Raiders vs Venoms General Discussion

Which do you prefer and why?

I like a mix of raiders and venoms. Blasterborn on the venoms and warriors on the raiders. Since the rule change allowing vehicles to shoot a separate target from the occupants it means I can continue shooting evenly even while taking losses. Plus it means that it is harder for the enemy to target prioritize without my suffering the usual efficiency penalty from mixing weapon types in the same unit. I haven't run any mathhammer on it though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Teetengee wrote:

I like a mix of raiders and venoms. Blasterborn on the venoms and warriors on the raiders. Since the rule change allowing vehicles to shoot a separate target from the occupants it means I can continue shooting evenly even while taking losses. Plus it means that it is harder for the enemy to target prioritize without my suffering the usual efficiency penalty from mixing weapon types in the same unit. I haven't run any mathhammer on it though, so take it with a grain of salt.

My only gripe with Venoms is how fragile they are. If you want to Jink to make them slightly more durable, then you lose the only advantage Venoms have over Raiders. Jinking forces the Venom to Snap Shot and if you're going to Jink anyway, why not just take Raiders?

Do you ever bother Jinking with your Venoms?

I like a mix - making it an either or situation is a bit like saying Grots vs. Scourges - they're there to do different things.

I rarely Jink with anything.

Thor665 wrote:

I like a mix - making it an either or situation is a bit like saying Grots vs. Scourges - they're there to do different things.

I rarely Jink with anything.

I guess what I'm asking is what rationale people use to take Venoms.

If you always Jinked with a Raider with Night Shields, and your opponent had no Ignores Cover, then would it be possible that for a Raider with Kabalites to live long enough to out-damage a Venom with Kabalites?

Mathhammer:
Raider unit cost: 180 (ten Kabalites, Splinter Cannon, Night Shield, Splinter Racks, Disintegrator Cannon)
Venom unit cost: 105

• Against MEQs, within Rapid Fire range, no cover:
  
• Raider: 4.88 unsaved wounds; 36.81 cost-efficiency.
  
• Venom: 2.44 unsaved wounds; 43 cost-efficiency.
  
  
• Against MEQs, within Rapid Fire range, 5+ cover:
  
• Raider: 4.44 unsaved wounds; 40.5 cost-efficiency.
  
• Venom: 2.44 unsaved wounds; 43 cost-efficiency.
  
  
• Against MEQs, outside Rapid Fire range, no cover:
  
• Raider: 3.55 unsaved wounds; 50.6 cost-efficiency.
  
• Venom: 1.88 unsaved wounds; 55.85 cost-efficiency.
  
  
• Against MEQs, outside Rapid Fire range, 5+ cover:
  
• Raider: 3.11 unsaved wounds; 57.87 cost-efficiency.
  
• Venom: 1.88 unsaved wounds; 55.85 cost-efficiency.
  

So it would seem that Raiders and Venoms are relatively close in terms of the damage they can put out at most ranges. So the question is how long can each vehicle stay alive to do more damage?

Venom Pros
+Are likely to be in range sooner.
+Are cheaper and allow you to take more Venoms, which has a multitude of benefits

Venom Cons
-1 less hull point
-lose most of their damage output if they Jink, but it's debatable if they should be Jinking in the first place, especially due to a lack of Night Shields.


Raider Pros
+Can take a Dark Lance or Disintegrator Cannon
+Much more durable if it Jinks with Night Shields
+Loses much less firepower if it Jinks
+Has the highest damage potential, albeit in few circumstances

Raider Cons
-Much more to lose as all the points are concentrated in a single unit
-Less units


So it would seem if your opponent has plenty of Ignores Cover, Raiders are going to suffer greater casualties, and Venoms are going to be more durable as well. This advantage would be compounded for Venoms since you can take more of them.

If your opponent doesn't have Ignores Cover, it would seem Raiders at least perform much better.

My question would be, if your opponent DOESN'T have Ignores Cover, why would you take Venoms when Raiders are going to be much more durable? Is the range on Venoms worth it?

I don't think you can honestly compare them how you are. Like Thor said, they do two different things. Venoms have that range that Raiders lack. They cost less so yes you can take more of them which then makes their damage output higher and can engage more targets making them more valuable then Raiders at times. However, you want more bodies then raiders have that distinct advantage over Venoms. I don't you can compare them in your range of values and have something be determined as "better."

