Venoms or Raiders?

Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

Transportation, One of the many strengths of our people. Why stride on the same ground that the lesser races desecrate with their filthy footsteps when we can take to the skies in Skimmers that can be outfitted to mow down scores of Fire Warriors or to punch holes in the cumbersome tanks of the Imperium. Yes, I am new to the art of realspace raiding, however it's easy to recognize the necessity of transporting my Kabalites in Venoms and Raiders and therein lies my point. What are the pros and cons of taking Venoms as opposed to Raiders and vice versa? The obvious differences are plain to me as laid out in the Codex, I come to you fellow Commorrites because many of you are veterans of many a raid and I'm curious to hear the opinions of Archons, Succubi and Haemonculi who have used them in combat. With that, I defer to you my Brothers and Sisters, thank you in advance for your wise council.

Eternally,

Huskblade

Venoms
* Cheaper.  Both in how many points you will likely spend on the transport, upgrades included, and the total unit cost including the people inside.  This allows you to spam more units and make the most from an MSU build.  Six Venoms plus warriors with a blaster comes in at under 750 points and gets you 72-112 Splinter shots and 5 blaster shots.  Thats an absurd amount of target saturation.

* Has an invulnerable save.  The Flickerfield isn't good enough to be relied on, but when dealing with Ignores Cover weaponry, the Raider has no defense at all.

* Splinter Cannons allow for a huge volume of fire.  Volume of fire makes them good against large model count forces, poison makes them good against elite infantry.  

Raiders
* More upgrades means more versatility.

* Can hold Bulky units such as grotesques or Sslyth.

* Dark Lance is the most effective anti armor weapon in the codex, and Raiders are the easiest way to get them on the field.

* Larger profile makes it easier to cover two vehicle arcs (essential for penning the invuln saves of Knights).

* Ability to take a Ram allows you to utilize Raider rush tactics, inserting assault troops into enemy deployment zones while not completely wasting your turn by going Flat Out.

* Night shields increase survivability.

* Additional hull point does the same.

* Splinter Racks increase troop effectiveness. (Can also greatly benefit Sslyth heavy courts.)


Conclusion
Which is better?  Neither.  Both vehicles have strong benefits, and share some similar glaring drawbacks (tissue paper armor, troops vulnerable to templates). I own several of both, and recommend you do the same.  Just starting out, I'd pick one or the other to build up first, and then diversify later on.  Just adjust your tactics to match the vehicle selection you went with.

Greetings fellow archon,
I tend to use more venoms than Raiders but that is because the Venom troop choice is much cheaper. You will find a lot of Archons in Commorragh that will advise you to take venoms I guess, but I think a good mixture is key. It's also about not being so predictable for your prey.

But as a rule of thumb you can say that I tend to use Raider when I expect to get closer without being ripped in Melee like against guard and when I expect to jink a lot.

My true born only ride in a night shielded Raider of course.

Now I'm back to plotting your downfall. So can you trust what I just said?

Ah paranoia... Refreshing.

I agree with the previous two posts. I think it's usually wise to take a mix of both of them. I do generally take more Venoms than Raiders, though.

I'll almost always put my HQ in a Raider. A lot of people just take the single court model in a Venom but that has never really appealed to me. Sometimes I'll put Blasterborn into Raiders with a DL and Archon with Blaster. This unit seems to have good synergy but it can start to get expensive and it's a real bummer when they whiff all of their shots x.x

Really depends on what type of units you field that need transports, I'd say. If you're planning on taking some Grots or a Grotesquire... you will need some Raiders. If your low on DL's... you will probably want a few Raiders as well. Venoms are just awesome though. I have five (and an equal amount of Raiders) and I need to buy another few for some additional units I'm buying soon.

I basically just regurgitated the last two posts, but I'm bored at work on my graveyard shift... so there's my opinion lol

Regards,
Raz

I'd say go with more Venoms. I use four and a Raider for my HQ, but that's because I like my HQ to charge something at some point and a Raider lets you fit more in with them. I like to have my Venoms in pairs or all in one pack on the table as it makes it harder for infantry units to do anything about them - they can maybe take down one Venom (short of split fire shenanigans) but then the other three will be returning fire together.

For me, it depends on the unit inside.

