game it make it a lot apparent that it's not worth spending extra points on them.

Area terrain also makes your warriors a real pain to deal with as they can go to ground for a 3+ cover save and still put out some decent snapshot fire thanks to their splinter cannon. Also an empty raider more often than not gets ignored, meaning It's far more likely to be around late game, giving you more mobility on turn 4+ when it really matters.

Warriors in area terrain with an empty raider near by are deceptively mobile. They can redeploy to an objective that is between 49-59" away in two turns (T4: 2d6 pick the highest + 2" embark range + 12" raider move + 18" flat out + T5: 6" raider move + 6" disembark + 1d6 re-rollable fleet run + 3" objective capture range). Perfect for capturing objectives in the late game.

Is it just me or have I read exactly the same text before somewhere? Sounds so familiar!  

Anyway. I have considered splinter racks too, but I have never really thought that they would actually help in such a way. In the end, I dont really want to field them, however, since they dont work on splinter cannons. If they would work on splinter cannons, this unit would be sweet:
3 trueborn, 2 splinter cannons, in raider with splinter racks (and maybe night shields).

I think the other factor is you run a lot of raiders right? MSU warriors loads of boats? Especially at 2000 points that's a lot of board real estate, so unless you get creative with cascading cover it's going to be a challenge for everyone to have a cover save. In contrast at 1500 points I have only 6 vehicles (including ravagers), and a lot of the time my reavers start off the board, so the army has a rather small footprint and as a result isn't as hard to hide.

5++ is great against low rate of fire AT, I just find in my current meta the amount of S6-7 spam makes it less effective, to the point where I'm actually considering running talos instead of ravagers (because going second against four serpents without an appropriate amount of line of sight blocking terrain means those ravagers will never shoot anyway).

Mngwa wrote:

Is it just me or have I read exactly the same text before somewhere? Sounds so familiar!

It's a copy paste of what I said in the last splinter rack discussion.

I do run a fair amount of vehicles...but only like...12. Though usually only 9-10 are Raiders...  

Yeah, as I mentioned, the different point builds can lead to different armies, and also the types of armies built, which I hadn't considered - only hiding 6 boats is a whole different universe, and also makes a different perception to the user when that boat is busted. I'll loose 3 vehicles in a round and not blink about it, for you that would be a 50% loss of your mech, and probably taken different.

Neat realization.

Quote :

When you realise they are going to be empty most of the game it make it a lot apparent that it's not worth spending extra points on them.

It might be worth spending points on Grisly Trophies. Even empty - this still have a role to play. A screening Raider for Helion Gang is a nice thing. Help with both cover and moral checks.

Splinter racks are a really solid upgrade - giving re-rolls to hit on a unit with that much rapid fire death is excellent, and as an opponent found out recently they can really dish out a lot of hurt on overwatch. I know the consensus is that we should keep our fragile vehicles as cheap as possible, but if I have a Raider carrying Warriors it will always have splinter racks, flickerfield and night shield. One carrying wyches will have flickerfield, night shield and enhanced aethersails if I can afford them. I find the reliability of the warriors shooting to be worth the points, though personally I wouldn't deliberately move them into a position where they were snap shooting, even with the re-rolls. Anything left alive after there five or so hits (and there will be something alive) stands a really good chance of wrecking their ride. By being conservative with what I shot at, boosting over things that I would otherwise have been snap shooting against and picking my targets carefully I kept a Raider full of warriors alive all game last time I played, having amassed four pain tokens (the board did have a lot of terrain though!)

It's just a shame the racks don't allow re-rolls with cannon and carbines. Splinterborn in a Raider would be a must take!

At the very least they would be a solid take.

Mr Believer wrote:

Splinter racks are a really solid upgrade - giving re-rolls to hit on a unit with that much rapid fire death is excellent, and as an opponent found out recently they can really dish out a lot of hurt on overwatch. I know the consensus is that we should keep our fragile vehicles as cheap as possible, but if I have a Raider carrying Warriors it will always have splinter racks, flickerfield and night shield. One carrying wyches will have flickerfield, night shield and enhanced aethersails if I can afford them. I find the reliability of the warriors shooting to be worth the points, though personally I wouldn't deliberately move them into a position where they were snap shooting, even with the re-rolls. Anything left alive after there five or so hits (and there will be something alive) stands a really good chance of wrecking their ride. By being conservative with what I shot at, boosting over things that I would otherwise have been snap shooting against and picking my targets carefully I kept a Raider full of warriors alive all game last time I played, having amassed four pain tokens (the board did have a lot of terrain though!)

It's just a shame the racks don't allow re-rolls with cannon and carbines. Splinterborn in a Raider would be a must take!

+1.
I love my splinter rack raiders. Sure, it costs a fair amount of points, but i usually take a naked 10 man/women warrior squad with a Splinter canon for extended range and a little more fire power.

But thats just one or two units in my army, so i can afford the points.

@Thor665: Don't mock my splinterborn. i just finised painting my'ne for the monthly vow, and they will be taken seriously!

Crazy_Irish wrote:

@Thor665: Don't mock my splinterborn. i just finised painting my'ne for the monthly vow, and they will be taken seriously!

Don't worry, I'd take them seriously.
...just not competitively
 

I think Splinter Racks are deceptively good. I didn't give them much thought when I first saw the upgrade, especially being one of the more expensive options.
But when I actually stopped to look at the math? Started to look a whole lot better.

Suddenly our Warrior squads have about the same damage output as a Venom. It's shorter ranged, but we trade off for longer range on the anti tank (lance vs the Venom squad's Blaster).

I think there's something to be said about using Raiders as late-game mobility. However, it should be noted that there are a lot of armies out there now that Night Shields really mess up shooting for. Necrons are almost completely at the 24" range-band. Tyranids (particularly their anti-tank) are at that range. Grey Knights have enough that we can relatively easily deal with the long-range threats and then skirt the rest. Sisters (for what it's worth) are the same way. Orks too.

That, though, falls down to tactics. If you're up against an army that you can easily skirt and laugh at, stay in the boat. If you know reasonably well that the enemy will easily decimate your army if you stay in... don't. Getting out or staying in is an option, not a law.

Orks can do well against our raiders even with night shields with lootas anyway.