Reavers, help me understand their utility

To be fair: we aren't the only Faction screwed by this.

To be more fair: Us, Harlies, real nid's, and sisters are the only ones completely shut off from access to meta-detachments.

What about imperial guard?

I said it 2 years ago, and it's happened, so I'll continue saying it now:

GW is creating a game in which it is inconvenient to both players and TOs to limit the number of detachments that are playable, because they're making detachments that consist of as little as a single 100 point model, which means that by limiting your 1850 point game to 1 detachment, you're essentially banning every one of these formations that don't add up to your point total. TOs originally tried limiting people to 1 detachment, and over the past 2 years they recognized their error and altered their rules to allow an extra detachment or two.

Kicking that up to 2 or 3 detachments, however, is only a partial, temporary solution that will continue to be more and more difficult to navigate as the meta pushes forward with a modular system not meant to be thus limited. As this occurs, I expect TOs will loosen their regulations, but people don't like change, so expect them to be a bit slow on the draw.

Agreed on all points. As for IG they have 2. Doom on us for not playing 3000pt games

I would actually argue that we are better off with his few detachments being allowed as possible. The real problem we have is when people start bringing the kinds of powerful formations that we don't have access to or when impetial players start Bringing six different armies together to form crazy combinations and Death Stars. there's no kind of comp environment where Dark Eldar are a top tier army, but the more limited the environment is in the lower the points total the better I feel we do. That being said if they're going to allow people to bring two or three or more detachments we must take as much advantage of it as we can, and so I bring as many small units of reavers as I'm allowed. I believe it's the most competitive build we have in those environments and the more small units you can bring the more resilient they become. They don't do that much damage, but they do put you in position to win games and to deal with certain things such as invisibility, necrons, gravstars, etc..

Agreed. And we can very easily unlock three cad with Lheamean and Kabalite in Venom

I don't argue for the benefit of dark eldar only. I argue for the overall health of the game. DE need a new codex, not a bunch of comp rules that hurts the game for other factions. DE are broken. The system is not. Changing the unbroken system to accommodate the broken thing is backwards thinking.

This is a point my friend and I debate a lot. He thinks adding more detachments makes worse armies better as it gives them more options. His logic is that a bad codex is always going to be a bad codex, and reducing the options an army has to draw from only exacerbates the issue, making the flaws in the main codex more glaring while eliminating potential remedies. Meanwhile, I think adding more detachments makes bad armies worse because most of the overpowered broken crap in the game is done by allowing multiple formations to be used together. A Tripartite Lance on its own is tough. A Tripartite Lance with allied Space Marines making the unit invisible is damn near impossible to beat. 6 squads of Scatbikes with Farseers are tough. 6 units of Scatbikes AND a Seer Council is ridiculous.

The crux of this argument is that the top level players understand that the meta, as a whole, is balanced in its own weird way. When people complain that a codex or an army is underpowered what they're actually doing, knowingly or not, is saying that their codex or army is not meta on its own. Eldar is meta on its own, so are Necrons, Tau, and Space Marines. Guard, Knight Titans, Orks, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights etc. are not meta on their own. They require assets from other armies, or in some cases their units are completely overshadowed by other armies. No one would say an Eldar list running a Corpsethief Claw is a "Dark Eldar" army, but they are most certainly IN the army, and thus IN the meta. If you restrict the number of formations, you naturally see fewer and fewer of the armies that are not meta on their own. However, you also restrict the meta armies from compounding their advantages, thus making what constitutes a "meta army" a wider definition. The question then is, which expands the number of winning army lists the most?

I  desperately want a respectable DE codex!!!

Until then I can deal with the 3 det limit.
Grotesquerie.
DE CAD.
DE RSR.

Grots + reaver spam + venom spam + some obsec at 1850pts.

I might not be winning any major ITC tourneys but I will force many to respect the True Kin!

8th ed and whatever the holy frigging hell that brings is not far away so I don't see the point in getting too worked up in the meantime.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The crux of this argument is that the top level players understand that the meta, as a whole, is balanced in its own weird way.

I am a top level player, as are a few other members of this site that I know of. I was in the top 10% at both Adepticon and the LVO this year. Off the top of my head, I believe his name is Skulnbonz has done very well in top competitive play as well.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The question then is, which expands the number of winning army lists the most?

The answer to this is easy: More formations leads to more winning army lists. More combinations will inevitably lead to more winning lists because it leads to more lists in general. Every additional allowed formation increases the number of allowed lists exponentially. It would look something like this(numbers are to rough mathematical scale, but examples):

1 detachment limit: 100 possible list variations
2 detachment limit: 10000 possible list variations
3 detachment limit: 1000000 possible list variations
4 detachment limit: 100000000 possible list variations
And so on and so forth...

