Is the Ravager over hyped?

Quote :

Lets be honest, you don't take Razorwings and Voidravens instead of Ravagers/Reapers usually, you take them in support of for maximum threat overload.

First, i lost count of the "should i take a ravager or a RWJF ?" i saw on this forum, so they definitly compete for the same role. Actually, the RWJF competes more with the Ravager than it competes with the VR.

Secondly, considering W40k is based around points, everything is competing against everything in list building. If you take something, it hinders your ability to take something else. So in a certain way, you have to compare every single unit in the codex, since they all cost the same ressource.

For what it's worth, as this was my post, like Mppqlmd said early on it is perhaps a case of personal preference between taking the Ravager or the RWJF and I guess what I have taken from this discussion is that they are both great choices.

Considering that I started the topic questioning the hype of the Ravager, I think that I might actually choose a Ravager. For a returning player like myself, who has never used a true flyer like the RWJF, the Ravager seems the right option followed by a RWJF. Of course if I were up against an infantry heavy army I might be better off with the RWJF due to its missiles.

I love the game, but not as much as I love the miniatures. I will have plenty of Raiders on the table, so in some ways a Ravager seemed, in a model collection way, a bit same same so I was considering the RWJF for its aesthetics.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Quote :

Lets be honest, you don't take Razorwings and Voidravens instead of Ravagers/Reapers usually, you take them in support of for maximum threat overload.

First, i lost count of the "should i take a ravager or a RWJF ?" i saw on this forum, so they definitly compete for the same role. Actually, the RWJF competes more with the Ravager than it competes with the VR.

Secondly, considering W40k is based around points, everything is competing against everything in list building. If you take something, it hinders your ability to take something else. So in a certain way, you have to compare every single unit in the codex, since they all cost the same ressource.

I've seen those posts as well, but I can't help feel that in a competitive setting they're asking the wrong question. At this point we're pretty much all agreed that the Ravager is our best anti-tank unit in the index with only the Reaper matching it. Whilst a Razorwing is definitely good, it has less firepower and it's increased survivability is only a slight improvement against BS3+ armies. However, 3 Ravagers alone is not enough to deal with a Razorback or Guard artillery parking lot which is why you take the flyers in support.

Of course, outside of strictly competitive gameplay it doesn't matter, our index list at least has enough strength in depth to take most options and at least put up a decent fight and then the question of Ravager or Razorwing becomes a case of what do I want to run.

@Dave, the RWJF is very much equal to a Ravager for list building purposes and a gorgeous model so don't feel compelled to take the Ravager because it is slightly better anti-tank. Basically the RWJF is a Ravager with 2.5 lances instead of 3 for anti-tank puproses but comparatively better in anti-infantry. And a flyer of course with all advantages and disadvantages thereof.

The idea that the Razorwing has 'less firepower' though is a misnomer.

Ravager - 3 lances (or 3 dissies)
Razorwing 2 lances (or 2 dissies) Missiles, 2x s.rifle

It has objectively 'more' the issue is that it is more of a generalist - and optimally is probably splitting its fire between multiple targets (lances at mech, missiles and rifles at infantry).

That is both a strength and a weakness to the Razorwing as compared to the Ravager, and the one that becomes more valuable starts to strongly depend on what list you're building with them. That said, since TAC is a big consideration, and the Razorwing is harder to kill and is more generalized I think a very strong argument can be made that the Razorwing is the superior choice for a TAC army.

Cheers Lord Johan

Come to think of it 2.5 lances is probably underestimating it since you can fire the splinter gun at the tank as well if you have no better targets. So let's analyze that at optimal (rapid fire range) scenario. I'm going to again use my own post in Tactics forum (expected wounds...) so that's where the numbers are from:
Vs a Leman Russ:
2 dark lances: 2*1.166...
Shatterfield missiles: 0.64815
2x splinter rifle rapid fire: 2*0.07407
So that's 3.1296 wounds or equivalent to about 2.68 lances for the same 155 points

Unfortunately I think "boots on the ground" is going to make fielding multiple RWJF less attractive in the future but replacing 1 ravager with a RWJF is probably always ok.

So perhaps in smaller games either would suffice and in larger games both might be better.

The RWJF is a cool model...that's why I love DE so much. Ever since they came out in 3rd edition when I painted them all bight red I have gone purple this time which looks better!

Gave mine away to a mate in 7e as they were rubbish. Might have to get another one at some point though.

Order now and maybe get one in half a year.
I tried to get one for the past 1.5 month but they are (nearly) always sold out (was told at one point they were not, but when I checked they were again).

Lord Johan wrote:

Unfortunately I think "boots on the ground" is going to make fielding multiple RWJF less attractive in the future but replacing 1 ravager with a RWJF is probably always ok.

A flyer wing of all RWJ at 465pts is an attractive proposition and still leaves you with plenty of points to fill up on objective grabbers.

Thor665 wrote:

The idea that the Razorwing has 'less firepower' though is a misnomer.

Ravager - 3 lances (or 3 dissies)
Razorwing 2 lances (or 2 dissies) Missiles, 2x s.rifle

It has objectively 'more' the issue is that it is more of a generalist - and optimally is probably splitting its fire between multiple targets (lances at mech, missiles and rifles at infantry).

That is both a strength and a weakness to the Razorwing as compared to the Ravager, and the one that becomes more valuable starts to strongly depend on what list you're building with them. That said, since TAC is a big consideration, and the Razorwing is harder to kill and is more generalized I think a very strong argument can be made that the Razorwing is the superior choice for a TAC army.

I guess that depends on how you want to build your army. Outside of troops choices I prefer to specialise my units as I always assume they are only going to get one turn to really do something so I want them to do as much damage as possible to their intended target. For me in this case I'd defintiely prefer the Ravager to the Razorwing as my main anti tank.

Imateria wrote:

For me in this case I'd defintiely prefer the Ravager to the Razorwing as my main anti tank.

If you're taking them as anti-tank then there is no question - take the Ravager.

Thor665 wrote:

Imateria wrote:

For me in this case I'd defintiely prefer the Ravager to the Razorwing as my main anti tank.

If you're taking them as anti-tank then there is no question - take the Ravager.

Honestly, I tend to run 2 Razorwing 1 Ravager. Lances always go for tanks, Splinter Rifles add a bit of pressure on infantry. Then you get to missiles, and you have a tool that is good in practically any circumstance against almost any target.