So I am running a gauntlet of tests against my Pentyrant Tyranid list to see if there is a matchup that may be problematic for them. So far, I have had 2 games with them. The first was against Grant and his Eldar:

1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans

The second game was against an army much more suited to give my Tyranids a much tougher fight - Spam Adam and his Skyfiring Tau:

1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Spam Adam's Skyfire Tau

Now this battle is what I feel is another problem matchup for my Tyranids....my very own AV13-spam Tournament Necrons. Yes, this is going to be a self-test game as no one else in my area runs Necrons like I do. So why will Necrons potentially give Tyranids problems?

Tyranids are not terribly efficient against AV13, at least not when it is spammed. Their main weapons, the S6 brainleech devourers, are mostly invalidated against such an army. The only weapon that they can really rely on are their electroshock grubs.

My Necrons have enough tesla to deal with massed flyers, even if they are FMC's.

My Necrons have the firepower and mobility to efficiently take out the MSU elements of most other armies.

A few people in my other 2 reports brought up the subject of how my Pentyrant Tyranids do so well because the BAO format favors them. I, on the other hand, am confident that Pentyrant bugs can do well in almost any format so for this game, I will be using the ETC missions to see how they will do under other mission formats. Now keep in mind that I am not going with the complete ETC format. I am still using BAO lists, but I am just running them with the ETC missions instead of the BAO missions.

So for this experiment, I will be testing 2 things - how my Pentyrants will fare against another potentially tough matchup, AV13 Necrons, and how my Pentyrant will do in another tournament format, the ETC.

Report will be coming out this weekend.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1850 Pentyrant Tyranids vs AV13 Necrons


1850 Hive Fleet Pandora

Primary detachment:

Flyrant - 2x TL-Brainleech Devourers, Egrubs, Fighter Ace (Warlord)
Flyrant - 2x TL-Brainleech Devourers, Egrubs

Lictor
Lictor
Lictor

3x Rippers - Deepstrike
3x Rippers - Deepstrike

Mawloc

Void Shield Generator - 3x Void Shields

Hive Fleet Leviathan detachment:

Flyrant - 2x TL-Brainleech Devourers, Egrubs
Flyrant - 2x TL-Brainleech Devourers, Egrubs
Flyrant - 2x TL-Brainleech Devourers, Egrubs

Malanthrope

1x Mucolid
1x Mucolid
1x Mucolid



1850 Necrons with Necron Allies

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge w/Tesla Cannon
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge w/Tesla Cannon
2x Storm-teks (Haywire Cryptek)

5x Warriors - Gauss, Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Gauss, Night Scythe

1x Tomb Blade
1x Tomb Blade
1x Tomb Blade

Annihilation Barge - Tesla Cannon
Annihilation Barge - Tesla Cannon
Annihilation Barge - Tesla Cannon


Necron Allies: (Note - self-allies legal with BAO list building)

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge w/Tesla Cannon
1x Storm-tek

5x Warriors - Gauss, Night Scythe

Annihilation Barge - Tesla Cannon


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Missions: ETC Mission 1


Objective #1: Big Guns Never Tire - 5 Objectives (3-pts each)


Objective #2: Maelstrom of War


Objective #3: Victory Points


Tertiary Objectives: First Blood, Linebreaker, Slay the Warlord


Basically, the win conditions for the ETC missions is whoever has the highest Total Victory Points. Total VP's = Objective #1 + Objective #2 + Objective #3 (the difference only) + Tertiary Objectives. After you get the totals for both parties, compare the totals on a chart and you will get your overall score.

For more info on the ETC missions, you can find them here: European Team Championships – 2014 Mission Packet


Deployment: Hammer & Anvil


1st Turn: Tyranids


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PRE-GAME ANALYSIS:




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPLOYMENT:




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tyranids 1




Necrons 1




Tyranids 2




Necrons 2




Tyranids 3




Necrons 3




Tyranids 4




Necrons 4




Tyranids 5




Necrons 5




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


POST-GAME ANALYSIS:

I've been debating this but for 5 more pts per flyrant you can get heavy venom cannons, which would net you some decent damage potential vs this kind of list from range. I'm not trolling btw...I think 5 heavy venom cannons could be a big deal vs things like this, skyrays, etc. Thoughts?