Kabalite Warriors become more powerful in a Raider with Splinter Racks, while Trueborn with Blasters can use a Venom's Splinter Cannons to fight infantry more effectively. Also, a Raider gives them better protection, while a Venom is easier to hide behind terrain.
Courts can benefit from both, even if its only 5 models. It's also worth noting that an Archon can bring a Venom in addition to his Court's transport.
For Incubii, it depends on how many of them I would want to bring, which in turn depends on what I want to attack with them. Even with power weapons and 3+ armor, they are not Vanguard Marines, and overestimating their strength in relation to their numbers can end up rendering them invalid.
Wyches are best taken in large squads, if you want them to actually kill something, so it's either 10 in a Raider or more with a Portal character. Bloodbrides are an overpriced joke, especially if its only 5 of them. An empty Venom would probably be more efficient.
With Wracks, it depends on the formation. Why even bring Wracks if not for Coven formations?

The 2 greatest points for the raider is the transport capacity and the splinter rack. There are others, like night shield and dark lance, but the main reasons to use raiders is capacity ans racks.

Now, think of our best units: kabalites, scourges, grots, incubi, reavers.

-reavers and sourge can't go in transport, so, we remove them.
-incubi: they generally perform best in a small squad of 3-4. So venom is ok.
-Grots: they NEED raiders.
-kabalite: 10 kabalites in a raider with splinter rack is a good build. But are generally less efficient than the same amount of point in venom. Plus, with the number of ignore cover weapon, they die really fast.


So... raiders are good for grotesques and MAY work with kabalite, but generally, you'll get better result with venoms.

dumpeal wrote:

The 2 greatest points for the raider is the transport capacity and the splinter rack. There are others, like night shield and dark lance, but the main reasons to use raiders is capacity ans racks.

Now, think of our best units: kabalites, scourges, grots, incubi, reavers.

-reavers and sourge can't go in transport, so, we remove them.
-incubi: they generally perform best in a small squad of 3-4. So venom is ok.
-Grots: they NEED raiders.
-kabalite: 10 kabalites in a raider with splinter rack is a good build. But are generally less efficient than the same amount of point in venom. Plus, with the number of ignore cover weapon, they die really fast.


So... raiders are good for grotesques and MAY work with kabalite, but generally, you'll get better result with venoms.

After the last game, I completely DON'T agree.

The greatest point in the Raider is just 1. And is:
-You can jink AND shoot at the maximum capacity with the unit inside.


Seriously, I have tried a Venom spam, but now it doesn't work. You have to jink to stay alive and then your shooting capacity is drammatically reduced.

I think the best way is to mix Gunboat and Venoms, expecially if you want a lot of poison shooting.
The best way to shut down a Venom is to forcing it to Jink;
The best way to shut down a Raider is to blowing it up.

Yes, obvioulsy it costly more than 2 Venoms. But 2 Venoms will shoot at BS1 a lot of times, or they simply will blow up. A Raider will almost alway jink (3+ cover save with stealth. and 3 PS), and shoot 9/18 twin-linked poisoned shots.

Yes you need better range of the Venoms. But I think the best way is to mix up, event in a full shooting list, to bring in game some body effective (10 wounds in a toughter transport) and some solid shooting unit, that can afford the same shooting quality until it doesn't go down.

Imho, of course ....man, I was so disappointed about Venom shooting-turrets

dumpeal wrote:

Now, think of our best units: kabalites, scourges, grots, incubi, reavers.

Well, this is kind of biased toward personal preference, I feel. Generally, Court's make their way into lists more than Incubi, and make great use of both transports. Myself, I love Incubi too, but they're hardly one of our "best units."

dumpeal wrote:

-incubi: they generally perform best in a small squad of 3-4. So venom is ok.

Incubi have 2 successful builds I think. Either 3-5 in a venom as you detailed, surgically killing elite units, or 5-8 in a raider going full turkey. The extra bodies help to mitigate losses to overwatch. Both units are pretty expensive for what they do though, so use Incubi at your own peril.

Back to the topic at hand, transports. I think it's important to consider each transport based on what it wants to carry, as this makes the strengths more comparable.

Venoms, generally speaking, are the best transport for basic Kabalites or Incubi, as they're cheaper and have more weaponry. Also, their profile is much smaller so they're much easier to hide until you need them to perform.

Raiders, on the other hand, are more straightforward and aggressive, and earn their value most by granting mobility to our tougher units. Their role usually involves carrying Grotesqueries into combat, or deep striking a Court of the Archon or allied Eldar unit. They do occasionally serve as gunboats as well.

I'd rarely make a list that doesn't include at least 2 of each, but going full spam can also produce good results.

