Venoms Vs Raiders

So, I've been running a lot of Raiders post codex and I think they are absolutely brutal. 80 points for 10 transport capacity really lets you spam the very effective warriors. It also gives you a cheap platform for blasters and a dissie. Recently, Ive been playing around with some lists with venoms though and I'm wondering if it's worth switching it up.

If we assume you're taking the usual 5 man warrior squads with blasters, you can get about 1.4 venoms for every raider. That means the venoms are killing a pretty impressive 7-8 geqs, 3 Meqs and taking 2 wounds off a T7 transport. The raider is killing 7 Geq, 2.7 Meq and taking 3 wounds off a T7 transport. Defensively the Raider gets 1.5 extra wounds and the venom has a -1. So, the raider kills transports a little better but other than that they're basically even. Which brings me to my question. Which transport is performing better for you on the table top? I've seen a couple people try to max out their re rolls by having their archons babysit Venoms. Has that kind of thing been working out for you?

I’ve been using both, but they need saturation. When running Wyches, I like raiders. When running Kabalites, I like both. I only have 4 of each, and I feel like ideally I would want more Venoms with no upgrades so I can spam them, but that’s boring.

I run 3 venoms and 2 dissies raiders in my list at the moment. The raiders are battering rams. They move my wyches up the board then ram into whatever I'm about to charge to eat up overwatch. They don't tend to live all that long, but for the most part I'm happy if they draw fire away from my ravagers.
Venoms have great coverage of the board. I run Flayed Skull so a 19" move and twin cannons for an 18" rapid fire range. With ignores cover, reroll 1s and 12 shots, they are great infantry killers and threaten anything without the vehicle keyword. They are hard to hit, and hard to catch. I sit 5man kab squads with a blaster and PGL in mine. I always aim to keep at 18" from whatever I'm shooting. Not much can drag a venom into combat from that range.

I have pretty much shelved my Venoms in favor of Raiders. I find their ability to multitask to be very strong in the current gamestate, and don't find their degradation a big issue when packing Dissies.

For me? Venoms to transport shooty things, Raiders to transport choppy things.

If you're going to run Raiders as shooty gunboats, you REALLY need them to be Black Heart and you need a lot of them. Try to make the Kabalites inside Obsidian Rose or Poisoned Tongue.

Personally I don't think it's a great idea to use them unless you're rushing up with board with Wyches because the Knight-influenced meta has so many people bringing Lascannons that make short work of Raiders.

Venoms have been incredibly nasty for me. General thoughts:

1. They are very similar to Raiders in durability against shooting, but pull far ahead when you can make effective use of the -1 to hit stratagem to stack a -2 malus (against any BS4+ army this pretty much requires them to split fire onto a different unit). -1 to hit with non-degrading profile is generally very powerful against random garbage shooting and very obnoxious when spammed so nearly your whole army is on -1 to hit.

2. When they die, they only strand 49 points of kabalites. This is incredibly punishing to BS4+ or worse armies who are disproportionately impacted by the to-hit malus. I've had many games where after my initial T1 shooting alpha, my opponent spends their entire shooting phase killing one Venom and can't finish off the kabalites, leaving them to run off to an out of LoS objective or suicide forward to pump a blaster into something big.

3. Venom Cannons are low key amazing and pretty necessary to clear screens and large blobs of chaff in a primarily shooting-oriented list. I hate moving Raiders within 12" to rapid fire with your higher density of warriors to achieve a similar effect - too many points left vulnerable to rapid fire and charge.

The result for me is that I love Venoms in list that's primarily looking to get into a midfield ~18" firefight while threatening countercharge if they move toward you from there, often comfortable or happy to go second depending on the mission rules/matchup. Archon(s) with Blaster gets to join the party here while giving rerolls and threatening to charge anything that moves toward your Venoms inside the 18" bubble, which is a nice bonus. When CWE allies are involved, 18" is also your closing range needed for Jinx support. I've preferred lists with mixed shooting and assault lately, especially with ITC scoring rules, so this has been my go-to.

Raiders have pulled ahead for me in Obsidian Rose near pure Cabal lists where your preferred operating range is 24". I wouldn't be suprised if this is a superior list for pure shooting if you're going for more of a gunline.

