# Razorback Tactica?



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Well, Razorbacks tend to be left out of most lists due to low capacity, low armor and relatively high points cost.

But the newer breed of codices has made them more viable by lowering their cost and introducing Combat Squads and the ability for a 10 man squad to take a razorback (they just can't mount up in it unless they deploy as combat squads)

And if you have enough other dangerous armored targets (like Baal predators, vindicators, and the like), it's likely that the razorback will be ignored, or absorb shots that would be better spent against the bigger targets.

But how do you go about using RBs effectively? Transports are about getting the troops to where they need to be, and doing it faster than you could by just walking...but if a vehicle moves faster than a brisk walk it can't fire its weapons!

So do you do a one-turn rush at 12" and then slow down and disembark troops then? Or do you just crawl the razorbacks forward to maximize their firepower? Do you even bother embarking and just walk the troops behind them as mobile cover? Or do you just deploy the RB in a different location and treat it as a light tank, leaving its squad to fend for themselves?

What do you guys suggest?


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

From what ive seen people use it as a mobile fire support base for the sqaud its attached to, mainly by rushing 12" the first couple of turns then popping the troops then if its still alive acting as a support fire base for that squad on the objective or where ever they are entrenched, another is moving 6" with the troops using it to deny LoS and it still acting as a mobile fire base for the squad, hope that helps


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

personally id use it as a light tank, in a similar way to a chimera is used.


----------



## Initiate (Mar 25, 2007)

i have RB in my list. I use it to establish a fire base. Dont fire weapons, get to a comfortable spot, and then blast the living shit out of your enemy with the turrets and the passengers.


----------



## Skr121 (Oct 3, 2007)

Yes, I tend to use RB for mad rushing and use Smoke or cover while I run up, then I use the RBs to deny shots from squads close to my squad. 

Kinda like this: #s are enemy squads, the box is the RB, and the x is my squad:
1111
|_____|
xxx 2

Then 2 gets shot by my squad, 1 and anyone near 1 can't shoot me, and my guys are free to charge next turn.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I've seen them used best in numbers. Overloading the target selection with 'cheaper' vehicles that can take down any tank is definitely a plausible way to take out another army, provided that then infantry attached to the tank can take care of whats left.

Had a Space Wolf playing buddy of mine use 3 RBs with Lascannons, 3 Pred Annies, 3 Dreads w/ Lascannons (one Venerable, of course) all in support of a large squad of Blood Claws with teleporting Priest. 9 TLLCs plus another 4 Lascannons can be really tough, and the army was very good against any other army with less than 100 models. Horde Bugs, and my mixed IG with 120+ models usually ate his list up.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

The list I'm currently pondering would have two Baal predators, an Anni and two LC razors, along with a big nasty death company and VAS, and Mephiston. Lots of targets.


----------



## Deceiver (Sep 19, 2007)

RB only holds 6 guys. If I ever use it(which is rare),I put a deathwatch kill team in it or a command sqd. 6 bolter guys jumping out to dble tap is ok but only vs enemy shock troop sqds. If used just for TL Las then that's a waste of pts.

common mistake of players is to use up all their hvy wpn shots on opp big bad tanks. Go for the troop transports 1rst. Easier to pen and take away mobility.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

While it's true that transports are easier to take down, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the best target. The damage a Baal predator, or a Vinsicator can do compared to a rhino with 5 marines in it is astronomica.

Shooting at transports is a gamble. Sometimes it;s a good idea, but sometimes it;s a waste.

Also remember that transports can be fielded empty, and you don;t have to tell your enemy whose squad it belongs to or what's inside.

I fielded a JP heavy Blood Angels list once, with two 6-man las/plas tacticals (this was before the new codex), a couple assault squads, two baal predators.
And one rhino...

The tacticals deployed and set up, the jump troops moved forward, and the rhino made a rush for the center line, flanked by the baals.

Naturally, the other guy assumed my rhino contained my Death Company (because the DC were neatly arranged off the field, awaiting deployment), so rather than shootong at my tanks, he fired everything he could at the rhino.

It took a couple lascannon hits to bring it down...and when he did, he was very pissed to find out that it was totally empty. The rhino belonged to one of the tactical squads!

