Fun test, Artists of the Flesh x3 Reapers

I so want to try this for fun a few times.

Artists of the Flesh Spearhead
Haemonculus
Reaper
Reaper
Reaper
520pts

T7, 12w each, 4+/5++, -1D taken.

I used one Artist of the Flesh Reaper a few days ago, as part of a 6 Talos Spearhead.

It's fairly resilient but you really feel the sting of that weapon being Heavy, and with so many d6 involved when it shoots you really have to pray to the dice gods.

I'm not sure where they stand competitively, but they are pretty fun.

With reapers, I think Dark Technomancer would work better. Especially with the anti-infantry mode.

Its not anti-infantry set up, its survival set up. I have venoms amd Wracks to handle infantry. Infantry is something i never worry about.

Make the weapon assault, and people would take it.
Just not points effective otherwise.

amishprn86 wrote:

Its not anti-infantry set up, its survival set up. I have venoms amd Wracks to handle infantry. Infantry is something i never worry about.

I only called it anti-infantry because I forgot the name. With DT, a burst mode shot is 2D6 F6 D2 wounding knights on 4+.

but for knight, the beam would be better indeed:
1D6 F8 D6+1, wounding knights on 3+

Wouldn't you get much more out of this formation if you also took 4 Artists of the Flesh Raiders? Or also Venoms for that matter.

While I didn't do the math, I'm certain that the -1 damage provides better survivability than Black Heart on average. When transporting high value units, the durability of the Raider is a real concern and this could help a lot.

I think the -1 damage will come up only sparingly. You might hang on and survive an extra turn every once in awhile, but at what cost? Shooting on 5+ or 6's? Lacking movement?

I think you should pump out as much damage with them before they die, because, they will die even with the -1 damage.

I have been running 2 of them in a BH detachment and I actually really enjoy the reliability with them because of the rerolls. The added 6+++ is decent as well but never counted on.

I had 2 in a DT detachment and the damage was insane, but unreliable and died even faster.

I think running them in a AoF detachment is you trying to force them to be something they are not good at, which is survivability. AoF work great for things that are already hard to kill, and then exemplifies it to make it very frustrating. Sure, survivability goes up, but the opportunity cost in my mind is too high to justify that. Reapers want to do damage and lots of it, we should help them with that cause.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I think the -1 damage will come up only sparingly.  You might hang on and survive an extra turn every once in awhile, but at what cost? Shooting on 5+ or 6's? Lacking movement?

Suffering no casualties from getting blown up in the first turn would already be worth it for me. And comparatively, our vehicles are still pretty functional even at low wound levels. Even at 6", you can add 8" from Enhanced Aethersails. For me, Raiders are primarily transports and its weapons are just the cherry on top.

And even if they blow up, soaking up more damage is a nice start. It seems strongly meta dependent but I think lowering 2D shooting down to 1D is massive. And it gives you another tool for target saturation.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I think you should pump out as much damage with them before they die, because, they will die even with the -1 damage.

I have been running 2 of them in a BH detachment and I actually really enjoy the reliability with them because of the rerolls. The added 6+++ is decent as well but never counted on.

I had 2 in a DT detachment and the damage was insane, but unreliable and died even faster.

I think running them in a AoF detachment is you trying to force them to be something they are not good at, which is survivability. AoF work great for things that are already hard to kill, and then exemplifies it to make it very frustrating. Sure, survivability goes up, but the opportunity cost in my mind is too high to justify that. Reapers want to do damage and lots of it, we should help them with that cause.

I'm not arguing for the optimality of a AotF Reaper detachment. But since Amish is already going for it anyway this poses another opportunity to get more value out of this idea.

Is it better than Black Heart? I can't tell.
But Raiders definitely benefit more from it than from most other obsessions.

Edit: My bottom line is that it gives you one more tool in your arsenal. In terms of listmaking we are in a fairly decent spot (I'm not denying there are issues) and you can have quite a bit of variety. Personally, I don't have much Coven units and having more reliable means of transportation sounds just too sweet for me.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I think running them in a AoF detachment is you trying to force them to be something they are not good at, which is survivability. AoF work great for things that are already hard to kill, and then exemplifies it to make it very frustrating. Sure, survivability goes up, but the opportunity cost in my mind is too high to justify that. Reapers want to do damage and lots of it, we should help them with that cause.

I'm not saying I disagree with your larger point, but aren't reapers the most survivable thing we have? They're a Talos, with a slightly worse armor save and 5 extra wounds. If AoF is best used on making tough things tougher, then wouldn't it also be good for making the toughest thing tougher?

The most survivable per point i believe is a Cronos in PoF/AotF.

But my Idea for this was just super tough long range support that annoying to the opponent for fun. Not hyper comp lol.

sekac wrote:

I'm not saying I disagree with your larger point, but aren't reapers the most survivable thing we have?

