Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Says who?

Me

Carnifexes are only good in pods nowadays. You put them on the table and they die to long range fire.

The only way I can think it would work is if you fielded 6 to 9 of them on the table, but their firepower isn't nearly as good as Hive Guard or Tyrannofexes.

6 HVC Carnifexes run 1100 Points. For 6 str. 9 shots. In comparison 3 Tyrannofexes w/ Rupture Cannons cost 795 points for 6 str. 10 shots that don't have a penetration penalty.

I think the best variant of the Carnifex is either the Dakkafex, or the Mahufex (that's right, I named it ).

Dakkafex = 2 Twin-linked Devourers = 190

Mahufex = Scything Talons, Devourers, Bioplasma = 195

Stick them in a Pod and drop them on what needs to die. Against the Trygon, you essentially trade 2 wounds and combat ability for three times the firepower, almost guaranteed cover, and better anti-tank CC.

Why do they die to long ranged fire? Don't you have Venomthropes to give them cover? Don't you have Tervigons to give the Feel No Pain? Don't you have swarms of smaller bugs to also threaten them?

The penetration penalty on the Heavy Venom Cannon only applies to non-open-topped vehicles, but who cares? That firepower is just there to disrupt the enemy's vehicles while the Tyranids close. Which they'll do faster if they can run before shooting. It's not like taking the Carnifex will prevent you from taking Hive Guard, Zoanthropes, Lictors, and whatever you want for anti-vehicle work except for a big target that dies just as easily to Lascannons.

The problem with the Mycetic Spore is that they arrive Turn 2 or later, and it really jacks up their cost. Pretty good other than that though.

Nurglitch wrote:Says who?

Carnifex with crushing claws and heavy vemon cannon cost 210pts , what you get from that is a nerfed BS3 lascannon (12" shorter ,-1 to damage roll, AP4) , a vendetta has three twin-linked lascannon for 130pts, even you have 4 T6 SV3wounds it wont matter for S9AP2 ,I dont believe you can hurt any IG gunline by this type weapon; second the crushing claws add D3 attacks by taking away the reroll from STs ,which in most case worse than the reroll all hit STs ,and cost 25pts more, it is one of the stupidest upgrade in this codex . now you put these together and hope they can achieve sth., just wont work, not to mention you sink further more points by useing tervigons to support them.

here is a report on typical battle where walking carnifex against IG gunline
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245035


the three carnifex dead before do any thing, so normally what you can get from walking carnifex are just some targets for IG to shoot ,expect them to reach enemy line is just a sad idea.

ED209:

Since you put it that way, I couldn't agree less.

Firstly, who cares if it's BS3? It's a blast weapon. Secondly it costs less than a Vendetta. So what? Are you going to fill up the Heavy Support choices in a Tyranid army with a Vendetta? Can the Vendetta charge enemy units with 6-8 S9 attacks? Is the Vendetta completely immune to Shaken results? Can the Carnifexes' weapons be destroyed, or be destroyed on immobilized results when gathered in broods? Is the Vendetta an effect anti-infantry platform as well as anti-tank?

You understand the concept of apples to oranges, right?

Now let me address the battle report. Those were basic stock Carnifex models. No guns, no ability to do anything more than be walking targets, and concentrated in a single brood. And they still made a difference with their close combat ability!

In fact that sort of use of a Carnifex is why you should have them with some sort of gun if they're going to be slogging it up the field. The Tyranids had the first turn and didn't have any shooting! That player sucked and deserved the tie he got by ceding his first turn's shooting phase.

So I should thank you for making my argument for me, I suppose, but your argument is so condescending ("just a sad idea" really?) and inane I'm ashamed that it supports my position.

Just for the sake of argument, what kinda list would you suggest utilize CC/HVC Carnifexes.

Head Quarters
Tervigon
w/Catalyst, Onslaught, Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, Crushing Claws, Cluster Spines

Elites
Hive Guard Brood
3x Hive Guard

Hive Guard Brood
3x Hive Guard

Venomthrope Brood
2x Venomthropes

Troops
Termagant Brood
25x Termagants

Termagant Brood
25x Termagants

Tervigon
w/Catalyst, Onslaught, Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, Crushing Claws, Cluster Spines

Tervigon
w/Catalyst, Onslaught, Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, Crushing Claws, Cluster Spines

Heavy Support
Carnifex Brood
1x Carnifex
w/Heavy Venom Cannon, Crushing Claws

Carnifex Brood
1x Carnifex
w/Heavy Venom Cannon, Crushing Claws

Carnifex Brood
1x Carnifex
w/Heavy Venom Cannon, Crushing Claws

Nurglitch wrote:ED209:

Since you put it that way, I couldn't agree less.

Firstly, who cares if it's BS3? It's a blast weapon. Secondly it costs less than a Vendetta. So what? Are you going to fill up the Heavy Support choices in a Tyranid army with a Vendetta? Can the Vendetta charge enemy units with 6-8 S9 attacks? Is the Vendetta completely immune to Shaken results? Can the Carnifexes' weapons be destroyed, or be destroyed on immobilized results when gathered in broods? Is the Vendetta an effect anti-infantry platform as well as anti-tank?

You understand the concept of apples to oranges, right?

