Tyranid Musings

[Guest]

Termagants would be 3 pts, Hormagaunts 4 pts for instance.  Both would stay the same stat-wise, but they'd lose their 6+ save.  Big whoop.  

Still too expensive. I think these models should be free. Just have a free allotment of gaunts for every so many synapse models in the army. Tervs can still spawn more.

 

Make them just die if they go out of synapse. Very Ender's game bugger-like.

[Hobbitron]

Still too expensive. I think these models should be free. Just have a free allotment of gaunts for every so many synapse models in the army. Tervs can still spawn more.

 

Make them just die if they go out of synapse. Very Ender's game bugger-like.

 

I think terms and horms are too big for that.

 

Ripper Swarms. Remove them as purchasable units. You get a free base of swarms for each unit of warriors or zoanthropes, 2 for tervigons and primes, 3 for tyrant. Each allows more to be purchased as upgrades. Bring back Parasite of Mortrex with rules for spawning more.

 

Then make them unable to claim objectives, and not offer up kill points.

 

That would immediately turn around the codex imo. You could use them to absorb overwatch, grant cover, and tie things up. And no one would ever target them because they aren't worth killing. Pentyrant would have 15 free bases (in 5 units of course). They might never even kill a model, but that won't matter. They can bubble wrap objectives all sorts of things.

 

Ultimately I'd like to see all the bugs broken into a size category (tiny (spore mines & rippers), small (horms, terms, gargs), medium (warriors, shrikes, raveners, etc), big (fexen, tyrants, terv, etc)). And then the codex driven around how smaller bugs interact with bigger bugs and vice versa. Like bigger bugs always being able to "look out sir" to a smaller bug based on size category. To facilitate the idea of the things not moving independently, and it's all one big swarm that's running at you.

[fluger]

I'd also like to change the rule that swarms have eternal warrior, but blasts and templates cause 3 wounds per unsaved wound.  

[Guest]

Given that the wraithknight became a GC, I would not be in the least surprised if all the tyranid 6+ wound MCs become GCs in the next codex. Not sure it would really help them, as I don't think it solves the issues, but it does seem to be the way 40k is going.

[AbusePuppy]

I seriously doubt GW is going to make that many codex entries GCs (meaning people won't be able to field as many of them and thus won't buy them.) Notice that the SM book didn't make all of the Chapter Masters into LoW like a lot of folks were expecting.

[Guest]

I seriously doubt GW is going to make that many codex entries GCs (meaning people won't be able to field as many of them and thus won't buy them.) Notice that the SM book didn't make all of the Chapter Masters into LoW like a lot of folks were expecting.

Why would being a GC mean less fielded? Or do you mean that ITC would limit them?

[pretre]

Why would being a GC mean less fielded? Or do you mean that ITC would limit them?

ITC and a good number of opponents.

[Guest]

ITC and a good number of opponents.

But since there isn't a new tyranid book presently, this attitude may have changed by then.

 

As is that new SM book that grants free transports is a huge kick in the teeth to armies like tyranids which have too many overpriced units as is. Make SM cheaper?! Make grav weapons more common!? Not exactly pro-tyranid concepts.

[AbusePuppy]

Why would being a GC mean less fielded? Or do you mean that ITC would limit them?

 

As GCs they would also presumably occupy the Lord of War slot, limiting how many you could bring as compared to them being in HS/EL/HQ/etc.

[pretre]

GCs in normal slots would be pretty hilarious.

[Guest]

Despite being postered up as being similar to Super heavies, the rules for GCs are really a lot softer than the rules for super heavies. At toughness 6 with 6 wounds, even if you make them GCs, most of the tyranid creatures won't really be that improved. Main difference would that 12" movement speed and that you can't ID them anymore. The FNP helps too, but at toughness 6 without invulnerable saves, they really won't be the comparable threat that a wraithknight is, especially as they lack D weapons.

 

The wraithknight is a monster because he's toughness 8 AND has the weapons to make a GC scary. If you took the mawloc or the trygon and made them a GC, you probably wouldn't need to even adjust their points that much. Even the terv just isn't equal to a lord of war, GC or MC.

