The Inadequacy of Reeves

[Scyldemort]

OK, now here's a sad and pathetic thing; I've been forcing myself to take Reeves lately, just to try to give them their fair shake, and I have to say, I am not impressed. At all.

Is there a situation in which they are actually worth their points? Because today, when playing with a max sized group of Reeves, I found myself wishing I'd taken instead... anything.

My opponent was fielding Nemo plus seven jacks and a few assorted solos. Me? Fielding a warpwolf pureblood, a feral warpwolf, a gnarlhorn satyr, and Laris. The rest of my army was filled in with two blackclad wayfarerers, two shifting stones, one maximum sized unit of Reeves, three War Wolves, Wolf Lord Morraig. And on the first turn 'gainst Cygnar, my Reeves I'd rather be

a full squad of mounted Tharn ladies

Mostly the Reeves just drew fire, were ineffectual, and died, and occasionally allowed for War Wolves to benefit from sic 'em. Plus side: the beasts did an amazing job, and Morraig did well even without flank. Now, on the second turn 'gainst Cygnar, my Reeves I'd rather be

Two floating shrimp
or a full squad of mounted Tharn ladies

Third turn was my big push, with my beasts wrecking havoc on my enemy (actually started during my opponent's second turn, thanks to counter slam on my satyr, which knocked down THREE jacks, only one of which had activated - the one that had provoked the counterslam. Yes, they were able to stand, but at the cost of the only focus they'd been given each. This turn, I completely destroyed three of my opponent's seven jacks and nearly wrecked two more. eKaya's feat then returned my beasts to safety. The Reeves... managed to contribute nothing whatever. Thus on my third turn 'gainst Cygnar, my Reeves I'd rather be

Six Tharn men
Two floating shrimp
or a full squad of mounted Tharn ladies

On the fourth turn, all my reeves were dead, and without actually having done anything save miss a stormcaller with an aimed shot. That was my assassination run, which actually failed to kill Nemo, but did kill enough around him that he spent his entire fourth turn trying to kill me back, but with Laris three inches from my caster, I got +2 to defense, and with DEF 18, he was unable to hit me more than twice (for low damage both times). The turn ended with everything in my army dead except for Kaya and my beasts (of which I had lost only the Feral Warpwolf).

And on my fourth turn 'gainst Cygnar, my Reeves I'd rather be

One 'warden smiting
One Satyr slamming
Two Argus Barking
Twelve Tharn Bloodweavers
Twelve Tharn Bloodtrackers
Two Gorax raging
One Warpwolf warping
Druids...! with UA!
Two sentry stones
Six Tharn men
Two floating shrimp
or a full squad of mounted Tharn ladies

[Brandubh]

The awesomeness of your post makes everything about the Mk II test Reeves worthwhile. ;)

[Spooker]

Excellent post!
I enjoyed it.

[CyberKnight]

Clever and true. :D

[LEJKaya]

Nice work.

Both in the testing and the construction of the post.

[bushman101]

well played :D

[meleemadness]

and a partridge in a pear tree!!

Very well done in the holiday spirit!

[meleemadness]

In all seriousness thought....last night I watched a guy try to use reeves to some effect but their range is so limiting.

You will NEVER get to use your double shot ability because you will ALWAYS have to move to get in range.

There are ranged units with better range and for less points than Reeves....I seriously wonder why this was not noticed by the developers. There is NO synergy with the Reeves and ANY CIRCLE WARLOCK!!!

Anyway, I don't and never will use them.....All Tharn or nothing! (actually, I am making Khador and Menoth and Legion as well...betting Circle will fail in the end...last tournament seems to prove that is their destiny.)

[Bakemono]

In all seriousness thought....last night I watched a guy try to use reeves to some effect but their range is so limiting.

You will NEVER get to use your double shot ability because you will ALWAYS have to move to get in range.

There are ranged units with better range and for less points than Reeves....I seriously wonder why this was not noticed by the developers. There is NO synergy with the Reeves and ANY CIRCLE WARLOCK!!!

Anyway, I don't and never will use them.....All Tharn or nothing! (actually, I am making Khador and Menoth and Legion as well...betting Circle will fail in the end...last tournament seems to prove that is their destiny.)