Now let me address the battle report. Those were basic stock Carnifex models. No guns, no ability to do anything more than be walking targets, and concentrated in a single brood. And they still made a difference with their close combat ability!

In fact that sort of use of a Carnifex is why you should have them with some sort of gun if they're going to be slogging it up the field. The Tyranids had the first turn and didn't have any shooting! That player sucked and deserved the tie he got by ceding his first turn's shooting phase.

So I should thank you for making my argument for me, I suppose, but your argument is so condescending ("just a sad idea" really?) and inane I'm ashamed that it supports my position.

I dont think I need to say anything more, but I will still point out some basic points that it seems you dont understand them, first by BS3 Lascannon ,I mean the small blast on Carnifex will normally hit a vehicle with 50% chance (do the math yourself); second by vendetta is a example how things match up to each other in two armies, autocannon goes to hiveguard , lascannon goes to carnifex , vendetta is the typical unit with lascannon in IG's list; third in the report the carnifex didnt have guns so it's for sure the nids player were running them to IG ,that's the same speed when onslaught is on ,and they cant reach before dead. however the difference here is that nids player is smarter ,he ran naked carnifex without any upgrade and spent those points else where.

your list is just a wash by changing 2tyrannofex to 3carnifex , same number of wounds and sv2 down to sv3 thus eat more rokets when facing other armies,lost anti horde ability on T-fex, 4 BS3 S10 48'' shots down to 3 BS3(50% hit chance) S9 36'' shots that -1 on damage roll ..... as I said before sad idea.

I will agree with ED209 to the point where you really haven't come up with anything different enough from the Hive Guard - Tervigon - Tyrannofex meat shield list.

If you think 3 Carnifexes and three Tervigons can survive an even remotely optimal IG gun line then I doubt you have had many test games.

If you want to talk about walking Carnifexes, you have to take into account the one thing a Carnifex has over the other MCs and that is numbers. How about something like this:

-HQ-

Tervigon w/ Adrenal, Toxin, Catalyst = 195

-Elites-

3 Hive Guard = 150

3 Hive Guard = 150

3 Venomthoppes = 165

-Troops-

20 Termagaunts = 100

20 Termagaunts = 100

-Heavy Support-

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

Devourers are superior against massed AV 12 because of the range involved and number of shots.

Mahu:

Given that your list had a Tyrant, two Tyrant Guard, two Tervigons, and two Tyrannofexes, how do you suppose those would survive an Imperial Guard gunline?

The list I gave can engage more vehicle units for the Shaken or Stunned results, and had more Monstrous Creature targets for the enemy to engage. More to the point there is a Tervigon with Catalyst for every Carnifex so Missile Launchers and Autocannons are 1/2 the issue.

Take the battle report that ED209 linked to: the Imperial Guard get a free hand in their first turn of firing despite the Tyranid player getting the first turn, and one Carnifex still managed to reach and destroy a Chimera.

The list you've given loses the benefit of the Heavy Venom Cannon's range, increases the cost of each Carnifex over the basic model while reducing its close combat effectiveness, loses the benefits of the Tervigons, makes overkill less wasteful against the individual broods of Monstrous Creatures as now you only have four target units for the Imperial Guard to focus their fire on, and you have very little that can hold objectives (the single Tervigon won't make up for the two small units of Termagants).

Nurglitch, I know you play the contrary game on this board, but you also need to keep in mind that many experienced players have *tried* to make HVC Carnifexes work. This isn't a mental exercise on our part. If you feel that you've unlocked something, then do some battle reports of your own against the kind of armies that Shep laid out and prove it. It's pretty clear this discussion is going to go nowhere when -- as your comments show -- we can't even agree on some important basic premises.

Given that your list had a Tyrant, two Tyrant Guard, two Tervigons, and two Tyrannofexes, how do you suppose those would survive an Imperial Guard gunline?

Through judicious use of cover and regeneration. My list still have better quality of fire then yours and besides I already admitted that it might not work.

The list I gave can engage more vehicle units for the Shaken or Stunned results, and had more Monstrous Creature targets for the enemy to engage. More to the point there is a Tervigon with Catalyst for every Carnifex so Missile Launchers and Autocannons are 1/2 the issue.

Provided you go first. I guarantee you with only 5+ cover that an IG gunline can take down 2 Carnifexes a turn. MLs are not an issue against Guard. It's more Lascannons, Plasmaguns, and Melta that are all AP 2 and laugh at FNP.

In fact, a good IG player will make sure the Tervigons die first because they now how easy it is to deal with Carnifexes at short range.

Take the battle report that ED209 linked to: the Imperial Guard get a free hand in their first turn of firing despite the Tyranid player getting the first turn, and one Carnifex still managed to reach and destroy a Chimera.

Oh, I have no doubt something will be able to get to the IG lines. The issue versus IG is not whether or not you can reach their lines, it has more to do with whether or not you are winning the war of attrition at that point. You don't want to be in a point where you are playing down in either objectives or Kill Points by turn three. Pardon the pun, but Tyranids don't have enough teeth to fight their way out of that hole.

