Raider vs Venom (again)

amishprn86 wrote:

Ragnos wrote:

I don't understand why people keep saying that the -1 to hit is better than the +4 wounds. Because it is clearly not.

I also use Venoms and Raiders. The difference is that you can put anti-tank weapons on a raider, where the venom has anti-infantry weaponry. For 10 man squads the tax you pay for transport is cheaper if you use a raider. The venom is faster and can hide behind smaller scenery, and for squads of 5 the transport tax is lower for venoms.

For carrying HQ/Court units I always use venoms, but you could as well stick them together in a raider with a squad of 5 wracks or whatever you use in CC.

In your case, I would look at my list and find out if you need more anti-tank weapons or anti-infantry weapons.

It is better vs "Certain" things, like Plasma spam, it prevents Supercharge, or Orks due to BS 5+, and Heavy weapons that must move or BS 4+ IG spam, and finally Necrons boosting Tesla to 5+ instead of 6+

Over all for the most part Raiders are Tougher for sure, but there are some key times where a Venom could be better.

You are right. Of course there are situations where the -1 to hit is very helpful. Especially for the plasma guns. I like to see those humans blowing them self up. Works especially well if you make use of our stratagem to get a -2 modifier. Never the less this difference is in my opinion much less important to the decision than which weapons they can carry. And basically this depends on the rest of your list. There is no general answer to "Is a Raider better than a Venom?". And I'm very happy about that because I like them both.

It's curious how someone still argumenting that Raider is harder than Venom only by posting math :-/

Cerve wrote:

It's curious how someone still argumenting that Raider is harder than Venom only by posting math :-/

Its more than that as i said a couple times above, but also Venoms can hide out of LoS MUCH easier and for some tournaments it can actually fit on/in terrain with los blocking so you could have a 3+ vs things like IG mortar spam.

Its not one dimensional and you need to look at all the pieces.

amishprn86 wrote:

Cerve wrote:

It's curious how someone still argumenting that Raider is harder than Venom only by posting math :-/

Its more than that as i said a couple times above, but also Venoms can hide out of LoS MUCH easier and for some tournaments it can actually fit on/in terrain with los blocking so you could have a 3+ vs things like IG mortar spam.

Its not one dimensional and you need to look at all the pieces.

Precisely. But I would say again that Raider IS a great choice. Don't get me wrong

I just found tricky this run into the math.

Double post

Cerve wrote:

It's curious how someone still argumenting that Raider is harder than Venom only by posting math :-/

I think we mean the same thing but express it differently. Raider and Venom are very well balanced, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion over and over. Of course a Venom can find LOS block much easier than a Raider. He is smaller and faster. But that just prevents the enemy to shoot at this venom. He can still shoot at other targets instead. A Raider can soak more dmg on average than a venom. But if you have HQs or other expensive payload, I would put it on the Venom. Because you can get it in position and hide it more easily. Maybe use the stratagem to get a -2 hit modifier.

Of course there are exceptions where a venom can soak more dmg or is better in some other way. This is the case if you are up against plasmas (like mentioned before), or when it fits on a piece of terrain a raider wouldn't, therefore gets a 3+ and is shot by weapons with AP 1 or 0.
But that's not the general case.

In terms of resilience they are very close, but they have two very different weapon options and crew capacity. Both of them are very useful.

Regarding the OPs question. I would advise him to look at the rest of his list. If he lacks AT, he could take one or two raiders (I like them with dissies). If not he can go with venoms as well.