|
Post by jaysic on Feb 25, 2015 6:18:39 GMT
Here is a list for non forge-world meta. it doesn't have answers to everything but it can Respond well to different threats and deployment types and terrain on the table. please look at the list. I now it isnot everyones taste. It is something for us to chew on so to speak. This list has 3 unit that are unwanted so to speak. +++ march 21 Test templat (1849pts) +++ ++ Tyranids: Codex (2014) (Hive Fleet Detachement) ++ + No Force Org Slot + Tyrannocyte [5x Deathspitters] + HQ + Hive Tyrant [Electroshock Grubs, Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings] Hive Tyrant [Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Wings] + Troops + Genestealer Brood [15x Genestealer] Broodlord [Scything Talons, Toxin Sacs] Mucolid Spore Cluster [Mucolid Spore] Mucolid Spore Cluster [Mucolid Spore] + Elites + Venomthrope Brood [Venomthrope] + Fast Attack + Ravener Brood Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] Ravener [Deathspitter, Rending Claws] + Heavy Support + Carnifex Brood Carnifex [Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms, Twin-linked Devourer with Brainleech Worms] Toxicrene Trygon Prime [The Reaper of Obliterax] I can split the raveners in to two units of 4 but I feel the large unit is better cause they all come in together. this is not the Sub Assault formation but it allows for a little more freedom with the list build Complete null deployment? Looks like a lot of fun. By my count you have 1 more pod then things you need to put in them. Is that intentional? I feel the Reaper on the Prime is a bit much. He'll already have a big target on his head. Him, the Toxicrene, and your Fex be taking most of your opponents AT firepower. I'd drop the reaper, put in another Venomthrope. If you want him to hunt MCs you could give him AG and TS. I think a broodlord gets the shaft on overpaying for upgrades, so I'm not a fan of TS on it, but that's point shaving nitpicking.
|
|
|
Post by FTGT-BeeCee on Feb 25, 2015 6:25:12 GMT
Shadow,
In that list I would recommend dropping the deathspitters, isn't it like 10 pts per ravener to get those? that's 2 more raveners. The last thing you want is raveners shooting themselves out of assault range.
Ideally you want your raveners beating up on weaker units.
Well really our best chance vs. IK is flyrants on multiple facings but for melee, I agree, stonecrushers. you have to get that charge on them though.
|
|
|
Post by shadowfinder on Feb 25, 2015 6:30:03 GMT
You need 33 Ravaners with RC. 165 (really only needs 161, so pretty much 32 ravs...1120 points) attacks > 110.6 hits > 18.8 rends > 6.2 glances 81 attacks, so 17 Genes (With at least AG/ST...340 points). 85 attacks > 57 hits > 9.6 Rends > 6.5 Hps. 55% chance of explode result for +D3. Ravaners don't have this option, as they can't get a pen. The numbers are kind of all-over the place due to the nature of rending. 14 ST/AG Genes will get just over 4HP average, but a ~36%ish chance for that other D3. Our best answer to IKs are Stonecrusher Carnifexen. D3 S10 AP2 Armorbane HoW. CC Fexen are just as good but cheaper....except they swing after the D weapon (probably) kills them. Their D3 S9 HoW can do a number on the IKs too, but it's not even close to the Stonecrusher (Nor is anything else we have access to). It's main problem is that it has no access to fleet. 2 Stonecrushers (300 points), on the charge, do 3.64 HPs, 56% chance to add another D3. If you get 2 the thing is toast. If the stonecrushers are in seperate units, he has to dictate how many attacks go to each fex. With 3 attacks he'll miss once, and chances of one surviving are high, and when it swings the Knight will blow. I don't see why you put TS on the stealers. But putting a broodlord in with them could be helpful to equaling the points if that's why you put TS on them. Both Ravener and genestellers can only strip off hull points. They can't cause a explode result sadly. They both have rending but rending doesn't give ap2 to the damage roll anymore Wiht the raveners you need 33 to kill a night out right? or to take off 3 hull point? Your saying 17 AG stealers can kill a knight out right in one turn? All iam looking for is a unit that can kill off a IK after the tyrants have soften it up for a turn. that way the tyrants can go hunt something else. By the way thanks for the math on this it is helpful