As far as the no cover thing goes, I never going in planning a list against one opponent, so I always try to assume the worst and go from there. I never go into a game knowing my opponent will or will not have ignores cover and even if I did I would not change my list to counter it.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I don't think you can honestly compare them how you are.  Like Thor said, they do two different things.  Venoms have that range that Raiders lack.  They cost less so yes you can take more of them which then makes their damage output higher and can engage more targets making them more valuable then Raiders at times. However, you want more bodies then raiders have that distinct advantage over Venoms.  I don't you can compare them in your range of values and have something be determined as "better."

I don't think they're so different that we can't compare them. For instance, in my example I was comparing the killing power against MEQs of Venoms to Raiders, but I'm not disregarding that they're still two different units.

It is important, as you note, that Venoms have the range that Raiders lack, but using that to say "you can't compare Venoms to Raiders because of their range" is similar to saying "you can't compare Guardians to Dire Avengers." However you could use that hypothesis to say, "Venoms survive longer due to their range and thus do more damage overall."

Given that Raiders have a more effective Jink, do you think that statement would still hold true?

SCP Yeeman wrote:

As far as the no cover thing goes, I never going in planning a list against one opponent, so I always try to assume the worst and go from there. I never go into a game knowing my opponent will or will not have ignores cover and even if I did I would not change my list to counter it.

Counter-listing isn't my intention, but an understanding of the two units' roles.

Khordajj wrote:

If you always Jinked with a Raider with Night Shields, and your opponent had no Ignores Cover, then would it be possible that for a Raider with Kabalites to live long enough to out-damage a Venom with Kabalites?

Oh, okay, so what you're actually comparing is a Venom to a Gunboat Raider build - correct?
That's a different thing entirely.

Khordajj wrote:

Mathhammer:
Raider unit cost: 180 (ten Kabalites, Splinter Cannon, Night Shield, Splinter Racks, Disintegrator Cannon)
Venom unit cost: 105

Are you counting the Raider as moved or not moved in your examples - because the Salvo or not Salvo range and capability of the S.Cannon is capable of making a big change on the apparent value of the unit.

Khordajj wrote:

[*]Against MEQs, outside Rapid Fire range, no cover:
[*]Raider: 3.55 unsaved wounds; 50.6 cost-efficiency.
[*]Venom: 1.88 unsaved wounds; 55.85 cost-efficiency.

[*]Against MEQs, outside Rapid Fire range, 5+ cover:
[*]Raider: 3.11 unsaved wounds; 57.87 cost-efficiency.
[*]Venom: 1.88 unsaved wounds; 55.85 cost-efficiency.
[/list]

I was confused by these numbers and their presentation - then I realized you were having the Raider fire on the squad too. Are you giving full salvo? And are you counting the Raider as a Dissie, which would explain the cover save entry? Because if so - I would never take that Raider loadout regardless, as I think it's a bad move as it weakens our anti-mech, and that's crazy to do. But if your point is that a Dissie Raider+Gunboat loadout is good at killing MEQ...well, yeah, sure - doesn't matter to me because I'd never use that build in a TAC list.

I dispute the value of these numbers in showing actual value as they do not reflect real battlefield conditions and how the units would be used.

Khordajj wrote:

So it would seem if your opponent has plenty of Ignores Cover, Raiders are going to suffer greater casualties, and Venoms are going to be more durable as well. This advantage would be compounded for Venoms since you can take more of them.

Agreed - not that it particularly takes ignores cover to pop a Raider or Venom from the sky regardless.

Khordajj wrote:

If your opponent doesn't have Ignores Cover, it would seem Raiders at least perform much better.

By what metric?

Khordajj wrote:

My question would be, if your opponent DOESN'T have Ignores Cover, why would you take Venoms when Raiders are going to be much more durable? Is the range on Venoms worth it?

Well, absolutely short answer - in a TAC list and in the current meta, I *expect* to face armies that ignore cover, so the conversation is a non-starter for me.

Long answer I also feel you're making a few foolish presumptions here, and I'll outline them below;

1. As stated - your damage output numbers are built to be skewed in the Gunboat's favor. The Raider will be either jinking (for your survivability) or will be shooting its lance at better targets than infantry mobs, or is a Dissie loadout which is a different animal altogether from what a Venom build even is. Also, you are unlikely to get off non-salvo shots from the s.cannon which further weakens your range *and* damage output potential.

2. You pay attention to the issue of hull points, while ignoring that most anti-tank weaponry in the game tends to kill us by damage results rather than glancing us to death. If my opponent hits me with a lascannon or melta gun generally the only question is whether I save it or not - I will agree that a 5+ vs. a 4+ is pretty apparent as to which is better, but the Venom can take the 4+ too if such is your goal.