This is because we are charged a PREMIUM for Pathfinder and Hunter which sits on them. It is one of the reasons I argue so hard for us to have some reliable forest generation abilities in our army. Many of our models have abilities (costly abilities) which only work with forests. The Reeves is one of them. If the Woldwarden gets an Animus bump to being able to create some forest (hopefully 5" AOE or at least the 4" AOE that it can leave behind) that would at least provide minimal synergy with the Reeves. However, until they get a Range bump, they are always going to take the backseat to better ranged units.

[DemonCalibre]

While I am not keen on Reeves, I really don't think that Pathfinder and Hunter are the abilities that make them expensive.

If they were Cylena would be expensive as well, perhaps more so since they provide factions that are not good at pathfinding pathfinder.

The Rule that makes them expensive is Dual Shot, I really don't buy into this Pathfinder Tax quite a few of our units are buget priced with pathfinder, why are reeves suddenly the exception.

[PPS_Mod:Not Dice]

I tend to agree with Calibre. Compared to Long Gunners which are the same cost and unit size, while the Reeves have a slightly better stat line (including a noticeable +1 SPD) the only differences between the unit are the RNG 14 vs 10, and the addition of Pathfinder and Hunter for the Reeves.

I'm not saying this is good or bad though. With the RNG and abilities equaling out, it would seem to me that the real premium for the unit is coming from Dual Shot.

[Bakemono]

I tend to agree with Calibre. Compared to Long Gunners which are the same cost and unit size, while the Reeves have a slightly better stat line (including a noticeable +1 SPD) the only differences between the unit are the RNG 14 vs 10, and the addition of Pathfinder and Hunter for the Reeves.

I'm not saying this is good or bad though. With the RNG and abilities equaling out, it would seem to me that the real premium for the unit is coming from Dual Shot.

Hrm. You might want to compare those two units again. Long Gunners ALSO have Dual Shot. They cost the same as Reeves. They get +4" of range. We got Pathfinder/Hunter. Let me stress this point again. We pay a premium for those abilities that RELY on terrain. The Long Gunners will always have the +4" of range over us. That perk they paid for in the same premium never goes away. We ONLY get our benefit if there is terrain with which we can take advantage.

[Dantes]

Reeves just lost Dual shot for Snap Fire and gained a point of RAT.

[bushman101]

The Reeve change is not what I wanted, but much better than before

[Rosicrucian]

The Reeves change is a good one (one of our suggestions in fact) and looks to be quite potent with the Megalith's new animus.

[ImpactVector]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they participate in a CRA, wouldn't the leader of each CRA be the only one to get the extra attack from Snap Shot?

I mean, it's better than it was before, but they're still not doing tons of damage with their POW 10s.

[Sevwall]

They turn into a unit capable of making something like 6 RAT 8 POW 12 CRA attacks.

[Spike0011]

They turn into a unit capable of making something like 6 RAT 8 POW 12 CRA attacks.

Where are those numbers coming from? A MAX unit can fire 5, 2 man CRAs then (if each attack kills) 5 normal attacks.

I say, give them RAT 7, loose CRA, and keep snapping fire.

[Blaque]

They can Waterfall pretty efectively. So its more like you have a bunch of RAT 8 POW 12s as I see it.

And stuff.

[Bakemono]

I don't know yet if I'm satisfied with the Reeves. I'm still leaning toward the notion that they need 12" of range. However, they can't be looked at alone anymore. Mr. Soles & Company have indeed given the Woldwarden the ability to create temporary forests. This means their Pathfinder/Hunter ability can now be somewhat reliably used in a fight. It means that you play Reeves in lists that have Woldwardens. You have a large, durable blocker moving ahead of them so they can advance and hopefully be able to get some shots in despite the limited range. Until I have tested this, I can't say I'm unhappy with them anymore. I suspect they are now quite functional in the overall scheme of the Circle.

[Rosicrucian]

Where are those numbers coming from? A MAX unit can fire 5, 2 man CRAs then (if each attack kills) 5 normal attacks.

I say, give them RAT 7, loose CRA, and keep snapping fire.

If you waterfall the attacks (2 man CRA, then snap fire attack CRA-ed with third reeves initial attack, etc.) you should get 8 RAT 8 POW 12s and a RAT 6 POW 10 by my count.

[magi]

They can Waterfall pretty efectively. So its more like you have a bunch of RAT 8 POW 12s as I see it.

And stuff.
If waterfalling is involved in using the Reeves effectively now, I'm guessing they'll get changed again.

So can somebody do a complete breakdown of how you get 5 RAT 8 POW 12s again?