I'm excited to see how this goes. If the Necrons can efficiently clean up the Tyranid support units, the flyrants will have to drop out of the sky to prevent a runaway on Maelstrom points and that makes them a little more vulnerable. It should be a very good test though.

Can't wait to learn more about the etc mission format !

thanatos67 wrote:
I've been debating this but for 5 more pts per flyrant you can get heavy venom cannons, which would net you some decent damage potential vs this kind of list from range. I'm not trolling btw...I think 5 heavy venom cannons could be a big deal vs things like this, skyrays, etc. Thoughts?

It's a fair question.

I play the odds. What tournament army builds run heavy armor? There are mainly 2 builds that I can think of.

1. Adlance Knights

2. AV13 Necrons.

The rest of the meta, massed S6 can usually deal with.

LR-spam isn't a viable competitive tournament build. I'd have no problems tabling such an army. Skyrays, I'd go with dakka's to the rear over HVC. 6 S6 shots to AV10 > 1 S9 shot to AV13....all with 3+ cover saves.

2x dakkas is better against perhaps 80% of the field out there. The HVC, maybe 20%. To me, it's a no-brainer. I'd take my chances with 2x devourers as my TAC weapon of choice and let egrubs handle the heavy armor (along with Warp Blast).

PanzerLeader wrote:
I'm excited to see how this goes. If the Necrons can efficiently clean up the Tyranid support units, the flyrants will have to drop out of the sky to prevent a runaway on Maelstrom points and that makes them a little more vulnerable. It should be a very good test though.

It appears the majority of the Maelstrom objectives aren't really objective-based, but rather, do-this-task or do-that-task. Looks like maybe only 33% are strictly objective, though how they label their Maelstrom objectives is kind of confusing. Anyways, I'm very interested in how this test would turn out as well.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can't wait to learn more about the etc mission format !

I'll probably make some mistakes as some of the ETC rules are a little confusing, but at least I can get the feel for how this type of list would do in a format other than the BAO.

This will certainly be an interesting battle. From what I've found in ETC missions, the necrons have the better match up.

ETC favors more on the ground presence. Yes, only objectives 11-16 are the actual objectives, but objectives such as 21-23 (line breaker, ascendancy, supremacy) also require you to be grounded. Not to mention the final category, 31-36 have missions that are assault based (challenge) or impossible for you to obtain (demolitions / witch hunter) versus the necrons.

Coupled with the fact that you can only "cash in" up to two maelstrom objectives each turn, the necrons could easily run away with maelstrom.

Secondly, while you have pentyrant to deal damage, you also bleed easy kill points to the necrons. The lictors and rippers are easy kills for sweep attacks as they ignore cover due to being CC attacks. The necron list also is a bit tougher with the msu blades...that happen to resurrect and not give up KPs seemingly when the dice turn against you (or with you, haha).

Good luck fighting your own army!

I think between egrubs and possible warp lance it won't be to big an issue. Honestly, I think pentyrant's big nemesis will be the odd horde army.

Tyranids win this one big I think. If an ABarge is in range, it'll be killed the next turn. Same with Scythes. Unfortunately I don't think jy2s ground forces will match up well with the Crons, but he hopefully gets some points from them while the Flyrants clean up.

StarHunter25 wrote:
I think between egrubs and possible warp lance it won't be to big an issue. Honestly, I think pentyrant's big nemesis will be the odd horde army.

Between 60 TL BS4 Str 6 shots, possible psychic scream and a Mawloc I don't think hordes will be that a big of a problem.

 jifel wrote:
If an ABarge is in range, it'll be killed the next turn.

Hyperbole. AV13 ignores S6, and keeping at 24", an Abarge wont ever have to expose it's rear to Flyrants. Three Flyrants could gank a single Abarge with Egrubs, but then you're hunting 90pts with 720pts, and still risk rolling a pesky '1' on the haywire chart.

Necrons will have trouble with forward objective claiming though, the Tomb Blades are dead in the water and the Surf lords will hurt from the Egrubs if they come forward. Necrons can't be hurt at range, but they can't threaten Nids outside Egrub range. Kind of an interesting standoff-ish matchup. A charging surflord will eat D3 Haywire shots. Better to have them pick up the Tyranid support units and let Abarges stupid Tesla rules tend to the Flyrants.