3. You also overlook that though the relative price value is similar (and, again, I dispute those numbers...though I'm willing to wager they're still basically competitive even once cleaned up) you also are not paying attention to the concept of MSU and the DE. At the end of the day it is pretty easy to kill a DE Raider. Quite frankly, for the cost of 2 of your Gunboats I can have 3 Venoms (with a Blaster on each)

That gives me 24 poison shots and 3 blaster shots vs. 26-30 poison shots and 6 Dissie shots - both have 6 hull points amongst them, mine have better range versus infantry and yours is almost useless versus mech. That said, if the opponent has a surefire way to ruin our day (let's say Pask in a Punisher) that is going to ruin my day, oh yes, the Punisher is going to eat a Venom - and I will lose 120 points of value more or less. That same Punisher is also going to eat your Raider, jink or no, because one more hull point isn't stopping him - and you will lose 180 points, making your lose greater than mine even if yours was, individually, "tougher" than mine. That is because, for DE, "tough" is still kind of a relative thing.

Same deal with a squad with some melta in it (like fire dragons or melta vets) at the end of the day, jink or no, that is probably a dead vehicle - again, who has more value left by spreading out the points? This doesn't even get into assault (which, oddly, the Venom is more durable against...though, yeah, that will rarely matter )

So, basically, even if I accept all your numbers as correct - we're debating whether I would like the same amount of killing potential in less spots, or more spots. I choose more - because DE die easily.

That is why I advocate the Venom build - though I will admit I don't advocate Venomspam as a list idea, but I don't advocate Gunboats either

I ran some numbers last night on three builds, I'll post it up again later when I'm back at home and have access to the spreadsheet. Basically though it does boil down to the above point of how many targets do you want to have - at close range (<12") my gunboat build and venom perform very similarly in terms of points per kill (venom wins, just!). Obviously at long range (>24") the venom outperforms the gunboat against infantry but loses out against tanks (I put a blaster in the venom build to give it an anti tank shot like the raider has). Can't remember the numbers for mid range off the top of my head, annoyingly (it was late).

In sheer damage terms though the gunboat wins - the venom can kick out the same number of shots at short range but the splinter racks increase the gunboat damage significantly. The way you use them therefore becomes relevant. My argument for using gunboats is that the >24" range is never a factor for me, because I deep strike my boats in so they're closer than that, and gang up on targets so that return fire is minimal.

However, for a truly balanced list, a mix of venoms and gunboats works best (it's just difficult to fit them both in if you play 1500pts and want some other toys like ravagers, talos etc)

I'd have to agree with both Thor and Burning Eye: it depends.

I run a mixture of both Venoms & Raiders performing as mini-gunboats (5 Kabs with a blaster) and Venom/blaster combo.

Generally speaking both perform equally for their given role. And that's the clincher for me, as Thor says above. DL Raider aiming at Mech, Venom dominating infantry. Units inside having flexibility to either go for infantry or mech depending on situation I face. Simples

Not Mathammer per se but my gut feel is actually that my Venoms have been surviving more than my Raiders. My Raiders are typically targeted earlier on and they're also harder to hide behind cover. Might just be the opponents I'm facing though...

I don't want to advocate math-hammer to decide, my worst enemy . But it depends, I find that they work well together. I am starting to lean away from the gunboat raider to smaller squads in venoms basically because the amount of ignores cover stuff in my meta is getting obscene and good old flickerfields are my only friends.

Raiders are by no means inferior though in my opinion, I think they are a good way to get a bit of AT into a list and the enhanced aerosails are great for flanking and penetrating into their lines. I like to utilise the venoms range and use them as one big formation that just hoses stuff from a distance while the gunboats/assault units in the raiders get into the face and finish off what's left.

So my real attraction of venoms over raiders is the flickerfields because since my gaming group have taken a dislike to dark eldar over the years I don't often get the opportunity to jink!

If you're just using the venoms at ranges >24" then taking them as fast attack choices instead of dedicated transports makes them much better value.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I ran some numbers last night on three builds, I'll post it up again later when I'm back at home and have access to the spreadsheet. Basically though it does boil down to the above point of how many targets do you want to have - at close range (<12") my gunboat build and venom perform very similarly in terms of points per kill (venom wins, just!). Obviously at long range (>24") the venom outperforms the gunboat against infantry but loses out against tanks (I put a blaster in the venom build to give it an anti tank shot like the raider has). Can't remember the numbers for mid range off the top of my head, annoyingly (it was late).
)

I am curious to see what your numbers show and how you ran them. I definitely came up with results very strongly in favor of the venom's output at all ranges. Perhaps you're doing a 1 to 1 comparison, but then you're comparing a 150 (or 165 if you take night shields) unit to a 105 point unit. That's why I did a 2 raiders vs 3 venoms comparison to balance out the points.

