Raven Wing Black Knights Vs Outriders

[FarFromSam]

Was looking through the codex to find a way to make Dark Angels playable when I realized that RWBK are only 10 points more than outriders.  Better shooting, better combat, an invulnerable save... and then... one less wound?   Why?  And then there's the RW command squad that has 4W...

 

 Tactical marines and intercessors have the same wounds now.   Hell,  terminators are interchangeable so what is going on here?   Is there a stated reason or more 10th edition failing?   

 

Are either unit worth taking?  I can see the use of outriders when led by Sammael since he allows advance and charge and they have turbo boost... but does Sammael benefit from turbo boost?

Edited April 18 by FarFromSam

[Karhedron]

Black Knights with an Attached Command squad are pretty good. They are fast, tough and pretty hard hitting in both shooting and melee. Overcharge the Plasma Talons and use the Apothecary to revive models that fail their Hazardous tests. 

 

2 squads like that give you a pair of good hammer units. Add a couple of anvil units in the form of Terminator squads, a couple of Scout squads for screening, Objectives and shenanigans and some anti-tank and you are good to go. 

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, FarFromSam said:

I can see the use of outriders when led by Sammael since he allows advance and charge and they have turbo boost... but does Sammael benefit from turbo boost?

 

I think in 10th that generally if a unit has a rule, attached Characters also get the rule since they count as part of the unit. 

[Prot]

Outriders are more the problem rather than a comparison. I don't think either squad is 'good'. But if you're just looking at making DA playable, it's a challenge. Try to get some fun units in there with the RW bikes, and the Hunters strats. It's not easy, I've had to take a break from it... very frustrating. 

[ValourousHeart]

16 hours ago, Prot said:

I've had to take a break from it... very frustrating. 

 

That is were I am too.  Spending all of my 40k time painting these days.

[FarFromSam]

This whole edition is an absolute mess.   Why does the invictor warship have a better weapon than the redemptor dreadnought? 

[ValourousHeart]

4 hours ago, FarFromSam said:

Why does the invictor warship have a better weapon than the redemptor dreadnought? 

 

What do you mean?

 

By the looks of it most of the Redemptor's weapons are better than the Invictor's with the exception of the fist.

Which given the fact that the Invictor with its scout move is going to be in assault sooner, it makes sense to me that it would have the better CCW.

The redemptor is likely not going to cross the board, and its fist is good enough to finish off anything that wasn't destroyed by its guns.

 

Why would you want to have any unit have zero redeeming qualities?

[FarFromSam]

P0p pWhoops, i meant to include "Melee weapon." 

Visually.  The redemptor is bigger,  sturdier,  looks made for combat. 

Lorewise why would a venerable entombed warrior who is spending the rest of his life in a machine not find ways to finesse more strength out of his suit.

Gamewise the redemptor is 33% more expensive,  passing out an arbitrary strength buff doesn't make sense.   

 

2 more pips on a strength 12 weapon is somewhat important when 12 is the breakover point on heavy vehicles, plus tank shock.  I'm disappointed in the quality of this edition. I guess.

[ValourousHeart]

9 hours ago, FarFromSam said:

P0p pWhoops, i meant to include "Melee weapon." 

Visually.  The redemptor is bigger,  sturdier,  looks made for combat. 

Lorewise why would a venerable entombed warrior who is spending the rest of his life in a machine not find ways to finesse more strength out of his suit.

Gamewise the redemptor is 33% more expensive,  passing out an arbitrary strength buff doesn't make sense.   

 

2 more pips on a strength 12 weapon is somewhat important when 12 is the breakover point on heavy vehicles, plus tank shock.  I'm disappointed in the quality of this edition. I guess.

 

That is fair.  Personally I'm a little split on how weapons should be configured.