The next turn my Death Company and their Chaplain deep struck in with Jump Packs, while the unmolested Baal predators ripped his armor apart ;-)

So targeting transports can be a good idea...but it can also be a total waste. It's a gamble. The key is to present enough targets that you make the other guy agonize over what's the best choice


----------



## Frostbite (Oct 17, 2007)

I think it all depends on what you are expecting to face. Against elite armies, using Razorbacks with your own elite troops inside can be useful. In that case, you'd want to rush forward using cover as much as possible, drop the troops and then go headhunting. However, against an army that can put a lot of anti tank and transport fire out, you'd be better off leaving them at home.

If I were to use Razorbacks, I'd load assault troops into them and rush them forward en masse, leaving a few razorbacks or rhinos empty to up the chances of survival. Or better yet, take a Land Raider (Empty or full) Crusader and put that in the middle of them all. Then do something like a modified Fish of Fury. Drop your troops out about 12 inches from the enemy, use your razorbacks to block LOS. Anything that is dumb enough to stand and shoot that turn will kill a cheap transport, and your assault troops can charge them with ease. Otherwise, they lose a turn of shooting. 

Another thing would be to use them to get Devestators into position. If it gets blown up, oh well, now it's a potential 4+ cover save and your big guns are in position to cause some serious trouble. Other than that, I 'd use them like a Devilfish with a bigger gun. A light tank that runs around closing firing lanes and blocking LOS or assaults.

Hope that made sense...I don't exactly play Space Marines very often.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Razorbacks have a place, but generally, Space Marines are better served by having full-strength squads. A Razorback can compliment an assault army quite well as a means of delivering a second-wave assault. The dual heavy bolters can soften up opposing squads quite well before assault squads jump over the mobile cover the AFVs provide and carve up the remains. The tactical squads inside the Razorbacks (or alternatively, the Devastator squads hanging out in the back lines while the Razorbacks advance) can provide anti-tank ops via missile launchers or meltaguns.


----------



## squadiee (Nov 4, 2007)

I use my RBs as light tank using their TLLC to create havoc. My last game, my 2 RBs outmaneuvoured 2 Baneblades, completly frustrating the player as I circled the super heavies taking TL potshots :grin:


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

I only really use razorbacks in combat patrol, where they go from a second rate machine to king. I usually load them out with TLHB, smokes (duh), extra armor, and, if i'm expecting another vehicle, a HK missile, though I usually leave the tankkilling up to my squads when the points are this low. The last time I used one, it cut through my friend's Dire Avengers, and pretty much won me the game.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

The problem with the razorback is its armament vs its ideal uses.

A 5 man team is usually too small to be effective in assault (exceptions being veteran squads and the like with lots of attacks and weapon options), and being mounted is a bad thing for heavy weapon teams, since it denies you shots...so the best use for a small, mounted squad is going to be meltagunning or rapid-fire support (and even then, rapid fire is best done en masse)

A meltagun and a powerfist in a razor can be deadly, and at first blush, logic suggests sticking them in a HB razor because of the closer range of the weapon.

However, if you're hunting ICs or tanks with the squad, you're going to want it to have the firepower that'll do damage against the target. Which means Lascannon, not HB. 

So the best weapon for a melta/fist RB squad is really the lascannon, despite the close range and assaulty nature of the unit.

Now, back to the other use for a small, mounted squad, fire-support. While it's true that a traditional 6-man Las/Plas suffers greatly when it's moving in and out of transports, and replacing the man-portable lascannon with a razorback is costly and inefficient with codex SM

But in the new SM codices, the only way to get that lascannon is buying an extra 5 men...and razorbacks are cheaper than buying 5 men and a lascannon.

So you could set up a razorback squad as 5 men, a plasgun and a lascannon razorback acting as the 6th man. It's cheaper than a 10 man fire team, and more mobile since they can mount up, redeploy and not lose the lascannon shots...but it is more fragile, and still fairly costly.

About the only place for the heavy bolter is if you're hard up on points and/or attempting a small assault squad. The HB is billed as an anti-troop weapon, but it only has three shots, so it's better at anti-troop than most weapons, but it alone isn't going to put a big hole in anyone's units. It's not going to make up for 3-5 more pistol shots and 6-10 more close combat attacks, let alone the extra wounds.

