best heavy support?

What would you recommend as heavy support for a 1000 point army warrior based with wyches/ scourge for anti tank?

AA: zoivraven, AT: Ravager, AI: razorwing or Rav w disints

I'm not really a fan of the Ravager models...are Talos Pain Engine any good? They are awesome looking.

Talos Pain Engines and Cronos Pain Engines are both very useful and resilient, however they are not resilient enough to walk up the field normally. Generally the pain engines are tough and good once they are close to the enemy but the tricky part is getting them to the enemy relatively unharmed. With the new WWP rule that you can't assault out of them it got a little tougher to use the pain engines effectively as that was the most effective strategy that most people had for them. You still can bring the pain engines out of the WWP, it just wouldn't be as hard hitting because they can only shoot the turn they arrive and must wait until next turn to assault. This would still work if you set up your units and positioning well it just would be more difficult, and walking up the field tends to be less than useful as they do not do much other than absorb some fire, which although is good and if used right then some people I am sure can make it work; I think they are too easy to down walking up the field. These are just ideas as I do not normally use pain engines I personally like the Razorwing so you could have better luck than me and I am sure if you practiced at it you could find a useful way to put them into your list. There is very little in the Dark Eldar Codex that can't be used effectively if you really want it in your army so feel free to experiment with friends using proxies as it can be very helpful with deciding what you want to get

Yes, I've been finding the Talos much more useful now, almost on par with a ravager. But it really depends on your list.

To compare them you have to consider the base ravager, and a Talos with TL Haywire blasters.

I won't go into a full break down, but the survivability will be roughly equal now, with the Talos being slightly more succeptible to small arms, and the Ravager being slightly more succeptible to high Str weapons.

Killing, the Ravager will be more reliable at getting a pen, and since it will operate at maximum range, often moving back for survivability 36" is it's likely range, thought it can re-position better. The Talos will often move forward, so 6" + 24" haywire, giving it 30" and generally stripping just under a hull point per turn. The offset for the Talos is it's ability to wade into close combat, it can very quickly finish up vehicles with smash attacks, or take out a transports occupants.

The key to keeping a Talos from being focused seems to be having something in the list that will be fast moving harassment unit, reavers, beasts, maybe even venom bound wyches. So it really depends on what kind of list you build, if the Talos is going to be your vanguard unit, he's probably not going to survive as well as a ravager.

Yeah I'v been tempted to use these monstrous creatures in conjunction with my fast moving harassment units. currently running a large unit of beasts and a large hellion squad with Baron. For my heavy support I just use two jet fighters but have been less than impressed with their performance. I was thinking about using 2 Talos and 1 Chronos for all of my heavy support slots. I think they(perhaps not all) will be able to get to the enemies lines due to the fact that my opponent will also have beasts and hellions to deal with...Has anyone tried something along these lines? Successful?

CovenoftheDamned wrote:

Yeah I'v been tempted to use these monstrous creatures in conjunction with my fast moving harassment units. ...Has anyone tried something along these lines? Successful?

I been running a reaver heavy list in 6th edition and recently I have added to Talos, and so far it has been working out well, but I have yet to play them against a mobile enemy. There is a report (with pictures) in my signature if you are interested.

Oh man great report! pics were very helpful as well.

Talos engines seemed to either melt or smash anything close enough. Game looked a bit grim when all of the drop pods/land-speeders were in your face, however that seemed to play to the talos engines advatage. They took a hefty beating but dished out a heavier one! That post/report is basically exactly what I needed to hear/see to make up my mind. Although disintegrator ravagers would have helped blast some marines, having the ability to engage in close combat proved quite handy. I believe two talos and one chronos will prove to be a great way to fill the heavy support slot.

As for the lack of mobility and the lack of facing a mobile opponent... that test is yet to be taken(you should let me know if/when you do). However, i feel that having those large squads of reavers, or my large squads of beasts and hellions, will buy the monsterous creatures enough time to get across the board. If the opponent decides to focus the talos/chronos then they better be prepared to deal beats and hellions

CovenoftheDamned wrote:

As for the lack of mobility and the lack of facing a mobile opponent... that test is yet to be taken(you should let me know if/when you do). However, i feel that having those large squads of reavers, or my large squads of beasts and hellions, will buy the monsterous creatures enough time to get across the board. If the opponent decides to focus the talos/chronos then they better be prepared to deal beats and hellions

Glad the reports were helpful.