The list you've given loses the benefit of the Heavy Venom Cannon's range, increases the cost of each Carnifex over the basic model while reducing its close combat effectiveness, loses the benefits of the Tervigons, makes overkill less wasteful against the individual broods of Monstrous Creatures as now you only have four target units for the Imperial Guard to focus their fire on, and you have very little that can hold objectives (the single Tervigon won't make up for the two small units of Termagants).

My Carnifex list can threaten and stun AV 12 on turn one, two at the most by sheer weight of firepower. Like you said, you really just want to stun tanks and then get in their grill.

The Tervigon only needs to be singular because you can hold it in reserve and pop off some quick last minute scoring units.

The Carnifex has 5 attacks on the charge, if a Brood of two hit a tank, even a Land Raider moving 12" they will connect their better then Melta attacks and should have a reasonable chance to kill it.

And my list puts down 40 Termagaunts for a screen, that is more then enough.

Mahu wrote:I will agree with ED209 to the point where you really haven't come up with anything different enough from the Hive Guard - Tervigon - Tyrannofex meat shield list.

If you think 3 Carnifexes and three Tervigons can survive an even remotely optimal IG gun line then I doubt you have had many test games.

If you want to talk about walking Carnifexes, you have to take into account the one thing a Carnifex has over the other MCs and that is numbers. How about something like this:

-HQ-

Tervigon w/ Adrenal, Toxin, Catalyst = 195

-Elites-

3 Hive Guard = 150

3 Hive Guard = 150

3 Venomthoppes = 165

-Troops-

20 Termagaunts = 100

20 Termagaunts = 100

-Heavy Support-

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

2 Carnifexes w/ 2 Devourers = 380

Devourers are superior against massed AV 12 because of the range involved and number of shots.

this list may work, though I think the best use of Dakkafex is DS to the rear of the opponent, but with 72 BS3 twin-linked S6 shots you will glance those AV12 boxes 9 times per turn on average , this will reduce their fire power a lot ,even IG drops all the Hiveguards ,those carnfiex will have a good chance to reach and smash those armour cans.

against other armies they will also fear the incoming 72 S6 shots, the weakness is on AV14 and JoWW then.

@Nurglitch, I think you can learn sth. from Mahu's list , three heavy vemon cannons will generally give you 1.33 glance/penetrate hit against AV12 per turn , even vemon cannons open fire from turn one ,its still huge difference between 1.33 and 9. but I am glad that you dont talk about crushing claws on carnifex any more, so be reasonable those two things you give to carnifex arent a wise decision.

against other armies they will also fear the incoming 72 S6 shots, the weakness is on AV14 and JoWW then.

Now that I think about it, I think my list would be better served with walking Zoanthropes, two units of three costs 60 points more, but you can drop a single Venomthrope and some gaunts to cover that. That way you have a way to pop Land Raiders and Battle Wagons, and direct the firepower at the guys inside. And you gain Shadows of the warp to shut down Jaws late game.

Jaws isn't as much of a concern because careful deployment might net them a Carnifex a turn. And the list has 6.

Venomthropes for cover are getting mentioned a lot, and I just can't see a situation where they don't get ID'ed by Lascannons first before the rest of the shooting goes to town. Sure, a Venomthrope might eat the fire of a Vendetta first turn which means something else is protected. But that costs a precious elite slot, which means 3 less Zoeys or HG to direct that Vendetta toward anyway.

I'm just not impressed by them. Give them T5 and I'd be all over it. Or make them jump infantry (since they're just gas bags) and move them to Fast Attack and they'd be perfect. But I just can't see it.

But I do agree about Zoeys in that list Mahu. I like Zoeys a good bit, despite their downsides in some situations. And a benefit to Zoeys is that they can deploy front and center (since they don't care about cover) and give mobile cover to MC's behind, being so tall. HG can do that too, but want to be in cover themselves, or have Termagants in front, so it limits where the HG can go.

gorgon:

I guess I come off as contrary because I disagree with people writing stuff off for bad theoretical reasons and very little empirical data. The codex has been out for what, not even too months now, and people like ED209 and Shep are claiming that Crushing Claws and Venom Cannons are the worst options for the Carnifex. Regardless of their skill, they're not infallible: it's too early to say and writing these options off because they don't compare favourably on paper is simply stupid.

If I had a dollar for every time I got called contrary for disagreeing with a popular opinion, which later become unpopular as my critique of it gained popular acceptance (not because of anything I ever say, but because people's own experience and insight leads them to the same conclusion), then I would have a couple of extra bucks in my pocket.

I'm being reasonable by not closing my mind to the possibilities of Crushing Claws and/or Heavy Venom Cannon. Part of the reason I'm in favour of these options is potential. In 40k we rarely see the averages, and it's a fool that only plans for the dice to go average. If you don't have a plan for a game in which you fail all the dice rolls, then you're a weaker player than otherwise.

The Heavy Venom Cannon still has the potential to destroy tanks, and it has the added bonus of never making a tank explode (well, unless that tank is open-topped, like a Battlewagon, but other than that...). Tanks aren't the only thing it's useful against: light anti-vehicle work like hitting Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, Battlesuits, and so on.

The Tyrannofex has a better armour save and a better gun, but as you say there's all the Lascannons and Melta Guns floating around, and they can close with you as easily as you can close with them (more easily, since they tend to come in a Vendetta/Veteran package). But it's terrible in close combat.