If you're playing friends on a regular basis, just my mix it up. Don't be predictable. That's what I advice

Both have their positives. I'll try my hand at an overview too:

Venoms:
1. Smaller profile makes them less likely to mishap while deep striking, and makes them easier to hide behind terrain.
2. Poison weapons powerful against high toughness models and useful against hordes as well.
3. Invulnerable save makes it typically more surivable than a Raider, and doesn't necessitate Jinking all the time. A Guard autocannon, for example: 2 shots at S7, one hit, 1/2 chance to pen, and then a 1/3 chance to ignore than pen - meaning there's only a 1/3 chance you'll be penned and probably forced to snapfire - a Jink probably isn't worth it. Against a Raider that number would be a 1/2 chance you'd have to snapfire or worse - whether or not Jinking is the right move becomes a more complex proposition. Nevermind Ignores Cover weapons or sometimes being able to shrug off getting hit with a powerfist.


Raider:
1. Going to disagree with Jimsolo about them being more expensive. A Raider is useful in its stock configuration, where a Venom demands a second Splinter Cannon, bringing it up to 10 points more. If you're taking loads of Kabalite Warriors and loading them up with Nightshields and Splinter Racks, you can afford more Kabalites than if you went with Venoms because the higher transport capacity allows you to buy fewer transports. As a counterpoint for the Venom, however, a Venom + Warriors is usually shootier than the same points in Raider + Warriors.
2. Disintegrators are underrated. Against MEQ, a 55 point Raider fires 3 shots, scores two hits and 4/3 wounds, killing 4/3 MEQ on average. That's exactly the same as a 65 point Venom. Granted, the Marines can take cover saves against the Disintegrator changing those numbers up - but I find it's unreasonable to assume your opponent will be in cover 100% of the time. Plus, having the Disintegrator applies pressure on your opponent to stay in cover that they may not otherwise feel.
3. If you plan to Flat Out your vehicle or Deep Strike it, assuming it's be killed in a single turn of shooting, the Raider's price makes it a better value.




Typically I go with Venoms for Warriors and Raiders for Grotesques, which is quite standard. But I think it's fully viable to save points by taking the same 5-man Venom/Warrior units as 5-man Raider/Warrior units instead. Just be sure to weigh whether you value the ability to go after MCs/hordes over the ability to go after TEQ or not.

MHaruspex wrote:

1. Going to disagree with Jimsolo about them being more expensive. A Raider is useful in its stock configuration, where a Venom demands a second Splinter Cannon, bringing it up to 10 points more.

It's a very rare list you find that has stock Raiders without even a single upgrade. Any Raider that wants to transport anything valuable wants to buy one or more of: night shields, aethersails, shock prow. A very common configuration is Night Shields and a Dark Lance, but the choice usually depends on what you're transporting.

If it's literally 5 Kabalites with a Blaster, then perhaps a Raider makes more sense as it can add another Dark Lance to the squad's firepower in their role of trying to tackle armoured targets.

But 9/10 times the Raider ends up costing between 70-90 points.

MHaruspex wrote:

If you're taking loads of Kabalite Warriors and loading them up with Nightshields and Splinter Racks, you can afford more Kabalites than if you went with Venoms because the higher transport capacity allows you to buy fewer transports.

This logic is counter-intuitive to the Dark Eldar mindset.  

Unless you're on a budget, and actively trying to squeeze as many points into as few units as you can (don't do this), we're always trying to get MORE transports. The ideology is to avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, because we know how fragile our soldiers and their flying cardboard boxes are.

Dark Eldar as a whole, live and die by the number of transports we field, not the quality of each transport itself, or even the quality of the unit that it is carrying. We have semi-competitive lists that value them so much that we fill multiple Fast Attack entries with empty transports, because their mobility and firepower is what we want to spend our points on.

MHaruspex wrote:

Disintegrators are underrated.

Yes, I agree with you here. However, invariable we don't lack for infantry killing potential, so the Dark Lances that our Raiders can take fill the anti armour gap in our arsenal, which is why people take them.

I usually find myself throwing Disintegrators on my Raiders that carry close combat, all-in units.

For example, Grotesquerie-laden, up close and personal Raiders, prefer Disintegrators, simply because they shoot more shots and are cheaper. Let's face it, with over 140 points of Grots onboard, it will jink at everything, so having 3 shots as opposed to 1 shot as BS1 is a pretty good improvement.

