Blasters on reavers

Gherma wrote:

As many other recon is really the easy peasy one for me. As many have pointed out, if your game ends up lasting just three turns, it’s unlikely to maximise any other secondary.

While that's true, I'd like to point out that "unlikely to accomplish" and "impossible to accomplish" are very far apart.

It's good to hear fellow DE players having success with it, it's just not my style. There are just so many variables to it, and some of those are beyond my control, which I really don't like.

Gherma wrote:

As many other recon is really the easy peasy one for me. As many have pointed out, if your game ends up lasting just three turns, it’s unlikely to maximise any other secondary.

@Lord Asvaldir, you are right, they never last more than two turns, but two turns of in your face blasters are quite invaluable to me. Often the game is decided in those two turns.

Ultimately is very personal I believe. Their effectiveness really depends on how you use the rest of your army.

That's fair, it's hardly like a blaster is going to be a waste given how effective they are. I tend to use reavers pretty aggressively though, so I tend not to see the pts spent on them as being worthwhile. I would add though that the decision changes a bit if you were playing say a pure cult list or a a list without any kabalite units, any blaster platform becomes a lot more valuable in that case.

I am pure cult.

But have 3 razor wings and three raiders with lance, 3 squads of scourges with haywire. Hoping that’ll be enough. Hoping to mortal wound heavy infantry enough to give me a chance in combat.

benmet wrote:

I am pure cult.

But have 3 razor wings and three raiders with lance, 3 squads of scourges with haywire. Hoping that’ll be enough. Hoping to mortal wound heavy infantry enough to give me a chance in combat.

How are you getting mortal wounds on infantry?

Tons of reavers with grav, that flyby strat mainly.

Right.

When you said pure cult, I for some reason excluded reavers from that mental list and got confused.

Would you play Reavers with blasters as a flexible do it all unit?

Against CC armies you play them for their firepower.
Against Shooty armies you send them to bog down firebases: keep them engaged in your opponents turn and fly them out to shoot again in your turn.
Either way they could be used for character hunting

Pippolele wrote:

Would you play Reavers with blasters as a flexible do it all unit?

Against CC armies you play them for their firepower.
Against Shooty armies you send them to bog down firebases: keep them engaged in your opponents turn and fly them out to shoot again in your turn.
Either way they could be used for character hunting

I've tried Reavers with various loadouts and none have impressed me.

Without Blasters they're pretty cheap but they also rarely ever accomplish much. In theory they can tie up units in melee. In practice, most of the units I'd actually want to tie up in melee can just blow them away with Overwatch and/or melee.

What's more, if I want to use them offensively then I run into another issue - their damage is pitiful. 2 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks just isn't impressive. And it's not like their shooting is winning any awards either.

In theory they're good for objective grabbing but in practise I've found that they die so quickly that they're rarely ever able to perform this function (certainly not for long).

Anyway, I've used them quite a bit with Blasters but it always feels very awkward for a number of reasons:
- It's hard to describe but there's just a real feeling of inefficiency when using them with Blasters.
- It's often awkward because I have to choose between firing Blasters at full BS and Advancing to get into (probable) charge range.
- It can be doubly awkward as the units I want to charge aren't necessarily the same units I want to Blaster, so trying to get into range of both can be awkward.
- Even if used purely as a shooting platform, their fragility and short range means they rarely ever survive. But because their offence isn't impressive (even with Blasters), they can't rely on a 'kill it before it kills you' philosophy.

Put simply, I just find that they don't perform any of their potential roles well, regardless of loadout. They just seem perpetually underwhelming.

Thank you Soulless Samurai,

I am hellbent on playing 12 in a Kabal/Cult mixed list cause I love the models.

What felt less underwhelming for you?
plain CC or blaster support?

I've had some good experience with 9 Reavers with toughness drug and no upgrades, against a Space Marine Primaris gunline, Orks horde, Necron blob, and AdMec.

Against shooty armies, I put them on the edge of my deployment zone. They threaten a turn 1 charge and a sure turn 2 charge, which can be a real pain for tanks and shooty infantry. They won't kill much (except for out-of-place characters), but they can take a turn of shooting from something. My opponent focuses them disproportionately, and they tank a lot of shots.

Against melee armies, they deploy further back or to the side and run up the flanks. There is usually some soft backfield objective grabber that the Reavers can rip open. The armies I've faced then take too long to run back to that objective, or they lose points.

I love the Reavers' speed, their survivability, and with Cult of Strife they are decently dangerous.

I feel that giving them Blasters means watering down their purpose. They become too expensive for bullying backfield units and flanking, and they are ineffective tank hunters.

Pippolele wrote:

Thank you Soulless Samurai,

I am hellbent on playing 12 in a Kabal/Cult mixed list cause I love the models.

What felt less underwhelming for you?
plain CC or blaster support?

I'd say Blaster Reavers were better. It gives them a lot more bite and the extra cost isn't that much, relative to the cost of the squad itself.

Either way, don't forget that you can (and really should) give Blasters and/or Grav Talons to the unit's sergeant. This way, when you start to take casualties, you'll never need to pick between killing the sergeant and killing a special weapon guy.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Pippolele wrote:

Thank you Soulless Samurai,

I am hellbent on playing 12 in a Kabal/Cult mixed list cause I love the models.

What felt less underwhelming for you?
plain CC or blaster support?

I'd say Blaster Reavers were better. It gives them a lot more bite and the extra cost isn't that much, relative to the cost of the squad itself.