|
|
|
Post by shadowfinder on Feb 25, 2015 7:02:18 GMT
[/quote]Complete null deployment? Looks like a lot of fun. By my count you have 1 more pod then things you need to put in them. Is that intentional? I feel the Reaper on the Prime is a bit much. He'll already have a big target on his head. Him, the Toxicrene, and your Fex be taking most of your opponents AT firepower. I'd drop the reaper, put in another Venomthrope. If you want him to hunt MCs you could give him AG and TS. I think a broodlord gets the shaft on overpaying for upgrades, so I'm not a fan of TS on it, but that's point shaving nitpicking. [/quote] Thanks for the feedback. I think the list has only one pod I will double check. I drop the Fex or the Stealers in it depending on what the mission and opponent is. Everything deepstrikes that can. with the tyrants and tox and venom. Mucolid will be placed in to cover around the board to give me more survivability VS. elder entail everything comes in. Having him able to one shoot a WK is a bonus. He has it caused I have the model with a nice conversion so it is kind of the rule of cool even thought it is helpful vs stuff in a challenge. But your point is valid. One venom is good as he will most likely get left behind. Shadow, In that list I would recommend dropping the deathspitters, isn't it like 10 pts per ravener to get those? that's 2 more raveners. The last thing you want is raveners shooting themselves out of assault range. Ideally you want your raveners beating up on weaker units. Well really our best chance vs. IK is flyrants on multiple facings but for melee, I agree, stonecrushers. you have to get that charge on them though. The deathspiters are costly that's for sure but they will kill rear armor for sure. even AV11. I never really have a issue of shooting myself of assault range. If that is a risk I just don't shoot. With fleet I would have to really kill off a lot of guys for me to mite from one or two inches away. Weaker unit are all AV12 or less . Any small unit even termy's. They really like killing blob squads. with FNP they can be a pain to kill off. I still thinking about dropping them in two units instead of one though. Any thoughts on that. Also what shrike build would put in to give options. IK re a concern but ill have to try before I an give a sold nod on that. ForgeWorld is not allowed at my next tournament. so that one option is out. With forgewolrd I have some different options though.. it is a fun list as well. I will post that to get people something to look at.
|
|
|
Post by shrike on Feb 25, 2015 11:48:55 GMT
So I heard Lictor shame won LVO
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 25, 2015 12:31:20 GMT
shadowfinder: I don't know, I'm a big believer in MSU for our more underloved units. I know most people here argue for bigger broods, but I also think that it leads to more frustration. Taking more smaller units makes it tougher for your opponent to deal with and splits their fire to bring you down. The beauty of the lictor shame list is taking that many single units. People will try to imitate and take max units and wonder why it doesn't work. The ability to take multiple CAD and formations has really opened things up for us. Lictor shame would be lictor sham under old FOC rules. You have the slots, why not break up the stealers? Holding an objective with an OS unit end game could very well give the win. FTGT-BeeCee: stonecrusher is good at removing IK, but so are regular dakkafexes and flyrants. If I can't deal with it with those in my lists, I'm pretty much done anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FTGT-BeeCee on Feb 25, 2015 14:34:33 GMT
Yeah, I think shooting is the best way to remove knights but i think the Stonecrusher was the answer to a melee specific situation.