Armed with Crushing Claws the Carnifex can have between 6 and 8 attacks on the charge.

Let's compare this potential to the reliability and potential of a Carnifex with one pair of Scything Talons, two pairs of Scything Talons, and no Scything Talons (the "Dakkafex"). Let's suppose a Land Raider moving at cruising speed as the target.

CC:
6 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((6)(17%))(83%) = 0.85 or one damage result.

7 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((7)(17%))(83%) = 0.99 or one damage result.

8 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((8)(17%))(83%) = 1.13 or one damage result.

(0.85+0.99+1.13)/3 = 0.99

2xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit re-roll misses, 5+ to damage on 2D6: (((5)(17%)+((5)(83%)(17%)))(83%) = 1.29 or one damage result.

1xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit re-roll 1s, 5+ to damage on 2D6: (((5)(17%)+((5)(17%)(17%)))(83%) = 0.83 or one damage result.

0xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((5)(17%))(83%) = 0.71 or one damage result.

So now we weight the expected value or reliability of the options by their potential:

2xST: 6.45
CC: 7.92

Adding Crushing Claws to a Carnifex increases its cost by 16%, whereas its combat effectiveness is improved 23% by the Crushing Claws against AV14 vehicles moving at cruising speed. That's supposing that the Carnifex exchanged its second set of Scything Talons for some non-close-combat functional weapon.

Keeping a set of Scything Talons, we'd see:

6 attacks, 6+ to hit, re-rolls 1, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((6)(17%)+(6)(17%)(17%))(83%) = 0.99 or one damage result.

7 attacks, 6+ to hit, re-rolls 1, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((7)(17%)+(7)(17%)(17%))(83%) = 1.16 or one damage result.

8 attacks, 6+ to hit, re-rolls 1, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((8)(17%)+(8)(17%)(17%))(83%) = 1.32 or one damage result.

(0.99+1.16+1.32)/3 = 1.16.

Weighted by potential: 9.28

So just by adding Crushing Claws to a set of Scything Talons you add 44% to its combat effectiveness while adding only 16% to its cost. Again that's only against a cruising Land Raider, but still.

Let us additionally suppose that there's average (1/3 of the time), lucky (1/3 of the time) and unlucky). Any way you cut it unlucky sucks. The 2x Scything Talons are cheaper and most effective when average. The Crushing Claws alone are more expensive, only slightly less effective when average and more effective when lucky. The Crushing Claws and Scything Talon combination is similarly expensive, but almost as effective in average situations and likewise more effective when lucky.

Put another way, by adding Crushing Claws you trade off some slight reliability 1/3 of the time for a considerable increase in potential the other 1/3 of the time, a potential that always outweighs its relative cost on a Carnifex.

I like the cut of your gib, Nurglitch. I agree with much of what you were saying - I think part of the disconnect here is that players like you and I tend to look at potential whereas some math fiends like Shep look only at averages to the exclusion of potential.

Nurglitch wrote:
The 2x Scything Talons are cheaper and most effective when average. The Crushing Claws alone are more expensive, only slightly less effective when average and more effective when lucky. The Crushing Claws and Scything Talon combination is similarly expensive, but almost as effective in average situations and likewise more effective when lucky.

Put another way, by adding Crushing Claws you trade off some slight reliability 1/3 of the time for a considerable increase in potential the other 1/3 of the time, a potential that always outweighs its relative cost on a Carnifex.

This is my problem with Crushing Claws. Yes, obviously, nothing ever goes exactly as average. But you can't plan to be lucky or unlucky, it just happens. So you'll have to stick with the numbers. And what the numbers say, and you reiterate here (emphasis mine) is that when you replace one set of ST with CC, you are paying extra points for a situation where you get (a) less effectiveness when "unlucky" (i.e. 1 attack on the d3), (b) almost the same result when average (2 attacks), and (c) more effective when "lucky" (3 attacks). I don't see a point in paying 25 extra points for a scenario where I get a benefit 1/3 of the time, a detriment 1/3 of the time, and no real effect 1/3 of the time. That averages out to no net benefit or detriment, for 25 extra points.

And there's no doubt that CC are worse than 2 sets of ST against vehicles moving cruising speed. 5 attacks needing 6's, rerolling everything, yields an average of just over 1.52 hits. Even when "lucky" (that is rolling a 3 for the CC's d3), 8 attacks with no reroll needing 6's yields 1.33 hits. CC + 1 set of ST with 8 attacks yields 1.55 average hits. The CC + ST combo against cruising vehicles yields the tiniest increase in the number of hits (almost negligibly small) if you get a 3 on the d3, and is worse than 2x ST against vehicles if you roll a 1 or 2. Likewise, CC w/out ST has less hits no matter what comes up on the d3. Against vehicles cruising, CC decrease your effectiveness at a cost of 25 extra points.

It's not as extreme if you hit on 4's, but you're still in a boat where CC+ST is pretty much a wash vs 2xST. CC are worse when you roll a 1, barely better when you roll a 2, and better when you roll a 3. There it is a slight improvement, but not (IMO) a 25-point improvement. CC+ST are worse than 2xST when running against anything you hit on 5's as well (which is not a ton, but it comes up occasionally).