Raiders are awesome for transporting Wyches of any kind due to Wyches benefiting greatly from increased squad size for the +1A and +1S drugs and being great at killing chaff/terrible at killing tough things to complement Dissies better than SCs.

5 man wyches in Venoms are adequate as cheap obsec units in a second battalion, but they really aren't killing anything - decent role for Red Grief Wyches, but Strife really wants a Raider.

Thanks for the excellent answers people! To flesh out my original post a little, I pretty much always take Obsidian Rose for my battalion with a Blackheart spearhead. Getting stuff within 15" to rapid fire just has way better synergy for me. Especially when I'm running 18" shredders( which are amazing). My logic is basically that in a list that has loads of Kabalites already the lower transport tax and the extra blasters and Dissies is too good to pass on.

Thor665, Could you be a bit more specific about the multitasking? I assume you're talking about the Raider being a bit stronger vs tanks? But if you've got some pro tips please share. I've been loving splintermind btw. How are your Harlies coming on?

PHDX, I like your strategy for that -2 to hit modifier! I hadn't thought of that. When you're running that sort of Venom list are you going with Flayed Skull? I will definitely have to give this a go instead of my usual Obsidian Rose gunline list

Tom090 wrote:

PHDX, I like your strategy for that -2 to hit modifier! I hadn't thought of that. When you're running that sort of Venom list are you going with Flayed Skull? I will definitely have to give this a go instead of my usual Obsidian Rose gunline list

I'm typically running only one Cabal Detachment, so Black Heart is pretty automatic for the the all-around set of perks (Relic, Stratagem, WL Trait, FNP on vehicles). I find that the FNP is valuable - a big part of the strength of Venoms is that they are deceptively hard to kill for their points, and FNP helps offset one of the big risks - getting oneshot by a D6 hit or multiple 2 or 3 damage hits.

With multiple Cabal Detachments such as a Black Heart Spearhead, Flayed Skull is potentially interesting.

Tom090 wrote:

Thor665, Could you be a bit more specific about the multitasking? I assume you're talking about the Raider being a bit stronger vs tanks? But if you've got some pro tips please share. I've been loving splintermind btw. How are your Harlies coming on?  

Glad you enjoy the podcast! Harlie work has been slow.

My point about being better at multitasking is maybe one I can best illustrate by offering some counterpoints to the above posters.

Chippen wrote:

If you're going to run Raiders as shooty gunboats, you REALLY need them to be Black Heart and you need a lot of them. Try to make the Kabalites inside Obsidian Rose or Poisoned Tongue.

Raiders don't actually benefit any intrinsically more from being Black Heart than Venoms do, except insomuch as their shooting is generically better so having more re-rolls from Writ is nice. Both benefit almost identically from the 6+++ save.
I prefer Flayed Skull myself. I don't think any of the Kabals are particularly 'bad' per se' though, we have pretty solid Obsessions across the board.

Chippen wrote:

Personally I don't think it's a great idea to use them unless you're rushing up with board with Wyches because the Knight-influenced meta has so many people bringing Lascannons that make short work of Raiders.

Lascannons don't make short work of Venoms? I haven't mathed it out, but I'm willing to bet the -1 to hit is pretty functionally offset by the less wounds as far as Lascannon suvivability goes. Not a valid reason to choose a Venom over a Raider unless I'm missing something?

I really love the lascannon (and melta) meta though, because single shot, high strength and high damage weapons are vastly inferior against our 5++ boat swarms than bringing, say, a bunch of autocannons or something similar. I hate Heavy Bolter spam, because it's cheapa and rips up everything in our army. Lascannon spam wastes a lot of points and plays to our strengths.

phdx wrote:

1. They are very similar to Raiders in durability against shooting, but pull far ahead when you can make effective use of the -1 to hit stratagem to stack a -2 malus (against any BS4+ army this pretty much requires them to split fire onto a different unit). -1 to hit with non-degrading profile is generally very powerful against random garbage shooting and very obnoxious when spammed so nearly your whole army is on -1 to hit.