Once penned, Quantum shields should go down in a hail of Devourers. Necrons best chance would probably be to stay at maximum range in the early game but move forward with everything in a line, and focus down the Flyrants. always protect the rears of their vehicles.

I'm not familiar with the mission objectives, so can't say who I think has the upper hand.

The Flyrants' mobility gives them every opportunity to

A.) Keep the Annihilation barges penned up in a corner, where they don't impact the tyranid ground forces, and
B.) Get within Warp lance range, and/or Rear armor arcs for 12 devourer shots.

The s7 tesla that the necrons bring will put wounds on the tyrants, but their 3+ armor save will likely mitigate the damage quite a bit. Grounding a tyrant and then charging it with a barge lord is probably the Necrons' best bet at killing the flyrants outright, the question will be do the dice allow that to happen.

I'm still giving the edge to the tyranids in this one, It will be interesting to see how Jy2 plays it out.

It is not easy for flyrant to get rear arc shots versus an annibarge unless the Necron player goofs up. The annibarges should put a hurting on the flyrants though.

That's it though - if he's keeping his barges back from the flyrants, they're not shooting his lictors etc that'll be earning maelstrom VPs. It's a trade off for the necron side either way.

After all, flyrants move 24" with a 360 arc of fire. Barges move at most 12" with a 45 degree arc of fire.

Effective range of barge is 36" plus it can swivel on base.

Probably my two least favorite builds against each other. On paper I'd say the Crons have the edge.

But JY2 seems to have the luck of the Irish when it comes to the dice, so we'll just see what happens.

Pre-Game Analysis up.

 Rypher wrote:
This will certainly be an interesting battle. From what I've found in ETC missions, the necrons have the better match up.

ETC favors more on the ground presence. Yes, only objectives 11-16 are the actual objectives, but objectives such as 21-23 (line breaker, ascendancy, supremacy) also require you to be grounded. Not to mention the final category, 31-36 have missions that are assault based (challenge) or impossible for you to obtain (demolitions / witch hunter) versus the necrons.

Coupled with the fact that you can only "cash in" up to two maelstrom objectives each turn, the necrons could easily run away with maelstrom.

Secondly, while you have pentyrant to deal damage, you also bleed easy kill points to the necrons. The lictors and rippers are easy kills for sweep attacks as they ignore cover due to being CC attacks. The necron list also is a bit tougher with the msu blades...that happen to resurrect and not give up KPs seemingly when the dice turn against you (or with you, haha).

Good luck fighting your own army!

Thanks. Great analysis.

Just 1 small correction. When a tomb blade goes down, it cannot get back up because the entire unit is down. However, if you were referring to the Necron list in general with regards to resurrecting, then carry on.

StarHunter25 wrote:
I think between egrubs and possible warp lance it won't be to big an issue. Honestly, I think pentyrant's big nemesis will be the odd horde army.

Horde armies could be problematic as long as the hordes are split up. However, if it is 1 giant super-blob of a horde, then that won't be as tough IMO. I am fairly confident that this army can take on deathstar builds like blob-squads and the green tide.

 jifel wrote:
Tyranids win this one big I think. If an ABarge is in range, it'll be killed the next turn. Same with Scythes. Unfortunately I don't think jy2s ground forces will match up well with the Crons, but he hopefully gets some points from them while the Flyrants clean up.

I wish I had your confidence. Tyranids can reliably kill Necron vehicles (about 3 in every 2 turns). However, those bargelords can keep on getting back up. They're just so annoying.

Here is my true yardstick in regards to how this game will fare. If bargelords get back up at least 2 or more times in this matchup, I think Necrons will take it. If not, then Tyranids will probably take it.

 Zande4 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I think between egrubs and possible warp lance it won't be to big an issue. Honestly, I think pentyrant's big nemesis will be the odd horde army.

Between 60 TL BS4 Str 6 shots, possible psychic scream and a Mawloc I don't think hordes will be that a big of a problem.

Tyranids definitely have the firepower to deal with hordes, especially if they are out of cover.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 jifel wrote:
If an ABarge is in range, it'll be killed the next turn.

Hyperbole. AV13 ignores S6, and keeping at 24", an Abarge wont ever have to expose it's rear to Flyrants. Three Flyrants could gank a single Abarge with Egrubs, but then you're hunting 90pts with 720pts, and still risk rolling a pesky '1' on the haywire chart.

