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.

 streamdragon wrote:
And we just move into full ad hom mode. Fair enough.

Nice cop out, now address my points.

Edit: I would seriously love some examples of what you consider a good IG, Chaos, or necron list are.

bodazoka wrote:
That is a super interesting way to look at a list, thank you for giving me that insight. I fall into the damage output category without even realizing it! you just naturally tend to move towards the unit's that provide the most Dakka!

I will certainly have a look at that and see if I can utilize some of what you are talking about.

Some of the Tau battle reports I have done would be good reading for you. Perhaps look at my blog and see what I do there. also the Eldar and Dark Eldar information I post has and uses identical tactica.

in 5E I would deploy a single Broadside in either corner (plus two shield drones) and a Commander. Your turn! Thats How I deployed. Sometimes a unit of Pathfinders would be there also in the dead center and FAR back. Enemy would lose vehicles until they came for me. with two shield drones, it migfht take more of their own tanks dead than they could afford to try and shoot the broadsides dead, so onward the enemy pressed towards the Broadsides in disparate corners. Isolating themselves. As they tore for objectives, they continue to isolate more units with little damage to show for it.

and when the third turn arrives and they are as isolated as you can ever hope for, the crashing wave of reserves came in and started picking off the pocxkets of enemies one by one. Three rounds of slaughter, wherein the enemy pockets are too far from each other to do more than feed the grinder.

Tau victory.

Tyranid artillery can probably do this also. Obviously the requirement to bring on 1/2 the force is there but a smart player will realize which units go well with the Artillery during the early stages where all you wanna do is pump out damage enemies cant ignore and force them into those pockets... and then the wave comes.

I did this with our old codex and pods.

Now with my refusal to use Trygons/Mawlocs I'm stuck just trying to ram it home with a vanguard of Carnifexes.


Which is fun in its own right.

Red Corsair you are arguing quite untastefull there. There are better ways to get your points across then saying "I am right, you are wrong". You will also dictate the situation so it is always ideal for your argument. A lot of good points have been made, you have your opinions on them but I am not sold.

4 points for a gaunt with a BS3 S4AP5 is quite good. 8 points for a devourer gaunt is nice. You think they are bad as they need synapse from another unit, as opposed to warriors. But quite often the 40 point gaunt unit camping the objective will be right next to a creature with synapse anyway. Depending on the terrain there are many situations where this is ideal. Even withouth synapse a 10 model gaunt unit can hold an objective as long as you keep the rest of their army out of shooting range. (It is very unlikly they will make a leadership test if they do get shot.)

 Niiai wrote:
Red Corsair you are arguing quite untastefull there. There are better ways to get your points across then saying "I am right, you are wrong". You will also dictate the situation so it is always ideal for your argument. A lot of good points have been made, you have your opinions on them but I am not sold.

4 points for a gaunt with a BS3 S4AP5 is quite good. 8 points for a devourer gaunt is nice. You think they are bad as they need synapse from another unit, as opposed to warriors. But quite often the 40 point gaunt unit camping the objective will be right next to a creature with synapse anyway. Depending on the terrain there are many situations where this is ideal. Even withouth synapse a 10 model gaunt unit can hold an objective as long as you keep the rest of their army out of shooting range. (It is very unlikly they will make a leadership test if they do get shot.)

There is a difference to being to the point and blunt and being rude. IMO I am not being rude. Discussions in these threads continuously get muddied by false information. I said my intent wasn't to offend, but I am not going to tiptoe around claims that tank shock of all things makes warriors bad. Come on. Furthermore, as I stated, and I'll state it again for completeness. If you don't fully understand how to properly space your models or deploy them, let alone move them, then there is no merit to your claims. How can someones initial position be expect to be taken seriously in a tactical debate when they don't fully grasp the fundamentals of the game? It doesn't demean the player in any way, but clearly they need to re-address the situation and play the unit to it's full potential before making such poorly informed claims.

The claim that large blasts devastate them was debunked, so that was ignored. I pointed out that Ion accelerators were the only prevalent source anyway and he claimed battle canons, demolisher canons and particle whips were all common, which just is not true. Maybe in his corner, but for the large majority this is not true. I play IG, chaos and necrons and all those units are terrible in 6th.