To the original question though, I absolutely think raiders still have their place in the army and I still love mine as well for the roles I give them (which is usually running assault units forward or for deepstriking units). If your question is more specifically about gunboat vs venom though, then I think it's venom hands down.

lessthanjeff wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

I ran some numbers last night on three builds, I'll post it up again later when I'm back at home and have access to the spreadsheet. Basically though it does boil down to the above point of how many targets do you want to have - at close range (<12") my gunboat build and venom perform very similarly in terms of points per kill (venom wins, just!). Obviously at long range (>24") the venom outperforms the gunboat against infantry but loses out against tanks (I put a blaster in the venom build to give it an anti tank shot like the raider has). Can't remember the numbers for mid range off the top of my head, annoyingly (it was late).
)

I am curious to see what your numbers show and how you ran them.  I definitely came up with results very strongly in favor of the venom's output at all ranges.  Perhaps you're doing a 1 to 1 comparison, but then you're comparing a 150 (or 165 if you take night shields) unit to a 105 point unit.  That's why I did a 2 raiders vs 3 venoms comparison to balance out the points.

To the original question though, I absolutely think raiders still have their place in the army and I still love mine as well for the roles I give them (which is usually running assault units forward or for deepstriking units).  If your question is more specifically about gunboat vs venom though, then I think it's venom hands down.

I wasn't comparing the two directly at all, it was generating a figure of 'points spent per kill' so the number of vehicles was irrelevant.

I also don't think it's a hands down choice. The venom is a clearly superior infantry killer in the 24-36 range, but has zero option for taking down mech at that range, whereas the dark lance raider does (roughly 1 penetrating hit per 5 shots). The venom is open to incoming fire unless you reserve it and it seems that this build people like it to be on the table on turn 1, whereas the gunboat build i use is specifically intended for deep strike and so unless your opponent is packing a lot of interceptor fire (something I don't see a lot of) it is going to be intact when it opens up. Scalpel squadrons of course can be safe from damage if you go second and still be on the table on turn 1, but they're a different topic.

Then you have to factor in re-rolls - mathammer can't allow for bad rolling, it only ever gives you averages, but if two units are similar in value on average, and one has a re-roll to provide resilience against a poor batch of dice, that counts in its favour in my opinion.

In terms of damage received, the venom is basically equivalent to a non-jinking raider - the raider has 3 hull points, the venom has 2 but should save one of every three hull points inflicted, so to kill them (on average) you have to provide exactly the same damage (doesn't quite work like that in the game since you might lose two hull points before you pass your flickerfield save). In terms of cost, I worked on my standard gunboat, which actually includes night shields so comes to 170 (10 warriors with rifles, raider with dark lance, splinter racks and night shields). Obviously if you drop the shields then its efficiency increases, whilst durability decreases against a lot of opponents. The Venom i took with an extra cannon and carrying 5 warriors with 1 blaster.

I used to run one or two Gunboats with the last codex. But since Nightshields got changed (and went up in price), Splintercannon got nerfed and went up in price, Lance is an upgrade and Splinter Racks went up in price its no longer worth for me.

I run MSU Venom with a single Blaster nowadays and use the Raiders to either carry Grots or deliver Blasterborn as both units need to get close (which the Venom does not want) and the raider is a tad more durable as the venom.

Teetengee wrote:

Since the rule change allowing vehicles to shoot a separate target from the occupants

Doesn't really matter but since at least 5th edition (when I started playing) transports & embarked passengers could target separate units. This is not new in 6th or 7th.

clever handle wrote:

Teetengee wrote:

Since the rule change allowing vehicles to shoot a separate target from the occupants

Doesn't really matter but since at least 5th edition (when I started playing) transports & embarked passengers could target separate units.  This is not new in 6th or 7th.

yeah, I unfortunately have recently played Dark Eldar infrequently enough that it is still a reasonably large change in the tactics it allows for me.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

I used to run one or two Gunboats with the last codex. But since Nightshields got changed (and went up in price), Splintercannon got nerfed and went up in price, Lance is an upgrade and Splinter Racks went up in price its no longer worth for me.

The gunboat loadout went up a whopping 5 points. Hardly enough grounds to dismiss it. The changes to wargear aren't enough to say it's worthless either. Though Splinter Cannons are Salvo, Splinter Racks now apply to them as well. Night Shields (in either 7th or 6th) stopped making Rapid Fire have a 6" range (it used to), so on a gunboat I would argue the new Night Shields are better. It costs 5 points to give the Raider a Lance, but it's still the same cost as it was in the last Codex.

