AoS Are we underestimating Raptadon Hunters?

[Vallis]

Raptadon Chargers are good. They have a high damage output for the cost. But what about Raptadon Hunters? It's it ever worth taking a unit of Hunters when you could have another unit of Chargers for the same cost?

Raptadon Hunters get better when you have more Chargers around them. They can split their shooting attack, and thereby buff multiple units of Chargers at a time. But in a simple scenario, where there are just 2 units of Raptadons, how do they compare? How does one unit of Hunters and one unit of Chargers compare to two units of Chargers?

A unit of 5 Chargers will average 8 wounds in melee against an enemy with a 4+ save. When contesting an objective, that jumps to 11.6 wounds. (Interestingly, if a unit of Hunters shoots and then charges an enemy with a 4+ save, it also averages 8 damage.)

So against a 4+ save, two units of chargers should deal 16 wounds, or 23.2 while contesting an objective.

A unit of Chargers and a unit of Hunters together is more complex, as many actions must occur to maximize damage. Here are the steps and the damage output against a 4+ save:

1. The Hunters shoot: 2.3 damage
2. The Charger charge (get +1 to hit from Hunters)
3. The Hunters shoot again: 2.3 damage
4. The Hunters charge
5. The Chargers attack: 9.2 damage (13.9 obj)
6. The Hunters attack: 5.7 damage

The Hunters shoot twice, buff the Chargers, and then charge themselves (they aren't terrible in melee). The two units together average 19.5 damage against a 4+ save, or 24.2 while contesting an objective.

So to compare:
- Two units of Chargers: 16 damage (23.2 obj)
- One unit of each: 19.5 damage (24.2 obj)

How about three units of Chargers compared to two Charger units and one Hunter unit? Remember, the Hunters can buff both units of Chargers even if they're charging different units, by splitting their shooting attack.
- Three Chargers: 24 damage (34.8 obj)
- Two Chargers, One Hunter: 28.7 (38.1 obj)

Hmmm... Maybe Raptadon Hunters have a place after all.

What do others think?

 

[PabloTho]

Buffing multiple chargers with a single unit of hunters sounds good until you realise that those units don't all get to fight at once. The first unit fights, and then the second unit dies or is crippled when your opponent swings back.

And if you're fighting chaff that can't fight back, you don't really need the help of Hunters to kill them anyway.

Basically, if you have multiple important combats with Raptodons you need to choose which unit is going to live and which unit is going to die because of their bad save.

The issue isn't strictly that hunters are bad, just that some genius priced them both at 150 even though in 95% of situations you're better off simply taking more chargers. Hunters were DOA unless they had either a more impactful shooting profile or were markedly cheaper than chargers - Maybe 130 or even 120.

 

[Lambs and Lions]

I think on paper it makes sense but in an actual game it's not worth having three units that must stick so close together for just a couple extra wounds.

 

[Vallis]

Buffing multiple chargers with a single unit of hunters sounds good until you realise that those units don't all get to fight at once. The first unit fights, and then the second unit dies or is crippled when your opponent swings back.

That's true, of course, but this problem exists if your ever fight with two units of Raptadons — Chargers or Hunters — in the same combat phase. From that perspective, you wouldn't want to attack with too many units of chargers either. But attacking with three units of Raptadons expecting only two to get a chance to attack, may still be worthwhile. They do a good amount of damage for the points and the sacrifice could easily be a positive points trade and a good strategic move.

 

[cyberhawk94]

Buffing multiple chargers with a single unit of hunters sounds good until you realise that those units don't all get to fight at once. The first unit fights, and then the second unit dies or is crippled when your opponent swings back.

And if you're fighting chaff that can't fight back, you don't really need the help of Hunters to kill them anyway.

Basically, if you have multiple important combats with Raptodons you need to choose which unit is going to live and which unit is going to die because of their bad save.

The issue isn't strictly that hunters are bad, just that some genius priced them both at 150 even though in 95% of situations you're better off simply taking more chargers. Hunters were DOA unless they had either a more impactful shooting profile or were markedly cheaper than chargers - Maybe 130 or even 120.

See this is the thing that makes me think hunters might be worth it.

If you charge with two units of Chargers, like you said 1 fights, the other loses 3-5 models and maybe gets a tiny swing. If you have 1 of each, while the theoretical damage is comparable or less, you only have to deal with a single combat activation and only one charge roll.

I think In Draco's tail with the Spacefolder staff, 1 of each has serious consideration, as you can drop them together with the Chargers 7" away and get the maximum damage of of all 10

 

[Vallis]

I think In Draco's tail with the Spacefolder staff, 1 of each has serious consideration, as you can drop them together with the Chargers 7" away and get the maximum damage of of all 10

And in Fangs of Sotek, you're likely to have a lot of cheap skink units running around to act as screens and objective stealers, so having two or three Raptadon units in proximity of each other is very possible.

If you charge with two units of Chargers, like you said 1 fights, the other loses 3-5 models and maybe gets a tiny swing. If you have 1 of each, while the theoretical damage is comparable or less, you only have to deal with a single combat activation and only one charge roll.

If you don't charge with the Hunters, damage potential is reduced by an average of 5.7 wounds, but you do keep the Hunters out of combat, perhaps where they can still screen for another unit.

Hunters are still cheap enough that they make decent screens that are faster than skinks on foot and can buff the Chargers. If you had had two units of Chargers and you're not willing to attack with both, you may have gotten nothing out of the Charger unit that sat back and must now be a screen.

Two counter points:

1. In Fangs of Sotek in particular, if the enemy tries to charge your Hunters or Chargers that didn't charge into melee, a redeploy may keep them out of harm's way, and if so, the Chargers could charge next turn.
2. If we're talking about using Raptadons as fast screens, then Ripperdactyls, Terradons and Terrawings must be considered as cheaper (and in the case of Terradons, faster) alternatives.

 

[Globular]

Something else to consider: in a lot of scenarios, objectives are close enough together that a charger and hunter team currently contesting one objective could reposition for an assault on a second (lightly defended) objective, then leave the hunters within the first objective's 6" bubble to babysit and prevent a quick steal

 

[Just A Skink]

You could just try a reinforced unit of Chargers for the same price. You might be able to get in more minis/attacks to cripple the opposing unit, and the Chargers may not get wiped on the retaliation.

 

[Kilvakar]

You could just try a reinforced unit of Chargers for the same price. You might be able to get in more minis/attacks to cripple the opposing unit, and the Chargers may not get wiped on the retaliation.

This is what I'm thinking, a reinforced group of Chargers with an MSU group of Hunters around to buff them. I do really like the synergy between the two units on paper, I think it needs testing in actual games. We as a community have looked at the math and seen that Chargers are the most point-efficient unit in terms of damage, and AoS in general really likes to reward "spam the best unit" playstyles, but I still think it might be worth running Hunters in some lists to buff Chargers.