[Spike0011]

If waterfalling is involved in using the Reeves effectively now, I'm guessing they'll get changed again.

So can somebody do a complete breakdown of how you get 5 RAT 8 POW 12s again?

A MAX unit fires 5, 2 man CRAs

[Killionaire]

reeve 1 fires a normal shot. Hits.
Reeve 2 fires, and combines with Reeve 1's snap Fire: POW12, RAT8.
Reeve 3 Fires, combines with Reeve 2's snap fire: POW12, RAT8.
etc.

End result:
9 shots at POW12, RAT8, 2 shots at POW10, RAT6 if everything hits.

[ImpactVector]

reeve 1 fires a normal shot. Hits.
Reeve 2 fires, and combines with Reeve 1's snap Fire: POW12, RAT8.
Reeve 3 Fires, combines with Reeve 2's snap fire: POW12, RAT8.
etc.

End result:
9 shots at POW12, RAT8, 2 shots at POW10, RAT6 if everything hits.

I think it'd be better to start off with a CRA. You get one less POW 10 but have a better chance of starting the cascade.

[DudeOfOrboros]

Good thing about Snap Fire is that it says "enemy model" not living enemy model. Reeves will likely be a unit to take if you face the McThrall Swarm.

[MeroTZ]

Good thing about Snap Fire is that it says "enemy model" not living enemy model. Reeves will likely be a unit to take if you face the McThrall Swarm.

And they dont even need to CRA there. Potential 20 dead thralls a round :)

[Spike0011]

reeve 1 fires a normal shot. Hits.
Reeve 2 fires, and combines with Reeve 1's snap Fire: POW12, RAT8.
Reeve 3 Fires, combines with Reeve 2's snap fire: POW12, RAT8.
etc.

End result:
9 shots at POW12, RAT8, 2 shots at POW10, RAT6 if everything hits.

Wait what? No,no,no the shoots from snapping fire come immediately after the attack, they can't be combined at all.

So now it looks likes:

reeve 1 & 2 CRA shoot and kill.
reeve 1 gets to snapping fire.
reeve 3 & 4 CRA shoot and kill.
reeve 3 gets to snapping fire.
etc.

End result if all the CRAs hit and kill:
5 shots at POW12, RAT8
5 shots at POW10, RAT6

[Zyrael]

Are you sure Spike? Without a waterfalling effect... they aren't ANY better off.

[Bladestorm]

Wait what? No,no,no the shoots from snapping fire come immediately after the attack, they can't be combined at all.

So now it looks likes:

reeve 1 & 2 CRA shoot and kill.
reeve 1 gets to snapping fire.
reeve 3 & 4 CRA shoot and kill.
reeve 3 gets to snapping fire.
etc.

End result if all the CRAs hit and kill:
5 shots at POW12, RAT8
5 shots at POW10, RAT6


Units with Combined Ranged Attack ignore the
rule that one trooper?s combat action cannot begin until the
previous model?s combat action ends.

They can be combined just fine.

[Falc]

Snap Fire: "When this model destroys one or more enemy models with a ranged attack during its combat action, immediately after that attack is resolved this model can make one normal ranged attack." (emphasis mine)


CRA: "Units with Combined Ranged Attack ignore the rule that one trooper?s combat action cannot begin until the previous model?s combat action ends."

I think it really depends on how you interpret the 'immediately' in Snap Fire. If it means totally utterly right away without even a single instant in between, then I'd say that waterfalling looks doubtful because you don't have time to to begin another trooper's combat action.

[Spike0011]

I think the snapping fire shots can NOT be combinded for one more reason:

Snap Fire: "When this model destroys one or more enemy models with a ranged attack during its combat action, immediately after that attack is resolved this model can make one normal ranged attack."

Now a CRA is not a normal ranged attack.

but in the end...

Infernal, Infernal, where art thou Infernal.

[Bladestorm]

Ricochet used very similar wording, Ricochet could be combined using CRA.

All that matters/mattered is that they are eligible to declare an attack and have CRA.

[wvieira422]

CRA is not a special action or attack and is thus counted as a normal attack. I would believe that is you CRA with Reeve one and two then the extra snap fire shot is also cra with the same models. that sounds how it is worded.

[Amarel]

I think it can, currently, be interpreted either way. However, I'm not sure that waterfalling was the intent (nice as it would be) as it really slows things down.

