Using raiders

Hey guys,


My 1850 list is currently the followingL


HQ:

Vect


Troops:

10 Kabalite Warriors, splinter cannon; Raider, splinter racks
10 Kabalite Warriors, splinter cannon; Raider, splinter racks
10 Kabalite Warriors, splinter cannon; Raider, splinter racks
10 Kabalite Warriors, splinter cannon; Raider, splinter racks
5 wyches, haywire; Venom, dual splinter cannon
5 wyches, haywire; Venom, dual splinter cannon

Elites:
3 Trueborn, 2 splinter cannons; Venom, dual splinter cannon
3 Trueborn, 2 splinter cannons; Venom, dual splinter cannon
3 Trueborn, 2 splinter cannons; Venom, dual splinter cannon


Transports (accounted for above):
4 raider w/ splinter racks
5 venoms w/ dual splinter cannons


Heavy Support:

Ravager, Triple Dark Lance
Ravager, Triple Dark Lance
Ravager, Triple Dark Lance



My main question is, how would you play the raiders in this list? And how are raiders played in general housing kabalite warriors? Any insight would be awesome as I'm a new DE player trying to figure it all out! Thanks!

It depends a bit on your situation I feel. For me, I have moved away from Raiders full of Wyches and Warriors since many of the players in my area will target them quickly, knowing that they'll kill a good number of troops inside as well. Now that doesn't mean they are bad nor that I don't use them still. I just tend to use them differently depending on my opponent and the situation.

With 4 raiders, at least 1 or 2 will get to their location intact in many cases. To address this fact, I would be more prone to run them in pairs...1 filled with warriors and 1 empty. I would remove the splinter racks on the empty one and give the one with warriors either a flickerfield or night shield ( I prefer FFs). For turn 1 and / or 2, I would always keep the full raider slightly behind the empty one so that it has cover from some of the more menacing armies you go up against (except for Eldar's serpent shields sadly). Once the empty one is destroyed, you should be able to move up the full one to make use of the splinter racks effectively.

If I'm in a tournament and am aware of the deployment options, I would probably split the raiders between Disintegrator cannons and Dark Lances. Disintegrator cannons on the full raiders while lances on the empty ones. This will help for hammer and anvil deployment as well as Vangard Strike while providing more options during dawn of war.

Again - this is only what's worked for me in my local area. I have seen units get reduced to 2 models after a raider explodes and because of that, I'll bring them as mobile cover more than as transports on occasion. I know and have seen DE players run like your list with all 4 filled and use them very well. The issue really comes down to how much LOS blocking terrain you have and what you can do to make them more survivable.

Unholyllama wrote:

It depends a bit on your situation I feel.  For me, I have moved away from Raiders full of Wyches and Warriors since many of the players in my area will target them quickly, knowing that they'll kill a good number of troops inside as well. Now that doesn't mean they are bad nor that I don't use them still.  I just tend to use them differently depending on my opponent and the situation.

With 4 raiders, at least 1 or 2 will get to their location intact in many cases.  To address this fact, I would be more prone to run them in pairs...1 filled with warriors and 1 empty.  I would remove the splinter racks on the empty one and give the one with warriors either a flickerfield or night shield ( I prefer FFs).  For turn 1 and / or 2, I would always keep the full raider slightly behind the empty one so that it has cover from some of the more menacing armies you go up against (except for Eldar's serpent shields sadly).  Once the empty one is destroyed, you should be able to move up the full one to make use of the splinter racks effectively.

If I'm in a tournament and am aware of the deployment options, I would probably split the raiders between Disintegrator cannons and Dark Lances.  Disintegrator cannons on the full raiders while lances on the empty ones.  This will help for hammer and anvil deployment as well as Vangard Strike while providing more options during dawn of war.

Again - this is only what's worked for me in my local area.  I have seen units get reduced to 2 models after a raider explodes and because of that, I'll bring them as mobile cover more than as transports on occasion. I know and have seen DE players run like your list with all 4 filled and use them very well.  The issue really comes down to how much LOS blocking terrain you have and what you can do to make them more survivable.

Appreciate the feedback, I guess largely what I was looking for, was how do people use them on the table tactics wise. Like, with the splinter rifles only being 24" range, do you turbo boost them turn one into some cover, and light up the field turn 2? Playing them that way, would they take heat off of the venoms and allow venoms to move into better position? I'm fairly new to DE, originally I was solely going to run venoms, but I was convinced that raiders definitely have their own merit. I also like the look of them aesthetically. It looks cool on the tabletop having 4 Raiders, 3 Ravagers and 5 Venoms.