|
|
|
Post by shiwan8 on Feb 25, 2015 15:53:22 GMT
Cool man, agree to disagree. I don't see us making anymore ground with each other here. Edit; Horms move 6+d6+3 with fleet. They'll outpace ravaners/melyrants/shrikes. Gargoyles do this even easier. It's super easy to keep things shrouded. I guess your experiences were somehow different. A 5+ cover on your screen is enough. Yes, Wyverns / TFC bone that. So do SS shots, but they're probably at a 2+ jinking HT or the Malanthropes. Sure. Horms move normally that 6", meaning that they are likely experiencing difficulties staying ahead of raveners and shrikes. That or the raveners/shrikes move slower than they have to. It's a good point though, could very well work, just not reliably. My experience is that the unit giving shrouded does not survive turn 1. You know, wave serpents, half of tau weapons and many more ignore cover and outside that they are paper dolls. shiwan8 LOL, by your logic gargoyles are worthless piles of steaming dog (please do not swear). Yet they win more games for me than anything other than flyrants. In order to prove your point you go from insulting the hive to insulting all my opponents. Nice. If you can't make shrikes or raveners work, it says more about you than us. Anytime you think everyone else is the problem, you might need to look in the mirror. Plenty of posters have linked to previous discussions. If that isn't enough to give you some new points of view, quite frankly, the baby Jesus himself showing up on your doorstep isn't gonna make a difference. Gargs are surely the best griplies there are, but they are not amazing. I have not seen any high level tournaments that were won with gargoyles. What they do for you is irrelevant. If the top lists do not utilize them, there is a reason for that. Actually if you look at the chronological order, it was me who was the target of insults before I countered them with probable cases. There are very different things. Stating a fact is not an insult. The truth is always neutral. If you can prove that I'm an idiot then by all means do so and from that point onward you are perfectly within your rights by social conduct to call me an idiot. Until that point though your insults just make you look bad, not me. See, your opinion that is not backed by proof is just evidence of your personal qualities, not mine. Me calling your opponents not god players is just that you give me no other reasonable conclusions to arrive to. If your allstars are sub par units then it's not likely that your opponent knows how to play or makes lists that just plain fail at everything. Or then you are a better player than the ones competing on the top. Somehow I doubt that any of us here is a WK40k superhero-gamer. I know I'm not. I still used to win most of my games, until the lolcron formation allowed the user to just faceroll to victory. The fact that it is not realistic that they would work tells enough about the units. If they were actually good, it would be shrike-/ravenershame list, not licktorshame list. The previous discussions give us nothing new about them. There is not synergistic combo that makes them good and since alone they are worthless we would be dumb to assume that they are not. Not before they were claimed to be good. So no, not my job to prove the original claim wrong but it is a job to prove that it right and that job belongs to who ever happens to agree with that claim. Learn the difference. How about I just take issue with your line of reasoning, as it can be summed up as follows: Raveners are bad. Only poor opponents allow Raveners to seem good. Therefore, any time your Raveners seem good, your opponent must be bad. How do I confirm that my opponent bad? Because Raveners are bad, and in that match the Raveners seemed good. That's not a good argument, that's circular reasoning. Learn the difference. I mean... unless you have evidence that everyone posting success so far has only played unskilled opponents (outside of your assumption that Raveners are bad). You have that right? But, maybe I shouldn't expect much from someone who argues burden of proof in light of 40+ pages across multiple threads dedicated to the topic. Nice strawman! Let me correct that. Raveners are bad because: T4 means s8, that is pretty common, will ID them. They have no armor against shooting since pretty much everything worth mentioning is ap5 or better. The fact that CSM raptors with flamers are awesome against them should be enough to tell us they are bad. On top of that, if you want them to hit and shoot, it's 45 points per model. That's worth 3 tactical marines that shoot better, have longer, range better armor, do not need babysitters and are ob sec. So, they can not take hits, can not shoot effectively, can just barely fight in CC and this is 45p per model. Their only asset is their speed that is still less than what bikes have. Bikes are harder to kill, shoot better, cost about one half of what upped ravener costs, move faster and often hit just as much. 5 raveners gives us a flyrant, who needs no babysitter, shoots better, is faster, can not fight in CC either but at least is semi hard to kill. Now, the fact is that raveners are bad, objectively speaking. Great potential that is next to impossible to push from theory to practice. If bad units win games regularly, the opponent just can not be good. He/she is either bad as a commander or has lost the game on list building phase already. It's not impossible. A year ago I fell in to those traps from time to time. Not anymore though. I also know when I lose because of mistakes I made in the game and when it's just units that have nothing going for them. Raveners, while I have never lost because of them, they have never done anything other than dying to barrages. Barrages that were no longer needed against something else. Also the opponent rarely is a static element not capable of moving. This would mean that while you might get to a sweet spot from where to assault the enemy, the enemy can usually easily deny that from with 2 simple things. 