[AbusePuppy]

GCs have stomp and 12" movement. Both of those are HUGE changes to how powerful something is (and FNP/functional Eternal Warrior aren't trivial either.) If you made the W6 Tyranid critters into GCs, it would arguably make them one of the strongest armies in the game- I would absolutely field 3x Mawlocs, 3x Tervigons and then a trio of Flyrants plus miscellaneous other stuff.

[Guest]

GCs have stomp and 12" movement. Both of those are HUGE changes to how powerful something is (and FNP/functional Eternal Warrior aren't trivial either.) If you made the W6 Tyranid critters into GCs, it would arguably make them one of the strongest armies in the game- I would absolutely field 3x Mawlocs, 3x Tervigons and then a trio of Flyrants plus miscellaneous other stuff.

Forgot about stomp. That one is a big deal.

 

Minorly curious. Show me an 1850pt bug list that would be "arguably strongest army in the game" with the only change being 6+ wound bug MCs become GCs. Oh, and do with the CAD instead of formations, just for now.

[VonVilkee]

H

Forgot about stomp. That one is a big deal.

 

Minorly curious. Show me an 1850pt bug list that would be "arguably strongest army in the game" with the only change being 6+ wound bug MCs become GCs. Oh, and do with the CAD instead of formations, just for now.

He basically did 3 mawlocs 3tervis and 2 flying tyrants. Mawlocs would go from nuisances to truely devestating. You'd actually want to keep them on the table!

[galahad911]

Wow.... Dimachaeron as a GC. Oh, please?

[Guest]

Wow.... Dimachaeron as a GC. Oh, please?

I was thinking of the GW ones, as GW seems to only update the GW end of the model lines. Yeah, that one would be a really dangerous GC (though FW options are always a bit off of reasonable). I was also not thinking the Sporocyst or the tyrannocyte. I was thinking the Mawloc, Trygon, Trygon Prime, Tyrannofex, and Tervigon.

 

And before you get started, that Wraith knight is only 295pts with 2 D weapons and 2pts higher toughness. None of the 6 wound MCs in the tyranid codex come anywhere close to the threat or durability value of the wraithknight, but can very easily come close to it in point costs.

 

Even that mawloc is 140pts base with no weapons and lower stats in all areas save wound and armor saves (same). That tunneling ability is completely unaffected by the GC status, so no real changes there. I do think the mawloc is 155pts worse than the wraithknight, even if the mawloc were a GC. The tyranid 6 wound MCs are just that overpriced in 7th (or eldar are that underpriced).

[WestRider]

The real kicker is when you compare the WraithKnight to the actual Nid GCs. The Barbed Hierodule costs almost twice as much, and, except for volume of fire, is the same or worse in every regard.

[AbusePuppy]

Forgot about stomp. That one is a big deal.

 

Minorly curious. Show me an 1850pt bug list that would be "arguably strongest army in the game" with the only change being 6+ wound bug MCs become GCs. Oh, and do with the CAD instead of formations, just for now.

 

LEVIATHAN DETACHMENT

1 Hive Tyrant (Wings, 2x Devs, Electroshock)

1 Hive Tyrant (Wings, 2x Devs, Electroshock)

1 Tervigon

1 Malanthrope

1 Mucolid

1 Mucolid

1 Mucolid

1 Mawloc

1 Mawloc

1 Mawloc

COMBINED ARMS

1 Tervigon

1 Mucolid

1 Mucolid

1 Mawloc

1 Mawloc

1 Mawloc

 

Not sure if taking 1-2 more Malanthropes would be better than a Flyrant, but wanted to have a bit of Haywire/AA available. That's eight GCs, all of them moving 12" per turn and starting off with 2+ cover saves from the Malanthrope; guaranteed FNP means they can shrug off most things without need of Catalyst (since they'll almost always be rolling 4+/5+ to negate even Lascannons and the like.) Doesn't have a lot of shooting, but can easily play reserve shenanigans and is BRUTAL in melee- low WS/I/A values mean practically nothing when you're getting that many Stomps. Knights are a problem for it, but you could build to deal with that if you really think it's an issue.