Necrons will have trouble with forward objective claiming though, the Tomb Blades are dead in the water and the Surf lords will hurt from the Egrubs if they come forward. Necrons can't be hurt at range, but they can't threaten Nids outside Egrub range. Kind of an interesting standoff-ish matchup. A charging surflord will eat D3 Haywire shots. Better to have them pick up the Tyranid support units and let Abarges stupid Tesla rules tend to the Flyrants.

Once penned, Quantum shields should go down in a hail of Devourers. Necrons best chance would probably be to stay at maximum range in the early game but move forward with everything in a line, and focus down the Flyrants. always protect the rears of their vehicles.

I'm not familiar with the mission objectives, so can't say who I think has the upper hand.

Here's a strategy tip for players going up against flyers.

You know that flyrants want to take rear shots at your transports (especially if you are AV13 front and sides). What you could do is to use that transport to lead the flyrant wherever you want it. Sure you're moving away from where you want, but your transport is going to be dead anyways so it doesn't matter. But since you're going to lose that vehicle, use it to take the flyrant out of position. Force it to either go into glide mode (so you can potentially assault it) or fly off the table (and lose 1 turn of shooting). Just make sure you use a vehicle that is already damaged for this tactic.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
The Flyrants' mobility gives them every opportunity to

A.) Keep the Annihilation barges penned up in a corner, where they don't impact the tyranid ground forces, and
B.) Get within Warp lance range, and/or Rear armor arcs for 12 devourer shots.

The s7 tesla that the necrons bring will put wounds on the tyrants, but their 3+ armor save will likely mitigate the damage quite a bit. Grounding a tyrant and then charging it with a barge lord is probably the Necrons' best bet at killing the flyrants outright, the question will be do the dice allow that to happen.

I'm still giving the edge to the tyranids in this one, It will be interesting to see how Jy2 plays it out.

Tyranid tactics would be, of course, to focus on 1 unit until it is dead. Go after the barges first because 1) they can shoot my flyrants out of the sky and 2) they are worth 2-VP's due to Big Guns. When Necron flyers come in, go after them as priority targets. MSU bug ground units will take Maelstrom objectives but I will hold back some of them. I do need some to survive until the end of the game to take Big Guns objectives.

Necron tactics will be to try to get the flyrants into Glide mode by overshooting them in the Movement phase (no, I won't park them near the deployment edges to protect their rear). Have the bargelords nearby to assault a flyrant who lands. 1 or 2 bargelords should be hunting MSU Tyranid units. Shooting needs to focus on 1 flyrant until it is dead. Most important thing to do in this game is to SPREAD OUT.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It is not easy for flyrant to get rear arc shots versus an annibarge unless the Necron player goofs up. The annibarges should put a hurting on the flyrants though.

It's a double-edged sword. To deny the flyrants rear shots means to move your vehicles more and more out of position relative to your objectives. Sometimes, you really can't avoid it, especially if you want to grab an objective.

However, in this case, AB's will be giving up 2-VP's due to Big Guns.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
That's it though - if he's keeping his barges back from the flyrants, they're not shooting his lictors etc that'll be earning maelstrom VPs. It's a trade off for the necron side either way.

After all, flyrants move 24" with a 360 arc of fire. Barges move at most 12" with a 45 degree arc of fire.

Yeah, it's going to be a tradeoff. In this scenario, my Necrons will go after the flyrants first. If I can take them down early, then I can easily deal with the Tyranid MSU units. However, if I go after Tyranid MSU units instead, then my ability to take out the flyrants gets worse and worse as they take out my firepower. Flyrants can reliably take down 3 barges in 2 turns. I need to deal with them while my firepower is still near full strength rather than wait until later, when I won't have enough firepower to be able to deal with them.

 djones520 wrote:
Probably my two least favorite builds against each other. On paper I'd say the Crons have the edge.

But JY2 seems to have the luck of the Irish when it comes to the dice, so we'll just see what happens.

Lol. Yeah, both lists are really hardcore good.

Who doesn't want to see the king cobra face off against the eagle. Makes for a more exciting game than seeing the eagle eat a mouse.