May I ask how you run your Grotesquerie Raiders? I do run those stock and here's my computer-code structured thinking on their usage against an army that doesn't overwhelm me in assault (only Daemonkin come to mind as an army that does):

Do I have first turn?
If Y, deploy them as far forward as possible, hope the opponent doesn't Seize, and rush them forward turn 1.
If N, does my opponent have enough long-ranged firepower to reliably kill them turn 1?
...If Y, is there LoS-blocking terrain I can hide them behind?
......If Y, hide them behind LoS-blocking terrain.
......If N, deep strike them.
...If N, deploy them as far forward as safely possible and rush them forward turn 1.


If my Raiders either get to make a 30" move in turn 1 or deepstrike into a position from where the Grotesques can assault the next turn, I consider them to have fulfilled the role I paid the points for.  The Nightshield doesn't help either function and the Aethersail boosting the 30" move up to a 36" move only really makes a difference in a short-table-edge deployment: and I don't think it makes enough of a difference to justify spending the 5 points on (in all fairness, I haven't tried running Aethersails, but I can't recall a single game in which I wished I had them). I also run only 3 Grotesques per squad since I find that's enough for them to fulfill their role (and it saves more points for transports like what you said about the second of my points that you raised, and I'll concede that one to you).

If I'm running a list low on anti-armor I sometimes give them a Lance, which is useful if either they don't deepstrike in and survive past turn 1, or if they do deepstrike in because they can usually land a shot on rear armor.

MHaruspex wrote:

May I ask how you run your Grotesquerie Raiders? I do run those stock and here's my computer-code structured thinking on their usage against an army that doesn't overwhelm me in assault

Generally, the Raider itself is inexpensive, but I do like to splash out on a Shock Prow if points allow. It serves as a credible way breaking up infantry formations and/or clearing a path to important targets that the Grotesques want to fight. It also gives it something to do if its gun is blown off or it is shaken, and doubles up as a back up tank removal option.

MHaruspex wrote:

Do I have first turn?
If Y, deploy them as far forward as possible, hope the opponent doesn't Seize, and rush them forward turn 1.
If N, does my opponent have enough long-ranged firepower to reliably kill them turn 1?
...If Y, is there LoS-blocking terrain I can hide them behind?
......If Y, hide them behind LoS-blocking terrain.
......If N, deep strike them.
...If N, deploy them as far forward as safely possible and rush them forward turn 1.

This seems pretty accurate as a checklist goes.

MHaruspex wrote:

I also run only 3 Grotesques per squad since I find that's enough for them to fulfill their role (and it saves more points for transports like what you said about the second of my points that you raised, and I'll concede that one to you).

Sure, they're pretty good at fighting things, but adding that 4th or 5th Grotesque can be incrementally powerful because it gives them more options than just trying to clobber a single unit to death. Enter, the multiple assault.

Imagine Tau Fire Warrior Squads on either side of a Riptide, standing 3"-6" apart, to cater to their support fire overwatch rule. With 3 Grotesques you are unlikely to be able to assault, let alone reliably kill, more than one unit. The Riptide is not going to be an easy target, even if all 3 hit it.

By adding a 4th Grotesque and an IC, you can declare the Riptide as your primary target, eat some overwatch like a boss because you're toting T5 3W FNP5+ models, then charge.

You engage the Riptide with a single Grotesque, and then a squad or two of Fire Warrior units with a Grotesque each, and maintain coherency with your additional Grotesques and/or IC, building bridges between the combats. You might barely scratch the paint off the Riptide, but you will inevitably destroy several Fire Warriors in the ensuing combat. They will fail their leadership test, because they lost by several points and your Armour of Misery + Freakshow -1 modifier combo is boss.

Then you can perform a sweeping advance and eat all remaining Fire Warriors AND the Riptide. Bonus points for Succubus' I8, as you literally auto catch them.

They're also fantastic for multiple assaulting vehicles and infantry in the same turn, as you can reliably ruin a transport and its contents standing nearby, or even catch a squadron of vehicles and an infantry unit at the same time. I've seen a game where they charged 2 Sentinels and a 20 man Blob, and killed everything in that single turn due to Sweeping Advance.

MHaruspex wrote:

If I'm running a list low on anti-armor I sometimes give them a Lance, which is useful if either they don't deepstrike in and survive past turn 1, or if they do deepstrike in because they can usually land a shot on rear armor.

Exactly. Which is also why magnetising all Raider and Ravager weaponry is awesome for flexibility.

Right, I've pulled that multi-assault trick before. I like to spam Reavers in units of 3-6 so I'm usually in no short supply of units to charge with other than the Grotesques and pull it off with (Grotesques hit the Fire Warriors, as do all the Reavers but one), but I can see how it makes sense to go with Grotesque units larger than 3 if they're the only assault unit.