Now to address your point about gants, your example about being shot is irrelevant, as IB checks happen regardless of whether your being shot. With LD6 you probably will flee off that objective. Also note you still haven't addressed the hidden tax I was talking about. They are not really 4ppm because you need synapse and in fact it makes them much worse then you think when you consider our opponent doesn't need to shoot your gants, not one unit, heck you could wind up with many small OR large units by turn 4 or 5 on objectives and guess what? Your opponent doesn't need to address a single one, they just need to shoot at your synapse to bring it all toppling down. I also disagree that they have decent shooting( I have never heard a sm CC scout referred to as a good shooter), best thing they had going for them last book was free poison from tervigons which made them better at assault them most other armies dedicated assault units (see assault marines ) but thats gone, so by in large they are massive point sinks especially with that almost required tervigon. Your HQ flyrants are way upfield so what does that leave you with? Zoanthropes instead of that tervigon, well again now thats another 50 point tax and another huge Achilles heal, but beyond that you even addressed it yourself, all your gants need to be near it which makes grabbing multiple objectives nearly impossible. Imagine if tactical marines required a captain within 12" in order to score, suddenly combat squads is a moot ability isn't it? Your also using to stones on one bird now.

The line between rudeness and to the pint is a very thin line when you communicate by writing.

I re-read the entry, I thought they had "hunt" and not "lurk". This makes them much worse. (In fact the mellee gaunts are better as they will only half their number in they fail the test once they loose synapse.) They are still good for grabbing objectives close to where the action will be. They are not as fail safe as the warriors, but taking 10 for a cheap scoring unit in your army, or taking more with devouerer still seems good. You get 11 dakka gaunts for the same point as you get 3 dakka warriors.

Also I think you are discarding the S templates to easaly. In my enviorment there are a lot of competetive to semi competative lists. The chances of they brining along one big high S pie plate is there. And if they do, and I bring warriors, that pie plate goes from being not competetive, as you would say it, to being very comptetve in this particular machup. If the tau plate is the only descent one, then is this not a valid point as it is the most promenent one that you will likely meet? I do not have the books on me but the flying necron death ray is also high S is it not?

You stil have some good points. I would love to see warriors on the table. Of course if you are buying warriors, why not buy shrikes? You only use them for backfield scooring?

 Niiai wrote:
The line between rudeness and to the pint is a very thin line when you communicate by writing.

I re-read the entry, I thought they had "hunt" and not "lurk". This makes them much worse. (In fact the mellee gaunts are better as they will only half their number in they fail the test once they loose synapse.) They are still good for grabbing objectives close to where the action will be. They are not as fail safe as the warriors, but taking 10 for a cheap scoring unit in your army, or taking more with devouerer still seems good. You get 11 dakka gaunts for the same point as you get 3 dakka warriors.

Also I think you are discarding the S templates to easaly. In my enviorment there are a lot of competetive to semi competative lists. The chances of they brining along one big high S pie plate is there. And if they do, and I bring warriors, that pie plate goes from being not competetive, as you would say it, to being very comptetve in this particular machup. If the tau plate is the only descent one, then is this not a valid point as it is the most promenent one that you will likely meet? I do not have the books on me but the flying necron death ray is also high S is it not?

You stil have some good points. I would love to see warriors on the table. Of course if you are buying warriors, why not buy shrikes? You only use them for backfield scooring?

Shrikes are for shenanigans...Warriors are for MSU synapse and a long range gun.

I'd like a discussion from a few of you on arming Trygon Prime with Reaper of Obliterax.

In three games I've had Trygon Prime fail to disable tanks with his 5 smash attacks. I'm also tired of some high initiative guys with tons of attacks trumping him. I was thinking giving him the shredding/instant death capability with I7 would be a 'poor mans Swarmlord' in the opponents backfield. However this is bringing him up to 275pts, for a unit that has to sit there for a turn.

Typically I dont bring him in danger close. This is a list I am considering him with:

2000pts TAC

Flyrant w/Regen, HVC and Devourers
2 Hive Guard
Venomthrope
Venomthrope
3xWarriors (deathspitters and barbed)
3xWarriors (deathspitters and barbed)
22 Gargoyles
Crone
Crone
Mawloc
3xCarnifex (All have 1 devourer, then 2 Stranglethorn/1 HVC)
Trygon Prime w/Reaper

Low on troops, yea. But a LOT is being pushed into the opponent and the Warriors end up camping with venomthrope assists. Both crones, Mawloc, and Trygon deep strike, and that Carnifex brood cant be ignored. So is my opponent going to divert shots to deal with Objective capping? The alternative here is HC on the Tyrant and Outflanking 20 gants with some devourers thrown in, to further add to the backfield assault, at the expense of one warrior brood and some goyles.