[Guest]

Not sure if taking 1-2 more Malanthropes would be better than a Flyrant, but wanted to have a bit of Haywire/AA available. That's eight GCs, all of them moving 12" per turn and starting off with 2+ cover saves from the Malanthrope; guaranteed FNP means they can shrug off most things without need of Catalyst (since they'll almost always be rolling 4+/5+ to negate even Lascannons and the like.) Doesn't have a lot of shooting, but can easily play reserve shenanigans and is BRUTAL in melee- low WS/I/A values mean practically nothing when you're getting that many Stomps. Knights are a problem for it, but you could build to deal with that if you really think it's an issue.

So when I said just use a CAD, you decided to include a leviathan detachment too. Fine, whatever.

 

No, that list doesn't look very strong. It looks stronger than it would without them being GCs, but it doesn't look like that "arguably strongest army in the game" you were saying it would be. It looks about average for 40k lists in 7th.

 

You keep going on about stomps, but those are all intiative 1, so they strike simo with power fists and melta bombs - a great way to lose your GCs.

 

You'd have major issues with flyer armies and with knight armies. Heck, even land raiders would give this army major troubles because you'd have to smash or stomp in order to damage them at all with anything save the haywire. It is notable that other than rolling a 6 on the stomp table, the vehicle only takes a single ap- penetrating hit, so 1-5 it will only deal a single HP of damage.

 

More or less, army is almost entirely reliant on being able to stomp their opponent. It doesn't really have any other punch.

 

On a side note, I re-read the GC rules. Looks like they don't even get eternal warrior. They get to take "only" d3 wounds instead of instant dying. So force weapons are actually pretty viable options, against GCs, even if they don't slay them outright. Draigo would butcher this list...

 

On another side note, since stomp doesn't affect buildings, how is it that this list would deal with them? That GI Joe playset is pretty viable against this army.

[pretre]

S10 smash should do fine.

[Guest]

S10 smash should do fine.

1 swing each against 4 AV14 buildings. The buildings are 220pts, you'd need at least 480pts of mawlocs to have a chance to damage all three in one turn. Meanwhile, models embarked are safe to shoot and overwatch until those buildings are destroyed, or until they voluntarily leave and engage those mawlocs in assault.

 

Remember, the whole issue with tyranids is that T6 with only armor saves and only 6 wounds just doesn't last long enough. Adding FNP really doesn't help enough, and really, they already have FNP access via catalyst.

 

Anyway, I do think making them GCs would make them stronger, maybe even "much" stronger, but saying that change alone would make them the "strongest army in the game" is really just going too far. They'll still melt to grav, plasma, melta, lascannons, krak missiles, hammerhand force weapons, and so on and so forth.

 

All they really gain is faster movement, non-psychic FNP, and assured mutual destruction against TH/SS terminators....

[generalripphook]

But they already melt to those things so really having assured FNP means psychic dice go to better things and they gain faster movement and bonus attacks.

[Guest]

But they already melt to those things so really having assured FNP means psychic dice go to better things and they gain faster movement and bonus attacks.

That is my point, I don't think the tyranids gain much by switching their 6 wound [GW] MCs to GCs. It helps, no question, but it doesn't make them instantly overwhelming.

 

With regard to psychic powers, his list has like 6 dice in psykers. Not exactly overwhelming psychic powers. And 5+ saves (AKA, FNP after your armor is denied) for your GC/MC is hardly anything to write home about. 5+ saves are just not very impressive. FNP just really sucks if you don't have a save that comes before it.

 

Anyway, to clarify my point. I completely agree that tyranids would get stronger by having 6 wound [GW] MCs become GCs. I just disagree that they'd become the strongest army with that change alone. This is why I think it's entirely likely that the next tyranid codex would change it so the 6+ wound GW MCs are GCs.

[AbusePuppy]

So when I said just use a CAD, you decided to include a leviathan detachment too. Fine, whatever.