[Steamworks]

p.32 Hordes FT Rules Document:
In a combined ranged attack, only the primary attacker actually makes an attack. The other participants lose their attacks, contributing them to create the combined attack.

Only the primary attacker will gain the additional attack from Snap Fire.

[Mutton]

Yes, that doesn't stop Waterfalling at all.

[Steamworks]

Heh, waterfalling issue. That's easy then. "This model" and "immediately" supercede the ability to CRA with the Snap Fire shot. If it were otherwise (unless it's unintended not to of course) then it would use text similar to Dual Shot and specify an additional attack that activation. To the feedback form!

[calabiyau]

Third turn was my big push, with my beasts wrecking havoc on my enemy (actually started during my opponent's second turn, thanks to counter slam on my satyr, which knocked down THREE jacks, only one of which had activated - the one that had provoked the counterslam. Yes, they were able to stand, but at the cost of the only focus they'd been given each.

Just to point something out for ya...

If you knock them down after Control Phase, they cannot use Focus to shake KD. Shake is specifically, "During Control Phase, after allocating focus", I believe. (Or something like that... definitely not during activation.)

[Spike0011]

Yes, that doesn't stop Waterfalling at all.

I think it might:

Reeve 1 shot and kill.

Reeve 1 snaps with reeve 2 in CRA with reeve 1 as the primary

Can snapping fire the second shoot because reeve 1 used his snapping fire already.

Reeve 2 can't shoot normal cause he shot CRA with reeve 1

So, now it's back to:
5 shots at POW12, RAT8
5 shots at POW10, RAT6

[Scyldemort]

Just to point something out for ya...

If you knock them down after Control Phase, they cannot use Focus to shake KD. Shake is specifically, "During Control Phase, after allocating focus", I believe. (Or something like that... definitely not during activation.)

See, that's what I thought, but my opponent refused to concede the point, and we ended up d6ing it.

[Stevo]

See, that's what I thought, but my opponent refused to concede the point, and we ended up d6ing it.

It's right in the rulebook. I hate rolling off for a rules concern. It's lazy gaming.

OT, it sounds like the Reeves can reverse-waterfall to me. First attack hits, Snap Fire is used to CRA with next model's initial attack. Snap Fire was what this unit needed.

[calabiyau]

OT, it sounds like the Reeves can reverse-waterfall to me. First attack hits, Snap Fire is used to CRA with next model's initial attack. Snap Fire was what this unit needed.

You want to CRA on the initial. A and B combine, snap shot combines with C (who takes the shot to ensure another snap shot), C's snapshot with D's initial, etc. ending with a regular shot.

[Scyldemort]

It's right in the rulebook. I hate rolling off for a rules concern. It's lazy gaming.

*nods*
I'll have to familiarize myself with the warmachine specific rules. I knew that warbeasts can only shake off effects during the control phase, after leeching fury, but I didn't know if Warjacks had the same exact rules.

[sholthaus]

Snap-Fire
When this model destroys one or more enemy models with a ranged attack during its combat action, immediately
after that attack is resolved this model can make one normal ranged attack. Attacks gained from Snap Fire do not count against
a weaponʼs ROF and cannot generate additional attacks from Snap Fire.



-Only the model leading a CRA can Snapfire, because other model's in the CRA did not attack.

-You cannot CRA a snap-fire attack, because a snap-fire attack can only be a normal ranged attack.

[Killionaire]

CRA's are normal ranged attacks though. A normal ranged attack is anything that's not a Special Ranged Attack (*Atack). For example, certain feats like Haley's grant an additional normal attack, but those sure as hell can be CRA'ed.

[otakud00d]

In other words, CRA'ing twice in a row cannot work. However, having one Reeve kill something then have another reeve lead a CRA using that one's Snap-Fire attack? Fully possible unless "Immediately" means the snap-firing model is the one that has to lead the attack.

Remember. If it doesn't have a (*Attack) next to it, it's a normal attack.

[sholthaus]

oh yeah thats right about the cra being a normal ranged attack, my brain must have skipped a beat there. sorry up late and kinda fried.

Then it should be able to lead or perform in a CRA from the granted snap-fire attack, since units with CRA ignore the rule that one trooper's combat action cannot begin until the previous model's combat action ends.

so you declare the target of the snap fire attack, the other guys declare they are combining, then you chose the leader.

