Search the Community

Now, I have heard that they're not worth using... however, I've been given some and as I'm on a budget plan to try and use them along with a Lt in Phobos to give them the extra leader ability he gives. Plus, I like deep strikers with skull masks. The question really breaks down to: Which weapon do you find work better. Pistol or Carbine? Of course I'll add the grav chute and grapnel. TIA

I'm looking for ideas on switching my Primaris Intercessor and possibly my Bladeguard helmets out with something different. I'm planning on using them with my Deathwatch as well as an all Primaris Raven Guard list. Initially I felt that switching to Reiver skull helmets, however they aren't too easy to get ahold of at this moment and I've only a few spare to use, another option is the MkVII beaky helmet which fits in well with Raven Guard, but I wasn't sure if they looked good on primaris units as a whole. For the Phobos units I will probably leave their specialist helmets alone. The Gravis units on the other hand could be in for a swap - I'm up for suggestions! So if anyone has any idas or examples they would like to share, I would be very grateful - thank you!

Psy Ops and Terror Tactics So this is thought that I had recently while commenting in another thread and I thought it might be something to get a discussion going in the Liber that people can participate in, even if it's not directly commenting on someone's work. Now, I'm not a military veteran, nor do I hold a degree in any relevant field. I have practical experience in a one-to-one capacity and I am an armchair historian and military theorist. I enjoy reading and researching things of this vein and 40k is fascinating in a theoretical application of real world theory to a relatable fantasy universe. I think historically speaking terror tactics in terms of open warfare are shown to have increasingly diminishing returns in protracted conflicts, to the point of being detrimental as a population or enemy reacts increasingly more strongly against them, rather than being suppressed. This is in addition to only being applicable in 40k terms in a very tight set or parameters. Psychological warfare always has a place, but that place is in concert with other operations and methodologies. It also depends what you define 'terror tactics' as, as conceivably I'd classify the Night Lords as a legion of card carrying terrorists. They prefer soft targets, operate against civilians and generally seek to do the most damage to morale and their enemies will to fight rather than military infrastructure, which has only been exaggerated with their turning traitor, along with any pretense to morality or ethics in warfare, bar a few notable individuals. In opposition to that, I'd class the Raven Guard, and even more so the Raptors successor as using psychological warfare more effectively. They use it to terrorize their enemy when it's useful to do so, but more importantly they use it to manipulate the enemies perception of the battle or war they're fighting. You also have to understand the modern 40k Astartes in terms of role as well as mindset. During the Great Crusade the Legions were an almost purely offensive tool. Even the defensive conflicts they fought were aggressive and focused on the outright destruction of their enemy, rather than holding territory (The Rangdan Xenocides for example). At the time of the 41st and 42nd Millennium, the modern Adeptus Astartes is almost exclusively a reactionary defensive force, as is most of the Imperial Military at this stage. Yes crusades are called and Astartes still perform in their preferred method of offensive operations (let's not talk about the Imperial Fists), but many of those are to lay low a particularly dangerous enemy or group who threatens Imperial worlds, or to reclaim lost territory. The Adeptus Astartes respond to powerful threats more quickly and in a more focused manner than the broader arms of the Imperial Navy and Guard, but still to react to enemy military incursions. Terror tactics as a whole therefore are far less applicable. Psy-Ops still have their place, but I'd say the Reivers in this vein are actually a fairly good concept, just not on the tabletop. As it stands, Astartes are built and mandated to take on the most powerful and ferocious of opponents where psychological warfare isn't really relevant, either because you don't have the time to profile and implement such operations, or they don't respond to short-term psychological destabilization like say, a unit of PDF soldiers. I also agree that certain races wouldn't respond as well as others, but I think a lot of people misconstrue or misapply racial traits and generalities to the effects and results of psy-ops and terror tactics. The Orks are a really good subject here. On the broad face of it it's quite easy to qualify the race as a whole as either being too stupid, as well as too belligerent in character for 'terror tactics' to really work on them and in a lot of instances you'd be right. However there are two things that go against this on both a macro and micro scale. On the macro level, their stupidity and tribal nature leads them to be highly superstitious and susceptible to manipulation in this manner. On a micro level, they are more than capable of feeling despair and fear even up to the largest and toughest of Orks, though it is less and less effective the bigger, tougher and more self-assured an Ork becomes. I'd argue they are probably the most susceptible to a good psy-ops operation of any of the 40k races. There are of course races that simply don't even rate. Chaos Daemons and Tyranids being almost equal right at the top, with the Necrons as a close second in terms of it being a pointless waste of resources to even try. Someone mentioned Chaos forces as being less susceptible because they are in many ways fear and horror incarnate. I'd argue that you've totally got the wrong end of the stick. They have sold their souls to gain individual power, that is the root of every chaos followers ambition. What's one of the things that kept the Cadians fighting while their planet broke around them? Duty. Duty to your brothers in arms, duty to those you lead, duty to your race and duty to the God Emperor. Essentially they fight for the whole, not the individual. The same can be said for Loyalist Astartes; "Only in death, does duty end". Chaos on the other hand is the very antithesis of this. The one thing that keeps them is a trifecta of fear, hatred and the drive to gain power. At the end of the day that individualist streak is the weak link in even traitor Astartes. While they are overall more capable than their mortal followers and chattel, they fear death as all that waits for them is an eternity of suffering, it's the ultimate loss of power and agency. Now, this is a fairly broad area of application, and has a lot of factors and nuance to it and I'm fairly obviously taking this from a more Imperial perspective, so there's definitely depth I haven't gotten to here. Bringing it to the tabletop and taking Reivers in particular, their equipment would in my opinion be better served on the tabletop as a wargear (Reiver Mask) option for assault units, to have cheap option to break tarpits, or to make your smash-captain even more expensive and versatile. It would at the very least condense some of the real overload of unit options the current codex has. Well, this turned out to be a lot longer and wordy than I'd anticipated. I'm really interested to hear what other people have to say, whether you agree with me or not, or whether I'm wrong on something and you could correct me I'd love to see it.

