Tyranid Musings

[AbusePuppy]

If you manage to cast Hammerhand AND Force with every squad in your army (and I fail to shut down both of them), then my main problem is not your Force Swords, it's the fact that you are physically incapable of rolling less than a four on a d6.

 

 

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

 

But you just said that I would have "major trouble" with Land Raiders. If I can destroy them with relative ease, that's not really "major trouble."

[Guest]

If you manage to cast Hammerhand AND Force with every squad in your army (and I fail to shut down both of them), then my main problem is not your Force Swords, it's the fact that you are physically incapable of rolling less than a four on a d6.

 

 

But you just said that I would have "major trouble" with Land Raiders. If I can destroy them with relative ease, that's not really "major trouble."

Lol...yes, hammerhand and force on every unit in the army ;) Wouldn't need to be all of them, but I do agree that it would be somewhat unreliable to get both off on all the units that need it.

 

 

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.

Major trouble isn't entirely wrong with regards to a land raider list. Mind you, I don't expect land raiders to kill off your units (maybe 1 mawloc per turn, but hardly impressive with the cost of the LRs), but I'd have units inside to kill off your units and the land raiders would serve to protect them from initiatial attacks and to make it easier to get into melee.

 

But, yes, I agree, the implied pure land raider army would have issues against your army. This is especially true if not using FW or the new LR excelsior.

[pretre]

Landraiders are killing a mawloc a turn? Lolwut?

[Guest]

Landraiders are killing a mawloc a turn? Lolwut?

I think he's talking about just land raiders, which wasn't really my intention when I said that land raiders would give them trouble.

 

But still, at 1850, that's 7 land raiders with 14 lascannons. Mawlocs are wounded on 2s, have no armor against that, 5+ FNP, and only 6 wounds. Killing 1 per turn is entirely reasonable with 14 TL lascannons. And, as mentioned, 1 mawloc per turn is horrible when you consider that you have 1750pts of models dishing that out. Mind you, some of the FW variants or LR Excelciors would yield much better results in a pure LR army.

 

That said, I intended it to mean that a list with land raiders would give them trouble, which is true, but mostly, it's the units inside the LRs that are the threat, not the LRs. The LR is mostly an assault boat and to protect embarked unit from the subterranean strikes.

[pretre]

Hmm. Math

 

14 Lascannons. 112/9 hit. 560/54 Wound. 5+ Cover, 1120/162 Wound. 5+ FNP. 2240/486. 4.6 Wounds. 6.9 ithout cover. 

 

Okay, I see it with 7 land raiders.

[WestRider]

All the TL Heavy Bolters add another 1.3 Wounds, too, so it's 5.9 even with Cover.

[pretre]

All the TL Heavy Bolters add another 1.3 Wounds, too, so it's 5.9 even with Cover.

Aww. We die!

[fluger]

We die!

[huggies01]

I am with Paxmiles on this one. Throw out statistics because my mawlocs consistently die to two land raiders shooting at them, all the time. All my MC do for that matter. 5+ FNP is just a slap in the face joke at that point.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Stats versus crapy die syndrome doesn't mean pax is right.

 

12" movement versus 6" on a platform that does better in assault is not an op boost? Stomp is being down played too much. That is a guaranteed extra 3 hits against any squad.

 

Their survivability goes up a bit with fnp. one army that is the bane of nids would become cake walk, dark eldar. Poison wounding on 6s means I think 2/3s of wounds would be gone.

 

12" movement is fast and with hive tyrants already in your face, the other force blitzing forward, you would have one less turn to whether the storm. Imagine giving your opponent turn one and turn 2 and before you go? I know that is a bit of extreme analysis, but doubling any things movement increases its threat range by up to one turn. Carnifexes now charging turn 2 every time, most of the time my opponents could skirt my fexes until turn 3.

 

I don't know if they would become top list but they would become tier one immediately.

[Guest]

Stats versus crapy die syndrome doesn't mean pax is right.

 

12" movement versus 6" on a platform that does better in assault is not an op boost? Stomp is being down played too much. That is a guaranteed extra 3 hits against any squad.

 

Their survivability goes up a bit with fnp. one army that is the bane of nids would become cake walk, dark eldar. Poison wounding on 6s means I think 2/3s of wounds would be gone.

