Would you swap a Ravager for 1 or 2 units of Reavers?

The question is in the title. I've planned an army out (1750pts) with some decent shooting and CC and currently have no fast attack but the standard 3x Dark Lance Ravagers.

Lelith
Incubi in Raider
Blaster Trueborn in Venom
Blaster Trueborn in Venom
Wyches in Raider
Wyches in Raider
Warriors in Venom
Warriors in Venom
3x Ravagers

If I remove a Ravager and swap my HQ (Lelith is there for fun really) for something cheaper, I could get one big unit or two small units of Reaver Jetbikes with Heat Lances...

Are a couple of heat lances on Reavers an acceptable substitute for a Ravager or would I be hurting the list to lose some dark lances?

Any thoughts would be welcome!

Would I? Yeah sure why not, whats the worst thing that could happen, I might loose?

In my old age l seem to care more about certain things and less about others.

Not to mention your opponents might appreciate a change of pace, instead of going....

Blasterborn in a venom.....Check
3 Ravagers with DLs.....Check

Seriously, you might be better served by keeping the Ravager but I don't see you totally hamstringing your list by trying to spice it up a bit w/ some Reavers, try it out. (If you don't have the models just proxy the reavers)

Well, Ravagers compared to Reavers in decent numbers cost less for more anti-tank guns BUT The Reavers have AP 1 Lances, which is gold IMO. Do what ya like man, as far as effectiveness goes I'd still recommend Ravager over Reavers but more varied units = more varied tactics = fun times

doing the math, a 3 dark lance ravager can 25% effectively destroy armor 12 as compared with a reaver squad with 2 heat lances is better at 33%. resilience wise you are better off with the ravager which can fire from a distance of 36" away. so the reavers are treated as an intermediate to advanced player's unit and the ravager as a beginner's unit since you really have to mind the survivability of the reavers.

I would not.

Reavers have to get close, and a skilled player will not leave anything out there that is unsupported. so you shoot a landraider at range 9 to get the melta shot, then the tact marines or whatever shoots you back and your dead.

The ravager gives you everything you need, range 36 str 8 lance shot. Whats not to like? its cheap, effective, and can move quickly and still fire all of its shots.

I have to admit, I simply do not understand the obsession with melta weapons. I like the lance weapons, they are simple and effective and always work at full range. My next favorite after them is the haywire weapons, work great everytime.

leave the melta for marines, they need the help.

In a non-WWP list I think the Ravager is better - it can pretty much get into range no matter if it is starting on the board or coming out of reserves.

Bikes however, not so much - they have a problem that if the opponent gets to move first then the bikes are vulnerable and if the bikes start in reserve then they will not get into range with the lances right away.

If there is a WWP for them to come out of, bikes would easily replace my ravagers (which I would probably get a Talos instead) and leave the anti-tank to the Fast Attack spots (I also like Scourges for anti tank as well).

Grumpy Kwi wrote:

In a non-WWP list I think the Ravager is better - it can pretty much get into range no matter if it is starting on the board or coming out of reserves.

Bikes however, not so much - they have a problem that if the opponent gets to move first then the bikes are vulnerable and if the bikes start in reserve then they will not get into range with the lances right away.

If there is a WWP for them to come out of, bikes would easily replace my ravagers (which I would probably get a Talos instead) and leave the anti-tank to the Fast Attack spots (I also like Scourges for anti tank as well).

Agreed, a WWP list is much different and better suited to bikes and hellions.

it depends what ya want and how ya play.

Ravagers sit back and shoot. It's simple enough.

Reavers do lots of things - if you are playing daemons, tyranids, orks or even ig with blob you could be very glad of 6 bladevaning reavers with 2 grav talons. 2 units of 3 reavers with heat lances turbo boosting turn 1 offer a difficult proposition for a mech enemy. Dedicate firepower against a 78pt enemy with a 3+ save OR leave a melta weapon in the backfield to pop at rear armour.There is also challenging objectives at the last minute and their ability to join in cc if you really need it. This isn't exhaustive.

They do different things. Its not a straight anti tank for anti tank swap.

No although I actually have a massive dislike of ravagers. I mean i would much rather have two squads of warriors and fill the heavy support slot with a voidraven bomber, i find the heat lance to be a rather pathetic weapon when compared to a blaster as it is only strenth 6 as apposed to strenth 8 and since its an anti tank weapon AP1 is fairly useless. In conclusion although I would swap a ravager for 6 reavers with blasters. 6 reavers with heat lances? Not a chance!

AP 1 gives you a +1 on the vehicle damage chart. That is a delicious bite of awesome in my book. That being said, I rarely use heat lances and prefer dark lances/blasters.

V'rach wrote:

No although I actually have a massive dislike of ravagers. I mean i would much rather have two squads of warriors and fill the heavy support slot with a voidraven bomber, i find the heat lance to be a rather pathetic weapon when compared to a blaster as it is only strenth 6 as apposed to strenth 8 and since its an anti tank weapon AP1 is fairly useless. In conclusion although I would swap a ravager for 6 reavers with blasters. 6 reavers with heat lances? Not a chance!

AP1, STR 6, Lance AND Melta?:I'd say that the heat lance does just fine at killing armored vehicles.

Yes, people don't look at the bigger picture of Melta + Lance = Pens on average dice rolls when in 9" 2D6 range <.<

Ravager cost far less then effective units of reavers.

I don't know. Same cost the Ravager comes out on top unless you give it a boatload of un-needed upgrades. 4 Reavers - 1 Heat Lance/Blaster (Approxamitely equal with a standard Ravager with Night Shields or Flickerfields) isn't as good as 3 Lances any day of the week in my book.

Effective composition of Reavers starts with either 6 man 2 specials , or 2 MSU with same load out.
Otherwise its too unreliable and your placing much in one shot that can simply miss.
Redundancy and all that.