Basically, if you want your Fexes doing CC (for example, when podding in), 2xST just makes more sense than 1xST and CC. That's my big issue with CC, and why I've dismissed them so much. They give no particular benefit (on average) but cost 25 points. It doesn't make sense, and it's bad design.

Now, that having been said, if you're already pulling 1 set of ST for a gun, then yes, the CC are better than the one remaining set of ST. But if I'm running gun Fexes, I'm going to go ahead and run 2 guns on my Fex. 2x Devourers, Devourer+HVC, Devourer+Stranglethorn Cannon, or Stranglethorn+HVC. I just don't like giving up half the Fexes's shooting to take a close combat arm. The gun will mean he'll want to shoot, not Run (barring an Onslaught), so it means he'll be so slow getting up the field that the close combat arm will be largely wasted. Podding in with gun+ccw means his gun is wasted as soon as he gets in combat (which is probably quickly). Gun+ccw set up just strikes me as unfocused, and if I'm going with double close combat arm, I can't see using CC over 2xST.

And nothing personal...if you have had success with gun+ccw on Fexes, please let me know. I just can't see them providing as much utility as dedicated shooting or dedicating fighting.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Also, is there a way to lobby for an expansion to the abbreviation recognition stuff? ST only gives Starship Troopers as a suggestion, and CC only gives close combat and Company Command Squad (which should only be CCS imo). Can we request to add on to these lists? And how about HG for Hive Guard, now that they will be so ubiquitous in Nid lists?

Nurglitch wrote:last few replies...

Thanks for being positive, thanks for being open minded, and thanks for not giving up. I appreciate the exploration you are doing on paper. But it is important to note that I have been playing test games, and bat-repping said test games. In fact one more tabling of tyranids by Blackmoor's foot eldar is going to be published tomorrow as more in-game evidence. Remember when you tell me that I am too reliant on math that I have actually played a dozen 'games' with the new nids. I'm not running simulations, I had actual opponents, we used actual dice, and the results strengthened my position in these discussions.

I want to be very clear here that I am not intending to be snarky, or facetious when i ask this next question. Have you played against anyone either using the new nids or with them using the new nids? I really would like to get more experiences in from others regarding the codex. For me and the few other players bat-repping nids in a tourney style level of competition, it is just impossible for us to figure out and test everything fast enough. the more of us that are accruing and sharing actual game experience, the better. As of now, I have played enough games with carnifex of different configurations (venom cannon, dakka, screamer-killer) that speculation on their performance isn't valuable to me. Please note that i did not say that these three are hopelessly unplayable. I have not, however, been able to come up with a take on all comers list that can handle aggressive speartip style marine armies while simultaneously being able to handle gunlines. If carnifex didn't just roll over and die to premier assault units, then they may have a bit more of a place, but as you'll see me highlight in my batrep against Blackmoor's eldar, they don't match up favorably against the MUCH cheaper wraithlord, and the wraithlord is generally not taken. Although the comparison is across two different codeces, it is demonstrative of the overcost associated to the nid MCs. If you have been playing, then I'd love to hear the what, when, where, and how, of your carnifex.

I'm not being dismissive, your contribution to this thread has generated a lot of valuable discourse. However, I have, in playing the game, not found your suggestions to be something that has helped me have a decent matchup against the two distinct tourney list types I prepare to face off against.

Somnicide wrote:...I tend to look at potential whereas some math fiends like Shep look only at averages to the exclusion of potential.

translation = I hope for luck in my games.

As all good daemon players must ;-)

Sometimes you just have to give your allegiance over to Tzeentch. Perhaps he's just as fickle as luck, but he sure loves to cause silly shenanigans.

Nurglitch wrote:Let's compare this potential to the reliability and potential of a Carnifex with one pair of Scything Talons, two pairs of Scything Talons, and no Scything Talons (the "Dakkafex"). Let's suppose a Land Raider moving at cruising speed as the target.

CC:
6 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((6)(17%))(83%) = 0.85 or one damage result.

7 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((7)(17%))(83%) = 0.99 or one damage result.

8 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((8)(17%))(83%) = 1.13 or one damage result.

(0.85+0.99+1.13)/3 = 0.99

2xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit re-roll misses, 5+ to damage on 2D6: (((5)(17%)+((5)(83%)(17%)))(83%) = 1.29 or one damage result.

1xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit re-roll 1s, 5+ to damage on 2D6: (((5)(17%)+((5)(17%)(17%)))(83%) = 0.83 or one damage result.

0xST
5 attacks, 6+ to hit, 5+ to damage on 2D6: ((5)(17%))(83%) = 0.71 or one damage result.

So now we weight the expected value or reliability of the options by their potential:

2xST: 6.45
CC: 7.92

where are these red numbers come from?

sirisaacnuton:

I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that you can plan to be unlucky or lucky. Luck isn't something you have agency over. But you can plan for when you are lucky and unlucky, as well as the average. If we suppose that the average happens around 1/3 of the time, good luck is ~1/3 of the time, and bad luck is ~1/3 of the time, then we can have some groundwork for considering the value of any option at all times.