Thor665 wrote:

Oh, okay, so what you're actually comparing is a Venom to a Gunboat Raider build - correct?
That's a different thing entirely.

That's the comparison for now.

Thor665 wrote:

I was confused by these numbers and their presentation - then I realized you were having the Raider fire on the squad too. Are you giving full salvo?

Yes.

Thor665 wrote:

And are you counting the Raider as a Dissie, which would explain the cover save entry?

Yes.

Thor665 wrote:

Because if so - I would never take that Raider loadout regardless, as I think it's a bad move as it weakens our anti-mech, and that's crazy to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't taking a Venom in substitute of a Raider ALSO weaken our anti-mech? If you want to kill infantry, take Dis. Cannons. It's not any different from wanting to take a Venom and taking its Splinter Cannons. (Barring the fact that Venoms may/may not be more effective than Raiders. But I think we can both agree that Venoms are probably more effective at killing infantry. Maybe.)

Thor665 wrote:

I dispute the value of these numbers in showing actual value as they do not reflect real battlefield conditions and how the units would be used.

I'm not assuming that Raiders and their occupants are always going to have the most optimal circumstance to shoot, such as with the Salvo. I was just measuring it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. I've had game where my opponent out-flanked my back-field and I was able to fire optimally. We've already covered that there are plenty of variables which skew mathhammer. I'm just calculating with as few variables as possible. Interpretation is more important.

Thor665 wrote:

Agreed - not that it particularly takes ignores cover to pop a Raider or Venom from the sky regardless.

True. On average, you can't deny that Jink improves its survivabilty though. Don't downplay its effectiveness unless you show some reasoning, which I know you have.

Thor665 wrote:

Khordajj wrote:

If your opponent doesn't have Ignores Cover, it would seem Raiders at least perform much better.

By what metric?

Wounds per point spent on the unit. Granted, optimal circumstances don't happen often. However, in other circumstances, Raiders perform closely to Venoms. Which is why I would think they might perform better overall since they might live longer.

Thor665 wrote:

1. As stated - your damage output numbers are built to be skewed in the Gunboat's favor. The Raider will be either jinking (for your survivability) or will be shooting its lance at better targets than infantry mobs, or is a Dissie loadout which is a different animal altogether from what a Venom build even is. Also, you are unlikely to get off non-salvo shots from the s.cannon which further weakens your range *and* damage output potential.

.
All of that is true. But if you don't Jink your Venoms, do you still think they'd honestly put out as much fire as a Raider? I suppose this is still under the assumption your opponent doesn't have Ignores Cover.

Thor665 wrote:

2. You pay attention to the issue of hull points, while ignoring that most anti-tank weaponry in the game tends to kill us by damage results rather than glancing us to death. If my opponent hits me with a lascannon or melta gun generally the only question is whether I save it or not - I will agree that a 5+ vs. a 4+ is pretty apparent as to which is better, but the Venom can take the 4+ too if such is your goal.

With the gunboat variant I posted, it would have Night Shields. So the difference is a 5+ vs a 3+. Damage results do most of the damage, true, but only if they go through ourJink. Saying the Venom can take a 4+ as well doesn't seem consistent with your claims anyway. Even if you did Jink, you pretty much negate every advantage the Venom has over the Raider.

Thor665 wrote:

3. You also overlook that though the relative price value is similar (and, again, I dispute those numbers...though I'm willing to wager they're still basically competitive even once cleaned up) you also are not paying attention to the concept of MSU and the DE. At the end of the day it is pretty easy to kill a DE Raider. Quite frankly, for the cost of 2 of your Gunboats I can have 3 Venoms (with a Blaster on each)

The numbers may not be presented under realistic conditions, but I'm confident in the math with the presented variables.

Regardless, I just want you to state whether you think 2 Night Shielded Raiders is more durable than 3 non-jinking Venoms or not. We can already agree Venoms are a billion times more effective than Raiders when there's no Ignores Cover.

Thor665 wrote:

That gives me 24 poison shots and 3 blaster shots vs. 26-30 poison shots and 6 Dissie shots - both have 6 hull points amongst them, mine have better range versus infantry and yours is almost useless versus mech. That said, if the opponent has a surefire way to ruin our day (let's say Pask in a Punisher) that is going to ruin my day, oh yes, the Punisher is going to eat a Venom - and I will lose 120 points of value more or less. That same Punisher is also going to eat your Raider, jink or no, because one more hull point isn't stopping him - and you will lose 180 points, making your lose greater than mine even if yours was, individually, "tougher" than mine. That is because, for DE, "tough" is still kind of a relative thing.

