Raider warriors vs. Venom warriors

......I think, as has been said, both methods work in the right army with the right playstyle.  It's just a matter of what you like.  Personally, I like msu.  I never had much success with the large gun boats that had to get in close with splinter racks.  The ride never lasted more than a turn or 2, and the splinter rack was gone.  I agreed with Kaine about the max number of DL as possible, but what I've run into, and granted, I play against a lot of Necrons, DL just don't cut it.  1 DL shot into wraiths gets shrugged off.  1 DL shot into scarabs gets absorbed.  There just aren't enough shots.  Both units absorb large quantities of splinter fire as well and both can be assaulting you turn 2 if you aren't mobile. Both units will decimate warriors as well if they're holed up in some cover.

I need long range, "mobile", AI shots for them and lots of it for forcing saves.  

I have run lists that use both msu and the larger gun boats and have done well, making them each kind of specialise.  That goes to crap as soon as their rides are gone though and then they're still just warriors.  So to each their own.  There's no such thing as a right way or wrong way as long as you can make it work.

Either way, warriors end up being primarily AI, and I think venoms give you the best option for AI. I bring other units for AT for lots of balance.  Ravagers, Bomber, 5x wych squad w/ haywire, beasts make great AT units, Grotesques, The Baron, Trueborn w/ blasters, reavers, and all of it in 1 army with 5 venoms for my long range AI.  I think my crazy ass list works b/c nobody know what to shoot first.

The trick with gunboat raiders, is not to run night shields, not to run flicker fields, not to run splinter racks and to run the warrior squad outside the raider in cover but within embarking distance.

I read that on one of your other posts and have yet to try that tactic. I'll actually be trying it out tomorrow night against a Necron Opponent.

ThePhish wrote:

I read that on one of your other posts and have yet to try that tactic.  I'll actually be trying it out tomorrow night against a Necron Opponent.

It sounds really counter intuitive but it has served me well in my last dozen games or so. Also don't be afraid of going to ground with warriors in area terrain for a 3+ cover save, splinter cannons are not that bad on snapfire and you want those warriors around to score late game. It's also really surprising how mush people ignore empty raiders.

i use warrior gunboats or blastervenoms alot and both have the same purpose specialize anti infantry with one while the other specializes with tanks.

i run warrior gunboats as 10 with S.Cannon raider night shields and splinter racks, no blaster but the whole squads purpose is to shoot at infantry.

Venoms are better if you are up against infantry heavy lists with little tank support as you can gun down infantry as you move into range of the armored support

raiders are the exact opposite in they will put shots at vehicles from range and mop up infantry as you/they move in.

as the taco girl says why not both? i find having an equal mix of each compliments each other really well. especially for deployment cover saves when going second

I used to use Raiders in 5th, but with the edition change, I switched to nearly-all venoms. Purely for the casualties inflicted...

With the new rules for an exploding vehicle and how easy it is to do... (1/2 chance on ap 2, 2/3 on ap 1) compared to last edition, which had us at 1/3rd on ap 2 and 1/2 on ap 1...., that means...(insert detailed math here) of a chance when your raider gets shot at, it will explode...

If your Raider blows up, 2/3rds will take a wound, and only 1/3rd will save. (insert complicated maths again) leaving roughly 5-6 models left Of course 5/6 models can do something, thats all dependent on the scenario. In all, you lost... approx. 109 points

If your venom blows up, you still lose the same percentage...but on average, you lose 2 models.

That is a loss of approx. 83. Now both units to me are rather useless. THey can either try to grab an objective, or they will soak up fire for the easy kill point.

My venom squad tends to have a blaster, so it can take pop shots at marines and terminators (or anything else that gets close) until they have to deal with it. THe other unit (assuming you went with full splinter fire) will do an average of 2 wounds to something, without ignoring a save...

With regard to dark lances on (raider) warrior squads, I dislike the idea.

My reasons:

1) It's expensive. For a start, we have to take 10 men just to gain the option of a dark lance. Then, once we've done that, we get absolutely no discount on an already-overpriced weapon. Compare that to marine tactical squads - who pay just 10pts for a lascannon, or 0pts for a missile launcher, and can even combat squad to make the best use of both their long-range weapon as well as any short-range weapons or transports they might have bought. Dark Angel tactical marines pay 20pts for a lascannon... but can take one with just 5 men (thus saving even more points).

2) It will result in the vast majority of your squad doing nothing. Basic warriors can't even hurt AV10, so if you want the squad to shoot at a vehicle then the other 9 warriors will be contributing nothing that turn.

3) It forces you to forgo the main advantage of playing dark eldar - manoeuvrability. If you want to fire your dark lance (and I assume you do, because you bought it) then the unit has to remain stationary. This seems like a pretty big disadvantage. I mean, if you just want to sit still at the back firing heavy weapons, you might as well play IG or SWs.

4) Dark Lances are available elsewhere. Dark/Void Lances are available on Ravagers, Ravenwings, Voidravens and Raiders - all of which can move and still fire them. Then you have Trueborn and Scourges, both of which can take 2 dark lances per 5. It's still a pain in terms of overpriced weapons and no manoeuvrability, but both of those are a lot more efficient in terms of dark lances and 'wasted' men.