If they are equal in durability before a stratagem that both units can use aren't they going to be equal afterwards? I would argue that the -1 to hit vs. the 4 additional wounds equates to a very similar level of survivability. Indeed, the way people fawn over the Black Heart deal which equates to +1 wound to the Venom and +1.6 wounds to the Raider I would think the +4 wound difference might be argued as even better... (I don't argue this because I think people overvalue the 6+++, the point of Black Heart is the Writ and the stratagem, the actual Obsession is probably our weakest).

phdx wrote:

2. When they die, they only strand 49 points of kabalites. This is incredibly punishing to BS4+ or worse armies who are disproportionately impacted by the to-hit malus. I've had many games where after my initial T1 shooting alpha, my opponent spends their entire shooting phase killing one Venom and can't finish off the kabalites, leaving them to run off to an out of LoS objective or suicide forward to pump a blaster into something big.

This holds true for Raiders equally well.

phdx wrote:

3. Venom Cannons are low key amazing and pretty necessary to clear screens and large blobs of chaff in a primarily shooting-oriented list. I hate moving Raiders within 12" to rapid fire with your higher density of warriors to achieve a similar effect - too many points left vulnerable to rapid fire and charge.

I would note that when it comes to clearing screens and large blobs of chaff the Dissie is actually really good compared to the low key amazing s.cannon.

Venom w. 2 s.cannons (within 18")
vs. GEQ - 2.6 dead (1.3 outside rapid fire)
vs. MEQ - 1.3 dead (.67 outside rapid fire)
vs. Ork - 3.3 dead (1.65) outside of rapid fire)

Raider w. Dissie (within 36")
vs. GEQ - .88 dead
vs. MEQ - .88 dead
vs. Ork - 1.1 dead

So, basically within the Venom's optimal situation the Raider does about identical to Marines, 50% to Guard and 33% to Orks. That said, beyond 18" (and if there is concern about moving within 12" I'm not sure why 18" would feel so safe) the Dissie actually does nearly identical vs. Guard and Orks and better vs. Marines.

The Dissie is also better vs. anything with a 2+ save, anything with multiple wounds, anything in cover. (aka everything else)

So, basically, if your opponent plays a lot of Cultists or Orks and has them stand in the open - yeah, the Venom is better.
But pretty much if anything else is on the board, the Dissie Raider starts looking better (and has vastly superior optimum range)
That's a big core component of multitasking.
Yeah, in specific situations the Venom *is* superior, it's a great vehicle and has access to some decent weaponry. It is not hard to come up with specific setups where you can argue the Venom is superior. You can also get confused in arguing that something is better (like the Venom vs. lascannons) when in reality it isn't.
Since you don't know what you're going to fight in any given battle at a tournament the goal is to take something that, while maybe not the best at a specific goal, is *good* at that goal, and also *good* at many other tasks, allowing your unit to then be *good* no matter what your opponent brings to the table.

Did your opponent bring an army of footslogging basic Orks? Oh man, the Dissie Raider is good, but a Venom *would* be better.
Did your opponent bring nothing but Knights? Venom sucks, Dissie is good.
Did your opponent bring an all Primaris force? Venom is meh, Dissie is good.
Is your opponent running Custodes (or any other) bikers (negating that 18" "safe" assault bubble but not a 36" one?) Venom is pretty meh to suck, Dissie is good.
Is your opponent all mechanized? Venom sucks, Dissie is good.

That's why the Raider is superior as a choice, because it wins out in more of the matchups due to a combo of being basically just as hard to kill, basically the same cost, and having access to a superior gun and transport capacity.

Thanks for the detailed response Thor! Couple quick points:

Thor665 wrote:

phdx wrote:

2. When they die, they only strand 49 points of kabalites. This is incredibly punishing to BS4+ or worse armies who are disproportionately impacted by the to-hit malus. I've had many games where after my initial T1 shooting alpha, my opponent spends their entire shooting phase killing one Venom and can't finish off the kabalites, leaving them to run off to an out of LoS objective or suicide forward to pump a blaster into something big.

This holds true for Raiders equally well.

Not unless you are running 5 warriors in the Raider - if you're utilizing the full capacity of the raider you will have more points tied up in models left without a transport when it dies, which was the point I tried to make. Does that matter enough in practice to be a strong incentive either way? Not sure, but it's definitely a difference.

Thor665 wrote:

phdx wrote:

3. Venom Cannons are low key amazing and pretty necessary to clear screens and large blobs of chaff in a primarily shooting-oriented list. I hate moving Raiders within 12" to rapid fire with your higher density of warriors to achieve a similar effect - too many points left vulnerable to rapid fire and charge.