Same deal with a squad with some melta in it (like fire dragons or melta vets) at the end of the day, jink or no, that is probably a dead vehicle - again, who has more value left by spreading out the points? This doesn't even get into assault (which, oddly, the Venom is more durable against...though, yeah, that will rarely matter )

So, basically, even if I accept all your numbers as correct - we're debating whether I would like the same amount of killing potential in less spots, or more spots. I choose more - because DE die easily.

That is why I advocate the Venom build - though I will admit I don't advocate Venomspam as a list idea, but I don't advocate Gunboats either

I like this section the most, and I think you've swayed me enough to dismiss most of everything I just said above. There are a few instances in which your vehicle is going to die regardless of whether it has Jink or not. Venoms are certainly better in this regard. They're certainly better against Ignores Cover and probably better in the assault. I think I'd be willing to dismiss the gunboat in a TAC list, even though there would still be a few circumstances in which the Raider would be better. Thanks

ok so here's the numbers I ran last night.

To start us off:
Gunboat = 10 kabalite warriors in raider with dark lance - 155pts
MSU Raider = 5 kabalite warriors with blaster in raider with dark lance - 130pts
Venom = 5 kabalite warriors with blaster in venom with dual cannons - 120pts

I evaluated the cost efficiency of each of the above builds at different range bands (0-12, 12-18, 18-24, and 24+) and against tanks(AT & assuming AV12+ for lances), MEQ, TEQ and GEQ.

So at 0-12", we get the following results (expressed in points spent per kill, or penetrating hit against tanks)

Gunboat - AT 697.5pts, MEQ 52.31pts, TEQ 104.63pts, GEQ 17.44pts
MSU Raider - AT 292.5pts, MEQ 121.03pts, TEQ 242.07pts, GEQ 40.34pts
Venom - AT 540pts, MEQ, 49.85pts, TEQ 99.69pts, GEQ 16.62pts

At 12-18"
Gunboat - AT 697.5pts, MEQ 104.63pts, TEQ 209.25pts, GEQ 34.88pts
MSU Raider - AT 292.5pts, MEQ 206.47pts, TEQ 412.94pts, GEQ 68.82pts
Venom - AT 540pts, MEQ, 61.13pts, TEQ 122.26pts, GEQ 20.38pts

At 18-24"
Gunboat - AT 697.5pts, MEQ 104.63pts, TEQ 209.25pts, GEQ 34.88pts
MSU Raider - AT 585pts, MEQ 292.50pts, TEQ 585pts, GEQ 97.50pts
Venom - AT -pts, MEQ, 67.5pts, TEQ 135pts, GEQ 22.5pts

At 24"+
Gunboat - AT 697.5pts, MEQ -pts, TEQ -pts, GEQ -pts
MSU Raider - AT 585pts, MEQ -pts, TEQ -pts, GEQ -pts
Venom - AT -pts, MEQ, 90pts, TEQ 180pts, GEQ 30pts

Great, so what does that tell us?

First off, the MSU Raider against infantry is a poor third when compared to the other two builds at all ranges. It is however, considerably better value at anti tank up to 18" when the blaster is used.

Secondly, the venom performs slightly better at anti infantry at close range, and is comfortably better at mid-long ranges. As you'd expect, it is better value than the gunboat at AT, but is more limited in range.

If you choose your vehicles on the basis of points efficiency alone therefore, the venom is your vehicle of choice.

There are other factors though. In terms of outright performance, the gunboat averages (rounding to the nearest) 2 extra kills over the venom at close range, and it's not so much more expensive that you can get three venom builds for the same price (50pts less than 3 venoms).

There are two extra factors to consider though - hull points on the raider - jinking grants it a 4+ save against most incoming fire, whilst at best, the flickerfield on the venom makes it equivalent to a 3 hull point vehicle (assuming you pass the flickerfield in the first two hull points taken). Its certainly arguable that actually damage results tend to make the number of hull points less relevant, but not redundant. When you do lose the vehicle, the output falls firmly in favour of the gunboat unit since it's got twice as many guns as the venom squad.

Secondly, splinter racks. The above numbers do factor in the re-rolls to hit granted by splinter racks, but i think a significant factor is the potential for the splinter racks to account for a bad set of rolling. No matter what happens, if your venom only rolls a couple of hits from all its shots, that's it. Shooting from the gunboat however has a certain amount of resiliency built into it with the reroll to hit.

Bottom line is as we've already said, maxing on one type is not good, and taking a mix of options gives you the best tools to tackle any job, but due to the feasibility of deep strike, i prefer the gunboat as the first choice on my list, but above 1500pts the first thing I add is two venom builds.