That Reaper is essentially worth a termagant brood though. Too risky or yet another unignorable threat?

 Niiai wrote:
The line between rudeness and to the pint is a very thin line when you communicate by writing.

I re-read the entry, I thought they had "hunt" and not "lurk". This makes them much worse. (In fact the mellee gaunts are better as they will only half their number in they fail the test once they loose synapse.) They are still good for grabbing objectives close to where the action will be. They are not as fail safe as the warriors, but taking 10 for a cheap scoring unit in your army, or taking more with devouerer still seems good. You get 11 dakka gaunts for the same point as you get 3 dakka warriors.

Also I think you are discarding the S templates to easaly. In my enviorment there are a lot of competetive to semi competative lists. The chances of they brining along one big high S pie plate is there. And if they do, and I bring warriors, that pie plate goes from being not competetive, as you would say it, to being very comptetve in this particular machup. If the tau plate is the only descent one, then is this not a valid point as it is the most promenent one that you will likely meet? I do not have the books on me but the flying necron death ray is also high S is it not?

You stil have some good points. I would love to see warriors on the table. Of course if you are buying warriors, why not buy shrikes? You only use them for backfield scooring?

I couldn't agree more, and in fact that's exactly why I use disclaimers, but that being said people will almost always take whats written on forums the wrong way and be offended eventually so I tend to just be to the point, direct and assure I am not being personal. Some will love it and others hate it, but its their choice how they take it.

Problem I have with dakka gants is now they aren't worth their cost IMO. You might get one good volley off before they are killed. Generally you want them to hide and score right? So my question is, why double their cost and buy them an upgrade that only acts to tempt you into a misplay. Having those 10 devil gants just makes y9u want to shoot that enemy even though you need to move them closer. AT 8 ppm they now cost the same as a guardian while being worse at every single duty, not worth it.

IMO, if your going to do small gribblies, hormagaunts are the much better buy. They are WAY more mobile which helps you:
A. get there
B. keep up with the flyrants
This means you have avoided that synapse tax over termigants who would be left behind from your FHT and require a backfield synapse creature.

Please give me an example of a list you have seen that has high strength blasts other then a riptide?

As for THE riptide, consider this. A riptide with a buff mander can kill 2 warriors a turn or deal 3 wounds to a tervigon. Those 2 warriors are 60 points. Those 3 tervigon wounds are 97.5 and when she goes not only do you lose your gants synapse anchor and a scoring unit but she blows up gants forcing immediate checks on the spot.

Not to sound doom and gloom, but Tau are a nightmare matchup anyway.

I am not gone list lists, I am just saying that when playing tournaments you will sometimes meet them.

How would you kite out the warriors then? 3 or 4 bare with a big S4 template gun?

Edit: For the list one person sugested: "3xCarnifex (All have 1 devourer, then 2 Stranglethorn/1 HVC)" Why the one heavy venom cannon? If you are targeting something the weanom cannon is good as, shurly you are vasting your strangelthorn shots and other way around?

Personally

 Iechine wrote:


Flyrant w/Regen, HVC and Devourers lose the regen
2 Hive Guard lose these guys
Venomthrope
Venomthrope
3xWarriors (deathspitters and barbed) lose the deathspitters
3xWarriors (deathspitters and barbed) lose the deathspitters
22 Gargoyles
Crone
Crone
Mawloc
3xCarnifex (All have 1 devourer, then 2 Stranglethorn/1 HVC) Trade the devourers for deathspitters
Trygon Prime w/Reaper

you now have 190 pts to play with and have lost minimal survivability or damage output

Take a Haruspex?

Though with a little playing, you could get some real gribblies or stealers in there.

Haruspex vs 3 Zoanthrope brood, there. Haruspex sucks but he's still an MC that armorbane's tanks.

 Red Corsair wrote:

There is a difference to being to the point and blunt and being rude. IMO I am not being rude. Discussions in these threads continuously get muddied by false information. I said my intent wasn't to offend, but I am not going to tiptoe around claims that tank shock of all things makes warriors bad. Come on. Furthermore, as I stated, and I'll state it again for completeness. If you don't fully understand how to properly space your models or deploy them, let alone move them, then there is no merit to your claims. How can someones initial position be expect to be taken seriously in a tactical debate when they don't fully grasp the fundamentals of the game? It doesn't demean the player in any way, but clearly they need to re-address the situation and play the unit to it's full potential before making such poorly informed claims.

