Reavers or Ravager

Hey guys, I need your advice. I already own Warriors, grotesques and everything, but only one Ravager and 3 Reavers. Should I get more of the reavers or Ravagers first?

Personally, I am waiting to expand my collection until we get some sort of supplement. Reavers are probably better this edition IMO.

Reavers. They are just much more versatile.

i would say both?
if you get 2 more ravagers then you've filled your heavy slot and you cant really go wrong with triple ravagers. probably just depends on your style of play but since you only got 3 reavers, get another 2 boxes of them and 1 ravager

Reavers. My favourite unit in the game, they can do it all.  

Ravagers ain't bad tho, and work better in multiples.

I love Reavers a LOT, but in the current version they're not great. I'd be tempted to say go for a Ravager.

I wouldn't presume to say anything about high level play, but in my group you can proxy Raiders for Ravagers since it is the same model with just a few extra bits. I'd think this is okay with mosy people. However, there is no suitable proxy for Reavers, other than Windriders I think. And I personally prefer Venoms to Raiders, so my Raiders can just as well be Ravagers until we get something new and interesting that's favorable to Raiders. I'd say Reavers are more useful for that reason... if you have lots of Raiders that is.

Personally I really love the jetbikes and they've worked well for me, don't really think Ravager is that good anyway.

What kind of weapons would you build your three Ravager with? I currently own one Lance Ravager.

Depends on your list really and how you like to play, your local meta or tournament scene etc.

Lances are the more popular choice but the cheaper dissie version has its place too.

Squidmaster wrote:

I love Reavers a LOT, but in the current version they're not great. I'd be tempted to say go for a Ravager.

Why are they not great? they seem our best unit to me, in my limited experience.

CptMetal wrote:

What kind of weapons would you build your three Ravager with? I currently own one Lance Ravager.

If I run 3 Ravagers, I tend to run 2 with Lances & 1 with Dissie's

As an owner of 2 ravagers, let me say you need at least 2 armed the same way to make any difference.

2 lance ravagers will usually take out a tank, 2 dissies will usually kill a TEQ squad, but 1 lance and 1 dissie will both miss every shot (then blow up in your turn killing a squad of warriors loitering nearby). That is how it usualy goes for me anyway.

fisheyes wrote:

As an owner of 2 ravagers, let me say you need at least 2 armed the same way to make any difference.

2 lance ravagers will usually take out a tank, 2 dissies will usually kill a TEQ squad, but 1 lance and 1 dissie will both miss every shot (then blow up in your turn killing a squad of warriors loitering nearby). That is how it usualy goes for me anyway.

Second that.

I've had a couple of games where I brought three lance ravagers and their effectiveness was limited. I could kill a tank or two but cover saves and penetration wiffs are always a headache.

Reavers give you both an anti-tank and CC option put together that are good for shooting/going after infantry and sneaking up on tanks.

Ravagers need to keep their distance from other units and cant use all three lances at full BS if they move beyond 6" while Reavers are the opposite and can be great at grabbing objectives.

I think the old saying "two is one and one is none" was actually coined when talking about ravagers... Reavers are the way to go for my money.

As some have suggested - I proxy a second ravager by putting two dark lance equipped warriors on the boarding planks of a raider.

If anyone has listened to the most recent Splintermind podcast, it gives an excellent argument for the superiority of reavers over ravagers.

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics used a Reaver spam list in his most recent No Retreat Tourney that was brutal to many of his opponents.

I guess Reavers are the way I'll go. But they are so damn expensive to spam >.<