 

No, that list doesn't look very strong. It looks stronger than it would without them being GCs, but it doesn't look like that "arguably strongest army in the game" you were saying it would be. It looks about average for 40k lists in 7th.

 

You keep going on about stomps, but those are all intiative 1, so they strike simo with power fists and melta bombs - a great way to lose your GCs.

 

You'd have major issues with flyer armies and with knight armies. Heck, even land raiders would give this army major troubles because you'd have to smash or stomp in order to damage them at all with anything save the haywire. It is notable that other than rolling a 6 on the stomp table, the vehicle only takes a single ap- penetrating hit, so 1-5 it will only deal a single HP of damage.

 

More or less, army is almost entirely reliant on being able to stomp their opponent. It doesn't really have any other punch.

 

On a side note, I re-read the GC rules. Looks like they don't even get eternal warrior. They get to take "only" d3 wounds instead of instant dying. So force weapons are actually pretty viable options, against GCs, even if they don't slay them outright. Draigo would butcher this list...

 

On another side note, since stomp doesn't affect buildings, how is it that this list would deal with them? That GI Joe playset is pretty viable against this army.

 

Building an 1850pt army with ONLY a Combined Arms, no formations no allied no special detachments is stupid. No tournament I'm aware of uses those restrictions so I can't imagine why you would want to see a test list using them.

 

I don't really care if you think it's strong. I knew you would be dismissive of it from the moment I posted it because your initial point was "GCs aren't really much better than MCs." You don't think Scatter Bikes are that good, you don't think  Wave Serpents were that good, your opinion of how the game works is vastly at odds with how most people perceive and play it. I don't have any delusion I'm going to change that here.

 

PFists and Meltabombs go simul with Stomps, yes, but considering my Stomps come on 140pts units I'm fine with that. They still have to hit, wound, and get through my FNP and I still have six wounds to soak with. Stomp also gives me good odds to snipe out the characters carrying such upgrades.

 

Flyers are something of an issue, yes, and I did mention that. However, the most prominent flyer in the game right now (the Night Scythe) can easily shoot down and the other major contenders (Stormwolf, Fire Raptor) I can make seriously consider Jinking, which drops their firepower massively. I should be able to easily win the ground game against those armies, so all I really need to do is keep their air force occupied.

 

If you think "just" causing one penetrating hit per Stomp is trivial against vehicles, it only goes to show how little you understand the effectiveness of Stomp. I can throw two Mawlocs at a Land Raider (they're about the same cost, especially once you take the typical LR upgrades into account) and will, most of the time, kill it- I'm averaging four Stomps and two Smashes, more than enough to take out any one vehicle that isn't a superheavy.

 

Force Weapons have to actually wound you to make use of the ID effect. As most Force Weapons are S4, it's not particularly worrisome. (Dreadknights, which are S10 at initiative and Draigo, who is also very high strength, can be problematic- but DKs can be lured into terrain and/or tarpitted and is an atypical inclusion. If I face a Centstar list, my 8d3 Stomps will probably be able to wipe out everything in the unit that matters.)

 

Buildings are unaffected by Stomp, but who cares? I can autohit them with S10, use templates to hit the guys inside, and they're 100% static. Sit in your box and avoid playing the game if you want to, I'll just go on the objectives and win.

[Guest]

Building an 1850pt army with ONLY a Combined Arms, no formations no allied no special detachments is stupid. No tournament I'm aware of uses those restrictions so I can't imagine why you would want to see a test list using them.

 

I don't really care if you think it's strong. I knew you would be dismissive of it from the moment I posted it because your initial point was "GCs aren't really much better than MCs." You don't think Scatter Bikes are that good, you don't think  Wave Serpents were that good, your opinion of how the game works is vastly at odds with how most people perceive and play it. I don't have any delusion I'm going to change that here.

 

PFists and Meltabombs go simul with Stomps, yes, but considering my Stomps come on 140pts units I'm fine with that. They still have to hit, wound, and get through my FNP and I still have six wounds to soak with. Stomp also gives me good odds to snipe out the characters carrying such upgrades.

