raider vs venom

Barrywise wrote:

I think the most important factor to consider about giving your basic Warriors a Blaster, is that your opponent has to chew through 6 T5, -1 to hit, 4+/5++ wounds and 5 T3, 5+, 6+ FNP wounds to get to the blaster.

For a weapon with the kind of utility that a Blaster has, its very often worth its weight in gold.

I think blasters are a waste of points, my Kabals now are either 5man with nothing or 10man with a DL. So i dont need to worry about blasters.

amishprn86 wrote:

I think blasters are a waste of points, my Kabals now are either 5man with nothing or 10man with a DL. So i dont need to worry about blasters.

Agree. Blasters are overpriced and underpowered.

I mean yeah Blasters are not great relative to other factions' weapons, but what's the alternative? How are y'all killing anything to stay on the table in even halfway competitive games?

If you remove transports, your opponent is free to focus all anti-tank on your damage dealing vehicles (RWJF/Bombers and Ravagers). I think it's gotta be all or nothing - either all on foot and your Lances come from footslog Kabalites and Scourge, or everything in transports with a Blaster in each Venom.

Frankly I just don't see how with all the mass S5-7 and AP -1 or better shooting that other armies bring we can get away with footslogging.

The comparison I ran into was the Plasma Gun. My buddy and I did some numbers, and wow the plasma gun is a better deal, on a more durable chassis.

Completely agree that the plasma gun is far better than the blaster, but I agree with Chippen, where is your damage coming from if you don't take blasters at all? Yeah dark lances are great but you can't getas many of them unless you're just completely spamming ravagers, Razorwing fighters and scourges. I've always felt like I needed blasters to add a little extra punch.

I am unsure if it was fueldrop or amish, but one of them I think mentioned a standard with around 5 ravagers and 2 flyers (not sure if he also had scourges there). That means close to 20 darklight/dissy weapons, that leaves little need for blasters.
That is part of our problem, there is not much another ravager would not be able to handle roughly as well as a transport filled with something.

My standard run is 6 units of trueborn with 2 lance 2 blaster, split between 3 raiders with dissies, with a unit of lance scourges, dissie ravager, and two Dissie razorwings.

My local meta isn't horde heavy, but has lots of termies, obliterators, and their ilk. Games tend to be close and my army feels painfully slow with Alpha Legion infiltration and deep strikes to deal with, but I still win more than I lose by a solid margin.

Ironically my greatest victory this edition was a Wych Cult vs Khorne Bererker matchup, with his infiltration and my sieze allowing me to take his melee elements down in a mass charge first turn. Then two squads of slaneshi oblits and a termie lord turn up, oblits shoot twice with their strategem... they wiff every roll, fail to even inflict one wound.
We called it on account of the worst rolling either of us had ever seen shortly afterwards.

|Meavar wrote:

I am unsure if it was fueldrop or amish, but one of them I think mentioned a standard with around 5 ravagers and 2 flyers (not sure if he also had scourges there). That means close to 20 darklight/dissy weapons, that leaves little need for blasters.
That is part of our problem, there is not much another ravager would not be able to handle roughly as well as a transport filled with something.

Right theoretically that's all the dark lances you need but not everyone owns 5 ravagers or wants to purchase that many.

Unit spam might be competitive but it's sure boring from a collecting, painting and playing point of view. I'd always take a mix of venoms and raiders, a mix of blasters and lances and dissies. Variety is fun!

Eh, Ravagers look awesome enough that I could justify having five of them.

The same can be said for most of our army, come to think of it.

Do we even have an ugly model? Beyond Failcast, but even then, Incubi look sick!

Quote :

Do we even have an ugly model? Beyond Failcast, but even then, Incubi look sick!

Grotesques. Those poor, poor, monopose tap dancers.

Then again, it's the easiest thing in the world to convert them

The Archon that wears heels and pretends to be a momified pharaon ?

Ikol wrote:

Eh, Ravagers look awesome enough that I could justify having five of them.

The same can be said for most of our army, come to think of it.

Do we even have an ugly model?  Beyond Failcast, but even then, Incubi look sick!

I agree Ravagers do like awesome! And so does all the Dark Eldar model line. Which is why I always struggle trying to put an army together, I end up wanting a bit of everything in there!

Mppqlmd wrote:

The Archon that wears heels and pretends to be a momified pharaon ?

True, I momentarily forgot Mr Potatohead. Though I would point you towards YnneadWraith’s version of him, different arms and a Reaver helm tilted backwards are enough to make it look badass.

And besides the Grots being aggregiously mono-pose, the sculpt is actually quite a nice one.

Ikol wrote:

Eh, Ravagers look awesome enough that I could justify having five of them.

The same can be said for most of our army, come to think of it.

Do we even have an ugly model?  Beyond Failcast, but even then, Incubi look sick!

Fair, but I would prefer to balance out my purchases with more interesting choices than just buying five of the exact same unit. I think I'd probably settle for three.

I think more than 3 Ravagers is detrimental. Not only from a Style Points perspective, but also from a competitive standpoint. In the current ITC format, Big Game Hunter secondary will absolutely win your opponent the game if you have 5-6 Ravagers. I run 3 Ravagers and 2 Flyers and I'm considering even cutting that down.

Back on topic, that's another reason I take Venoms over Raiders.

You take venoms over raiders because you already have enough dark lances from 3 ravagers and 2 jetfighters? Sounds like a plenty of lances to me. Personally though I like to have both raiders and venoms so I don't really have to pick one over the other, keeps things more interesting to have both.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

You take venoms over raiders because you already have enough dark lances from 3 ravagers and 2 jetfighters? Sounds like a plenty of lances to me. Personally though I like to have both raiders and venoms so I don't really have to pick one over the other, keeps things more interesting to have both.

Sort of. It's the combination of Ravagers/Flyers with Lances and the Blasters from Kabs and my Archon tax.

And yeah I get the argument that it can be boring because it's a ton of the same unit, but this is the tactics part of the forum...

Mppqlmd wrote:

The Archon that wears heels and pretends to be a momified pharaon ?

theres one really great conversion i saw using leliths head and placing the feet in front of the other, making it look like she was dancing
otherwise yeah
yeah