[Mavwick]

They release these rules on Fridays so we have all weekend to break them before they can get back to work. Waterfalling these shots in any way seems like a Mk-I mechanic. The kind of rules I'd have to explain to every opponent, like Ambuscade, as to how they break the mold.

That said, I hope it works this way, but manages to write in its own rules or the core rules why it does such. My initial read gave me the thought they intended a single shot after any given CRA, but that's hardly worth a 6/10 unit. This idea is worth the cost, but anything short of it would be 6/9 tops. I think their intent was to have CRAs generate another shot, or single troopers need averages to hit (with Hunter leaving few DEF bonuses applicable) and slightly below averages to kill warrior models at range, and try it a second time.

[Rosicrucian]

They release these rules on Fridays so we have all weekend to break them before they can get back to work. Waterfalling these shots in any way seems like a Mk-I mechanic. The kind of rules I'd have to explain to every opponent, like Ambuscade, as to how they break the mold.

Waterfalling is still alive and well in Mk2 Warmachine already, Long Gunners under Deadeye for example.

[otakud00d]

First guy shoots, kills something. Gains Snap Fire. Next guy combines with the first guy's Snap fire to CRA, gains Snap Fire. Next guy...

And so on. Really not that hard to explain. Just point out that Snap Fire attacks are normal ranged attacks and are CRA'able.

[Bakemono]

Heh. Personally, I would rather they had fixed them by leaving them exactly the same except with +2" of range.

[otakud00d]

Even with this fix, they need +2". ;)

[wvieira422]

i don't like the snap fire, i would rather still have dual shot. even with dual shot i was able to fire again if i missed granted as long as i was staying still. in order to snap fire i have to destroy another model to get the second attack. i felt the reeves were better before the change. At least they were much more effective for me when in their old rules.

[Mutton]

i don't like the snap fire, i would rather still have dual shot. even with dual shot i was able to fire again if i missed granted as long as i was staying still. in order to snap fire i have to destroy another model to get the second attack. i felt the reeves were better before the change. At least they were much more effective for me when in their old rules.

*blinks*

...you're kidding, right? Now Reeves have a chance of getting a second shot off now, rather than being single shot rng10 pow10s.

[wvieira422]

no not kidding i got off more double shoots with this unit in each game and they were about 40% more effective for me than snap fire which was only about useful against single wound infantry.

I used to rattle off about six aiming CRA shots agains medium warbeast and do decent damage now i could hardly kill lesser warbeasts with one shot even at a two model CRA, heck even a three model CRA. before i could make two three models CRA's from the same model (dual shot) now i can make one and gain an extra shot for the leading model of the CRA not as effective

[Macguffin]

I never really had problems getting the second shot off with reeves. Mohsar shows much love to reeves through mirage. Unfortunately, all the other warlocks had little to contribute to the reeves. Also, I understand that the reeves should really be solid independent of the caster that is utilizing them. Rat 6 is a good change, snapfire is a step in the right direction. They still do not feel worth 10 points.

[Mavwick]

Good point on waterfalling Dead Eye. Forgot about that still being an oddity. I hope the rules tip this way, but I'd like them to be more concrete. Snap fire could state the second shot being available for other CRAs.
Can't agree more that they're still only worth 6/9 to me, tops. They're competing with Bloodtrackers, which I still consider superior in more situations. Reeves get around cover issues and CRA is solid. I can't help but feel like they'd be totally worth 6/10 if we had a UA already available that really pushed them up to another level. I'd push for feedback as a 6/9 unit or 5/9. I'd consider them a lot as min units at 5 points.

[Strange_Eric]

You're comparing a unit that ignores Cover and Concealment to a unit that doesn't? You do realize how big of a bonus that is right? Hunter is _huge_
They're totally worth their points. Though I could see _maybe_ a chance for them becoming 6/9, They're priced appropriately at 6/10 I feel.

Bloodtrackers are nice, but Bloodtrackers can't sit behind Forest templates and not be shot at and shoot their opponent in the face on a whim. They fill different roles. Bloodtrackers are a good flanking melee/ranged unit. Reeves are a good second line defensive ranged unit.

[DemonCalibre]

Reeves really can't sit behind a forest and shoot, unless your opponent is devoid of any common sense, or the board is hugely set up in your favor.

You beat Reeves shooting through forest the same way you beat MHSF, is you just avoid the terrain feature they are camping and move on.

I am still on the fence about the new reeves, I haven't gotten to play them as much as I want. I think they are going to suffer from the problem of being even more models in circle that do the same job, but we shall see.