How much mileage do you get out of Shock Prows? I've always been enamored with the idea of them (especially since the automatic hits makes them better than Lances against AV10 and AV11), but not being to disembark and tank shock/ram in the same turn has always stopped me from taking them since I don't typically rely on Raiders living through a turn of a shooting when everyone inevitably wants to land shots on the Grotesques inside before they make assault.

MHaruspex wrote:

How much mileage do you get out of Shock Prows?

Enough mileage to buy it on every Raider I field? No, definitely not.
Enough for a pair of Raiders carrying a Grotesquerie? Maybe.

It's an upgrade I'd pick up for 1-2 Raiders maximum. I buy them when I'm down to the last 20-30 points of my list, when I don't have enough for another unit, but I have just enough to give a unit or two some extra oomph. Honestly, I'd buy Shock Prows well before I consider things like special/heavy weapons in Kabalite squads, or Night Shields on Ravagers/Raiders.

MHaruspex wrote:

but not being to disembark and tank shock/ram in the same turn has always stopped me from taking them since I don't typically rely on Raiders living through a turn of a shooting when everyone inevitably wants to land shots on the Grotesques inside before they make assault.

This is true, you cannot do both at once. The plan is almost always to offload the Grotesques as close as possible to our enemy, as always, and if the Raider must die to do so, it's a trade off we must make.

If we can successfully offload one unit of Grotesques with their Raider still intact by utilising cover or target saturation tactics, the Grotesques themselves will take the vast majority of fire, particularly high strength, specialised weaponry, so their Raider is largely ignored.

In following turns, the supporting synergy it can provide the Grotesques with is substantial. Shrewd usage of tank shock or ramming can help open a transport or corral enemy units together, both of which the Grotesques can take advantage of, not to mention simply pushing through units onto an objective. It might not be objective secured, but it can certainly make enemy objective secured units fall back, especially if they're in the 12" -1 modifier range.

Personally, I've started putting the Prow on every Raider with a dedicated CC unit inside. I ran into a tournament recently where literally every game I realized would have been different if I had a Shock Prow on my Raiders. I started experimenting with them afterwards, and havent regretted the purchase once yet.

Can you detail a bit what happened that made you really want the prows? Surely if they were that important the opponent would have just devoted more shooting to your Raiders instead of whatever else?

Jimsolo wrote:

Raiders
* More upgrades means more versatility.

* Can hold Bulky units such as grotesques or Sslyth.

Sslyth are not bulky - 10 in a raider is freakin hilarious!

@Jimsolo
What happened that you needed those prows?

Massaen wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

Raiders
* More upgrades means more versatility.

* Can hold Bulky units such as grotesques or Sslyth.

Sslyth are not bulky - 10 in a raider is freakin hilarious!

That's an easy mistake to make, considering GW decided to put them on Terminator bases.

I would not put 10 alone in a Raider though. They only have Leadership 3, so better bring a character with them.

@Hydranixx: remember that you don't get Frenzy with a multiple charge.

Cerve wrote:

@Hydranixx: remember that you don't get Frenzy with a multiple charge.

I'm aware of that, thanks for your comment though.

With pumped up Grotesques, you don't need rampage or even the +1 for charging. As long as you include a decent combat IC, you'll usually kill enough to perform your sweeping advance anyway. We're in a shooting edition now, so things that can stand up to your Grotesques are few and far between.

Even if you do not win combat or they pass leadership, you can safely hide in melee until the end of your opponents turn - when the Grotesques will have rampage active, and still able to hit them pretty hard and retain the -3 leadership debuff.

But, yeah, I'm with CptMetal and MHaruspex: @Jimsolo, can you elaborate? I'm already sold on Prows for my Grotesques' Raiders, but perhaps you can cement my faith in them.

Someone pointed out that jinking is a big drawback on the Venoms. I agree, but I feel like people tend to over-jink a lot. Don't be afraid to use cover as they typically will have the range to hit their targets. The 5++ isn't amazing but sometimes I'm surprised by added longevity the save can grant. I spammed Venoms before there was a jink rule.

The gunboats are nice because you can jink and shoot (obviously) but you have to get so much closer I feel like the jink often times isn't enough to save it anyways (I play against Orks and Plauge Marines a lot. I usually don't want to get near them). I have had a lot of good experiences with gunboats but I haven't been fielding them much recently, preferring the Venoms.