I would note that when it comes to clearing screens and large blobs of chaff the Dissie is actually really good compared to the low key amazing s.cannon.

Venom w. 2 s.cannons (within 18")
vs. GEQ - 2.6 dead (1.3 outside rapid fire)
vs. MEQ - 1.3 dead (.67 outside rapid fire)
vs. Ork - 3.3 dead (1.65) outside of rapid fire)

Raider w. Dissie (within 36")
vs. GEQ - .88 dead
vs. MEQ - .88 dead
vs. Ork - 1.1 dead

So, basically within the Venom's optimal situation the Raider does about identical to Marines, 50% to Guard and 33% to Orks. That said, beyond 18" (and if there is concern about moving within 12" I'm not sure why 18" would feel so safe) the Dissie actually does nearly identical vs. Guard and Orks and better vs. Marines.

The Dissie is also better vs. anything with a 2+ save, anything with multiple wounds, anything in cover. (aka everything else).

I think I'm missing something here on your numbers. I have Dissie getting 1.11 kills on MEQ, 1.33 on the others (nothing worse than 3+ getting a save). 2VC getting 0.67(1.33) MEQ, 1(2) models w/ 4+ save, 1.33(2.67) GEQ, 1.67(3.33) Orc.

12" is much, much more vulnerable to being charged than 18", which is relevant even for units that won't realistically damage them much since it ties up your embarked shooting for a turn. Both need to be in 18" for any embarked kabalites w/ Blaster to participate unless you are Obsidian Rose (which is why I called out that list design as pretty much unambiguously better for Raiders). 2VC ranges from slightly better to much better than a dissie within RF against everything other than 2+ (so, natural 2+ or MEQ in cover). Based on those numbers, 2VC RF will outperform a dissie against multi-wound models with 4+ or worse (5+ in cover or worse). 2VC RF will outperform a dissie against T6 models with 3+ (4+ in cover or worse). High quality invulnerable saves reduce the quality of the dissie greatly (somewhat rare).

I think we basically mostly agree completely here though - your expected meta should dictate your choice. If the meta is unpredictable due to unfamiliarity or event size, the flexible choice is better.

The main thing Venoms ask is that it be strategically correct to move up the board to get into that Rapid fire zone. I've personally this to be true more often that not and rarely the case that I can just sit back and win by tabling. I've also found that screen clearing is often very relevant - clearing out shield drones or exposing characters before shooting blasters are the most common. Venoms are a huge liability if you expect a lot of custodes, knights, or similar Venoms will underperform, your list needs to have very efficient ways to address those otherwise. Listbuilding factors like Doom/Jinx also influence this decision (still behind dissie on 2+, but not bad to the point of being a gaping liability at that point).

Thor665 wrote:

If they are equal in durability before a stratagem that both units can use aren't they going to be equal afterwards?

Yep, poorly thought out on my part. Focusing on the relative impact of -1 malus baseline vs. 67% more wounds:

BS3+:
-1 drops their damage potential by 25%
-2 drops their damage potential by 50%

BS4+
-1 drops their damage potential by 33%
-2 drops their damage potential by 67%

So without considering the toughness difference, that's definitely a huge point in favor of Raiders that I underestimated. Definitely makes me less anxious about exposing them to short range fire in a role similar to Venoms, provided I can offset the firepower gaps for screen clearing to a degree I'm comfortable with. Still not sold on Raider Gunboats for Kabalites that aren't fielded as Obsidian Rose from a firepower analysis perspective due to range advantage become somewhat marginal (although a mix makes sense depending on what balance of splinter/dissie I want), but I'm not even sure pure gunboat spam is even the best way to build at this point with the quality Cult and Coven offerings, and Raiders are pretty unambiguously the best when not going hyper shooty Cabal.

Chippen wrote:

For me? Venoms to transport shooty things, Raiders to transport choppy things.

If you're going to run Raiders as shooty gunboats, you REALLY need them to be Black Heart and you need a lot of them. Try to make the Kabalites inside Obsidian Rose or Poisoned Tongue.

Personally I don't think it's a great idea to use them unless you're rushing up with board with Wyches because the Knight-influenced meta has so many people bringing Lascannons that make short work of Raiders.