It does depend on your meta really and the skill of your opponent. Personally I run 2 raiders in most lists with 10 warriors with a splinter cannon in each and always with flicker fields just in case I don't move before they get shot or I get immobilized.

Usually I use them to block line of sight and make my opponent think about what to do more than rely on them to deal a lot of damage. Even if they get ignored they can put out quite a lot of damage within 12" so I see them as a win win situation in most games. I feel they do have some merit as they are the best thing for drawing fire due to their size in comparison to venoms, so can block a large area (partially dependent on terrain), and aren't as precious as ravagers.

What you need to look at is their pros and cons against the armies you play against most. Ask your opponents how they think the raiders did during the game, we're they a thorn in their side or a complete pushover for them? That's one of the best ways to help figure out how they will fit to your play style.

Hope that helps.

Nullus wrote:

It does depend on your meta really and the skill of your opponent. Personally I run 2 raiders in most lists with 10 warriors with a splinter cannon in each and always with flicker fields just in case I don't move before they get shot or I get immobilized.

Usually I use them to block line of sight and make my opponent think about what to do more than rely on them to deal a lot of damage. Even if they get ignored they can put out quite a lot of damage within 12" so I see them as a win win situation in most games. I feel they do have some merit as they are the best thing for drawing fire due to their size in comparison to venoms, so can block a large area (partially dependent on terrain), and aren't as precious as ravagers.

What you need to look at is their pros and cons against the armies you play against most. Ask your opponents how they think the raiders did during the game, we're they a thorn in their side or a complete pushover for them? That's one of the best ways to help figure out how they will fit to your play style.

Hope that helps.

Thanks, I appreciate this. I guess with the way my list works... How would you play the 4 raiders in my list with the rest of the army. As a static example let's say you're playing against Space Marines with the list I provided, and he brought centurians, white scar bikes, maybe a predator or two and some devastator squads. I'm just curious to see your thoughts.

Under that scenario I would keep the dark lances on the raiders and keep them in the back as much as you can. Use the Dark Lance's range to help augment the ravagers' lances and pick off the transports and other heavy hitting threats first. Alternatively, keep 2 raiders empty and 2 manned and have the manned ones with disintegrators to help clear objectives as you approach.

As the threats begin to ease up, move your raiders of warriors up to start claiming objectives with your troops. I highly recommend that you don't lead with your raiders full of troops in early turns since they are your scoring unit. Without those troops (or if they die too early) you'll lose to the objective based mission. On a kill point mission, it's always a crap shoot since our army is paper thin.

super helpful, thank you. are the splinter racks worth while if in the first couple turns, the raiders are sitting back augmenting the ravagers with their lances?

I'd ignore the bikes for the first 2 turns, go for the devastators and predators while trying to stay out of sight of the centurions. Use the fact that you are much faster than them and can quickly redeploy your battle line to your advantage. The true born and venoms should be able to deal with any troops that are a threat to begin with and then deal with the bikers and centurions after the devastators and tanks are gone.

Basically kill the big things first. If you can avoid a threat for a few turns then do so and deal with it later. An opponents fast unit is rarely faster than you so these aren't a massive priority. Also if you deploy second you can usually place things so that you're opponents bigger threats can be ignored (if that makes sense).

If you do go down the route of empty raiders I'd keep the foot units in reserve and if the raiders are still alive towards the end of the game then using them to tank shock enemy troops off of objectives is always a good shout.

I'd swap the splinter racks for FF or NS is you can't find the points else where as I think they give you a greater benefit.

Hope that's helpful and explains a little of how I'd play.

totally does. thanks so much

You need a distraction unit to steer them away from your raiders. That's a powerful shooty list, however you're going to hit even say 100% of the time with everything, you're only going to wound half the time of which a SM army will save 66% of all wounds dished out. That's not including if they have FNP. You need something to give them to shoot at while the rest of your army picks them apart. Grots are my favorite. That and either a khymera squad and/or a reaver squad. Reavers in a 9 man squad are devastating with caltrops.

I have six reavers. will that work, or do you recommend grabbing 3 more?

I used to use 6, they're not bad.  But I find that the 3 more just add that extra ummph needed.  I've had one reaver squad take out a tervigon in one pass before.  I love reavers one of my favorite units next to grots.

would you lose vect and the alpha strike, in favor of an archon instead, and 6 -9 reavers?

django_unchained wrote:

My main question is, how would you play the raiders in this list? And how are raiders played in general housing kabalite warriors? Any insight would be awesome as I'm a new DE player trying to figure it all out! Thanks!

My list is somewhat similar to yours, so I will speak from my experiences and also my preferences.