Unlucky here, of course, means not that you don't get a good roll for the number of bonus Crushing Claw attacks, but when your attacks miss with a higher frequency than they would on average.

What you're paying for is a 16% improvement over all times. You're paying a premium if you don't have a supporting set of Scything Talons. Calling it an improvement if lucky, a detriment if average, and a wash if unlucky really distracts from the degrees of the improvement and the detriment. The detriment is a 23% loss on average, and the improvement is 37% on good luck.

The balance favours the Crushing Claws with a 23% overall increase in effectiveness at a cost of 16% more points.

So there is indeed doubt that Crushing Claws alone are worse than two pairs of Scything Talons against a cruising Land Raider. The doubt is quite simply that the increase in effectiveness far outweighs the slight decrease in reliability. That 25 points is not only worth it, but it's worth it if you consider that a Heavy Venom Cannon is also 25 points, with both to kick up the cost of the Carnifex 31%

The weighted value of a Carnifex with a single pair of Scything Talons is 4.15, for a 48% increase in combat effectiveness if you exchange them for Crushing Claws.

Personally I hope that what you say is true because my Carnifexes all have Stranglethorn Cannons and Scything Talons, and although that was originally an aesthetic choice on my part because I think the Crushing Claws are ugly and don't work with my army theme (fore-limbs guns or claws, mid-limbs Scything Talons), the math really doesn't agree.

Off-topic.
Regardng abbreviations, consider spending the extra fraction of a second writing out the names in full so that people don't have to decode your jargon and can just read English (and also help people find the thread in the search engine...).

Shep:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless you're assiduously taking detailed notes on the dice results you've been getting while play-testing I mean I respect your finely honed instinct for what "works", but the problem is that your evidence is basically anecdotal: basing conclusions on them is basically trusting that you are not only right, but also infallible.

If I was to post a battle-report as counter-anecdote, it would go no distance to falsifying your claims or proving my own. I myself am not infallible and don't claim to be. However, I am aware that people, that's us, are what you might call "weak inductive reasoners" who infer strong conclusions from insufficient evidence, and who do so successfully when the cost of doing so isn't onerous. What we need are "strong statistical reasoners" who infer only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, and who only do so successfully when the value of doing so far outweighs the success of the weak inductive reasoners.

My point is that we do not have thousands upon thousands of games under our collective belts, games that include out-of-the-box thinking, and that it seems, as per the usual strategy on the Internet, successful and respected players are asserting strong conclusions based on weak evidence, and considering that the difference is made up by confidence in their abilities (aka: "confirmation bias").

Something to consider about learning is making mistakes. Part of the problem that I see in your method, what I've seen and heard of it, is that you're trying to build a strong army and trying to refine a preconceived strategy. Because you consider yourself to be a good player, and haven't kept careful records of the luck you've been experiencing, and your strategy sound, you shift the problem to the Tyranid army rather than any shortcoming in your strategy.

I think you'd do well to start keeping careful notes of your games (all the dice rolls, etc), and to try what you would consider "sub-optimal" on paper so that you don't find your fine strategic sense strait-jacketed by fuzzy data and bias.

Incidentally, since I'm at work, could someone check to see if there's still a limit on the number of pairs of Crushing Claws a Carnifex can take? I don't have my codex memorized yet, so I don't recall it saying anywhere that you can't take two pairs, and I'm curious.

Give me 3 broods of 30 maxed out 'goyles for anti armor any day of the week. I've been wrecking high ap gunlines with them. Though the math doesn't support it, I'm Irish and I'll gladly go for luck any day of the week. Main problem then is no anti av14. But as far as points cost, those three broods at 240 pts each (even cheaper if you forgo toxins sacs at 210) are of comparable cost to the other 'fex heavy options and seem to be far more survivable if you screen at least 2 of the broods. I've been running parasite in the middle brood for reliable synapse. The rest of the army I just flood with cheap gaunts screening warriors. Occasionally mixing genestealers in with it. MAIN problem is I'm still trying desperately to decrease my movement and assault phase times though I suspect constant practice will lower those times considerably.

ED209:

Those red numbers are the expected value, or reliability, of the different options weighted by their potential.

A Carnifex with no close combat weaponry has:
A4+1 charging, for 5 attacks
An expected value of 0.71 attacking a cruising Land Raider.
Therefore: (5)(0.71) = 3.55 overall effectiveness vs LR

A Carnifex with a single pair of Scything Talons has:
A4+1 charging, for 5 attacks
An expected value of 0.83 attacking a cruising Land Raider.
Therefore: (5)(0.83) = 4.15 overall effectiveness vs LR

A Carnifex with two pairs of Scything Talons has:
A4+1 charging, for 5 attacks
An expected value of 1.29 attacking a cruising Land Raider.
Therefore: (5)(1.29) = 6.45 overall effectiveness vs LR

A Carnifex with one pair of Crushing Claws has:
A4+1 charging+D3 for 6-8 attacks
An expected value of 0.99 attacking a cruising Land Raider.
Therefore: (8)(.99) = 7.92 overall effectiveness vs LR