With adding so many list variations, you inevitably create more winning list combinations by having a higher detachment limit. Furthermore, as a fairly competent player who's made MANY lists, I find that detachment limits tend to see me using DE less than I otherwise would without them. There are plenty of times when I think up a list where I want to use DE, but with the specific things I need to do with my list, I'd need 1 more detachment to make DE work in it. So, more often than not, if a faction gets cut because of detachment limits, DE is the one that loses its spot.

TeenageAngst wrote:

If you restrict the number of formations, you naturally see fewer and fewer of the armies that are not meta on their own. However, you also restrict the meta armies from compounding their advantages, thus making what constitutes a "meta army" a wider definition. The question then is, which expands the number of winning army lists the most?

But by restricting the armies the people who want to play Dark Eldar in competitive environments for a specific reason while using their other more competitive army CAN'T. So the Dark Eldar are then scrapped from that list (with possible disappointment/sadness) and then the Meta army is played on it's own. Without the Dark Eldar...(Go restrictions!) Making it so instead of increasing variety of lists and OPTIONS you instead invalidate an army that you'd like to see more of, AND you reduce options.

The only people who would make the sacrifice would be those who care more about the fluff or faction of Deldar they like over winning. There shouldn't NEED to be a choice if without restrictions we can see more of this army, and more variations in general. The less options people have the more they will gravitate towards the same thing. The more options people have the more varied armies will be.

Whether you like it or not staying 1 faction exclusive is getting harder and removing restrictions and letting people go crazy and have fun with their lists is going to be better for the enviroment as a whole then stifling it pointlessly.

Oh and I agree with your friend more suppplements would make the Dark Eldar better . I mean look at the Haemonculus Covens book! It's formations are featured in MOST Dark Eldar armies if people can get their hands on the models.

There will ALWAYS be things more powerful then something else in games, especially when you try to make each thing unique. Right now most armies had a better codex to start with then us, and supplements and formations that have pushed them even further. We NEED those same treats to keep up. It's like in an MMO where most classes get new stuff in an expansion. While a couple didn't get anything and seem forgotten. Sure you could play them and fans of those classes will. But they won't be nearly as competitive as those updated ones.

Rhivan wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

If you restrict the number of formations, you naturally see fewer and fewer of the armies that are not meta on their own. However, you also restrict the meta armies from compounding their advantages, thus making what constitutes a "meta army" a wider definition. The question then is, which expands the number of winning army lists the most?

But by restricting the armies the people who want to play Dark Eldar in competitive environments for a specific reason while using their other more competitive army CAN'T. So the Dark Eldar are then scrapped from that list (with possible disappointment/sadness) and then the Meta army is played on it's own. Without the Dark Eldar...(Go restrictions!) Making it so instead of increasing variety of lists and OPTIONS you instead invalidate an army that you'd like to see more of, AND you reduce options.

The only people who would make the sacrifice would be those who care more about the fluff or faction of Deldar they like over winning. There shouldn't NEED to be a choice if without restrictions we can see more of this army, and more variations in general. The less options people have the more they will gravitate towards the same thing. The more options people have the more varied armies will be.

Whether you like it or not staying 1 faction exclusive is getting harder and removing restrictions and letting people go crazy and have fun with their lists is going to be better for the enviroment as a whole then stifling it pointlessly.

Oh and I agree with your friend more suppplements would make the Dark Eldar better . I mean look at the Haemonculus Covens book! It's formations are featured in MOST Dark Eldar armies if people can get their hands on the models.

There will ALWAYS be things more powerful then something else in games, especially when you try to make each thing unique. Right now most armies had a better codex to start with then us, and supplements and formations that have pushed them even further. We NEED those same treats to keep up. It's like in an MMO where most classes get new stuff in an expansion. While a couple didn't get anything and seem forgotten. Sure you could play them and fans of those classes will. But they won't be nearly as competitive as those updated ones.

And you see this with "No Retreat" like op was talking about, they added so many restrictions that DE is king but armies like Nids, Orc, GK, BA and a few other literally are unplayable some of the other lower tier armies that at least had 1 playable list now have 0.

B.c the codex's have such a HUGE power difference between them, no CAD restrictions will make the game balanced. Even in a very basic CAD Eldar can still bring D-weapons, 80+ S6 long range shots, Their heavies can be taken in squads, still able to bike and warlock spam etc.. Daemons can still have 48 power dice and summon 3+ units a turn, Necrons can have 6 Troops.. I mean AV11(13) 4HP Open top 20-40 shot troops are really strong now and Wraith Spam.