[DudeOfOrboros]

You beat Reeves shooting through forest the same way you beat MHSF, is you just avoid the terrain feature they are camping
While not the end all, Baldur and Woldwarden can put down big forests, and Sentry Stone and Woldwatcher can put smaller forests where you want (I'm sure this is not news to anyone here). Like I said, not perfect, but certain lists will work pretty well, IMHO.
What's MHSF?

[Bakemono]

My own tests, thus far since the update, have shown that the Reeves are situational. You take them only in lists with Woldwardens and/or Baldur. They simply cost too much (and are too squishy) to try and play them without reliable terrain for them to camp behind.

I'm torn on them. I don't like models that are that situational, however, they no longer fit my criteria for being underpowered. In the larger Circle context they have their niche. I still would like to see them increase to a 12" range, or clarify that CRA units using Snapshot get a second CRA attack. If they stayed exactly as they are listed now, I would find them bearable and I'm sure I would field them in certain lists.

[DemonCalibre]

The problem with what your talking about Dude of Orboros, is you can shoot through all of those effects without Hunter.

Why? You control when Baldur puts down a forest, when your Wold Watcher Shoots, and When your Manikins pop. So you just do it after whatever particular ranged unit shoots, then put the forests up, Viola My unit of anything shot though the forest.

Now Reeves throttle back order of operations issues but not insanely amazing.

MHSF, is Mage Hunter Strike force a retribution unit who can shoot through anything, they can camp terrain features and shoot though them like Reeves can. The hiccup is that if your smart you just don't fight near that feature, and they effectively lose that ability.

I am on the fence with Bakemono right now, I don't think Reeves are over priced, but I am concerned about them offering something useful to my army. I will have to try them to come up with an opinion.

[LEJKaya]

One of my previous feedbacks has been to suggest some kind of crit effect, that may just tip them into the 6/10 point range.

Perhaps something as simple as +1 damage die on a crit (Critical poison?) or something a bit more unique like on a crit choose the damage column or spiral...
They do need something a little more to be worth the full 1 pt per model.

[Mutton]

I say rng12 or make them 5/8.

[Spike0011]

I agree that reeve need something. Any of the proposed ideas would fit and I pray they'll get it 'cause, let's face it, right now, circle needed anti-infantry that works in non-living models. (darn Cryx)

[LEJKaya]

Another small bonus can be range finder for the single non CRA attack to start the waterfall.

I cannot see us getting RNG 12 or POW 12, we should focus our efforts on making them work with what they have IMO.

[DonJean]

Sadly I have this feeling that Reeves are going to be the Trenchers of this field test. At least they are semi functional.

To truly make use of camping a terrain feature useful they would need rng 12 really but that is not going to happen.

I've been trying them out with Swift hunter and that has worked pretty well. This actually makes them worth their costs. Depending on how Snap fire interacts with Swift hunter. If you can fire kill then move and then fire again before taking your final move it works. If not then pointless.

The other option we tried for a while was Bloodlure (pLylth ability)

[DudeOfOrboros]

How about Warwolf within 2" of target gives Reeves higher POW or +2" RNG?

Or Warwolf within 2" of Reeves grant same.

[Spike0011]

Or, I know this is obscure, a ranged flank with WoO.

[Achiles]

I have found them very effective now. They generally hang back a little until a good target presents itself and then advance and kill quite a number of guys. I usually use them in a min-squad as a hunting pack. My biggest problem is their short range usually results them getting charged after firing a single volley. I have tried setting up the charge with War Wolves but that always just feels so clunky what with the War Wolves medium bases blocking LOS and their separate activations. When it does work out the War Wolves usually tie the target up so the Reeves can reposition and shoot again.

I think the final fix for them is really through fixing the War Wolves. Give the the War Wolves Ranked Attacks and make them a Wolves of Orboros and Reeves of Orboros weapon attachment that is FA:2 3 per unit. I have been lobbying for this in my feedback and I hope other people that agree will lobby for it too.

[wvieira422]

and get rid of snap fire! Bring back dual shot on a turn they aim the're RAT 8 with two shots each both CRA'able. snap shot only gives the extra attack if you destroy a model. they went from doing good damage to everything (including decent damage to heavies an aiming min unit could do 4 three model CRA's at RAT 11 and DMG 13+2d6 which is an average of about 21 damage each shot figure heavies average ARM is 18 or so, thats a min. of 12 damage to a heavy or two aspects) to only being ok against infantry.