A Carnifex with one pair of Crushing Claws and one pair of Scything Talons has:
A4+1 charging+D3 for 6-8 attacks
An expected value of 1.16 attacking a cruising Land Raider.
Therefore: (8)(1.16) = 9.28 overall effectiveness vs LR

Let's take these numbers against a squad of Space Marines:

Carnifex w/o
5 attacks, 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound
2.5 hits, 2.08 wounds on average (or expected value)
Expected Value x Potential: 10.40
Expected Value + Potential: 7.08

Carnifex w/ST
5 attacks, 4+ to hit re-roll 1s, 2+ to wound
2.93 hits, 2.43 wounds on average (or expected value)
Expected Value x Potential: 12.15
Expected Value + Potential: 7.43

Carnifex w/STx2
5 attacks, 4+ to hit re-roll misses, 2+ to wound
3.75 hits, 3.11 wounds on average (or expected value)
Expected Value x Potential: 15.56
Expected Value + Potential: 8.11

Carnifex w/CC
6-8 attacks, 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound
3 hits, 2.49 wounds + 3.5 hits, 2.91 wounds + 4 hits, 3.32 wounds. Aggregate: 2.91 wounds on average
Expected Value x Potential: 23.28
Expected Value + Potential: [8.49, 9.91, 11.32] or 9.91 on average.

More attacks is better than fewer yet more reliable attacks. Ork players already know this.

fex can only take one pair unfortunately...

I quite like crushing claws on my tervigons, I'm with you on the upgrade being reasonable on carnifex if you are taking a HVC. That was really not an issue to me. the issue was trying to effectively suppress firepower while closing with venom cannons in game wasn't quite working. i don't need them to be railguns, but the number of HVCs you can field just seemed inadequate to keep my stuff a live long enough.

As to the new criticism being levied against my playtesting...

Ok, two posts ago, I was called a math junkie who just runs numbers, and doesn't actually generate real sample sets. now the problem with my play testing is that I am actually playing full games with real generated sample sets.

Probability can be predicted, statistical sets can actually be mapped to percentages, especially in a game as simplistic as warhammer. I have provided an actual legal imperial guard gunline list and shown everyone what the largest statistical percentage result is in regards to unsaved wounds caused to the tyranid army. The "better luck" and "worse luck" cascade away from that statistical package in exponentially less likely sets. In other words, its a bell curve.

In my math results, anything even close to the bell curve results in a significant defeat of the tyranid army, once you travel further away from the bell curve, you enter into events that are highly unlikely, and unimportant to test for.

Then, to satisfy the other element of list design and testing. I wrote various lists and challenged real life opponents with those lists. I didn't tell them what to shoot at, i didn't let them correct their mistakes, this opened the door for target priority latitude, and other generalship factors. I've played every deployment type and every mission objective. My very first attempts with nids we're to "suppress rather than destroy" enemy armor as I moved up. That isn't as "out of the box" as you think. It was a clear design goal if you just glance at the HVC profile (pun intended). It didn't work for me. I tried it until i was satisfied that it was insufficient. Then I built for points per wound efficiency and pure survivability and found more success. that was the hive guard/tervigon based list. I even pushed the survivability envelope to the extreme and managed to write a 2k list with SIXTY T6 wounds in it! It failed. Then I wrote specifically to crush IG, and I was capable of that with an all drop pod 6x zoanthrope, 1 deathleaper, 3x dakkafex, 4x warrior list. That was encouraging. But the list was hopelessly over-ran by land raider based aggressive armies. I have yet to line up my 60 genestealer/60 gargoyle list against anything. I have however done the evil math voodoo on it, it looks promising versus dedicated shooting gunlines, but armies with more flexibility/resiliency seem to really counter the non-frag grenade non-power weapon having genestealer/broodlord combinations. I will not walk away from the list concept until it has been played multiple times however, against multiple human opponents with different armies and playstyles as I agree that actually playing the game is as important as generating an average result through math.

I've been up and down all of the concepts that weren't just ridiculous, I have done due diligence with a calculator, and I have set up many games to test theories (and to account for LOS, terrain, and statistical clumpings that temporarily alter expected results). I have used truisms that I learned when playing orks for an entire year of tourney play (such as... charging vehicles with unarmored infantry models gets them exploded and flamed in short order)

If math isn't enough proof, and battle reports aren't sufficient either, and a combination of both is still insufficient. Then you are going to be waiting for quite some time, or you're just playing devil's advocate.... which is clearly getting more and more difficult as mine and other players testing results have come in.

Nurglitch, once again I feel like you're trying to turn this into a thought experiment. You nicely dodged Shep's question and point regarding game experience and even tried to make a case for why game experience can be a negative. As a rhetorician, I'll give you points for the effort.

However, the point remains that you're posting in a thread in the Battle Reports section of the site. This section is for sharing game experiences, whether the players in question are of the correct mindset to collect relevant data or not.

Shep: so are you saying that foot nids (hive guard/tervs/etc.) can't cut it against mech builds in general, or just that they have a major uphill battle against a guard/wolf gunline that goes first. How many armies can say that they are excited to see that across from them though? From the way you are talking, it sounds like nid players need to make a decision about what they want to be vulnerable to (gunline/hammernators/etc.) and hope to not see those at the table. Does that about sum it up?

dangerboy_61 wrote:Shep: so are you saying that foot nids (hive guard/tervs/etc.) can't cut it against mech builds in general, or just that they have a major uphill battle against a guard/wolf gunline that goes first. How many armies can say that they are excited to see that across from them though? From the way you are talking, it sounds like nid players need to make a decision about what they want to be vulnerable to (gunline/hammernators/etc.) and hope to not see those at the table. Does that about sum it up?