I will find out whether mobility is an issue in my next game against a Eldar Mech army (and of course there will be a report). I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons you mentioned, but there is only one way to find out!

The best lance/points ratio is definitely Ravager, but now that the flyers are proper flyers, Voidraven looks pretty good as well. With 4 missiles it's too expensive, but with 0-2 (depending on whether you want to go pure tank/flyer hunting or retain the anti-infantry apha strike capability) it's not much more expensive than the Razorwing (same cost with no missiles, in fact). 2 s9 lances are statistically as good as 3 s8 ones, the void mine is no longer a complete joke (it on scatters D6 and will do a s9 lance hit on any vehicles it even grazes), and it's a flyer, so it can shoot down enemy flyers and is hit by most things on 6s. Only problem is the same as all flyers have, manouverability (I do wish they'd give our flyers vector dancer. All FW's CWE and DE flyers have it).

My trio of talos have gotten a reputation in my local gaming place
I been on love with their performance since the new codex hit the shelves, and they have jet to disappoint me. The movement have never been an issue, if you rush the enemies, they normally hit combat a round or two later, but they hit like a wall of bricks. Feel no pain also work to their advantage in this edition, and then my talos didn’t fell the 4th lascanon wound in a row, my space marine opponent was close to tears.
I equip my taluses with tw haywire, and chainflails. The haywire is just to good not take, just 5pts, and you can strip 1 hull point every turn. And the chain flail rally helps the combat performance. Chanfalils combined with the smash ability can really ruin everyone’s days.

Mushkilla wrote:

I will find out whether mobility is an issue in my next game against a Eldar Mech army (and of course there will be a report). I don't think it will be a problem for the reasons you mentioned, but there is only one way to find out!

I am looking forward to the report! Best of luck!

I do think, overall, the Voidraven is our best heavy support. It is more versatile than the Razorwing. Ravagers and Taloi are tied for third, because they are very good with the right tactics, but more easily dealt with than flyers (with less overall output). Cronos is still quite good. It just is more support than heavy, if you catch my drift. That can be a strength though, since pain tokens are always awesome, and it tends to be underestimated or ignored more often.

point for point the ravager is still our best HS, with the void raven and razorwing coming in a close second (due to the new flyer rules)

Talos is ok, but you have to have a plan to use one effectively, just throwing it on the field doesnt work well

The chronos is kinda in a weird position. Its strickly AI, but we already bring so much AI in our army, I highly doubt its needed. But if you have a list that synergizes with pain tokens, then the chronos is your HS of choice

Whoa now. We can talk about "point for point" all day, but what's really more useful for comparisons is to just pit the units against each other in a likely scenario. If an army is maximizing Ravagers, it will probably need an Aegis to have any chance against flyers. Let's see how the two Heavy Supports fare against each other with the Aegis included...

3 Ravagers: 9 DL, 3 NS
1 Aegis with Quad-gun (we'll assume BS4 at no extra points, which is generous)
445 pts

-versus-

3 Voidravens: 6 VL, 3VM, 1 NTM
445 pts

FIGHT!!!

(Ravagers get first turn.)
Turn 1.
- Ravs have no Voids to target.
- Voids haven't arrived yet.
Turn 2.
- Ravs still have no Voids to target.
- 2 Voids arrive, shooting 4 VLs + 1 NTM at the quad-gun (T7 W2 Sv3+). 3-4 hits, about 3 wounds. 4+ cover from barricade. The gun survives with a wound about 54% of the time. I think at this point, most players would divert DL or two from their other forces, but we'll assume not to keep the comparison clean.
Turn 3.
- Ravs and quad-gun fire (I will give the quad 54% effectiveness to abstractly reperesent the chance that it is already gone). Overall, they have a 78% chance of destroying a single Voidraven (I could factor in shaken/stunned/weapon destroyed, but omitted it for simplicity on both sides).
- Another Void arrives (67% of the time, factored in). The first Void(s) move into enemy board half. One Void shoots at the quad-gun 46% of the time, killing it off with an 88% probability. The other 54% of the time, it combines it's firepower with the other Void(s) against the Ravs. They destroy a Rav 60% of the time (abstractly, 2.40 Ravs remain).
Turn 4.
- The remaining Ravs snap fire valiantly at the Voidravens, destroying one 33% of the time (plus 78% previous, there are now exactly 2 Voids remaining on average, we'll assume the one that was shot at earlier).
- One Void drops a mine, but is not able to turn to face a Ravager. The other moves into the enemy board half and fires VLs again. Together they kill another 0.56 Ravagers (1.84 remain).
Turn 5.
- Ravs snap fire again. They only destroy one 20% of the time (1.80 Voids remain).
- One Void swings around to fire while the other drops a mine but can't shoot. Another 0.56 Ravagers go down (1.28 remain).
Voids outperformed Ravs by 67%.
Turn 6 (67% occurrance).
- Ravs destroy a Void 14% of the time (1.66 remain).
- One Void is able to shoot, -0.35 Ravs (0.93 remain).
Voids outperformed Ravs by 70%.
Turn 7 (22% occurrance)
- Rav(s) destroy 10% (1.56 Voids remain).
- A Void destroys 24% (34% chance this Void was destroyed, 0.69 Ravs remain).
Voids outperformed Ravs by 71%.