If you're going for a HB razor assault, the best troop payload is a team of veterans (honour guard, veteran SM, command squads). This partially makes up for the lack of bodies, and the weapon options available can make up for some of the firepower loss. In this case, springing the extra 5 points for a pintle SB could help.

For Blood Angels, the only real option is Honour Guard (Veteran Assault has better options but cannot have a razor). We don't have any choice but to deploy them as a 5 man squad, so the razor only adds to their capability.

For my list (which is going completely uncommented on in the army list thread ;-) ) I've got two lascannon Razor squads with plasguns, and an honour guard with two meltas, a powerfist and a HB razor.

The honour guard unit is meant as a take all comers squad. I know I said earlier that the HB is wasted on tank-breaker squads, but since the HG can have two meltas, the loss of the lascannon isn't a big problem, and it frees up points for the powerfist. So the squad has 14 normal attacks and 4 powerfist attacks on the charge, can vaporize two peopie outright with the meltas, then lay out 3 pistol shots and 3 HB shots...they fcan put a dent in tanks, ICs or most squads. Not ideal at anything but balanced and relatively cost effective.

I just really wish I could free up points to get a storm bolter for the transport.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> I use a RB with a pack of Grey Hunters in. I generally punt it 12, behind a wall if possible, disembark the Hunters, then dig in. Having a Lascannon wi them helps if dreads or armour try ti harrass them.


----------



## Initiate (Mar 25, 2007)

galahad, that is how i use my RBs. My list is only tankhunting, two meltaguns and a fist in a lazerback.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

Deceiver said:


> RB only holds 6 guys. If I ever use it(which is rare),I put a deathwatch kill team in it or a command sqd. 6 bolter guys jumping out to dble tap is ok but only vs enemy shock troop sqds. If used just for TL Las then that's a waste of pts.
> 
> common mistake of players is to use up all their hvy wpn shots on opp big bad tanks. Go for the troop transports 1rst. Easier to pen and take away mobility.


ok first, putting big heavy weapons on big heavy tanks is a tactic used because generaly big bad tanks last longer than transports and lay down a lot more firepower, generally taking out your anti-tank weapons, rendering you useless at eliminating the transport. Split your fire between both, say 70/30 towards the heavy tanks. 
a weapons on a RB is used for supporting the contents. equip it to support what the squad does. example : if the squad is anti-tank then put some anti infantry weaponry on it to protect them, and vice versa. OR equip it with the same type of weapon as the squad to add that extra little firepower that might take out the target.

secondly, please consider your lettering and use of txt language, missing vowels and so on. it makes the post that much more difficult to read and encourages the use of such language, deteriorating the current high state of posting within this forum. Not trying to be touchy or rude, just maintaining the high quality of this forum.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Initiate said:


> galahad, that is how i use my RBs. My list is only tankhunting, two meltaguns and a fist in a lazerback.


If I had the points, I'd upgrade my HG razor to have lascannons, but I just ran out of points. While the HB doesn't help any in tank hunting, it does give the unit a little flex as far as multiple roles go, and two meltas and a fist can still do a number on amror


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

> Also remember that transports can be fielded empty, and you don;t have to tell your enemy whose squad it belongs to or what's inside.


Not sure how you manage this one?

Simply by being observant your opponent can tell if it has something in or not.

"I'm deploying this Tactical Squad and it's Rhino"

If you just put down the Rhino...it's pretty obvious they're inside.
If they deploy elsewhere, then it's obvious that it's empty.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

You've never been in a position to deploy two units at once because of having more units than the other guy?

Plus, with Combat Squads if I plunk down 5 guys and a Rhino or Razorback, how do you know whether there's anyone in there? Did I buy a transport for my 5 man squad, or did I buy it for a 10 man that I split up? You have no way of knowing, and I sure a shell won't tell you.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

No offence mate, but I don't think it'd be much fun playing you. I prefer an opponent to beat me with tactics in game, not some sleight of hand trickery.



> You've never been in a position to deploy two units at once because of having more units than the other guy?


Not often, but if so I expect my opponent to tell me what he's deploying, when he's deploying it.



> Plus, with Combat Squads if I plunk down 5 guys and a Rhino or Razorback, how do you know whether there's anyone in there?


Because you haven't declared to me that you splitting your 10xman squad into 5xman Combat Squads when you deploy, that's a big indicator.