I did run the numbers for including a splinter cannon in the gunboat, but working on the basis of it moving, the extra shots didn't account for the higher cost and made it less efficient.

Quote :

The gunboat loadout went up a whopping 5 points. Hardly enough grounds to dismiss it. The changes to wargear aren't enough to say it's worthless either. Though Splinter Cannons are Salvo, Splinter Racks now apply to them as well. Night Shields (in either 7th or 6th) stopped making Rapid Fire have a 6" range (it used to), so on a gunboat I would argue the new Night Shields are better. It costs 5 points to give the Raider a Lance, but it's still the same cost as it was in the last Codex.

Ok. You got the points but seem to not see the bigger picture.

The same loadout as before (and 6th edition) is up 10 points. Not really much you argue. But let us take a look on the general playstyle of the 6th Ed Gunboat.

In most cases you move 6" around to claim your FREE 5+ cover save. You have your lance to add to your armies AT and stay 24" away from the unit you fire at.
Why? Because all weapons have a range of at least 24". The old nightshield reduces the enemy fire by 6". Thats enough to not die to any small arms retailation that could pop your raider. If they move to retailiate they have to move into a position YOU set up for them.

Now you get: no cover from moving (you have to jink, thus reducing your AT which you paid for), no -6" which means if you can hit them, they can hit you without moving AND your Cannon is 18" now so they will even get into rapid fire range if they decide to move.

All in all that is a huge hit to the former "save" gunboat (which was not even better than Venom spam but somewhat a close 2nd) and the price went up. That in sum broke the teeth out of the gunboats. Venom spam costs the same, puts out more firepower, gets you more targets, adds to your AT if needed and retains at least one benefit through the Flickerfield.

I think we should set some standards on our expectations of the units before we run numbers then because I definitely load mine up differently than what you're calculating.

Personally, I've shifted away from the swiss army knife approach for my units. I run my venoms as dedicated anti infantry (so no blaster) and let my scourges, blasterborn, or firedragons handle the dedicated anti-tank job. That will change a lot of your computations pretty dramatically by both increasing the output of the venoms while also reducing their cost.

Do we want to set a goal for comparison on dedicated anti-infantry roles or maybe run two different sets of numbers?

I did see at the end I sold you enough to waive some of your replies
That said, I'll address the ones I still think are seeking clarification that I didn't offer.

Khordajj wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't taking a Venom in substitute of a Raider ALSO weaken our anti-mech?

I will correct you on this because I think it is wrong.

A Blaster squad is not a dedicated squad - they have 8 s.rifles and 1 Blaster - I primarialy use them to hunt mech, but I also use them to pick on TEQ and perform other anti-MC/anti-infantry duties as needed. They are an all around tool At game start they are most valuable hunting mech 9/10 in my opinion, but as the game goes on they give me multiple tools

A Venom just hunts infantry.

The boys inside a Gunboat have the same targets as the Venom.

The Dissie Raider hunts...well...hopefully TEQ, and is okay vs. MEQ with decreasing returns against horde, MCs, and is absolutely of no use vs. mech.

So, what I hear you saying is "I spent 170+ points to hunt infanty and you spent 60+ to hunt infantry - aren't you also sacrificing anti-mech shooting"

To which I say - obviously not as much as you are.

Anti-infantry has a point, and is needed in a list. But I have better things to spend points on (like the optimal TAC toolset that is 5 Warriors with a Blaster) rather than buy the highly specialized Dissie Raider. Even the Venom is better rounded than the Dissie Raider, as it is actually good vs. horde, and also better against a wide range of MCs. The Dissie Raider's value zone is quite limited, making it a non-value buy and making any number crunching including it basically a non-starter for me.

Khordajj wrote:

I'm not assuming that Raiders and their occupants are always going to have the most optimal circumstance to shoot, such as with the Salvo. I was just measuring it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Agreed, but clearly the Venom (much less the 3x Venom in equivalent points) are more likely to have their optimal situation and also more likely to have a wider selection of available targets - both of which are value added points to it, so even if the numbers are somewhat close it pushes the Venom into an easily arguable advantage position.

Khordajj wrote:

Regardless, I just want you to state whether you think 2 Night Shielded Raiders is more durable than 3 non-jinking Venoms or not. We can already agree Venoms are a billion times more effective than Raiders when there's no Ignores Cover.

I presume you mean, when here *is* ignores cover. Which is, naturally, the world we live in.
But, against an army with no ignore cover rules - it starts to depend what they're doing to try to kill your vehicles. But in a very general sense - yes, I believe this.