Generally, I use my raiders for three roles;

1) Convenient moving terrain: This is perhaps the most important use for my raiders as they are both large and lonng enough to cover my own units and/or block line of sight of opponents. In addition it also helps in me funneling my shots for Focus Fire to snipe out unwanted units.

2) Gunboats: For this role, I generally consider them as a second layer to my poison/lance barrages, as the Raiders are there to take shots of opportunity where the Ravagers failed. The guys insude adds another layer of poisoned shots to my Splinter Cannons, as they can function in their snap-fire capabilities or full shots depending on the speed in which the raiders moved and also the proximity of their target. Many units have died under the twin-linked Splinter Rifle nonsense.

Overwatching with twin-linked splinter rifles on the raiders are always fun when they kill off things.

3) Transports: Now this one runs in tandem with everything else, as they could take advantage of the speed of the Raider to contest objectives.

Personally I prefer to go second. Each of my lists have an "acceptable amount of losses" I am willing to give my opponent each turn. I give him just enough to shoot at during my deployment, and negate 90% of his other shooting with Los blocking and/or making myself out of range. Going second allows us to really strike on his weak side with everything we have. Our army isn't designed to go head on into battle against everything they've got. We pick in the smaller weaker squads first, soften the bigger units then clean up in CC.... Or more shooting. Either way, going second has more benefits than not, alpha striking just isn't worth it to me. 2nd allows us to push easier for line breaker, to deny our opponents obj's and to set up around what he or she did. That's just me though. Vect is great at huge games, but personally I almost always use these 3: Urien or baron (most often) or a haemy (usually with grots for extra token). I don't use archons all that much, I guess it's a flavor thing, I like to imagine the haemy unleashing his creations onto my opponent I guess. Archons work cert well though. Especially in a grot squad. It raises the overall toughness to 5 which is always nice.

As a side note, I partly use coven for leadership as they give us a huge bang for our buck. 50 points gives us a pain token on a unit for free, and add 40 points he now has a 2+ save and wounds on 2's in CC. Extremely cost effective. All coven units are pretty cost effective. A while back I put up an argument about Urien and grots together. Urien has wounds that regen, can deny wounds allocated in CC with his clone field thing, and dishes out pain tokens in drouths at the start. Oh AND he's T5 on his own and wounds auto on 3+ with ID! Which means he can somewhat handle himself if he is challenged.

Personally I'm not a fan of loading everything in big bulky raiders like you have. I prefer more smaller units in venoms, easier to hide and pump out plenty if shooting. But to each his own.

Well I'm running both venoms and raiders.

So, to summarize. attack in layers. take out their long range with splinter cannons, ravagers, and dark lances on raiders while advancing. then send in the second wave of splinter shots from venoms and embarked troops. finish off anti tank with ravagers. finally, get those raiders in rapid fire range?

doomseer11b wrote:

As a side note, I partly use coven for leadership as they give us a huge bang for our buck.  50 points gives us a pain token on a unit for free, and add 40 points he now has a 2+ save and wounds on 2's in CC.

How do you get a Haemoculus a 2+ save? They don't have access to any armor upgrades nor access to the shadow field.

Unholyllama wrote:

doomseer11b wrote:

As a side note, I partly use coven for leadership as they give us a huge bang for our buck.  50 points gives us a pain token on a unit for free, and add 40 points he now has a 2+ save and wounds on 2's in CC.  

How do you get a Haemoculus a 2+ save?  They don't have access to any armor upgrades nor access to the shadow field.

Was wondering this myself.

Holy crap! Lol thanks for catching that. I was attempting to post in 2 spots and mixed my convo, sorry guys. Kinda mixed the archon with the haemy in my head.

django_unchained wrote:

So, to summarize. attack in layers. take out their long range with splinter cannons, ravagers, and dark lances on raiders while advancing. then send in the second wave of splinter shots from venoms and embarked troops. finish off anti tank with ravagers. finally, get those raiders in rapid fire range?

Close but not quite IMO. In said instance targeting the AT first may be correct but generally we dont really like to attack in layers or waves. Rather we prefer to isolate and focus fire, i.e. bring our entire firepower to bear against a portion of theirs thus limiting or even eliminating their ability to retaliate.. and this then is the inherent problem with raiders as gunboats:
The contents are short ranged and fragile, more expensive than venom units even when bare, and explosions are indiscriminate when it comes to unit size (10 warriors take exactly the same wounds as 5).
The main plus for me is the ability to spam cheap troop carrying disi cannon platforms. Of course this is rather corner case since splinter weaponry handles everything well enough bar teq with meq on the fence but DCs still scare the emperor out of everyone for some reason and make deathwing cry.