The meta would shift to Daemon Summoning, Necron Tank/Wraith spam and Eldar spam.

About Reavers, its pretty much been said why they are good. So... yeah.

@Teenageangst "meta on its own"?
What do you mean?

@CptMetal and @Teenageangst

I thought he was saying DE isnt meta without Eldar and thats why ppl are complaining... so he basically said a useless phrase b.c ALL ARMIES SHOULD BE META ON THEIR OWN.

So idk why he said it lol.

Okay.... I always thought meta would be a term for the army composition and what kind of enemies and armies you encounter in this particular area or tournament.
So, how can a codex be meta on its own?

CptMetal wrote:

Okay.... I always thought meta would be a term for the army composition and what kind of enemies and armies you encounter in this particular area or tournament.
So, how can a codex be meta on its own?

Eldar, Necrons, Tau, SM they all are. They dont need Allies or extra FW units to make them playable.

We all know DE weakness within its codix, improve those weakness to be equal level to the big 4 and its all good.

Meta was coined from a Greek word meaning beyond but many players use meta as "Most Effective Tactic Available".

Meta is just a word that means Best in Slot, that doesnt mean it is the over all best for all situations, each major Tournament can have different metas due to Restrictions.

No Retreat is a good example, they have HEAVY restrictions so DE are consider amazing for No Retreat. Personally I hate that many restrictions Yes is kinda lowers the power level of the big 4, but it makes GK's BA, Orks etc.. even worst and Nids literally cant even compete. So you see it can change.

I've never heard of Meta being "Most Effective Tactic Available". Meta, when referring to game like 40k, is more referring to the greek meaning of the word, and means "Rules beyond the rules" for the most part. Basically, in a tournament setting, DE don't really fit into the metagame because, as a general rule, tournament players play factions that can potentially do well in a tournament.

So, "the meta", which is short for "metagame", or "game beyond the game" refers to all of the unwritten rules and major tactics and strategies that are most commonly used in the game competitively. That effects tournament players the most, and is why you hear competitive players talk about the meta a lot.

If looking at a game like 40k, and a set of rules objectively from the outside, without having any knowledge or experience in the competitive scene, one would likely make an "all comers" army list with all factions equally in mind so that it can compete well in the game overall. But with the current metagame, where we know it's basically an unwritten rule that 50% of all players will use some form of space marines in tournaments, followed by eldar and tau, if you just make an army list that works really well against the most prolific marine, eldar, and tau strategies, you stand a pretty good chance of doing really well in the tournament, since your list was basically customized to the current metagame.

That's why you'll also hear terms like, "Your local meta." That's referring to situations where you might have 15 players locally, and 9 of them play eldar, which would be different from the overall meta where various types of space marines are prevalent.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

So, "the meta", which is short for "metagame", or "game beyond the game" refers to all of the unwritten rules and major tactics and strategies that are most commonly used in the game competitively. That effects tournament players the most, and is why you hear competitive players talk about the meta a lot.  

"Most Effective Tactic Available" thats basically what you just explained lol

But I also said it was 1st for the greek work for beyond.

Back on to the topic of the utility of reaver jetbikes.

I say the most valuable thing about them is they can be converted into harlie jet bikes or you can be lame and use them as windriders because well, windriders...

End Game wrote:

Back on to the topic of the utility of reaver jetbikes.

I say the most valuable thing about them is they can be converted into harlie jet bikes or you can be lame and use them as windriders because well, windriders...

I feel they are one of the better DE units..... I use 4 units of 3 everytime I play DE.

I think they are one of the best units in fact. There is a reason why Lawrence uses like 8 units of them in his winning lists. :-)

I use 6 units of 3 with cc adding heat lances if I have points to spare. They are amazing. Really good AI and AT capabilities (they can even pen IKs!), great objective snatchers, really durable with 3+ cover (2+ when nightfighting) and 5+FNP... and all that for 63p

Also, they have a really small footprint, so its really easy to get them out of LOS

Whats not to love?

End Game wrote:

I say the most valuable thing about them is they can be converted into harlie jet bikes

Wut? I'm new to DE, so forgive me if I am missing something. I play Harlequins and their jetbikes are pretty lackluster. They cost 50 points per model. Sure they have a 5++ (4++ once per game) and 2 wounds per model. However, they have no skilled rider and no grenades so kitting them out with zephyr glaives is a suckers bet. The bolas I find actually pretty good, but they are only 1 shot a game and you can't use them if you jink. They aren't awful, but certainly no one is building lists around them.

Perhaps he meant Corsair jetbikes? They're pretty nasty...