The claim that large blasts devastate them was debunked, so that was ignored. I pointed out that Ion accelerators were the only prevalent source anyway and he claimed battle canons, demolisher canons and particle whips were all common, which just is not true. Maybe in his corner, but for the large majority this is not true. I play IG, chaos and necrons and all those units are terrible in 6th.

1. Please cite where I said those weapons were "common". My post merely states that they exist. Shock, gasp, surprise, some people still play "terrible" units in friendly games. I have a friend that loves his defilers, another that plays naked Leman Russes. I suspect I am not unique in this regard.

2. Please cite where I said tank shock makes warriors bad. I said that tank shock can force you to end up in a state other than perfect 2" coherency. Sisters, in particular, used to be fond of the tactic. (Though I could understand if you've never seen a Sisters player, considering their relative rarity.) Being in less than perfect 2" coherency, as the pictures on the previous page showed, would then allow multiple warriors to be hit. That is simple fact. That is all I was arguing.

In fact, please cite where I said warriors were bad anywhere in this thread.

Allow me to spare you some time. I said none of those things. In fact, the only real comment I made to the viability of warriors is that the issues they had during the last codex, they still have. This is plainly true, given that there were no appreciable changes to warriors. They can take Fleshhooks now, and their previously free rending claws now cost 5 points. That is all.

But by all means, don't let that get in the way of your grandstanding.

 Niiai wrote:
I am not gone list lists, I am just saying that when playing tournaments you will sometimes meet them.

But that was the point. People say warriors suck due to X unit types with S8 Large blasts but when asked to produce a example they suddenly clam up. Sometimes meeting a poor unit choice that is situational for being decent against your warriors is not a reason not to bring them.

Sure sometimes you see Doomsday arks or monoliths, but those units are way over priced and not very effective.

I would never trade the Devourers for Deathspitters. Even at 5 points I don't think the TL Spitters are worth it when compared to the slightly more expensive but amazeballs Brainleech Devs.

rigeld2 wrote:
I would never trade the Devourers for Deathspitters. Even at 5 points I don't think the TL Spitters are worth it when compared to the slightly more expensive but amazeballs Brainleech Devs.

Yea those would stay, their glancing of tanks to death (and sometimes even fliers thanks to the twin linking) makes them stay. I'm enjoying the 18 shots when Im close enough, but also enjoy the 3 cannons shooting on turn 1 too. I think all devourers on a brood of 3 is overkill, especially in the vehicle department which is what they typically go after around here.

rigeld2 wrote:
I would never trade the Devourers for Deathspitters. Even at 5 points I don't think the TL Spitters are worth it when compared to the slightly more expensive but amazeballs Brainleech Devs.

Deathspitters do about half the damage of a devourer for a third of the cost. Once you factor in army it's a completely different story...but if you're handling armor...take two devourers.

Well there where some reports of warriors being good once 6th edition hit after we saw the reduce of rocket launchers.

My experiense with warriors in the old codex was that they died 24/7 during 5th edition and that was when I stopped using them. With the point rediction elsewhere in the book warriors might just be viable by the sheer fact that your oponent can not shoot everything you bring to the table. (My regular opponents usualy brought 5th edition parking lot lists until I switched to the tervigon for reliable synapse.)

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I would never trade the Devourers for Deathspitters. Even at 5 points I don't think the TL Spitters are worth it when compared to the slightly more expensive but amazeballs Brainleech Devs.

Deathspitters do about half the damage of a devourer for a third of the cost. Once you factor in army it's a completely different story...but if you're handling armor...take two devourers.

Less than half the damage - fewer shots, lower strength. The fact that they're AP5 is mostly irrelevant. The fact that S6 doubles out DE with FNP, IG characters, Coteaz, etc. and S5 doesn't...

That's just not a trade I'd ever make. I'd cut most anything else usually.

So...about that Trygon and Reaper... Any thoughts?

No one is talking much about the Trygon, but I'm not surprised. CROWDED FOC, which makes for lot of variety.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

There is a difference to being to the point and blunt and being rude. IMO I am not being rude. Discussions in these threads continuously get muddied by false information. I said my intent wasn't to offend, but I am not going to tiptoe around claims that tank shock of all things makes warriors bad. Come on. Furthermore, as I stated, and I'll state it again for completeness. If you don't fully understand how to properly space your models or deploy them, let alone move them, then there is no merit to your claims. How can someones initial position be expect to be taken seriously in a tactical debate when they don't fully grasp the fundamentals of the game? It doesn't demean the player in any way, but clearly they need to re-address the situation and play the unit to it's full potential before making such poorly informed claims.