1: Moving out of the way. 2: Moving something else so that it is in the way of your assault. If your opponents do not utilize this, then ok, you might get what you want, maybe, but that also means that your opponent is not even a mediocre gamer. Every general knows that sometimes you just have to sacrifice something to achieve something else. Raveners do not survive against a general that understands this. The problem is not me having no evidence that every ones success stories are due to some mistakes of their opponent etc. The problem is that "they work for me" is not evidence proving that they are good. It's anecdotal story without details and that can not be verified. I refuse to believe hearsay and want facts, details, specific tactics that yield good results more often than not against the top lists used by top gamers and so on. If you can not present these, I have no reason to believe that they are good. Some high end tournament statistics and detailed video batreps from those would do nicely, for example. I doubt there are any. I've seen enough tournament tables to know that the average table has way too little los blocks to give the raveners enough ways to reach the enemy even if there are no cover ignoring weaponry present. It's practically impossible on our tables and those have about twice the cover normal tournament tables have. Behind the link you can see a picture of a normal tournament table. That gap in the middle is where your raveners will die, or they can spend time going around the buildings and never reach the enemy. www.cold-moon.com/40k/Miniatures/LasVegasOpen2015/LVO20150222%20%2810%29.jpgRaveners are not equal decurion wraiths, which is precisely why they are bad. Decurion wraiths are everything you claim raveners are, meaning durable, fast enough and hard hitting. All these are things that raveners are not. Fast, sure. Fast enough, no by a long shot. If raveners actually had something like t5, 3+ armor and s6 by default then ok, they would be good. As is, without some yet to be mention support combo, they are just a waste. Nice models though, which is ironic.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 25, 2015 16:39:59 GMT
Gargs are surely the best griplies there are, but they are not amazing. I have not seen any high level tournaments that were won with gargoyles. What they do for you is irrelevant. If the top lists do not utilize them, there is a reason for that. Actually if you look at the chronological order, it was me who was the target of insults before I countered them with probable cases. There are very different things. Stating a fact is not an insult. The truth is always neutral. If you can prove that I'm an idiot then by all means do so and from that point onward you are perfectly within your rights by social conduct to call me an idiot. Until that point though your insults just make you look bad, not me. See, your opinion that is not backed by proof is just evidence of your personal qualities, not mine. Me calling your opponents not god players is just that you give me no other reasonable conclusions to arrive to. If your allstars are sub par units then it's not likely that your opponent knows how to play or makes lists that just plain fail at everything. Or then you are a better player than the ones competing on the top. Somehow I doubt that any of us here is a WK40k superhero-gamer. I know I'm not. I still used to win most of my games, until the lolcron formation allowed the user to just faceroll to victory. The fact that it is not realistic that they would work tells enough about the units. If they were actually good, it would be shrike-/ravenershame list, not licktorshame list. The previous discussions give us nothing new about them. There is not synergistic combo that makes them good and since alone they are worthless we would be dumb to assume that they are not. proof that once again the usefulness of posts has an inverse relationship with their length. I'm sure you're a brilliant general. You go man, I'll stick with other morons and their advice since I don't seem to be able to understand yours.
|
|
|
Post by FTGT-BeeCee on Feb 25, 2015 16:41:53 GMT
I think there is a pretty big disconnect here and this thread has been completely comprimised.
The concept of "if they work for you" is an integral part of 40k and an online community. There are so many variables that are thrown around as truth in these threads that we frankly don't know. How much terrain is there? are there any list comp restrictions? I know plenty of players who are good but choose to not play the cheesiet nasty list just because they are also fluff bunnies etc.. I think we all need to do a better job of understanding the context of what people are saying.
Never in this convo did i see anyone say "I'm going to win the LVO/NOVA/BAO etc.. with Raveners". In the terms of a local tourney, i think you can make alot of things work that don't work on a big stage like that.
Let's face it, there are really only a small number of these super top tier players and if you compare everything you do/list build to that standard it is unrealistic in comparison. If not being an elite player means you are a bad player, then 99% of all 40k players are bad.
Shiwan8, i think the reason that you get flamed alot is not because you are dispensing some unknown truth that we all refuse to accept, it's rather that you immediately throw out intense counters to anything anyone puts forth or vastly exaggerate how easy it is to kill unit X. Yes we all know that 5-7 wave serpent lists exist, yes we know that AM can take a metric crapton of Wyverns, but the simple fact of the matter is you aren't going to face those matchups in every single game. In fact I rarely see Wyverns if at all anymore.
I think people would be more receptive to your input, and you do have a great understanding of the math and seem to have a good understanding of unit strengths and weaknesses, if you instead focused soley on the struggles/strengths of a particular unit instead of saying things like "9 wyverns are killing this in 1 turn" or "killing 180 gaunts in a turn is no problem for a shooting army" etc...
I think you have alot you could add to these conversations, i just wish you would spend more time talking about how you yourself use a unit, or success/struggles you have personally had. We can all look up tourney winning lists ourselves and see whats in them if we choose to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jaysic on Feb 25, 2015 17:11:11 GMT
Horms are reliable to outpace shrikes 75% of the time, which is a good majority. I'd rather run gargs, but my collection limits me. Going to get some ready for adepticon.