> Did I buy a transport for my 5 man squad, or did I buy it for a 10 man that I split up?


I'll find out when you tell me what your deploying and if your using the Combat Squad special rule.



> You have no way of knowing, and I sure a shell won't tell you.


If this was a non-tournament game I'd find a better opponent, if for example this is the GT (where some people think this gives them a right to be an ass) I'd ask to swop army lists. If you refused, as is likely and your right, I'd then use the Warm-Up Period to ask about every single model in your army and what it has.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

For a start, I never said this was something I do often.
If you were bothered to check the latest army list I've posted you'd see not only that it consists entirely of small mounted squads, but I even go so far as to write up my intended tactics. This trick does not apply to my current list, it;s merely a tactical suggestion I make (based on prior experience) that is legal, and viable.

The fact that the books go out of their way to tell you that the enemy has no right to know what's inside your transports speaks volumes as to whether or nor it's poor sportsmanship to not tell someone what's in your tank

Furthermore, the Combat Squads rule in my codex says absolutely nothing about declaring how your squad is deployed. It says that the *decision* to deploy as combat squads must be made during deployment. It says nothing about telling your enemy how many men you have or who;s riding inside what transports.

The hidden transport rules exist for a reason. Your men do not have x-ray eyes. The Space marines don't fire off a pleasantly worded e-mail to the planet they're about to invade, kindly informing them of how many men they plan to use and just who will be inside what vehicles.

It's not dirty tricks and slight of hand, it's bloody tactics and strategy, and it's part of the table-game. You don't know if that transport has ten guys with bolters, 5 guys with a meltagun and powerfist, or so empty air. You have to decide where to direct your fire based on the minis on the game, not on metagame knowledge your army has no right knowing.

I'm sure the Trojans were probably quite upset to find a couple hundred Greeks inside their fancy new horse, but did that make them poor sportsmen or brilliant tacticians?

I'm no liar and no cheat. If someone demands to see my list before we play, then I'm more than happy to show you my list. I clearly mark which squads deploy inside what transports, and how I intend to deploy them in non-escalation games. But demanding to see someone else's list before they play because you think they're a cheat or a poor sport does nothing to improve my opinion of your sportsmanship, sir.

I'm not going to cry about losing to an opponent who outsmarted me. Misdirection, feints, gambits, these are all part of the table game.

Demanding to know what's coming at you before you have a right to is metagame...I'd rather play someone who beats me with tactics, than beat someone who demands to play the metagame.

Edit: Sorry for the rant, man. It's just the implication that I'd use off-table trickery while you say you would demand to know off-table information, and *I'm* the poor sport? Set me off.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I asked someone if there was anything in a wave serpant once and they told me no, then two turns later 5 melta armed eldar jumped out of it and laid waste to all my heavy support.
it annoyed me that they did that especially since I had never ever encountered fire dragons before in any game. as far as I am concerned I see questions equating to military intelligence perfectly legal and fair.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Now outright lying to your opponent is unquestionably wrong.

However, if you had asked what was inside and he said, "I'm not going to tell you." or "You'll find out soon enough"

That is both legal and sportsmanly (assuming he doesn't say it like a jerk)

The rules say we do not have to disclose the contents of a transport. If you ask, I have every right not to answer.

But lying is lying and that is inexcusable. You have every right to be upset with a player for lying to your face.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Perhaps it is above board, I'm just not a fan of games being won or lost not because the players outmanouevred and out-thought each other...but because an empty Wave Serpent turned out to have Fire Dragons in it all along.

In friendly games of course, you play against friends- and either way you both agree to play it as you want.

In a GT style setting though, I'll ask to swop army lists (and haven't been refused yet). If someone refused, I'd immediately be suspicious of the motives- what reason is there to refuse an army list, unless your relying on some items of wargear being hidden (like the old Greater Daemon) or hiding units, etc.
I'll then ask to see their entire army (as is mandatory under the Warm-Up Period), and ask any questions about units "So what's he got then?" etc.
During deployment your supposed to declare what your deploying as you deploy it.