That's pretty much it....

The things I feel like it is safe to say, that won't later reveal themselves to be hyperbolic or just myopic, are the following.

If you are playing 2k points, and you are facing off against a gunline, you will VERY likely lose all 9 hive guard before the first turn is over. If your opponent chose to shoot at 3+ save T6 MCs instead of the hive guard, you can potentially lose three of them, prior to catalyst going off. If everything is screened by t-fex, then just the common number of lascannons in razorback spam and 3x vendetta lists will cause 5 of the 6 wounds needed to drop a t-fex, the last wound will certainly be stripped by the combined shooting of the rest of the army.

These are just some numbers, they don't represent a definitive "you lose against gunlines". But now we can venture into my opinion. In my opinion, losing hive guard and tervigons at that rate is something I don't think a nid player just gets to shrug off. Either your entire troops slots are stripped, or your three best anti-tank units are stripped. On the next round, you'll be facing that same shooting down again, which will, predictably, take another big bite out of your remaining army. We aren't talking about taking losses, we are talking about being tabled.

Can you seize the initiative? Yes, absolutely. Can you win first turn? Maybe. But with first turn, a mechanized gunline can deploy no further than 5" on table, robbing your hive guard of shots. Even if you chose to use onslaught to get that shot, then you've just traded in feel no pain and a run roll for the tervigons. Is it worth it? Probably. You also got to shoot with your HVCs if you took them or your rupture cannons if you took them. If you just went with catalyst, then you've got that online and the game improves quite a bit. In my opinion, with first turn, the matchup improves... but isn't anything above 50/50. Pure conjecture... I'll batrep it if I can get the time. Spearhead was manageable if a bit more difficult. The right IG army can pack in real tight in that back corner, but the nids won't step on themselves in deployment. Dawn of war, of course, against another shooting army, is a nightmare. Tervigons will not be threatening until the last third of the game, the hive guard have to hustle on and hope to make a game impact by the half way point... but at least the T-fexes can contribute.

And you mentioned 'mech builds' in your question. "Mech" as a design element is not a problem at all, you can have a very balanced matchup in all deployment types when versing mech armies with an aggressive or short range element. The tervigon/hive guard/t-fex list actually has a very comfortable matchup versus land raider armies. I was getting very promising results against speartip space marine and space wolf style lists. Pressing the issue on the land raiders to force them to commit with rupture cannons, screening tervigons from terminator charges, and then smothering beater units with mass termagants was working out very well. As I began using tervigons correctly (as in, you need a very good reason to make babies... just to do it isn't good enough) That matchup even got better to manage.

My problem, as a competitive tourney player, is that I own a fully painted IG army, I was hoping the tyranid codex would come with a take on all comers option for me to take to tourneys when I need to take a break from IG. But, as a gunline, the IG army just has smooth matchups, regardless of opponent. The mirror match can come down to who goes first, but I think I can live with that. With nids, I feel like, going first or second, dedicated gunlines with no points spent in CC upgrades has a major, nearly insurmountable advantage going first or second. That knocks nids down a peg in my opinion, because I enjoy a 50/50 versus gunlines with my already painted IG army. Like you wer asking, you could build nids a couple of ways to really stick it to gunlines, but those lists seem a lot more fragile and dare I say gimmicky. Running into a solidly built sturdy assault based list will be the end of that run.

I'm confusing a lot of people when I'm complaining about nids, because I am talking about playing against some seriously unfriendly face-melting opposition. The casual player or even semi-competitive game store regular doesn't have to worry about the two list archetypes I have been whining about. And if it weren't for front loaded obscenely shooty IG and space wolf armies, then this nid list would already be rising to the top of the charts.

tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
3x hive guard
3x hive guard
3x hive guard
15x termagants with devourers
16x termagants with devourers
tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
tyrannofex with rupture cannon and cluster spines
tyrannofex with rupture cannon and cluster spines

So my problems might be different than most. I own IG so I am looking for at least an equivalent level of competitiveness, and I have to plan to face off against some really dominant shooters.

I am going to be buying a video camera very soon, and I will be changing all of my batreps over to video batreps. More and more I want to discuss the specifics of deployment before the games start, and more detail needs to be described about the events in game. Blackmoor's foot eldar and the shellacing I took from it will likely be my last text batrep.

Shep - do you think this list would be improved:

tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
3x hive guard
3x hive guard
3x hive guard
15x termagants with devourers
16x termagants with devourers
tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
tervigon with catalyst, onslaught, crushing claws, adrenal glands and toxin sacs
tyrannofex with rupture cannon and cluster spines
tyrannofex with rupture cannon and cluster spines

Down grade the devourers to deathspitters - saving 124 points and add Gargoyles. Combined - the gargoyles and gaunts can screen the MC's for a turn. Reducing gunline HW hits by half for a turn....