Yes, strength 8 doubles shrikes. There's not really any ignores cover S8+, shy of marker lights/perfect timing. Even battle canons have to hit and get past 3+ cover. Plus any S8 shooting at shrikes is preferable to them firing at MCs. Cover isn't a big issue as your gribblies are mobile cover.
While melee focused lists haven't won any GTs, neither has FMC spam. So far lictorshame is the only big winner, and it was even on anyone's radar until it won. It's not like melee list are being run at these competitions and losing, they just aren't present at all. If you want batreps read the linked threads, there are lots of them (some with turn by turn photos).
|
|
|
Post by shiwan8 on Feb 25, 2015 18:24:58 GMT
Yes, you are perfectly right on, well, everything there. I assume that we go with the rulebook and practical realities of tournaments here. Otherwise we have no context what so ever and I could just as easily say that rippers are the absolute cheesefest and no-one could reasonably challenge that. It's a discussion, meaning there can and should be different opinions present. I do not think anyone claimed them to be tournament winners either. I just pointed out that unless they are high level tournament viable unit, they are not that good, or likely good at all. A codex with a good internal balance can make "any" unit work in those tournaments too, not only in overly fluffy story board games. The new necrons are a good example of this. They can make a warrior spam and that slow moving invincible wall will kill things no one thought it would, just because of the sheer numbers and high durability. It's not a tournament winning list, likely, but it will bring down many of the things there. There could be just one of those players and it would still be a good point. These are people who are wiser and more intelligent than, let's say 95% of the other gamers. These people will find really good combinations just by reading through a codex. Outside this forum I have yet to see anyone claim that raveners or shrikes were even mediocre. If they were good, I'm sure that this licktorshame guy had figured a way to use them. If they can not, it surely does not mean that we as a community could not, but as far as I can tell, we have not managed to figure out reasonably good way to use them. Yes, maybe I should soften up my responses. You got me there. It's just that I find it easier if people are clear about their point of view. The thing is, with this particular subject, I can figure out how to crush raveners and shrikes with codices I have little or no experience of. If I can do it, their actual users will do it easily and cheaper than I can. The struggle with these 2 units is pretty easily summed up on 2 things. They cost way more than they should considering that can't take hits. As far as I can tell, any other army that has a unit for that purpose does the same thing better and cheaper than that. I had a similar discussion about genestealers to day with a friend. He thinks that 5 GS + BL is a good unit. I think that any melee unit that will die to 10 bolters more likely than not while it costs almost as much is not good. Not that it can't be, just that most things in this game are either fearless or LD10 or marines, so the horror really does nothing and the life expectancy of a GS is really short. Actually, here we have another thing that might explain why some people think things are good while I do not. If there is no way to make a list with a particular unit in it work against anyone, in my mind it's not good. I never do a list that is tailored against some specific codex. Raveners are great horde killers. Shrikes can work against something fairly tough too, but neither really does anything against mech lists. A single basic dreadnought might kill them with half the price. 2 will do it. A tentaclepron mauler will do it alone. Gunlines will kill them easily too. There are just so many hard counters to them that are hard counters to many other things that it is very unlikely that those are not fielded in any given game. So yeah, they can work, but it has less to do with their user than it has to do with the opponents list and skill. Horms are reliable to outpace shrikes 75% of the time, which is a good majority. I'd rather run gargs, but my collection limits me. Going to get some ready for adepticon. Yes, strength 8 doubles shrikes. There's not really any ignores cover S8+, shy of marker lights/perfect timing. Even battle canons have to hit and get past 3+ cover. Plus any S8 shooting at shrikes is preferable to them firing at MCs. Cover isn't a big issue as your gribblies are mobile cover. While melee focused lists haven't won any GTs, neither has FMC spam. So far lictorshame is the only big winner, and it was even on anyone's radar until it won. It's not like melee list are being run at these competitions and losing, they just aren't present at all. If you want batreps read the linked threads, there are lots of them (some with turn by turn photos). Good majority is still not reliable imo. Flyrant hitting 6+ times with 2 devourers is reliable imo. 75% is too much of a risk for something as costly as lets say 5 fully kitted shrikes. There in lies the problem. Even with fleet, it is not too likely the cover bubble will keep up with them. Also the wrapping is easy enough to peel even with their 5+ cover saves so really, all you are likely to get with the shrikes is that 5+ cover. At least that's how I'd do it. Kill the wall with something less important and then massacre the important unit. The top players understand that melee lists do not win against hard core lists. Likely because they are ever so easily either dodged by their intended targets (serpents etc.) or shot on the way to their intended targets (any and all gunlines).