The whole point of my above is not to outright accuse the opponent of cheating, but to remove any chance of it (since the same is true in reverse, I'll show my list, declare my units when deploying, etc).
99% of the time people will not suddenly decide a unit was in the Rhino behind the one that got blown up all along, or that those 10 guys that have just lost 6 where actually 2 5xman Combat squads deployed intermingled, etc.
But why have the 1% temptation.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Jeridian said:


> Perhaps it is above board, I'm just not a fan of games being won or lost not because the players outmanouevred and out-thought each other...but because an empty Wave Serpent turned out to have Fire Dragons in it all along.


I really resent that association.
I never, ever EVER advocated lying to your enemy as to the contents of a transport. The wave serpent example was an example of a bad player who chose to lie.

I never suggested lying. There's miles of difference between giving away information the enemy has no right to know, and lying about it.

Being baited by an empty transport *is* being out-thought and outmaneuvered. Being lied to is a different story.



> In a GT style setting though, I'll ask to swop army lists (and haven't been refused yet). If someone refused, I'd immediately be suspicious of the motives- what reason is there to refuse an army list, unless your relying on some items of wargear being hidden (like the old Greater Daemon) or hiding units, etc.
> I'll then ask to see their entire army (as is mandatory under the Warm-Up Period), and ask any questions about units "So what's he got then?" etc.
> During deployment your supposed to declare what your deploying as you deploy it.


I don't know why you're harping on about this. I already told you I have absolutely no problem showing you my list if you're going to demand it.
But I do think demanding information that gives you an unfair advantage makes you a bad sport. Your troops have no way of knowing who's in what transport, and the rules explicitly say as much.

But if you would rather play the metagame and use knowledge you shouldn't have, then I'll let you have it. But like I said, if you want to ask in the middle of the game what I have in my transport, my answer will be "Wait and see."



> The whole point of my above is not to outright accuse the opponent of cheating, but to remove any chance of it (since the same is true in reverse, I'll show my list, declare my units when deploying, etc).
> 99% of the time people will not suddenly decide a unit was in the Rhino behind the one that got blown up all along, or that those 10 guys that have just lost 6 where actually 2 5xman Combat squads deployed intermingled, etc.
> But why have the 1% temptation.


And I would rather be a good sport and *trust* my opponent to be a grown-up, and if something fishy goes on I'll ask to see the list after the game.

But I'm not going to take an unfair advantage by demanding to know my enemy's tactics and deployment strategy before the game starts. The rules say I've got no right to know what's inside someone's transports, and I'm not going to ask for an illegal advantage.

I can imagine a Space Marine Commander telling his men to deploy outside of their rhino so that they can bait the enemy with it and his second in command saying, "I don't know, sir...that sounds kinda under-handed...shouldn't we tell them it's empty so they don't waste their time shooting at it?"

Like I said, if you want to see my list before the game, you can see it. If you want to demand an unfair, illegal advantage because you can't handle someone using misdirection and tactics on the field, that's fine. But I'm not going to think very much of your sportsmanship...and I'm not going to tell you in the middle of a game what I have inside a transport. You can look at my list before or after, but why should I tell you every move I plan to make so you don;t have to do any thinking during the game?


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

meh, I'm not too concerned about the wave serpant thing really, I didn't mean to spark a whole conversation about it, I do rather enjoy playing with that person and I may not have made my question clear, It did only happen that one time, so its not a reoccurring pattern or anything.

although, if someone asked me if something was in a transport, I would say yes or no, I wouldn't have Divulged the contents of the vehicle. thats what I like about droppods, I never have to announce whats in them, I just put it right out there.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

This is the real reason that transport vehicles bear squad markings-- in this case, the fluff is purely coincidental. If I have a Rhino with an arrow on its roof and a "V" superimposed over it, you can be damned sure that the fifth Tactical Squad is in there. It's part of WYSIWYG. 

I fully agree with Galahad on the point of asking mid-game. If it isn't obvious, that's your fault, and you need to make it so in order to keep dishonesty from happening. It's the unfortunate nature of these games that it's rather easy to cheat. However, the rules as written do say that you don't have to say what is inside a vehicle beyond "a unit." 

I'm not a fan of showing my army list to my opponent for two reasons. It eliminates all element of surprise you may have, and, in seeing their army list, gives you knowledge you really shouldn't have. I also have always viewed it as a gesture of distrust to insist on seeing your opponent's army list. You can't refuse if you're asked to show, since that looks pretty bad too, but you really shouldn't ask to see in the first place. I bring two copies of my army list to a tournament-- one for me, and one for the judge. Sometimes, I don't even do that, and just bring one for the judge, because it's my "business as usual" army that I've been using for years on end and know the contents by heart. Depends on the situation.