As stated in the topic title. I bought a pack of 10 when they dropped because they seemed interesting, and I painted them up for Knightfall two years ago. I'm considering stripping the terrible job I did on them and doing then redoing them in contrast. Before I both I'm wondering if anyone has tried them with the new rules set. Otherwise I may convert them into Incursors or something.

I been thinking on how to equip the Reivers in a all-comer list. First we got Grapnel Launcher that allows you to to come in from any bordedge within 6" and more than 9" from any enemy model. It's allso do not count any vertical distance in there movement. The other option is Grav Chutes thats lets you Deep Stike anywhere but still more 9" any enemy model, at the end of any of your movemnt phases. For me i think thats the Grave Chutes is the better choise becurs you choose what turn you want to come in and anywhere you want to. The option that the Grapnel Launcher's disregurd any vertical distance is very situationel. Secondly we have the choise between either the Bolt Carbine thats is a assault 2 at 24" or a Combat Knife thats give you 1 additional attack, so you get 3 in total. But the only shoting you got is your Heavy Bolt Pistol that 12" and -1 AP. This one is more difficult one and will depend alot on what Chapter Tactics you use. If you use the Black Templars I will take the Combat Knife. But if you are using Raven Guard the Bolt Carbine simes the better choise becurs it's lets you stay more then 12" away form enemy model to get there buff and still shoot 2 times. But by taking the Bolt Carbine you will proberly not get to use there Shock Grenades, thats is one of the bigger reason thats you take the Reivers in the first place with there ability to stop a enemy Infantry unit from shooting Overwatch and they get a -1 to any to hit rolls (both shooting and fighting) until its your turn again. I like to hear your choices on equipment and why.

So as not to clutter up the Unit of the Week: Reivers thread, or Debauchery101's thread on Aggressive Tactics, I'll just start a new thread to explain why Reivers are such a bad choice in 8th edition. I've brought some of these issues up to Simon Grant, and others on the rules development team, so hopefully they get some love in the future and are improved enough to make them worth taking. 1. The first big issue with Reivers is that they're an Elites choice. This is problematic in two ways: first, they aren't Troops, so aren't helping you fill out battalions, which is extremely important in generating as many Command Points as possible. In 8e, Command Points fuel successful armies. Troops are also better at contesting/securing Objectives, which is extremely important in most game scenarios. The second problem with their slotting, is simply that they compete with so many other Elite choices that are really effective and/or efficient units. Aggressors, Invictor Warsuits, Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor, certain Dreadnought options, and certainly Wulfen, all out-perform Reivers. This doesn't leave you much space for taking Reivers in your typical double-Battalion army list. 2. Since the Vanguard/Spearhead release, most (all?) of the Phobos armored units get Concealed Positions as a unit ability. This allows these units to be setup outside your deployment zone, to put early pressure on the enemy, or to secure objectives, or important terrain that you wouldn't normally be able to immediately access. Reivers don't get Concealed Positions. Instead, they get two different (but similar) options for a Tactical Reserves (Deep Strike) deployment, both of which you have to pay extra for. Taking either of these options makes them more expensive per model than Intercessors, which: are Troops, and outperform the Reivers in Shooting and Melee (if the Pack Leader is appropriately equipped). 3. They do have one very cool ability in their Shock Grenades, which can eliminate a target unit's ability to Overwatch. Unfortunately, the Shock Grenades, like all grenades, only have a 6" range, so they only work in game in very specific situations, where you're already very close to your Charge phase target, and they NEVER work if you chose to take advantage of either of their Deep Strike type of deployment options. 4. They appear to be intended as close combat specialists, but aren't actually any good in close combat. They have no option for anything more than S4, AP 0 attacks. Certainly, the amount of attacks that they can generate seems somewhat impressive (5 for the Pack Leader and 4 each for the other Reivers on the charge), until you remember that Blood Claws put out the exact same number of melee attacks, and will save your 4 points per model, and are Troops, and can actually outperform the Reivers in close combat because they have the option to include a couple special close combat weapons in the pack (like a Power Fist and a Thunderhammer). If all you want to do is generate a ton of S4, AP 0 attacks (the only thing Reivers can do), you'd be a lot better off taking Aggressors, that can generate a shed-load of these per turn, and can do it from up to 18" away. And if they do actually get into melee, the Aggressors, unlike Reivers, can actually do some work, with every model's Boltstorm Gauntlet/Power Fist. --As it stands, Reivers are outclassed by a basic Intercessor squad in every meaningful way. The Intercessors are only 1 point per model more expensive, but If you take either of the Reivers upgrades, then the Intercessors are cheaper. The Intercessors are Troops choices, more effective in the shooting phase with any of their 3 Bolt Rifle options, and, when you put a Thunder Hammer or Power Fist on the Sergeant, are more effective in close combat, as well. If Reivers can't even compete with the most basic Primaris troop type, then they are miles away from being able to compete with any of the other actual Elite slot choices that we have. Val