The claim that large blasts devastate them was debunked, so that was ignored. I pointed out that Ion accelerators were the only prevalent source anyway and he claimed battle canons, demolisher canons and particle whips were all common, which just is not true. Maybe in his corner, but for the large majority this is not true. I play IG, chaos and necrons and all those units are terrible in 6th.

1. Please cite where I said those weapons were "common". My post merely states that they exist. Shock, gasp, surprise, some people still play "terrible" units in friendly games. I have a friend that loves his defilers, another that plays naked Leman Russes. I suspect I am not unique in this regard.

2. Please cite where I said tank shock makes warriors bad. I said that tank shock can force you to end up in a state other than perfect 2" coherency. Sisters, in particular, used to be fond of the tactic. (Though I could understand if you've never seen a Sisters player, considering their relative rarity.) Being in less than perfect 2" coherency, as the pictures on the previous page showed, would then allow multiple warriors to be hit. That is simple fact. That is all I was arguing.

In fact, please cite where I said warriors were bad anywhere in this thread.

Allow me to spare you some time. I said none of those things. In fact, the only real comment I made to the viability of warriors is that the issues they had during the last codex, they still have. This is plainly true, given that there were no appreciable changes to warriors. They can take Fleshhooks now, and their previously free rending claws now cost 5 points. That is all.

But by all means, don't let that get in the way of your grandstanding.

Move that post

We were discussing warrior survivability in the current meta.

I said the most prevalent ID blast was the IA on the riptide. You claimed battle canons among other poor examples were counters. Things that are not even remotely competitive or seen in the competitive meta. But I guess you just like pointing out useless bits of information.

Further more your tank shock response was directly related to the discussion involving these blasts, Sisters have nothing to do with it. Tankshocking a backfield unit seems laughably unlikely and further more when paired by a high S large blast is a bad idea for said tank. In fact the template can't be placed if any of it would hit a friendly.

Warriors didn't need to change, the meta around them changed as well as other units in competing slots. That in itself can make a unit viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:
Well there where some reports of warriors being good once 6th edition hit after we saw the reduce of rocket launchers.

My experiense with warriors in the old codex was that they died 24/7 during 5th edition and that was when I stopped using them. With the point rediction elsewhere in the book warriors might just be viable by the sheer fact that your oponent can not shoot everything you bring to the table. (My regular opponents usualy brought 5th edition parking lot lists until I switched to the tervigon for reliable synapse.)

That's exactly it. I used to play missile spam wolves so I know how rough it used to be. My wolves are no longer viable however as well as most parking lots. Missiles are much scarcer as well which makes warriors much more appealing, but just the change to venomthropes alone makes them SO much more durable.

I'm wondering... do we have enough consensus yet to put some general guidance into the OP so people can go there and get some ideas about what seems to be working?

There doesn't have to be agreement on everything... but are there some things that seem to be solid enough to recommend?

Gitspitta your request for some information in the original post is good. It just seems to be a lot of different oppinions. And while some might be a bit nieche, a lot of the units are very playable!

 ductvader wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am not a fan of the bastion nor feel it is MUST TAKE. Those points can go towards more bugz which is more win.

Indeed, though after creating your own bug bastion, you might think otherwise.

I've also made my own dead bug defense lines, skynest, and I'm working on the bugstorm redoubt right now.

I demand pictures! That sounds awesome.

Well i just cannot see a way around the idea that a Hive Crone is important to all lists. you gotta get some anti-air up there. At least one seems a mandatory addition. The alternatives to anti-air just aren't prolific. So unless you think a ton of twin linked shots will down the bird and you can get the angle on it you need consistently, this seems like a basic building block.

Definitely, Im a fan of two.

So we can argue about how many but i think we can agree that a Hive Crone could be seen as an "auto include" (I HATE that term, but it seems likely that it should be). It also frees up your Tyrant to do more productive things with HIS shooting potentially, if you use one in the skies above.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

EDIT:
I also think a pair of Termagaunt squads is pretty much a no brainer BEFORE including Hormagaunts. Im not saying dont include Hormagaunts. Im saying your first two troops should BE Tervigons. Again, how many is debatable, but that much is probably not. I personally feel 30 apiece to be an excellent idea though.

"Tervigon squads"?? A 30-strong squad of Tervi's would be an impressive sight.

Outflank one and watch the horror in the enemies eyes as like 90 shots go flying into X