As for the bait and switch... it works once. If you get caught with your pants down shooting at an empty transport, you'll know better next time. A fairly easy way to tell if someone's got an empty transport is to take a look at what else is on the table, and mentally get a rough estimate of the points. If they'd be over by about a squad's worth of points by having something in that transport, and you're assuming they're playing honestly (which you always should) then it's a safe bet that it's an empty vehicle. If there's no squad on the deck at all, and the only way an army can take the vehicle is as a transport, then you know that it's loaded. Similarly, if it's plausible that the points would add up to allow both a single squad on deck and a squad inside a transport, it's a good bet that the vehicle is loaded. Ultimately, Sun-Tzu said it best-- and to paraphrase his message-- read all the codecies, not just the one for your army. It makes everything a lot easier in the long run.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

We have different definitions of unfair advantage, I think being able to hide your units deceptively is an unfair advantage, you think the opposite.

Fluff explanations mean nothing, the Marines would should up with double the game points total because of their greater tactical skill and mobility...
Or they'd just bombard the opposing army from orbit without retaliation.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Jeridian, our hangup seems to be that I play by the rules and expect my enemy to be a good sport and not a cheater.

You seem to have a different philosophy and outlook, and that's unfortunate.

I would never ask an opponent to stop using rules that benefit him in mid-game because I think it's unfair that (for example) Tau battlesuits can Jump/Shoot/Jump.

This is the same as calling an opponent a poor sport because he refuses to disclose the contents of his transports mid-game because you think his perfectly legal tactics are unfair.

And while I'm happy to swap lists if you absolutely must make sure I'm not a liar and cheater, I would never ask the same from you before the game. I give the other guy the benefit of the doubt and wait til after the game before satisfying my curiosity or confirming my suspicions.

If you can't play without constantly referencing the other guy's army list, then that's unfortunate. But I'm sure in time you'll develop the ability to react to unconventional tactics and muster a degree of trust for your fellow players.

Once you can, I'll be glad to play with you.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Of course I can just turn that on it's head. I prefer the philosophy that I and everyone I've played had of being open and honest about their armies, of winning games by outplaying someone with movement, LOS, getting the right units to the right place etc- rather than by playing spot the difference with transports.

I judge a tactic based on it's longevity, flanking your army is a tactic that can be used again and again. Tricking someone into shooting an empty Rhino by some elaborate plan to hide what's in your army only works once- what does that tell you? It's a one-shot cheap trick.

If you can't handle trying to win when everyone's open and honest, then by all means stick to hiding.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I never once suggested being dishonest. Did I ever once suggest or advocate lying to your opponent? Did I ever say I would be unwilling to show you my list before the game begins?
I resent the implication.

Did I say it was a foolproof tactic? Did I say it would work every time?

All I said it was valid and legal and that if someone wants to throw a fit about it, you;re not the poor sport, they are.

War is about misdirection. You've never made a false push or a feint? You've never baited an enemy into striking at a weak, exposed unit while moving around to flank them when they jump into the trap? How is that different than wheeling an empty transport out into the line of fire and hoping that they gamble on it being a juicier target than it really is?

Every successful army since the dawn of time has used tactics to mislead the enemy. Were they being poor sports?

Maybe we should just agree to disagree and call this particular exchange quits.

While we're here, do you have any tactics involving transports in general or razorbacks in specific? Preferred squad loadouts, suggestions on how best to employ a shooting transport like a razorback, etc?


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> Jeridian, our hangup seems to be that I play by the rules and expect my enemy to be a good sport and not a cheater.


Depends on your definition of sportsmanship. IMO I prefer to play with open lists, anyone refusing to disclose what they have seems odd to me and makes me suspicious that they will pull something. I've been a victim of units 'teleporting' between rhinos before and it leaves an extremely nasty taste in the mouth. 

Consider this situation:

I have 2 identical Falcons deployed on the table. I deploy my 6 Striking Scorpions without putting them on the table. 
"Where are they?" you say. 
"Wait and see!" Say I.