Technically our Tantalus is more survivable than a Reaper. Still, we only have a 5++ in shooting, so I'd still say Grotesques or Pain Engines are the most survivable for their relative costs, either Prophets or Artists, depending on what is attacking them.

amishprn86 wrote:

The most survivable per point i believe is a Cronos in PoF/AotF.

But my Idea for this was just super tough long range support that annoying to the opponent for fun. Not hyper comp lol.

Fair 'nuff. I mostly meant in terms of total toughness, not necessarily in an efficiency sense.

Because, as you say, it was clear this wasn't a competitive thought experiment. Just a "I wonder how much this setup might frustrate my opponent to eliminate" construct. An opponent's annoyance is rarely based on frustration vs cost.

Net frustration is the only measure they're interested in.

If i wanted 100% net frustration, omg lol 9 Talos, 9 Cronos, 9 Grots, 2 Haemonculus. lol. Maybe 8 Grots so the Cronos can have the 18" gun.

sekac wrote:

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I think running them in a AoF detachment is you trying to force them to be something they are not good at, which is survivability. AoF work great for things that are already hard to kill, and then exemplifies it to make it very frustrating. Sure, survivability goes up, but the opportunity cost in my mind is too high to justify that. Reapers want to do damage and lots of it, we should help them with that cause.

I'm not saying I disagree with your larger point, but aren't reapers the most survivable thing we have? They're a Talos, with a slightly worse armor save and 5 extra wounds. If AoF is best used on making tough things tougher, then wouldn't it also be good for making the toughest thing tougher?

Just because it is our toughest thing like you said, doesn't make it "tough." It is easy to kill, whether you add AoF on it or not, that is the point. The point of making our "toughest" thing tougher when in reality it isn't very tough to begin with makes no sense. If something isn't tough, it isn't tough.

@StrangeDarkOne
The Reaper is not effective when it degrades.. Yes, it can still move (like all vehicles) and yes you can use Enhanced Aethersails on it to help move it, but if you advance it, you cannot shoot it because its guns are Heavy not Assault like Ravagers/Raiders. So useful? HIGHLY situational movement needed at the end of a game? It will rarely make it to the end of the game and using EA on it to move it will rarely ever make it happen.

My overall point is, we need our units like Reapers, who have the possibility to do high amounts of damage, need to ensure they the most damage as possible. They aren't there to absorb hits (they can't do that effectively) and they aren't there to have Enhanced Aethersails used on them either. They are there to pump out High strength, great AP, and High damage shots at big targets.

And I am not saying AoF won't be effective necessarily, I'm saying you are trying to do something with a unit that isn't good at it (survivability). If it works for you Amish, good! I hope it does!

SCP Yeeman wrote:

@StrangeDarkOne
The Reaper is not effective when it degrades.. Yes, it can still move (like all vehicles) and yes you can use Enhanced Aethersails on it to help move it, but if you advance it, you cannot shoot it because its guns are Heavy not Assault like Ravagers/Raiders. So useful? HIGHLY situational movement needed at the end of a game? It will rarely make it to the end of the game and using EA on it to move it will rarely ever make it happen.

My overall point is, we need our units like Reapers, who have the possibility to do high amounts of damage, need to ensure they the most damage as possible. They aren't there to absorb hits (they can't do that effectively) and they aren't there to have Enhanced Aethersails used on them either. They are there to pump out High strength, great AP, and High damage shots at big targets.

And I am not saying AoF won't be effective necessarily, I'm saying you are trying to do something with a unit that isn't good at it (survivability). If it works for you Amish, good! I hope it does!

There must be a misunderstanding. All my points were on the additional utility brought in by AotF Raiders.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

Just because it is our toughest thing like you said, doesn't make it "tough." It is easy to kill, whether you add AoF on it or not, that is the point. The point of making our "toughest" thing tougher when in reality it isn't very tough to begin with makes no sense.  If something isn't tough, it isn't tough.

This sounds like an argument against AoF in general, not its misuse on a Reaper. If AoF makes no difference on our toughest platform, then it won't make a difference on anything available to us.

Are you just saying you think AoF is bad? Not asking a loaded question, just genuinely trying to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

@Strange
I was trying to stay on topic by talking about Reapers. If Raiders is what you want to talk about, I would love to talk about them in a different topic.