 

12" movement is fast and with hive tyrants already in your face, the other force blitzing forward, you would have one less turn to whether the storm. Imagine giving your opponent turn one and turn 2 and before you go? I know that is a bit of extreme analysis, but doubling any things movement increases its threat range by up to one turn. Carnifexes now charging turn 2 every time, most of the time my opponents could skirt my fexes until turn 3.

 

I don't know if they would become top list but they would become tier one immediately.

Let's see.

 

First, they weren't saying I was right about all of it, just that I was right that 1750pts of land raiders could kill 1 mawloc with or without GC status. It was a silly point, but it was challenged and met.

 

Second, I was specifically talking about GC on the 6+ wound MCs, not including the FW or the new pod-kit based MCs. That's the Trygon, Mawloc, Trygon Prime, the Tyrannofex, and the Tervigon. Carnifexen are not on the list, nor are hive tyrants.

 

I think DE have a downright unfair advantage against tyranids. I think they have the weapons to destroy bugs without poison (or with poison on 6s) and there is no fluff reason to give them such a boost against tyranids. As is, you'd think the DE fluff would reflect the tyranids fleeing in their presence....and the hive fleets that were no more.

 

I will note that if they become GCs, they wouldn't be eligible for spore pods, if that matters to your tactics.

 

As for the boost, yeah, I think it's a big boost. Is it OP? No, the bugs are just so overpriced right now that it will not make them OP. Those particular bugs are rather underpowered in the current 40k meta.

 

Look at that Eldar Wraith Knight, It's 295pts for a model that would be 295pts in the tyranid army without being a GC.

[huggies01]

My only response to this (the only objection that needs to be stated) is that my Barbed Heirodule which is T8 goes down like a chump. He is only a beast in CC because of S10 not stomp. Stomp is only good on a Six. It doesn't hurt that bad on 2-5 and 1 does nothing. Not great.

[pretre]

My only response to this (the only objection that needs to be stated) is that my Barbed Heirodule which is T8 goes down like a chump. He is only a beast in CC because of S10 not stomp. Stomp is only good on a Six. It doesn't hurt that bad on 2-5 and 1 does nothing. Not great.

[fluger]

Counter point, anecdotal style!  The only time I faced a barbed hierodule it wiped out a bunch of boyz with stomp.  Like, LOTS of them.  Fear also kept me from doing much damage to them.  Therefore, this one data point proves that Hierodules can never die in combat and will wipe out entire units with regularity.  

[huggies01]

All true, but at what point can we throw the dumb stats out the window. It seems that using statistics isn't very statistical. I base the stats of what I have seen in my game play. What I have seen in many of the games I have played is that a T8 model with a 3+ save and FNP 5+ dies incredibly easy. I would hate to see what would happen if that GC was a T6 model. Much easier to kill.

[pretre]

The only way to plan is to go off of statistics. If we only go off anecdotes, we will approach the world in a completely inaccurate fashion.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

No offense but your experience is also based on your generalship. I am not a great general so I take my personal experience as a grain of salt, as my dice are usually above drastically probability, doesn't mean I can rely on that.

 

We all have stories of epic wins and loses to the die.

 

Dark eldar fluf does support the killing of mc nids, and dark eldar do well against nidzilla, nids do better as horde against de as they will fall to weak masses. However horde nids suck against almost every one else.

 

Really synapse rule is what makes dark eldar effective against horde lists as they can kill the synapse creatures very effectively. Range is short so mass bodies blocking range will protect them.

 

I get that you are only talking about certain nids getting gc, but gc boosts any nid in value most arguably above their current cost.

[Guest]

I get that you are only talking about certain nids getting gc, but gc boosts any nid in value most arguably above their current cost.

So how many points do you think each of the listed bugs would be worth as a GC?

 

Mawloc?

 

Trygon?

 

Trygon Prime?

 

Tervigon?

 

Tyrannofex?

 

Keeping in mind that GW thinks the Wraithknight (with considerably better stats than any of the above) is worth 295pts.

[indytims]

So how many points do you think each of the listed bugs would be worth as a GC?

 

Mawloc?

 

Trygon?

 

Trygon Prime?

 

Tervigon?

 

Tyrannofex?

 

Keeping in mind that GW thinks the Wraithknight (with considerably better stats than any of the above) is worth 295pts.

 

Even as an Eldar player, though, I -know- the WK is undercosted. Whether it was a typo or GW minds miscalculating or someone just being high when they chose points for it, I do think it is sortta unwise to base points costs using -that- as your model.