I then deploy 6 Fire Dragons as above. How the hell do you know which of the identical transports they're in? How can you know if I'm not just going to pop the right unt out of the right Falcon at any time? You can't. I could cheat and you would never know otherwise, even if they were in the right Falcon from the beginning you wouldn't know. 
To you, thats OK. To me that sort of thing is suspicious. 

Sad fact is, some players do cheat. By just saying "I deploy a tactical squad in a rhino." 3 times when they have different gear means that you can pretty much decide which unit to use from any rhino you want and your opponent would have no way of proving otherwise. Same with drop pods if you don't declare units. "Rolling for four pods now, 3 come down." means nothing but is OK apparently. 

To me, making things above board makes for a better game and no potential bad feeling for either side.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

All of my transports are marked, and I mark on my army list which squad goes with which transport.

It may not be as clear as having a troops arrow and "Tac Squad 1" painted on top, but it is marked, and it does correspond to the entry on my sheet. If you suspect I pulled a fast one on you then be a good sport and wait til after the game to ask. 

I'll be glad to show you that my sheet clearly lists Tactical Squad 1 being in the transport with the aquilla on front, while Tac 2 is in the transport with the ribbon reading 'Sanguine' on the front, and the Honour Guard was in the transport with the BA logo on front. If any of those squads came out of a transport other than the one I recorded on the sheet, then obviously something was wrong with the game.

But I was raised to put your suspicions and questions on hold until after the game.


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> But I was raised to put your suspicions and questions on hold until after the game.


You must have had cool parents if they taught you about wargaming as a kid!:grin:

I on the other hand feel nothing wrong in questioning debatable tactics, moves and anything else that doesn't seem right to me and expect people to do the same to me. If its fine, then at least I'm made aware of what's going on and vice versa, but if I bit my tongue every time someone tried to shoot my IC when the rules didn't allow it, I would never bother taking an HQ choice.

However if you are going to play the game without swapping lists then you are going about it the right way by having it on your list. If questioned and you pointed that out then great, and I'm not questioning your own personal gaming honesty. However I have a different ethos and find a victory playing open games more worthwhile and a true test of gaming skill. Different strokes etc.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Dad taught me math, reading, creative writing and problem-solving with a weekly Advanced Dungeons and Dragons session back when I was a kid (oldschool AD&D, not 2nd or 3rd editon) ;-) For war gaming we mainly did the old Avalon Hill Squadleader stuff, he never did get into warhammer, but etiquette is etiquette.

Like I said, it's not a tactic I use often, nor is it one that works every time.
But it's valid and legal and I see no sportsmanship issues involved with baiting the enemy into shooting at something that wasn't worth the effort.

I've got no problem playing open games.
what I do take exception to are paranoid people who are so scared of being cheated that they'd rather say "I don't trust you" to your face than give you the benefit of the doubt until the end of the game. If someone demands to see my list, or grills me on every mini in my army, then they're calling me a cheater, and I don't care for it.

Granted, it also depends on the tone and situation. If the guy's being friendly or curious, or politely asks if we want to exchange lists first, I'm a lot nicer about letting you see what I've got before we play. but when someone says "Well, if we ever played I would demand to see your list, and if your refused I'd spend the warmup asking about every mini in your army" just translates to "You're a cheater and I don't trust you for a second." and that puts me in edge.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

Transports- Namely Rhino's and Razorbacks.

In a Trait Marine army Drop Pods just win hands down, they're cheaper, safer, higher AV, can carry Termies, point and click.
When the designers say they consider the SM Codex a failure- this is the kind of thing they mean.

The only place transports even become remotely viable is in a DA/BA list and this is only because everything else was nerfed to hell. The equivalent of a one-eyed man becoming powerful because everyone else just went blind.

In both the Rhino and Razorback cases, actually putting passengers inside is somewhat suicidal.

They are better as cheap throwaway units, to block LOS, Tank Shock, become cover where you want it, etc.
In this respect the Rhino wins the Razorback, because it's cheaper.

As someone else said, a cheap Razorback becomes more viable in Combat Patrol where there is far less to hurt it.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I have never used a rhino. Ever. it is completely useless in a Black Templar army, so are razorbacks, they never ever survive past the first shooting phase. maybe if smokes were better, I.E. you can shoot when you use them, (I mean, come on, they are only one use anyway)


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

> "Well, if we ever played I would demand to see your list, and if your refused I'd spend the warmup asking about every mini in your army" just translates to "You're a cheater and I don't trust you for a second." and that puts me in edge.