This is basically how I roll. Black Heart/Obsidian Rose gets loaded up with darklignt and goes into raiders, Flayed Skull likes the transport more than the crew, so Venoms become mad useful.

Warriors are going to 7 points if KillTeam is any indication, so there’s that.

As for weapons, all my raiders carry lances.

Thanks for the insanely detailed responses everyone! Id love to hear what kind of lists you and the other guys are running these days Thor? Especially Brian actually, i bet he's lovig how insanely good coven are.

Chippen wrote:

For me? Venoms to transport shooty things, Raiders to transport choppy things.

I tend towards the opposite approach.

Outside of Grotesques (which can't fit in a Venom), it's generally my Venoms that carry my melee or semi-melee units. Stuff like Incubi, Archon+Court, and even Mandrakes all go in Venoms.

Meanwhile, my Raiders are almost exclusively used for shooty units.

Granted, sometimes I'll have shooty units in Venoms as well (I only have 3 Raiders and often want more shooty units than can fit in them). However, if I have melee units in my army, they're almost always in Venoms.


In terms of how I feel about the transports, Raiders seem drastically better overall. They have twice the capacity, better survivability and have actual guns (unlike Venoms, which get to choose between Water Pistols and Super Soakers for their armament).

What I like about Venoms is that they lean more closely towards the MSU concept that I love with DE. The issue is that they lean into it a bit too much - to the point where I can't even put characters in the bloody things if I want them to have literally any escort other than the Court. It's a shame, because I actually like their design better than that of the Raider.

Oh, one other thing. Someone mentioned earlier that a downed Venom strands fewer units. This is definitely true but (much to my surprise) I've found that stranded Warrior squads can still be useful and real pests for my opponent - especially since I use two units of 5 in each Raider.

Not sure I'd discount the venoma guns. Sure splinter cannons aren't amazing, but they perform better in a flayed skull army and they still fit into a msu list very well. They are also excellent for kitting your opponent as a small kavalite unit can use their blaster at the same range as the splinter cannons and you're not losing much firepower by staying at 18'. Granted the raider is definitely cheaper and has a more powerful gun, but I'm still a fan of a few double sc venom in my flayed skull list.

Could you explain why 2 units of 5 rather than 1 uni of 10 samurai? I tend to run the single unit as it allows the warriors to bring 2 special weapons and a heavy rather than just 2 special weapons

Mikoneo wrote:

Could you explain why 2 units of 5 rather than 1 uni of 10 samurai? I tend to run the single unit as it allows the warriors to bring 2 special weapons and a heavy rather than just 2 special weapons

Sure.

The first point is that I rarely bother with heavy weapons, even when I do take 10-man squads. I don't rate the Splinter Cannon, so that's out, and I'm not really comfortable paying 20pts for a Dark Lance that will be hitting on 4s most of the time. Hence, I don't usually gain much by merging the two squads.

The second reason is because I much prefer the flexibility of having 2 units of 5 in a Raider. It means that, should I wish to, I can have one squad stay behind to sit on an objective, whilst the other remains inside and goes forward. Similarly, I can have one squad get out to engage an enemy, capture an objective, or act as a shield, whilst the other squad and the Raider go elsewhere.

And, when the Raider is destroyed (as they usually are ), I have two squads that can separate or stay together, but which still have to be targeted separately.

I've just found that these 5-man units are quite a pain for many opponents. Their Blasters mean that they're always going to be a threat, but many armies (at least the ones that I've faced) also don't have 'spare' firepower with which to kill lots of tiny infantry squads.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Mikoneo wrote:

Could you explain why 2 units of 5 rather than 1 uni of 10 samurai? I tend to run the single unit as it allows the warriors to bring 2 special weapons and a heavy rather than just 2 special weapons

Sure.

The first point is that I rarely bother with heavy weapons, even when I do take 10-man squads. I don't rate the Splinter Cannon, so that's out, and I'm not really comfortable paying 20pts for a Dark Lance that will be hitting on 4s most of the time. Hence, I don't usually gain much by merging the two squads.

The second reason is because I much prefer the flexibility of having 2 units of 5 in a Raider. It means that, should I wish to, I can have one squad stay behind to sit on an objective, whilst the other remains inside and goes forward. Similarly, I can have one squad get out to engage an enemy, capture an objective, or act as a shield, whilst the other squad and the Raider go elsewhere.