Overall: Voids outperformed Ravs by 70%.

You probably could have guessed that outcome, but it surprises me that people still espouse and suggest the Ravager over the Voidraven when one gets outperformed by the other badly at equal point values. I could also write one of these up for if the Ravs go second, but I doubt it will change much. Facing other armies will change things, and facing no flyers and AV10 and/or open-topped will improve the Ravs' numbers, but certainly not by a margin of 70%.

The other thing that can change things is smaller point games where 445 points sunk into Heavy Support is not all that likely. I'd say the lowest you could reasonably go is 1000 points, with 555 left over for two Troops and an HQ being a tight squeeze, but doable.

Krovin-Rezh wrote:

but what's really more useful for comparisons is to just pit the units against each other in a likely scenario.

And vacuum comparisons made sense since when? Did you take into account flyers are only on the board for about 4 turns, or their limited mobility? That's like saying my artillery win's a fight against your tank, therefore tanks are worthless. You are comparing apples and oranges.

At the end of the day a ravager is on the table from turn 1 and can help you get first blood.

But then again I run Talos.

I do really appreciate the comparison, but I agree with Mushkilla that the limited Mobility of the Voids is going to be problematic.

Even in the best of worlds, it would be something like this:

Turn 2 Voids: - 2 Voids arrive, the Quad gun shoots an interceptor shot and then shooting happens like you said above
Turn 3 Ravs: Surviving Ravagers move within 18" of the Voidravens, turboboost if they have to. If they can get outside threat range without turbo boosting, they shoot this turn too.
Turn 3 Voids: Last void arrive and shoot. Remaining two Voids have to fly off
Turn 4 Ravs: Shoot the Lone voidraven, again moving close to it forcing it to fly off if survives
Turn 4 voids: Arrives, shoots at ravs

etc. etc.

In effect, you can only count on the 2 of the Voids shooting in turn 2 and 4, and the last one in turn 3 and 5. Also factoring in that all 3 Ravs will shoot things at turn 1...

Oops, forgot about interceptor! My bad there. Quad-gun has a 40% chance to destroy a Voidraven when it arrives. That could help a bit, however the quad-gun is still going down by turn 3, and then and Voidravens remaining will have their way with the Ravagers.

A quick adjustment of the numbers:
Turn 2.
2 Voids arrive. Quad intercepts one 40% of the time.
Remaining 1.60 Voids destroy quad 44% of the time.
Turn 3.
Quad shoots 56%, plus Ravs, destroying a Void 88% of the time.
Third Void arrives 67% of the time. Quad intercepts 17% of the time. 1.62 Voids destroy take the quad down to 20% chance of survival instead of 12%.
From then on, you have a small shift with slightly fewer Voids and slightly more Ravs, but they are still severely outgunned once the quad is dealt with.

Mushkilla, a vacuum matchup made sense in this case because we are only considering which unit gives us the most firepower for the points. So I'm excluding as many other factors as possible while still keeping the scenario as something that would actually happen. You could factor in the other guns in an entire army list, which I'm sure will sway things even more in the Voidraven's favor (none of those guns will have skyfire). I just decided not to for simplicity's sake.

Setomidor, I'm fairly certain that flyers can get about 2 turns of shooting done before they are out of position if you do it right. The opponent can rush his Ravagers to get behind the Voids, but should be losing a turn of shooting to do so (flat out). The Voids just go out of position (or into ongoing reserves) for a single turn and do it all over again. My previous example was actually worse than this, considering they spent the last few turns shooting only 1/2 the time. So if you think they shoot less than 2/3 of the time, the original sequence is probably a good approximation.