@Sekac
You're not understanding what I said or I did a poor job explaining. Reapers are not "tough," period. A T6, 12W , 4+/5++ platform is not "tough." It isn't our toughest platform as Amish said, that would be Grotesques and Talos/Cronos.
Talos/Cronos + Grotesques are actually tough platforms and actually can absorb damage. They are good because they are tough. They want to be tough and making them tougher makes them better at what they are good at. You want to exemplify their strength (toughness) by making them tougher with AoF. This makes them better at what they were designed to be and what they are actually good at, which is being tough.
Reapers are not tough. They will not be tough if we try to make them tough. They also don't want to be tough. Their job is to deal damage, plain and simple, not to be tough or to last because they are not good at it no matter how hard we try and make them. It's a square peg round hole argument. Because they want to deal damage and their role is to deal damage, we should exemplify (help) them do damage. We can do this through Dark Technomancy, Black Heart, even Flayed Skull to a degree. We should not make a unit something it was not good at or designed to be; in this case Reapers becoming "tough."
Overall, I think AoF can have a place. But, right now, I think PoF beats it because of the 4++, Relic, Urien, Warlord Trait. I think it is better because of the things outside of the trait itself. It would be a much more fascinating debate if both had just the trait to work with, but PoF has so much more going for it. It's not that I think it is bad, it's just not as good as Prophets who also give you what you want, survivability. If we were to run lots of skimmers, I would want to run Dark Technomancy and maybe Master of Mutagens for Venoms, not AoF for the same reasons above with the Reapers and because it will benefit me more as a whole I believe.

All I'm simply saying is that if T6, 12W, 4+/5++ is not tough, then there is absolutely no way that T6, 7W, 3+/5++/6+++ can be considered tough. Period.

Trading 5 wounds for one point of armor and 6+++ makes you significantly less sturdy, there is no debating that. A reaper is harder to kill than a talos.

If you want to argue toughness vs cost, that's a separate conversation. It's a list building conversation. A conversation that doesn't seem to fit in this thread, because it was never about building an efficient list. Pointing out that an inefficient but interesting idea is inefficient seems to miss the point as, I understand it.

You cant talk about toughness if you don't talk about cost, that is ridiculous. one 98 point Talos is not as tough one 150pt Reaper. But the ability to group them up into 2's and 3's? Makes them tough. The stratagems that can used on Talos vs an AoF Reaper makes Talos tougher. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you...

You HAVE TO include cost when talking about the units, it is not a separate conversation it becomes part of the conversation.

Look, you want to run Reapers and think they are tough, go ahead. You'll be thoroughly disappointed in their toughness. And this is coming from a guy that runs two in his lists.

You're missing the big picture here, but it's fine.

I'm really not missing the big picture, I'm trying to frame my point of view around the goal of this thread. Re-read the OP. The following is the entire thesis.

amishprn86 wrote:

I so want to try this for fun a few times.

Is there any indication that he's decided on 3x AoF Reapers is the most efficient way to run them? Nope.

If someone says "I want to try this because I think it will be fun", the reply "you shouldn't because there are more efficient options" misses the point.

The goal is to try something interesting, the math hammer is wholly irrelevant.

I never gave mathhammer and never will, so wrong again.

And I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum, where you can express opinions? Odd other people also shared opinions but you want to target me.

Amish can do whatever he wants and take what I say however he wants. I will offer my advice or insight when I want. Sorry people disagreeing with you and giving advice is not something you enjoy to see.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

I never gave mathhammer and never will, so wrong again.

And I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum, where you can express opinions? Odd other people also shared opinions but you want to target me.

Amish can do whatever he wants and take what I say however he wants. I will offer my advice or insight when I want. Sorry people disagreeing with you and giving advice is not something you enjoy to see.

I've clearly upset you, and I'm sorry. That was not my intention. I'm not trying to shut you down, I'm trying to have a conversation. You know, where people reply back and forth? Please don't mistake my persistence with belligerence, I've been trying (and failing) to ensure we don't talk past eachother. It's far too easy to do online.

You're obviously able to offer your opinion about whatever, I've got no qualms about that. It just doesn't strike me as necessarily a good use of time to reply to a question nobody is asking.

If someone wants ideas for fun ways to spend their money, a dissertation on wise financial investing might not be the best reply. Not because it isn't true, but because that's not what your audience is looking for.

If you feel your opinions will provide insight and value, by all means, share them. Just don't be shocked if someone is confused by the relevance.

And, at any rate, you ARE talking about math hammer even if you don't express it mathematically. In an absolute sense, the Reaper is tougher than a Talos because its defensive stats are better. It is factually harder to kill than a Talos.

But you are also right, that a Talos is a more efficient defensive platform due to its cost. But that is a conclusion that can only be derived from math. It's a division problem. Value/cost. If a Talos and a Reaper were both 100 points, I don't think you'd be arguing with me at all--the Reaper would clearly be tougher both in the absolute sense (which, currently, it is) and in a cost-efficiency sense (which, currently, it is not).

I didn't mean to give you the wrong impression, and I agree with your conclusions and advice if someone is looking to optimize a list with Reapers.

It's just that if someone presents an idea with "fun" as the basis, I'm going to try to tailor my ideas to not change their mind on that, but how they could perhaps add to the fun or something.

I believe it is only the philosophy on our approach to conversations that we disagree on, because your list building advice is solid.

Me reading the can of wurms i opened

Haha! I probably wouldn't have commented at all, I've never used a Reaper in my life. I only jumped in when I wasn't sure I totally understood what others were saying. I had no idea I'd be stirring things up!



So...erm...have you tried it out yet?