I liked the reeves quite a bit before, the only thing i didn't like was that after shooting they would ither get shot back or charged cause lots of models have over a 10" charge if you were not already closer than that. I vote to up their RNG and bring back dual shot, maybe give them camoflage for added protection.

[LEJKaya]

and get rid of snap fire! Bring back dual shot on a turn they aim the're RAT 8 with two shots each both CRA'able. snap shot only gives the extra attack if you destroy a model. they went from doing good damage to everything (including decent damage to heavies an aiming min unit could do 4 three model CRA's at RAT 11 and DMG 13+2d6 which is an average of about 21 damage each shot figure heavies average ARM is 18 or so, thats a min. of 12 damage to a heavy or two aspects) to only being ok against infantry.

Dual shot only worked against opponents who were

1: Asleep
2: Actively complicit in wanting their own hated models killed
3: in a 1 in a million situation making it required for something to set up camp within 10" of a unit that can only perform anything remotely of use in that range.

No Dual Shot was a pointless ability, Snap Fire is the way to go to make the reeves good at something at least... the only thing they lose out on is making CRAs with all 10 and getting some benefit, but since one of the above 3 conditions would need to be met... that rarely happens anyway.

I still cannot see them as a 10 point unit. They need a little more to be worth it, though now they are usable but on the poor side.
Perhaps a future UA will make them up to the point where they are a good value, core ranged unit.

[Scyldemort]

I've been getting some good use out of the new Reeves. Took out a max size unit of Legion's melee Ogrun guys with a full unit of Reeves plus three war wolves - killed two with CRA and wounded the rest, War Wolves took care of the rest. Glad Morraig was close enough to give his command to the war wolves, though.

[DudeOfOrboros]

I usually use them in a min-squad as a hunting pack.
At 6/10 instead of 6/9, it seems like a better deal to take a min unit; plus you like to keep them behind forests, which is harder to do with 10 models.

[BlitzR]

I've been getting some good use out of the new Reeves. Took out a max size unit of Legion's melee Ogrun guys with a full unit of Reeves plus three war wolves - killed two with CRA and wounded the rest, War Wolves took care of the rest. Glad Morraig was close enough to give his command to the war wolves, though.


So, you used a total of 13pts to take out a unit that was worth 8pts. Don't get me wrong, it is great you managed this in a single turn...but it took nearly double the points value of the enemy unit to do it with.
For 8pts, a min unit of Ravagers with a Shaman would have done just as good a job.

It just seems to me that the Reeves are far to expensive for their current effectiveness, and to make them worth while, you need to invest even more points into doing so.....that seems both pointless and counter productive to me.

[Blaque]

I do feel they could do to be 6/9 right now. Even with Snap Fire, they pale to Nyss Hunters for SPD, RNG and melee capabilities right now.

So either the extra RNG or max unit osting 9. I mean, it doesn't take hardly anything to fix these guys right now even. Its just barely almost where it should be, I think.

And stuff.

[Brandubh]

Dual shot only worked against opponents who were

4 ) Caught by War Wolves using Sic Em. Several times I was able to move forward with Reeves against a 'jack, shoot, sic em, tie up the jack for a turn, then dual shot.

It didn't last long as they just started supporting their jacks or moving away, taking the free strike and killing my Reeves. :P

Snap shot works much better...but now I'm inclined to put Reeves with my Kromac list as my Krueger list has plenty of anti-infantry goodness already.

Has anyone had much chance to use Reeves + Wardens? I'm guessing that the Warden's new animus is helpful for Reeves but I haven't been able to get a game to do it in.

[LEJKaya]

Good idea, shame the free strike will not overly concern a beast/jack.
They do have some synergy with wardens, I'd like to try that soon.

I still think they need a little more rather than a points cut. Either a crit effect or maybe some more synergy with WoO?
Ranged flank was suggested.

[DemonCalibre]

The problem with ranged flank is Rat 8 Ranged Flank is unreliable, and if they make it reliable, it's going to be way to good.

[LEJKaya]

Just had a suggestion at games tonight: Maybe they could have ambush.

[Rosicrucian]

Just had a suggestion at games tonight: Maybe they could have ambush.

That would mean a major retooling. Models with Ambush are usually very weak to avoid being to broken with their unpredictability.