I might think of them as great complementary to Ravagers , but i hardly imagine situation where i dont fill all 3 Heavy Support slots. So they compete with other units , not ravagers or other Heavy Support choices.

The only thing I would consider switching out a Ravager in a competitive list is with a Razorwing, and that is provided that somehow you need to handle the hordes (Which I do need in my own list). Reavers are not even close in the equation. They can complement the ravagers, but they are definitely not something that would be taken over over a Ravager.

As for the heat lance, the main thing we have to notice is that it is extremely short-ranged for it to be effective, and personally for a shooting unit I do not like that unless I am using it as a mop-up unit or I have tons of the same units concentrated on the same place. In a Dark Eldar army, I believe that anything that needs to shoot effectively within a range of less that 18" is just giving some painful masochistic love to yourself.

Currently I am testing out the heat lance as I wanted to see the viability of AP1 lances in my list. Theoretically they should be decent, but practically it is much harder to prove their worth and they have proved to be wanting. In fact I kill more things with the bladevanes than the heat lance (current tally from four games is at 1500 points worth of bladevane killings to 0 points of heat lance killings). Will try it for 6 more games before I could throw in the towel for the heat lance.

My blasters and Dark Lances may be "square" and old-fashioned, but they deliver the goods all the time.

I was comparing equal cost to equal cost Azzy, shouldn't that be a good basis for everything? Otherwise it can get to 2 Ravagers or 9 Reavers and the like, differing point gaps in lists means you fill different things.

Wordy response for a simple final point, Crysis

It's not terribly short ranged (compared to normal melta, only a Multi-Melta Attack Bike has better 2D6 Melta range and a Rhino moving 12 and melta popping out 2" to fire's 2D6 is 20"; the Heat Lance has 21" (12" move, 9" short range); 1" difference yes but hey, noteworthy.

AP 1 is the reason Marines and Imperials top Dark Eldar so well, IMO. The +1 to damage tables just would help us so much because even with a buncha lances, the damage table is rough for single lances at a time, and when we do get multi-lance shots out, those are targeted by a smart opponent first (I sense most people here are afraid to admit to their opposition that their Blasterborn and Ravagers are key, because single missile shots are worse than dog's meat, I know it, most should know it.) In my experience, any amount of Lances I fit in, even with Heat Lances, is NOT enough. We can't take on a good Razorspam/Mech Guard, it's pretty much agreed, and reason why? Because we don't have reliable anti-tank readily available everywhere. Anti-Tank is, but not RELIABLE anti-tank, there's a difference

Really I don't care for AP 1 as much as having access to some good medium Str (6-7) firepower in volume, something DE clearly lack and IMO, need.

Smurfy wrote:

Wordy response for a simple final point, Crysis

I could just troll and say "NO LAZOR LANZ SUXXOR, REH VUH JUR AWESUMSAUCE!", you know.

Quote :

Really I don't care for AP 1 as much as having access to some good medium Str (6-7) firepower in volume, something DE clearly lack and IMO, need.

This is true to an extent, but I prefer multiple twin-linked str 8 shots.

The heat lance is a nice bonus for a reaver squad, though.

Reavers are mostly in my list (which is not primarily competitive, I should add) for harassment and opportunisitic strikes. I'm taking 6 with two lances, and for the extra 24pts, the lances mean that if after turbo-boost blade-vaning enemy units they find themselves in position for a smooth vehicle snipe then they can capitalize.

A slippery, very fast moving unit that's a serious threat to exposed units makes your opponent play far more conservatively. You don't have to use them for damage every turn, keeping them alive is usually more important and, over the course of the game, it's quite achievable to recoup the reavers value if you're careful with them.

They're not the same as ravagers though, and I'd not like to take them as part of my anti-tank quota as such; they're a different tool to use in conjunction with both the anti infantry and anti tank elements of the DE force, turning their attentions to mitigating the most potent threat or maximising the opportunity of the most exposed enemy unit as the situation dictates.

TL;DR - IMO, No, don't take reavers to fulfil the job of a ravager; a ravager will kill armored units for far less risk most of the time. Look to reavers for a more rounded, opportunistic (and whose performance is less predictable) unit that can be effective against infantry or armor, turning it's hand to either as the circumstances dictate.

I can see a few good reasons to replace a Ravager with some Reavers:

1. Variety is not known as the spice of life for nothing. This holds for your painting and your opponents enjoyment of the game.

2. Presenting your opponent with a wider variety of threats makes it more difficult for them to decide on target priority and stick to it.

3. You can make use of all the models in the Battleforce box set if you include some Reavers - possibly making your army cheaper.

That said, if you are really wedded to the Ravagers then sticking with them is not exactly a bad thing.

Why not use the reavers to compliment the ravagers, they do fill up different slots and AT is always a necessity for us.
Just a thought

The cost would be the big thing - if I could field 2 Reaver squads for the cost of 1 Ravager at least it might be worth considering. The Ravager's 3 Dark Lances are quite affordable.

Second big one is the range, RJBs cannot assure me they will be in range on Turn 1, Ravagers basically can strike anywhere as long as I start them centrally and forward.

In the final analysis people *do* use them to support Ravagers though...3 Ravagers.

I see what you're saying as far as bang for your pts. however, a game where we set the pace and apply pressure is a game that we have a greater chance of winning.

Ravagers provide superior firepower at a distance that makes most people cringe at the idea of playing peek'a boo with them, but they will, and a battle of attrition is not the dark eldar way.
Force the offensive, make them suffer for foolishly thinking they can have tactical flexibility.
They will either drown in a bathe of dark lance fire or be swept from the side/rear by far more agile reavers.

Control the tempo, control the game.

just as a personal thought, not to say one way is better than any other.