 

On one hand, I've been playing Ravenwing for so long that I had to learn how to deal with my whatever my opponent brought with a very limited unit and weapon selection.   On the other hand I like weapons to have a preferred target where they are most effective.  We had this in previous editions, if I tried to just run Multi-meltas and Typhoon ML on my RW list I would get punished by the Ork player.  Same issue if I just ran Assault Cannons and Heavy Bolters.

 

On top of that I think that there should be more parity between weapon options for units.  More willingness to reconsider the stats and rules of weaker weapons, and not just points changes for the superior option.  This one is trickier... at least for me to figure out.  We have lots of stats to choose from, do we always need to start with Strength, Damage and AP.  What about number of shots, or access to special rules, or flexibility on when critical hits or wounds  occur.

 

I think GW over corrected with armor.  I'm not sure that armor needs both really hard to wound and lots of health, AOS gets by with just lots of wounds.  But this feeds back into the current unwillingness to reconsider weapon stats leaving us with a few weapons that damage vehicles comically easy and other options that are pale reflections of their former glory.

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, ValourousHeart said:

I think GW over corrected with armor.  I'm not sure that armor needs both really hard to wound and lots of health, AOS gets by with just lots of wounds.  But this feeds back into the current unwillingness to reconsider weapon stats leaving us with a few weapons that damage vehicles comically easy and other options that are pale reflections of their former glory.

 

I think this is a reaction to 8th and particularly 9th where vehicles could be popped with a hard stare and some strong language. They were basically not worth taking unless they had an invulnerable save like Knights.

 

Tanks work well in 10th IMHO and are sufficiently durable to be worthwhile without being indestructible. Some infantry anti-tank weapons are not as strong as they were but most factions seem to have multiple viable ways to deal with vehicles, even if those are not the same as they were in previous editions. Ravenwing have a bit of a hard time as Multmeltas don't work too well without a source of rerolls. Possibly the new Stormspeeders fill this niche to some extent.

[Prot]

I finally had a good showing with the Ravenwing Bike squad. Granted it was against an Ork player who turned his list down. But still I had to play them completely differently, and had to view them as a throwaway unit that needs to stay heavily engaged in the mid table to really get any value. They still don't kill a lot, but with some luck, they can be annoying.

 

I've completely removed the Outriders from my lists now.

[ValourousHeart]

On 4/25/2024 at 4:35 AM, Karhedron said:

 

I think this is a reaction to 8th and particularly 9th where vehicles could be popped with a hard stare and some strong language. They were basically not worth taking unless they had an invulnerable save like Knights.

 

Tanks work well in 10th IMHO and are sufficiently durable to be worthwhile without being indestructible. Some infantry anti-tank weapons are not as strong as they were but most factions seem to have multiple viable ways to deal with vehicles, even if those are not the same as they were in previous editions. Ravenwing have a bit of a hard time as Multmeltas don't work too well without a source of rerolls. Possibly the new Stormspeeders fill this niche to some extent.

 

That is what I've been experiencing too in 10th.  My experience with vehicles was mixed in 8th and 9th.  I ran an Imperial Knight list that got mauled half the time.... But I also ran a speeder list that mopped up vs most opponents, but struggled to collect enough objective points.

 

The smaller tables hurts the way I liked to play Ravenwing over the years, as a harassment force... keeping distance and focusing down units.  But it does mean that units are never stranded on the far side of the board, which is better for the game.

 

On 4/26/2024 at 8:57 AM, Prot said:

I finally had a good showing with the Ravenwing Bike squad. Granted it was against an Ork player who turned his list down. But still I had to play them completely differently, and had to view them as a throwaway unit that needs to stay heavily engaged in the mid table to really get any value. They still don't kill a lot, but with some luck, they can be annoying.

 

I've completely removed the Outriders from my lists now.

 

And this is where the lack of identity for bikes in 40k shows up.  If bikes could keep their distance and harass the opponent, then their current damage output is ok.  But because they have no choice but to get stuck in assault in the middle of that table then they need to be tuned up more.

Edited April 29 by ValourousHeart