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Feb 25, 2015 18:41:20 GMT
How about I just take issue with your line of reasoning, as it can be summed up as follows: Raveners are bad. Only poor opponents allow Raveners to seem good. Therefore, any time your Raveners seem good, your opponent must be bad. How do I confirm that my opponent bad? Because Raveners are bad, and in that match the Raveners seemed good. That's not a good argument, that's circular reasoning. Learn the difference. I mean... unless you have evidence that everyone posting success so far has only played unskilled opponents (outside of your assumption that Raveners are bad). You have that right? But, maybe I shouldn't expect much from someone who argues burden of proof in light of 40+ pages across multiple threads dedicated to the topic. Nice strawman! Let me correct that. I don't need to create a straw man, you've got hidden assumptions, circular logic, and you're drawing factual conclusions from subjective descriptions like "good" and "bad." Your perspective of luck or opponent assumes that your own army/skill is unable to prevent your opponent from acting optimally. Your counter to "bad units worked against good opponent" is "opponent could have brought a better list." Thank you for your deep insight... I mean trivially true statement. You know when I run 4 Flyrants, my opponent can also "bring a better list", right? Also, "you don't see unit X in top lists"... Lictors. Mawlocs. Tyrant Guard. You haven't provided evidence for (please do not swear). Either way, I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by FTGT-BeeCee on Feb 25, 2015 18:49:15 GMT
I think alot of your assessment is dead on. Wyverns will dominate raveners for instance, but what can a tyranid player that has decided to take Raveners do to mitigate this? He could deep strike them and hope they don't come in for a couple turns giving his flyrants time to punk the wyverns etc... I think that is the discussion that people are hoping to have in this thread.
I don't think people are always looking to list tailor against a specific codex but i think we all have a mental checklist of what is in our personal meta. I know i have multiple lists i like to play based on where i am playing and what people are bringing that may look vastly different to my tourney list. The best advice is to build a list vs the people you play.
This is just my personal preference but i think it's my place only to provide the reasons i think a unit will or won't work and help to come up with solutions to make a unit that someone wants to play work the best it can. After that, it's ultimately up to that player to decide what they want to play. I am a firm believer that ultimately you should play what you want to play and i'll use any knowledge i have to help you with that. At the end of the day some units and combos are not sustainable but i think it's up to that individual player to decide that. If they keep getting their teeth kicked in while using a ton of raveners but want to keep at, more power to them.
I think it's our job as the Tyranid community to do everything we can to support anyone's playstyle while also providing them with facts to make the best decision they want to make. But I live in a fluffy bunny, kissing babies kind of online community.
With that said, man do i wish Raveners were better. Even if IB wasn't so crippling they might be fun to use in maelstrom missions just to grab an objective or try to clear a small unit of jetbikes or something chilling on one. i absolutely love the models, they have been one of my favorite units since they first came out.
|
|
|
Post by shadowfinder on Feb 25, 2015 20:37:15 GMT
I have not said Raveners are OP goodness. it is true they are not the new necron wraiths which ais one of the best units in that codex if not the best. Raveners are not trash that never should be used either. You have made the case that you should never put them on the table case you will just have to take them off. Wich is not true.
You made the statement that they are impossible to get to work so why take them. You lumped Raveners , shrikes and stealers in to that statement. The lictor list that has won two Grand level tournaments has varied both times it played. the first time it had Stealers in it. That win didn't make stealers great by any means, but it did show they can work in a list if used with a plan and practice. If you need to have a someone win on National Level for something you to agree something can be useful I don't see that happening. I have placed in the top 5 in a couple of the tournaments in my are and I have even won a few a couple with over 30+ people. that may not be what you are wanting but for me and others it gives us something to think about in trying MSU or different option in formatting our units.
You have some valid points to keep in mind. But I have seen what looks good on paper not be in real play and Vice versa.
By the sound of it my play style is very different then yours. It sounds like you walk across the board more then I do. Our view of said units would be different from that as well.
|
|