Either way, don't forget that you can (and really should) give Blasters and/or Grav Talons to the unit's sergeant. This way, when you start to take casualties, you'll never need to pick between killing the sergeant and killing a special weapon guy.

Piling extras on the arena champion is a clever idea!

I will go with blasters on reavers as for my army composition it's cheaper and more effective than adding a unit of Scourges with haywires

TSkouboe wrote:

I feel that giving them Blasters means watering down their purpose. They become too expensive for bullying backfield units and flanking, and they are ineffective tank hunters.

This is still how I feel about it. When I use Reavers they're almost always advancing, and 4 Blaster shots with a 50% chance to hit isn't worth nearly 70 points on a unit that's mostly going to be drawing enemy fire anyways.

I've already said it, but, no upgrades imo.

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Let's try to put my question like this then:

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

I feel it would probably be the Reavers

Pippolele wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Let's try to put my question like this then:

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

I feel it would probably be the Reavers

Of the two I'd almost certainly prefer the Haywire Scourges. More bodies on the board alone is enough for me to favour them, and Haywire tends to be better at taking wounds off targets that darklight and Disintegrator Cannons struggle with.

I agree with Burnage - I'd pick the Scourges.
They serve the purpose of hurting heavy vehicles both well and consistently (and they are extra bodies).
I prefer to use my Reavers for a different purpose.

Pippolele wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Let's try to put my question like this then:

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

I feel it would probably be the Reavers

It would probably depend a little on my list (mainly whether I was short on heavier firepower), but I'd actually lean towards the Scourges.

My philosophy has always been one of 'boys before toys' (with HQs/Characters being the main exception, as I'm usually going for flavour over efficiency). Hence, I'll generally try to give each unit the minimum wargear it needs to achieve its core function, and used any saved points to buy additional units.

For example, my Scourge units would get 4 Haywire Blasters . . . and nothing else. I don't give them melee weapons because I don't want them anywhere near the enemy (and I doubt they'd accomplish anything in melee anyway). Nor do I add any extra men - because none of them can take Haywire Blasters and that's the only reason I'm taking the unit at all. I'd rather just put those points towards a second Haywire-Scourge unit.

Anyway, Reavers are a little tricky because (looking at the other replies) it seems most people use them differently to me. If I was taking them at all, I'd normally consider the Blasters to be a necessary upgrade, as one of the main roles I use them for is highly-mobile fire support. However, whilst not my preferred use, Reavers are still able to perform a function even without Blasters.

Hence, my instinct would be to take the Scourges. It gives you an extra unit that can take objectives and such, and splitting them this way allows both units to concentrate fully on a single role. The Reavers can focus on tying up enemy units (not worrying about reducing their firepower by Advancing), whilst the Scourges focus on taking out vehicles at medium range.

Pippolele wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Let's try to put my question like this then:

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

I feel it would probably be the Reavers

Add another unit lol, i would rather add incubi than 4 blasters, thats how much i feel they are worthless on them, heck 1/2 the time i dont even shoot their splinter weapons.

Pippolele wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

In the context of a Cult army, Blasters.  In soup, Scourges.  

For the cost of those Scourges you can also get Grav Talons, Agonizers or Power Swords. (Arena Champs need a Blast Pistol option)

Side note, every Splinter Rifle you replace with a Blast or Heat Lance gives you a chance to shoot when you Advance for Eviscerating Flyby.

Kabal/Cult soup my army is indeed so there is place for Scourges and Grav Talons for the Reavers

amishprn86 wrote:

Pippolele wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Welp, looks like I've been outvoted.

Let's try to put my question like this then:

If you just had enough points to either equip your existing 12men reaver squad with 4 blasters or add a Haywire scourge squad, which would people go for?

I feel it would probably be the Reavers

Add another unit lol, i would rather add incubi than 4 blasters, thats how much i feel they are worthless on them, heck 1/2 the time i dont even shoot their splinter weapons.

If I add neither blasters to my Reavers nor scourges and just go incubi then I am severely lacking in darklight support.

From my exprience running Reavers I'd always go Cult of Strife, especially for a 12 man blob. It increases their combat output by 50% which is a big step up. 37 attacks at S4 -1 AP is decent, if not stellar for the points investment. Red Grief has a place for tackling squads running in 3s but not a full strength unit. And I wouldn't bother with blasters on reavers. You want to use them aggressively and I just don't think their blasters will do enough for the extra points. You'll get more mileage from a scourge or mandrake squad in my opinion.

Pippolele wrote:

If I add neither blasters to my Reavers nor scourges and just go incubi then I am severely lacking in darklight support.

Not sure Incubi are a solution for anything these days.  If you have a Cult detachment you have CC power.

Let's look at it this way.  If you don't upgrade your 12 Reavers, what are they doing?  How are they being run?  2 units of 6?  4 units of 3?  That, and the number of Cult units you have/combat drug distribution are going to influence how you use your Reavers.

yellabelly wrote:

From my exprience running Reavers I'd always go Cult of Strife, especially for a 12 man blob. It increases their combat output by 50% which is a big step up.

Strife Reavers make a good sink for Serpentin if you don't expect them to make it to turn 3.

False Son wrote:

Pippolele wrote:

If I add neither blasters to my Reavers nor scourges and just go incubi then I am severely lacking in darklight support.

Not sure Incubi are a solution for anything these days.  If you have a Cult detachment you have CC power.

Extremely overcosted melee threat that does nothing but die. I only said i would take them over 4 blasters on reavers b.c i would get to shoot my blasters, at least the incubi is more wounds on the table to sit on a n objective in the back and hope the 2+ save will work for a turn.