5) Warriors have better choices available. The humble blaster, in addition to being cheaper than a dark lance, also fits their strategy better in that they can move and still shoot it normally.

doomseer11b wrote:

I don't really understand half of what is being said.  Something about 3 wracks and 8 points per shot????  Anyway, why would we bring 3 wracks in a venom?  I don't see the point.  I could bring 2 squads of 3-4 trueborn with 2 splinter cannons for a total of 48 points, stick them in a ruin, keep there transport empty.  So 3 squads of splinter born each with 12 shots at 36" and the venoms they're not in.  It cuts down the need for a five man squad as they're getting a cover save and not moving and the enemy usually focuses on the venoms.  It's cheap and leaves you with options to bring venoms without having to fill them.  Also a good back up vehicle if a smaller squad needs a ride. Or you can put more 45 point warrior squads in it, personally I like the 24-36 inch range with the venom.  Just adds a little more effectiveness and also puts more cheap troop choices on the board that could e dropped off in some terrain to claim obj's while the trueborn and venoms take out their troop choices

The part that says 3 wracks are 8 points per shot also talks about Trueborns on Venoms .. However you only have 3 Elite slots so you want something more flexible besides splinter borne eg True born with Dark Lances , Blaster born or Incubi. You can get Wracks as troops with an Haemi ( and in fact converting 2.5 warriors to Wracks pays for the Haemi) .

Its still best to have venoms so when the drop pods of assault troops land you just run away and keep the range at 36". Always good to have lots of venoms and raiders... 3-4 wont work as the enemy can take them down I run 7 Venoms , 2 Raiders and 3 Ravengers at 1750. I asume i loose 2 per turn but what is left is good enough.

I don't think it's as clear cut as people make it out to be, both venoms and raider have their place. Also how your list functions is a huge deciding factor. Bellow is a quote from a discussion I had in another thread which I think illustrates the point quite well.

Mushkilla wrote:

Quote :

One thing I will ask Mush...

Would your army list benefit from MSU of Kabalites or Wychs on Venoms instead of Raiders?

It's general Dark Eldar knowledge that Venoms are amazing. So adding venoms to my list would make it better? A logical train of thought.

My warriors squads in raiders are currently 160pts each (10 warriors, splinter cannon, raider). A warrior squad in a venom is 125pts (5 warrors, blaster, venom, extra cannon). So replacing my current set up with three venoms would save me 105pts (not enough to get an extra venom). For arguments sake say I save some points somewhere else in the list and get a fourth venom.

I would have four small scoring units as opposed to three large scoring units, making my scoring units significantly more fragile (going from 30 bodies to 20 bodies). In addition consider how the two warrior set ups operate: venom warriors need to get close to use their blasters and tend to stay in their transport (a dangerous place to be), raider warriors stay outside their raiders, sit back in area terrain and fire their splinter weapons form relative safety. Taking the above into account it becomes apparent that raider warriors are more likely to be around to score at the end of the game than venom warriors.

There are a few more things to consider. Running venoms instead of raiders means I would lose three dark lances (effectively a ravager) reducing my tun 1 AT (blasters with their short range are not an adequate substitute). Then there is target priority, a venom is always going to be a priority target because of their impressive splinter fire, an empty raider on the other hand more often than not gets ignored, meaning I'm far more likely to have late game mobility.

Warriors in area terrain with an empty raider near by are deceptively mobile. They can redeploy to an objective that is between 49-59" away in two turns (T4: 2d6 pick the highest + 2" embark range + 12" raider move + 18" flat out + T5: 6" raider move + 6" disembark + 1d6 re-rollable fleet run + 3" objective capture range). Perfect for capturing objectives in the late game.

Finally if you look at my list as a whole. I use grotesques, now if I go second the chances are they will lose their raider and have to foot-slog. With the extra raiders in my list that's not a problem, as long as there is a raider within embarking distance they can just jump aboard that one. As a result if I deploy my four raiders near my grotesques at the beginning of the game my opponent has to make a choice, does he try and take out four empty raiders so my grotesques can't rush his line? Or does he take out my ravagers? It's important that your list asks "questions" like these, as it forces your opponent to make tough choices and as a result mistakes which you can capitalise on.

So back to your original question I don't think my current list would benefit more from running venoms instead of raiders. As the raiders are a key component of the list.

Hope that's helpful.

I still dont like duel mission units do the Raiders move to where the vehicles are or the infantry .. A wise player against DE in raiders may put his vehicles on the left and most of the infantry on the right.

4 Warrior in Raiders would be almost 7 wracks Venoms at 95 .. The points saved allows proper AT eg Eldar walkers at 70 , blasterborn and proper assault units like 10 Wracks , some Wyches for anti vehicle or Incubi.

I dont like all Venoms you need options ..but they are our most cost effect anty infantry fire power especially with Wracks ...

Agree with the poster the most important question is not what i will do but what my opponent will do and kill.