And, when the Raider is destroyed (as they usually are   ), I have two squads that can separate or stay together, but which still have to be targeted separately.

I've just found that these 5-man units are quite a pain for many opponents. Their Blasters mean that they're always going to be a threat, but many armies (at least the ones that I've faced) also don't have 'spare' firepower with which to kill lots of tiny infantry squads.

This is 100% my thought and strategy - I find it tends to work exceptionally well

I use to run 10 mans, occasionally with a splinter cannon for a little extra firepower but I rarely found it worth taking. Losing a 10 man kabalite unit feels like a sizeable lost if you only have say 20-30 kabalite warriors in the list. Little 5 mans though ate very little firepower when lost, and even with universal splitfite in 8th I frequently find my opponent needs to heavier firepower than necessary just to get rid of the annoying last two kabakite warriors with a blaster in cover.
The only real reason to run 10 man units beyond the heavy weapon is if you want to use stratagems on the unit it's more cost effective, but kabakites are rarely a unit we want to use our stratagems on anyway unless you're deep striking a big blob.

I like the splinter cannon and racks (although they don’t work together much to my chagrin). They are both basically 10 points for the firepower of two additional warriors. So a mounted unit is effectively 12 rifles rather than 8. Whether that’s valuable depends on whether you like poison. I have my gripes with it, but volume always helps, particularly with Flayed Skull rerolls.

I like poison, but the think I'd prefer the output from double splinter cannon venoms in my flayed skull list, spreads the poison around a little more effectively I think so it's harder to take out my main shooting units.

I field 10 Kabalites (2x Blaster + 1 S.C) Obsidian Rose in 5x Raiders on my tournament Lists. I understand why people tend to put 2x5 with one blaster but I sometimes like a "small trick" on my opponent.

Usually, my 2 blaster and Splinter cannons are last to die if he does not wipe out my unit. It happens sometimes that you lose 7 kabalites after they shot down your raider and you have your 2 Blaster left, 1 CP for failure is not option and poof you shoot end of his turn with your blaster on something you wanna kill instead of spending 2 CPs to keep them alive and pass the moral test. If you kill something, they stay alive and you have shot an additional time...

I tend to not run either Raiders or Venoms. Everything starts on the board and pushes forward on foot if it moves forward at all. Mostly because I'd rather spend 60 points on 2 squads of warriors than 65 on a boat to keep 1 squad safe.

UlrikTheSlayer wrote:

I field 10 Kabalites (2x Blaster + 1 S.C) Obsidian Rose in 5x Raiders on my tournament Lists. I understand why people tend to put 2x5 with one blaster but I sometimes like a "small trick" on my opponent.

Usually, my 2 blaster and Splinter cannons are last to die if he does not wipe out my unit. It happens sometimes that you lose 7 kabalites after they shot down your raider and you have your 2 Blaster left, 1 CP for failure is not option and poof you shoot end of his turn with your blaster on something you wanna kill instead of spending 2 CPs to keep them alive and pass the moral test. If you kill something, they stay alive and you have shot an additional time...

This is excellent stuff. Forgot about that stratagem. It definitely makes a case for a big unit for them (not to mention the splinter cannon can rapid fire at 21”). I would I assume you just take these shots at basic infantry or something to maximize chance of actually killing something? I don’t trust my luck with a single blaster.

It all depends if I "wanna play it" at that moment or not. For example, I killed a Guilliman with 2 blasters once with that stratagem and we argued if he was killed or not when he came back from the dead.... That was "I wanna play it time" and it worked. Otherwise, usually if my splinter canon is alive, I shoot with it on infantry and my blaster on something else, usually it manages to kill at least one opponent. It can get really tricky as only the model fleeing may shoot. I once used a command point to re-roll my morale test to have more fleeing model ( I had lost 7 and made a 1 on my dice, which meant only one leaving as my Sybarite was dead but not my 2 blasters and SC).

There are some armies that helps me out (Hemlock for example) as it reduces my Morale

See the trick now ? Its fun when it happens but usually, my Kabalites tend to be wiped out (unless good 6's rolls :p).

I am still a fan of Venoms but I prefer writing lists with Raiders... they are about as equally durable, I'm able to cram a lot more Kabalites into them, and having another Disintegrator platform is great.