Dark Lance Ravagers vs Haywire Scourges

Rokuro wrote:

That 4+ armor save will be ignored by many weapons. Having a 4+ cover save is better than having to relying on their 6+ invul save in that situation.

But that's the thing - with T3 it isn't exactly hard to put wounds on them, and with only a 4+ save (cover or armour), they'll be suffering severely from said wounds.

Dont know how to compare the two, they have different purposes within AV department.

Ravager can actually damage stuff, to shake and to stun, at turn 1, when your fleet is a sitting (flying) duck.
Damage result rolls 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 limit vehicle ability to fire drastically. Thats 5/6 rolls if you managed to pen. Weapon destroyed is a bit random, but still it does matter. Im gonna be targetting tanks with Lances first, then Haywire, if it is needed at all.

Transports you want to target with haywire, cause there is only 3, 5, 6 roll that would stop transport. Stripping hullpoints is more reliable to stop a transport and make it spit off its cargo to give them some poison candies.

If i can formulate it correctly, its more important to have Ravagers to atack tanks and gun platmorms, to deny them their purpose, while it is more important to have haywire to deal with transports, cause it will more effectively deny transports their purpose, which is give more speed and protection against AI fire.

Sure you can chose either, but dont swear when Rhino have lost storm bolter, but did make it to the point to score, or when 2 squads scourges managed to strip 2 hullpoints out of 3 from Leman Russ and it bloody fired Battle Cannon in the middle of your fleet.

The Shredder wrote:

But that's the thing - with T3 it isn't exactly hard to put wounds on them, and with only a 4+ save (cover or armour), they'll be suffering severely from said wounds.

Still, a 50% chance to survive is better than 16%. And Scourges are a lot easier to hide than a Ravager (their wings actually don't count for covering). If the terrain is large enough, you can keep them out of the enemy's line of sight.

Azdrubael makes excellent points and a base tactic I will be using from now on (if I wasn't already).

Thanks

Since bhaywire is one of our best weapons its sad that there are so few units with this option. Trueborn with haywire in a venom would be my everyday choice otherwise dark lance > haywire > blaster imho

Epimetheus wrote:

Since bhaywire is one of our best weapons its sad that there are so few units with this option. Trueborn with haywire in a venom would be my everyday choice otherwise dark lance > haywire > blaster imho

It would also be nice if Warriors and Trueborn could take Heat Lances.

Yeah, for the life of me, I can't understand why Trueborn don't have access to either HWB or Heat Lances. It seems like such a needless restriction. I'd much rather Trueborn lose access to Dark Lances and be able to take either of the aforementioned options.

Because they are not on the sprue.
Thats why the system is stagnant until there are new kits.
No Grenades modelled on your units? Sorry no grenades in the codex.
Reavers will always only get their single shot Splinter Rifles while Space Marine Bikes will always have TL Bolters. Just because it is modelled that way.
For the same reason the Solarite is the only Champion to keep most special weapons... because they all were on his sprue.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Because they are not on the sprue.

The Haemonculus they sell does not have a Flesh Gauntlet, Mindphase Gauntlet, Hexrifle, Liquifier Gun or Spliter Pistol either.

No IC does have all weapons neither do options for relics exist anywhere.
Does not contradict this fact regarding unit sprues.

Well, if only they were a model company, then they could add those weapons to the sprues themselves.

Quote :

The Haemonculus they sell does not have a Flesh Gauntlet, Mindphase Gauntlet, Hexrifle, Liquifier Gun or Spliter Pistol either.

The first model the sprues and then the rules. Its from one of the interviews.

The Shredder wrote:

Well, if only they were a model company, then they could add those weapons to the sprues themselves.

Totally agree. Let's not pretend that GW's hands are tied from a modeling perspective and allow them to use it as an excuse when it comes to their silly rules.

Epimetheus wrote:

Since haywire is one of our best weapons its sad that there are so few units with this option. Trueborn with haywire in a venom would be my everyday choice otherwise dark lance > haywire > blaster imho

If "Haywireborn" would become a thing, would people still take Scourges at all?

sweetbacon wrote:

It seems like such a needless restriction.

The story of 7th edition Dark Eldar...

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Because they are not on the sprue.
Thats why the system is stagnant until there are new kits.
No Grenades modelled on your units? Sorry no grenades in the codex.
Reavers will always only get their single shot Splinter Rifles while Space Marine Bikes will always have TL Bolters. Just because it is modelled that way.
For the same reason the Solarite is the only Champion to keep most special weapons... because they all were on his sprue.

The Shredder wrote:

The Haemonculus they sell does not have a Flesh Gauntlet, Mindphase Gauntlet, Hexrifle, Liquifier Gun or Spliter Pistol either.

You are both right. This rule zig-zags all over the place; applied loosely to some units/characters (where does Lelith keep her grenades?) and to ridiculous extremes on others (Solarites get power lances, only lances, and everyones else can take only swords - even if their spures don't include them).

Also, could you imagin the outrage if GW gave Space Marines that treatment?

Rokuro wrote:

The story of 7th edition Dark Eldar...

Rokuro wrote:

You are both right. This rule zig-zags all over the place; applied loosely to some units/characters (where does Lelith keep her grenades?) and to ridiculous extremes on others (Solarites get power lances, only lances, and everyones else can take only swords - even if their spures don't include them).

GW are the only company I know who take it upon themselves to actively punish their customers.

I kinda wish they'd see other manufacturers as competitors, and so give consumers reasons to buy from them specifically.

Instead, they have apparently decided that their customers will sod them and buy minis from elsewhere. So, obviously the logical response is for GW to sod them first, pre-emptively.

"What's that? You've bought a Duke model from another manufacturer because we can't be bothered making one? Well then we'll just remove him from the codex. Hah, that'll learn you."