That quote was actually in relation to a tournament where they removed the requirement to swap army lists, but provided a way that you can still get full and complete disclosure of the opponents army anyway. Effectively the same result is reached, but its quicker to swap lists. The implication in this case is that if someone is unwilling to do things the easy way, you can still do things the hard way as is required in the rules. Its a silly situation but not really relevant to your point as you're discussing friendly games I think.



> I've got no problem playing open games.
> what I do take exception to are paranoid people who are so scared of being cheated that they'd rather say "I don't trust you" to your face than give you the benefit of the doubt until the end of the game. If someone demands to see my list, or grills me on every mini in my army, then they're calling me a cheater, and I don't care for it.


Depends on the situation. In a tournament with rules such as those I've mentioned above, I'd be suspicious as the other player has the right by the rules to find out what you have. In such a case I'd wonder if you're hoping to get an unfair advantage by me not exercising that right. However I don't think you would have a problem with this as it would be in the event rules.

In a friendly game if you felt strongly I'd go along without full disclosure as long as it was memtioned prior to the game, but I would reserve judgement until the end of the game when I could check your list. However I would reserve the right to politely question any move that looked wrong to me to clarify your intent and justification for transparency. Its also not the way I like to game, but for friendly games i'll try anything once.

To clarify, I don't mind losing, but I do mind being cheated. This is why I prefer things to be more open so there are no doubts on either side. I'd hate to be accused of cheating also.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

*From a Dark Angels Perspective*

With Dark Angels the Razorback seems to be strongly associated in the new fluff with Command Squads.

This makes sense since DA Command Squads can't buy extra members so a Character + 5 Command Squad nicely fills up the transport.

The Razorback is going to draw a lot of fire with the Command Squad inside and it's not a very durable tank. On the other hand, Dark Angels Command Squads get shredded if they need to walk - it's only a couple wounds to start pinging off Company Champions, Medics, Standard Bearers, etc.

So the Razorback does serve a value added component in that respect. The Command Squad can't assault out of it, but it can shield them from the bulk of the enemy's firepower on the turn they deploy. (So can a Rhino, but the Razorback adds a fairly cheap heavy weapon into the bargain.)

It can also play a role in smaller games of adding anti-tank firepower. Dark Angels will, generally, have less heavy weapons than regular Marines. The Razorback helps compensate for that a bit.

With Tactical Squads it's use is a little for limited. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the poster who suggested using it to make up the heavy weapon for a 5 man squad. That's viable, but I think that the Combat Squads rule is better served with a 10-man squad which contains both a shooty half and a close combat half with the Veteran. In that context the Razorback adds a fairly inexpensive heavy weapon over the Rhino and does a decent job of moving the close combat half. This strategy won't work if you play Escalation (Omega) missions regularly though because of the way Combat Squads interact with the reserve rules. For me, that concern generally is not an issue.

Apocalypse battles can take place on very large boards and over many turns depending on what the players decide. Razorbacks, along with Rhinos and Thunderhawks, could be an important part of an army's mobility in a 3 day Apocalyptic battle taking place on a 20' x 20' floor. In such a situation it would be very easy for units to get stranded far beyond their effective range. Transports would be way to redeploy and focus firepower where its needed. The main drawback in that situation is that a Rhino with a Hunter-Killer missile could do the same job better and cheaper. I admit that I haven't tested this hypothesis myself.

The Razorback's other value is in a mechanized list. It's one more AV target. It's also harder to ignore than Rhinos which don't pose much of a threat once they reach their destination.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I've found that at least for Blood Angels, Honour Guard (our version of Command Squad) are actually much better as an independent unit, with Veteran Assault Squads (Our Veterans) forming the IC escort. Veteran units have more weapon options and are more geared for assault, which is where you want most of your ICs to be

Though that means for us, if we want transport it's limited to rhinos or drop pods (or jump packs) which we get for free in exchange for removing the JPs on our VAS, so if you see one rhino, it's likely got either a Veteran Assault or Death Company in it <chuckles>

Though our rhinos are kinda swank. 4+ and they become Fast for the turn though on a 1 they stall out for the turn


----------