 

Or are other GCs/LoWs also undercosted? I really don't know, so it's not a rhetorical question, promise. :)

 

-Tim

[Guest]

Even as an Eldar player, though, I -know- the WK is undercosted. Whether it was a typo or GW minds miscalculating or someone just being high when they chose points for it, I do think it is sortta unwise to base points costs using -that- as your model.

 

Or are other GCs/LoWs also undercosted? I really don't know, so it's not a rhetorical question, promise. :)

 

-Tim

The escalation and FW ones from 6th are mostly overpriced LoW options. A few notably broken exceptions. The 7th ed ones are more reasonable, but still underpriced compared to units from 6th ed books. Haven't really looked at that C'tan LoW in the new necron book, but I hear he's more reasonable now (over the escalation version).

 

Those imperial knights, in example, are dirt cheap compared to similar stuff from the AM codex.

 

I will note that a good chunk of FW units seem very much designed with apocalypse level play in mind. That Cerberus Heavy Tank Destroyer, which I own, is really overpriced for normal play, but is pointed very reasonably for games of 5k and higher.

 

Although I agree that the WK is probably underpriced, but it like 1 of 2 non-FW GCs in 40k. The other would be that Transcendant C'tan from the new necron codex. Is he underpriced too?

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I don't think wraithknighta are correct to compare either.

 

Also knights are not underpriced. If they were o think you would see them on every list and those lists winning.

 

Gc status on a t6 w6 model is probably an upgrade of 120 I don't think models above are overpriced by 120. I am just throwing out an arbitrary number only because it seems pressed for.

 

Nids need an update and gc might be route but more updates are needed.

[Guest]

I don't think wraithknighta are correct to compare either.

 

Also knights are not underpriced. If they were o think you would see them on every list and those lists winning.

 

Gc status on a t6 w6 model is probably an upgrade of 120 I don't think models above are overpriced by 120. I am just throwing out an arbitrary number only because it seems pressed for..

So, to be clear, a 120pt upgrade cost would mean:

 

Mawloc 260pts

 

Trygon 310pts

 

Trygon Prime 450pts

 

Tervigon 315pts

 

Tyrannofex 295pts

 

Maybe a better tyranid player could do something here, but I don't think any of the above have feasible costs for their units. It would just further nerf them to increase in cost that much.

 

I do agree that WraithKnight is a very different model and not really a good comparision, but it is a good example of what 295pts will buy you in a current codex.

 

An imperial knight with two D melee weapons is looking at only 325pts. Super heavy walkers are immune to stomp, so you get 1 attack via smash with each of the above "GCs" if you want to glance it in melee. Stomp has no effect here. They have a 4++ to shooting (facing based). It has 5 D weapon attacks on the charge at initiative 4. And if you destroy it, it's always get's a D weapon blast explosion.

 

The mawloc as a GC isn't worth anywhere near the dual D Knight. That Wraithknight, on the other hand, is much more reasonable if these knights are the common threat.

[WestRider]

On statistics: 40K uses a very low volume of rolls for statistical analysis. The averages we come up with are things that will hold over maybe dozens, perhaps hundreds of games, but any given game has pretty good odds of being quite a ways off, and even a half dozen or so games could still quite easily end up all being on one side of the bell curve. But the basic math is solid. If it weren't the Casino industry wouldn't be viable, let alone as ridiculously profitable as it is.

[AbusePuppy]

Hmm. Math

 

14 Lascannons. 112/9 hit. 560/54 Wound. 5+ Cover, 1120/162 Wound. 5+ FNP. 2240/486. 4.6 Wounds. 6.9 ithout cover. 

 

Okay, I see it with 7 land raiders.

 

Remember my guys will have Shrouded from the Malanthrope, so I'm guaranteed 5+ cover and on any kind of reasonable table I should have 3+ or 2+ cover.

 

I'm not worried about Land Raiders.

[Guest]

Remember my guys will have Shrouded from the Malanthrope, so I'm guaranteed 5+ cover and on any kind of reasonable table I should have 3+ or 2+ cover.

 

I'm not worried about Land Raiders.

Who was the one saying that it wouldn't work to rely on having shrouded for all the models in the 'nid army? Maybe not you, but I'm pretty sure it was this thread.

 

And again, the idea is that you'd fear what was in the land raiders, not the land raiders. Killing 140pts per turn with 1750pts isn't really something you should be afraid of.