@lessthanjeff - the reason I went for that particular venom build is that I've seen it around in lists on the forum (the gunboat is how i see gunboats working best, which was born out by the numbers i ran when I included a splinter cannon in there, the extra potential damage decreases its efficiency, although I grant it does increase its potential), and they provide the best basis for comparison against each other - they both retain an element of redundancy in terms of having an anti-mech weapon in their arsenal while mainly being anti-infantry.

If you want me to drop the blaster from the venom unit to make it purely anti infantry then it only seems reasonable to drop the lance from the gunboat and leave it with the dissie, which will change its numbers too - my head is telling me that max two shots from a splinter rifle are going to improve the venom's efficiency less than 3 long range dissie shots from the raider. against MEQ for example the dissie should cause 1.3r wounds at ranges up to 36", whilst the splinter rifle, even at short range is only giving you 0.2r. It improves dramatically against GEQ, but still only 0.6r chance, while the dissie moves up to 1.6r thanks to improved chance to wound. TEQ the dissie gets 0.9 wounds, and the splinter rifle drops to 0.1r. (Maths seems right, but I'll admit it was done by hand rather than checking through on a spreadsheet)

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

@lessthanjeff - the reason I went for that particular venom build is that I've seen it around in lists on the forum (the gunboat is how i see gunboats working best, which was born out by the numbers i ran when I included a splinter cannon in there, the extra potential damage decreases its efficiency, although I grant it does increase its potential), and they provide the best basis for comparison against each other - they both retain an element of redundancy in terms of having an anti-mech weapon in their arsenal while mainly being anti-infantry.

If you want me to drop the blaster from the venom unit to make it purely anti infantry then it only seems reasonable to drop the lance from the gunboat and leave it with the dissie, which will change its numbers too - my head is telling me that max two shots from a splinter rifle are going to improve the venom's efficiency less than 3 long range dissie shots from the raider. against MEQ for example the dissie should cause 1.3r wounds at ranges up to 36", whilst the splinter rifle, even at short range is only giving you 0.2r. It improves dramatically against GEQ, but still only 0.6r chance, while the dissie moves up to 1.6r thanks to improved chance to wound. TEQ the dissie gets 0.9 wounds, and the splinter rifle drops to 0.1r. (Maths seems right, but I'll admit it was done by hand rather than checking through on a spreadsheet)

Yeah, I actually computed mine with the Raider having a dissie as well. It's not about the damage output so much as it is about the cost drop though. Suddenly you're going to be dividing 105 instead of 120.

I have sometimes still run a blaster in the squad, but I'm finding more and more that I have enough tools that I can dedicate to each job that I don't need it anymore. That way I can keep them more at the max 36" range to prevent return fire. It does give the dissie a couple more wounds at the longer range targets, but then again the venoms already had an 8 or 9 wound advantage at those ranges anyway.

I was just saying we should probably discuss what everyone's priority is for the unit first or how they're using them. Whether we want to see its damage and survivability solely against infantry targets or as a more versatile unit with some anti armor.

Once you start keeping the venom at range I think the comparison falls apart - the gunboat build I use is specifically designed to drop in via deep strike to maximise shooting at close range without taking any damage first, and at those ranges you lose all the extra shots from the warriors on board the venom (you might as well take them as FA empty in that case and save yourself another 40pts).

The strategy is then to do that with multiple boats (2 in my 1500 list), which means very little incoming fire if you've picked the right spot for them to come in. Venoms at 36" are safe from small arms fire yes, but any decent anti tank in your opponents army (as an example my marine army has lascannon/missile launcher centurions with split fire) is going to scare you enough that you either jink or take a very real threat of losing the vehicle entirely or taking a penetrating hit, which is likely to render it ineffective (only the immoblised result doesn't give the venom serious issues). Autocannons, quad guns, lascannons, missile launchers etc all out-range the splinter cannon and I wouldn't say a competitive list doesn't have the ability to reach out and touch at that range (whether you swamp them with targets via MSU is a different matter)

I like the single lance option on raiders as they give you lots of resiliency in your shooting, you can fire your ravagers off first and then pot shot with raider lances to force jinks or damage results without wasting any fire. The gunboat lances in that situation become supporting fire instead of dedicated anti tank (which comes from scourges, ravagers etc).

I'll try and run the numbers on the other loadout, though I'm out tonight, but just looking at the figures I reckon only the GEQ would make more of an improvement to the venom than the raider (raider cost drops to 150, so if I'm thinking correctly just taking the wounds from the alternative weapons, the splinter rifle would need to do 2/3 of the damage of the dissie just to even out the points efficiency, and it's considerably outclassed by the dissie if your opponent gets an armour save)