I will say when I have had success with warriors in raiders its been either as min sized with disi cannons spammed as above or else as a single tricked out unit for the backfield, sometimes blessed by the duke. In addition the raider was also there to double as a backup for an assault element.

Outside of these instances I really haven't seen raiders shine (outshine venoms that is) other than to transport grotesques or large units of incubi, where I feel they truly excel and become arguably the premier assault transport in the game excluding FW rules.

So, how would I use those 4 raiders in your list? Im not entirely sure.. at least not without feeling like they weren't used appropriately.
I would probably use them initially at long range as suggested with twin linked fire to make their output nearly comparable to venoms with the main intent being to sneak into rapid fire range where the unit does outshine a warrior venom (and even inflicting approx 1 more wound than a stationary splinterborn venom). But how to accomplish that? RFJs or even sliscus to deep strike maybe? LoS blocking terrain in abundance with a tasty bait unit to lure the enemy? idk but id love to find something viable and justifiable for that many raiders.

Don't know if it has been mentioned previously but Mushkillas batreps shows the best use of Raiders. Empty! Kabalites in the cover advancing slowly or staying put.

Brom wrote:

django_unchained wrote:

So, to summarize. attack in layers. take out their long range with splinter cannons, ravagers, and dark lances on raiders while advancing. then send in the second wave of splinter shots from venoms and embarked troops. finish off anti tank with ravagers. finally, get those raiders in rapid fire range?

Close but not quite IMO. In said instance targeting the AT first may be correct but generally we dont really like to attack in layers or waves. Rather we prefer to isolate and focus fire, i.e. bring our entire firepower to bear against a portion of theirs thus limiting or even eliminating their ability to retaliate.. and this then is the inherent problem with raiders as gunboats:
The contents are short ranged and fragile, more expensive than venom units even when bare, and explosions are indiscriminate when it comes to unit size (10 warriors take exactly the same wounds as 5).
The main plus for me is the ability to spam cheap troop carrying disi cannon platforms. Of course this is rather corner case since splinter weaponry handles everything well enough bar teq with meq on the fence but DCs still scare the emperor out of everyone for some reason and make deathwing cry.

I will say when I have had success with warriors in raiders its been either as min sized with disi cannons spammed as above or else as a single tricked out unit for the backfield, sometimes blessed by the duke. In addition the raider was also there to double as a backup for an assault element.

Outside of these instances I really haven't seen raiders shine (outshine venoms that is) other than to transport grotesques or large units of incubi, where I feel they truly excel and become arguably the premier assault transport in the game excluding FW rules.

So, how would I use those 4 raiders in your list? Im not entirely sure.. at least not without feeling like they weren't used appropriately.
I would probably use them initially at long range as suggested with twin linked fire to make their output nearly comparable to venoms with the main intent being to sneak into rapid fire range where the unit does outshine a warrior venom (and even inflicting approx 1 more wound than a stationary splinterborn venom). But how to accomplish that? RFJs or even sliscus to deep strike maybe? LoS blocking terrain in abundance with a tasty bait unit to lure the enemy? idk but id love to find something viable and justifiable for that many raiders.

Wow, the duke seems so awesome in this list. Mishapping kinda scares me, but having 2 raiders stay in reserve and deepstriking then rapid firing seems awesome, while keeping the other two on the table. Thought it should be noted, another reason I bring the raiders is to have 4 more lances in the list, it's almost like having an extra free ravager. They also screw with the opponent because people tend to like to shoot the bigger thing, so it can take heat off of venoms. Not sure if I've been playing them right, but what I like to do is move them 12, fire lances at full BS and snap fire with the occupants being twin linked with splinter racks. Also, they're great at facing fast assaulty armies because if units get close to you, they're good at dumping that splinter fire out.

Havent tried duke with DSing raiders but I have deep struck a whole grip of venoms a couple times and it worked pretty well allowing me to disembark to present double targets and put the wyches into cover.

Speaking of deep striking I once read an article by an excellent dark angels player on all the technical aspects of deep strike, percentages, optimal placement, wind speed, temp, ambient air, rotation of the earth etc.. then it ended by saying "now throw everything out the window because deep striking is inherently risky so put the models where you need em most" (paraphrased of course).  Anyway this advice has served me better than any other DS advice I've ever found (although I still keep an eye on 7" range tbh).

I agree though vs assault oriented armies (those that still exist), full raiders will put some hurt out. I also agree with vasara that mush makes raiders look decent.

^^^ dont think you can disembark the turn you deepstrike? the vehicle counts as moving at cruizing speed.

speaking of which, keep in mind this means you can only snapfire the turn you arrive from DS.