 

Flyers are something of an issue, yes, and I did mention that. However, the most prominent flyer in the game right now (the Night Scythe) can easily shoot down and the other major contenders (Stormwolf, Fire Raptor) I can make seriously consider Jinking, which drops their firepower massively. I should be able to easily win the ground game against those armies, so all I really need to do is keep their air force occupied.

 

If you think "just" causing one penetrating hit per Stomp is trivial against vehicles, it only goes to show how little you understand the effectiveness of Stomp. I can throw two Mawlocs at a Land Raider (they're about the same cost, especially once you take the typical LR upgrades into account) and will, most of the time, kill it- I'm averaging four Stomps and two Smashes, more than enough to take out any one vehicle that isn't a superheavy.

 

Force Weapons have to actually wound you to make use of the ID effect. As most Force Weapons are S4, it's not particularly worrisome. (Dreadknights, which are S10 at initiative and Draigo, who is also very high strength, can be problematic- but DKs can be lured into terrain and/or tarpitted and is an atypical inclusion. If I face a Centstar list, my 8d3 Stomps will probably be able to wipe out everything in the unit that matters.)

 

Buildings are unaffected by Stomp, but who cares? I can autohit them with S10, use templates to hit the guys inside, and they're 100% static. Sit in your box and avoid playing the game if you want to, I'll just go on the objectives and win.

Oh, I'm very much aware that a single CAD is lacking in the tournament scene. The idea was to get a look at the GCs in context to a CAD. Besides, using existing Tyranid formations for predicted rules for a future codex is a bit iffy all around. GW tends to change everything at each re-launching of the codex.

 

It is true I tend to be dismissive of some of the so called OP units of 40k. Much of this relates to fielding AV 14 often (either buildings or land raiders), as a S6 scatter biker and a S7 serpent shield both do no damage, and MCs are really just as threatening to a LR as a any GC would be. Heck, that carnifex is way more impressive against land raiders than any of the 6+ wound MCs even with the stomp attacks.

 

I do think the Wave serpent's TL brightlance is impressive, though it's hardly the focus of any conversation regarding wave serpents being impressive. And, I've also noticed a tenancy for bright lances to fail miserably against AV14, despite the statistical odds.

 

Stomp is certainly annoying, no question, but I really don't feel that those mawlocs are particularly impressive when it requires 280pts of mawlocs to destroy my slightly cheaper land raider. I don't think that being able to destroy land raiders with MCs or GCs in melee is really an accomplishment, as this is not a change. Typically, MCs destroy land raiders in melee.

 

For me, impressive units either destroy a much greater number of points, or are able to ignore a much greater amount of damage. I enjoy the AV 14 not for it's offensive power, but for it's ability to ignore most of my opponent's weapons and units.

 

None of the 6+ wound MCs in question gain enough offensive power or defensive power by becoming GCs to justify anything greater than their current point costs. At present, they are just horribly overpriced as MCs, and the GC helps, but doesn't make them more than pointed fairly.

 

I think moving them to GCs without a change in points would make them balanced in the current 40k meta, but not broken.

 

They'll still melt to grav, plasma, melta, lascannons, krak missiles, hammerhand force weapons, and so on and so forth..

As for Force weapons, I did specify "hammerhand" force weapons, as in, force weapons under the influence of a +2 strength psychic power. I totally agree that S4 is not very impressive against T6. It doesn't really matter if GC or MC, S4 is not a huge threat. S6-8 in initiative order (sword, halberd, stave), or S10 unwieldly (daemonhammer, dreadknight), those are dangerous force weapons.

 

In your quote, I was making a side note, as I had previously recalled GCs as having eternal warrior. In the above quote, the point was just that S6 ap3 melee units, like hammerhand GK with swords, would melt your mawlocs before they got to stomp. And even as GCs/eternal warrior, they still don't get FNP against ID weapons. Learning that ID does D3 wounds per ID wound on GCs actually makes this a stronger statement.