As for Ravagers shooting other targets on the opening turns, I didn't factor it in for the reasons that (1) the army with Voids is typically better off hiding until they arrive, and (2) terrain placement rules ensure a reasonable chance that the player will have enough places to hide from the Ravagers. If a few shooters are able to spot the hiding units, we can attribute that to the rest of the army, which we are omitting. Any posittional disadvantages hiding might cause are usually rendered moot by the DE's exceptional movement.

Thanks for the feedback

Krovin-Rezh, you forgot to factor in interceptor, which gives the quad gun atleast 1 damage result on average against the void ravens before they even get a chance to shoot.

check the stats against AV11, the majority of armor out there. Against AV11 the ravager on average does 1.334 damage results against it, while the void raven does an average of 1.111 results. Both are the same on the chart as both are AP2. And the ravager is by far cheaper (40pts worth)

What the void raven does get for those 40 pts though is survivability (closed top, flyer status), but loses alot on mobility, which personally I find is the key to dark eldar.

So yes, the ravager is still the superior HS choice in my oppinion

Krovin-Rezh wrote:

Mushkilla, a vacuum matchup made sense in this case because we are only considering which unit gives us the most firepower for the points.

Like I said I'm not a fan of vacuum comparisons.

But if you are going to compare two units so see "which unit gives us the most fire-power" it would make a lot more sense to compare them against the targets you expect them to take in your army. Not against each other.

Triple Dark Lance:

Spoiler:

Double Void Lance:

Spoiler:

Other things to take into account:

-A void raven is harder to hit, but will spend more time in range of enemy weapons (due to flyer movement).
-A ravager is easier to hit but doesn't need to spend point on a flicker field, and benefits more from a night shield.
-A void will rarely shoot more then 4 turns.
-Fast units can outmanoeuvre the void raven.
-The ravager can be assaulted, the void raven can't.
-Ravagers help create target saturation on your first turn, flyers mean you start with less of your army on the board.
-The void raven has a void mine.
-The ravager is open topped.
-Cost a void raven cost 40 points more then a ravager.
-The void raven is better against other flyers.

Really you are trying to compare two very different units, that function in two completely different ways. Both with different advantages and disadvantages. Like I said apples and oranges. It makes no sense to compare these two units on a mathematical level, as there are two many factors to take into account that cant be represented mathematically. It just doesn't make sense.

Only way to be sure what heavy support is best in each individuals army is to just play the game. Vacuum stats are useful to some people and have their place somewhere when considering unit choices (though i honestly cant think of a good reason to analyze things in a fixed controlled environment). Its a dice game, things aren't always going to work like they do on paper. Its difficult to say that "X" is the absolute best choice.
Shadows likes the void raven in his/her army.
Others like to have some ravagers.
Mushkilla and I have found success with taking the road less traveled.
Any of these heavy choices can and will have success if the player designs the list to compliment all of his/her units.

Still waiting on the latest report Mush

CovenoftheDamned wrote:

Still waiting on the latest report Mush

Will be at least another week I'm afraid.

Well, regardless of whether you think the comparison's numbers are useful, it does illustrate the main point I'm trying to get across. Ravagers with an Aegis are not up to the challenge of facing multiple flyers. Try to ignore them for the rest of the army and you take lots of punishment over the length of the game. Try to focus them down and you waste a lot of shooting with snap fired lances.

That is why the Voidraven is my top pick. I don't use it exclusively, but I do think it's the most useful thing to have in a competitive environment, since it has the ability to deal with anything in a long-lived package.

I agree with you it is our best solution to flyers.

If Eldar get their own flyer, I'll replace my second DE flyer with an allied Eldar one and go back to double Ravager+Flyer, because Ravagers are a really good way to get mobile long range AT for cheap, and unlike flyers they can engage the enemy on turn 1 (and unlike Blasterborn, have the range to engagme most enemies on turn 1 while remaining relatively safe). Untill then, I think atleast 2 flyers are pretty much a necessaity in tournament play since most other armies also have flyers and you need to shoot them down somehow. Also flyers are veyr powerful, even if the fact they must start in reserves hurts the alpha strike potential (the main reason I'd need more long range AT on first turn is to shoot enemy anti air before my flyers arrive).