"Oh, so you thought you'd buy a Reaper mini to use as Lady Malys, because we don't make her either? Well screw you both, we'll remove her too."

"Hah! So you thought you'd buy extra GW kits to make Baron Sathonyx? Well tough, because he's gone as well. Hah, take that, Games Worksho... oh fiddlesticks."

Quote :

It seems like such a needless restriction.

That seems pretty idiotic, but i know the reason behond this. It was actually a business decision, some suits didnt like how bitz companies was denying them market share, where people could actually buy 1 box of GW stuff and some weapon bitz from from e-stores to have a complete unit.

Then they make decision - whats inside the box, only this is inside the option box in relevan codex.

Their business model is as following, they create a customer, long term customer and they expect said customer to spend their disposable income at some periods of time for GW items. Bitz stores actually hurt that model, cause they eat at that disposable income, that is a fixed amount per period.

They are kinda defending their market share, where market being amount of money customers willing to pay for GW items at the chosen amount of time.

They want bitz stores dead, their business non-profitable, like they did wanted e-shops dead. They were sucesfull with e-shops, not that bright business out there right now.

Azdrubael wrote:

That seems pretty idiotic, but i know the reason behond this. It was actually a business decision, some suits didnt like how bitz companies was denying them market share, where people could actually buy 1 box of GW stuff and some weapon bitz from from e-stores to have a complete unit.

Then they make decision - whats inside the box, only this is inside the option box in relevan codex.

Their business model is as following, they create a customer, long term customer and they expect said customer to spend their disposable income at some periods of time for GW items. Bitz stores actually hurt that model, cause they eat at that disposable income, that is a fixed amount per period.

The thing is; putting equipment restrictions on units does jack all to prevent people from buying bits. Nobody is gaining anything from this bullshit. And so far, Dark Eldar are the only army suffering from it!

Quote :

The thing is; restricting certain equipment options from certain units does jack all to prevent people from buying bits on.

If you only need what inside the box, you dont need to buy anything more. All new marine boxes comes with everything thats in the codex. And marines are where the market is .

But im gonna be stopping off-toping right about now )

Azdrubael wrote:

If you only need what inside the box, you dont need to buy anything more. All new marine boxes comes with everything thats in the codex. And marines are where the market is .

* There is no model for a Captain with a Grav Pistol. Should that really mean that captains should not be able to take that weapon?

* The Tactical Squad box only includes a Chain Sword, a Power Sword and a Power Fist. Does that mean a veteran sergeant really shouldn't be allowed to take a Power Maul, a Power Axe, a Thunder Hammer, or any other close combat weapon?

* The only Space Marine with a Power Lance is a White Scars Captain on bike. Should that really be a reason that you can only give your captain, and nobody else, a Power Lance, and only if he's on a bike and you're playing with White Scars chapter tactics?

Azdrubael wrote:

Quote :

The thing is; restricting certain equipment options from certain units does jack all to prevent people from buying bits on.

If you only need what inside the box, you dont need to buy anything more.

Indeed.

Now, let me just assemble these four scourges with haywire blasters and... oh.

Well, Ravagers come with all the bitz you need, so +1 Ravager. As opposed to buying four boxes of scourges to make one unit, or converting like I did.

If GW were smart they'd sell bitz as well, because I'm not spending $200 on havocs to get four lascannons for one squad.

Expletive Deleted wrote:

If GW were smart they'd sell bitz as well, because I'm not spending $200 on havocs to get four lascannons for one squad.

Then you're not a true hobbyist.

Remember, according to GW, The Hobby is buying Citadel miniatures.

Yeah, the whole "they only write rules according to what comes in the box" argument seems to fall apart when you look at Scourges. And a host of other units. I'm not the first person to say it and I won't be the last, but it kind of seems like GW doesn't really know what they're doing when they write codexes. A lot of times, I get the impression that summer interns who have never played 40K watch a quick YouTube battle report on the army and are then sent off to write rules.

I must say that while I can see the "both" option be more popular I really struggle to wrap my head around the better percentages of stand alone ravager versus scourges.

In my opinion Scourges are vastly better at dealing with armour than Ravagers with the exception of them shooting at low armour targets.

Let's say for example that a ravager and a unit of 5 scourges with haywire blasters shoot at a 12+ AV target without cover.

Ravager will hit with 2 out of 3 shots, and then score 1 glance/penetrating hit.

Scourges on the other hand will hit with 3 out of 4 attacks and most likely will wreck the vehicle scoring 3 glances.

Now if the target is in cover the ravager will have a 50% chance to even make a scratch on the vehicle while scourges will score 1 glance for sure and then have a 50% chances for an additional.

And against the explode possibility argument unless the vehicle is open-topped only a result of 6 on the single successful glancing/penetrating hit from the ravager can make a difference and the way I see it these chances are slim.

Finally regarding the better "infantry uses of the ravager... it is stll only 2 hits and the 2+ armour save models are very likely to sport stormshields or some sort of cover making the odds not so favourable. Of course Scourges are not in top shape when dealing with infantry but still they get 3 successfull shots from the haywire and 2 poison shots from one of the scourges.

Not to mention the difference in cost as in my opinion the Night Shields are mandatory for the Ravagers making them more expensive to field. And no I'm not talking about jink but having a nice 3+ cover save being behind terrain...

That's my two cents at least.

Well you're not dealing with large numbers here, a whole four more people prefer ravagers to scourges, and that might just be four old farts who've been using them since their inception.

The major argument, and I feel the only one that carries any weight is range. Scourges can only threaten 36" out. Ravagers can threaten 42"-48". It's something math can't really account for. Does that make Ravagers better tank hunters? Potentially. If your opponent has a predator with two twin-linked heavy bolters? Absolutely. If you're playing against necrons? Probably not.