I'm not sure if playing yourself is entirely a good test of how the armies will compare, since you will know exactly what your "opponent" will do next turn in response to whatever actions you perform...

That said, should be an interesting match-up. The Necrons actually have my vote in this case. As you said, they have the more balanced army between the two with more redundancy, good mobility, and a far better ground presence.

thanatos67 wrote:
I've been debating this but for 5 more pts per flyrant you can get heavy venom cannons, which would net you some decent damage potential vs this kind of list from range. I'm not trolling btw...I think 5 heavy venom cannons could be a big deal vs things like this, skyrays, etc. Thoughts?

Harpies would be a better platform if you want mass HVCs, since they come twin-linked and are significantly cheaper. The Tyrant is better off with its Devourers since they aren't available on very many platforms and the devourers get more out of the Tyrant's innate BS4 than the HVC's blast does.

 Strat_N8 wrote:
I'm not sure if playing yourself is entirely a good test of how the armies will compare, since you will know exactly what your "opponent" will do next turn in response to whatever actions you perform...

That said, should be an interesting match-up. The Necrons actually have my vote in this case. As you said, they have the more balanced army between the two with more redundancy, good mobility, and a far better ground presence.

I actually feel that, not only is it ok to playtest against yourself, but it may actually be more representative of how high-level games play out.

Really experienced generals can usually anticipate what his opponent will do. He usually won't fall for "tricks" that less experienced generals will. As a very experienced general, my thought process in most cases isn't "what will my opponent do next?" It's actually "how can I stop my opponent from doing what he is going to do next?" I anticipate what I feel is the best move for him and then prepare for that. In high level play, my personal opinion is that there is no real secret or mystery as to what will happen next. You know what he will do next, because it should be the move that gives him the best chances of winning. The question is more, what can you do about it? In such games, mistakes are very, very few. Every move is a calculated risk. To the inexperienced eye, you may wonder why he is doing what he is doing, but to the experienced player, you know he is setting himself up to try to win the game and that is the best move that he could make. He may be sacrificing a unit in order to do so - and to some, that may look like a mistake - but he is just setting up for the endgame, kind of like chess.

Now this is assuming you know both armies that you are playing very well. If not, then I'd agree it is better to find a more experienced general to test out the game with.

It saddens me to see where this game is heading when the core of the army, the troops, gets the bare minimum treatment.

I voted Tyranids. Just too mobile and strong.

Necron player getting to pick where all those s6 shots go is a huge benefit.

Think the cron player will take this one out.

With the new Mephrit Dynasty formation in SOB: Exterminatus it is now possible to field six AB and 5 Nightscythe with 5 immortals each. This will stop the Pentyrant list pretty much cold. There is enough tesla shots in this army to eradicate the Flyrants. The only downside is that it is only ok against everything else and wouldn't stand a chance in melee.

CAD:

HQ:

Overlord, Warscythe, Res Orb, Semp Weave 145pt

Troops:

Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt

Heavy:

Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt

Mephrit Dynasty formation:

HQ

Overlord, Warscythe, Res Orb, Semp Weave 145pt

Troops:

Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt

Heavy:

Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt

This comes out to 1755 pt which gives 95 pts to spread around as necessary. You could remove the war gear on the Overlords and free up another 110 pts. You could use the points to get a CCB and take gear from the other Overlord to gear it out. A little flexibility there.

Naw wrote:
It saddens me to see where this game is heading when the core of the army, the troops, gets the bare minimum treatment.

I voted Tyranids. Just too mobile and strong.

There are always those armies, no matter how much GW tries to steer us away from them.

barit wrote:
Necron player getting to pick where all those s6 shots go is a huge benefit.

Think the cron player will take this one out.

They have a decent shot IMO.

Warmonger2757 wrote:
With the new Mephrit Dynasty formation in SOB: Exterminatus it is now possible to field six AB and 5 Nightscythe with 5 immortals each. This will stop the Pentyrant list pretty much cold. There is enough tesla shots in this army to eradicate the Flyrants. The only downside is that it is only ok against everything else and wouldn't stand a chance in melee.

CAD:

HQ:

Overlord, Warscythe, Res Orb, Semp Weave 145pt

Troops:

Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt

Heavy:

Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt

Mephrit Dynasty formation:

HQ

Overlord, Warscythe, Res Orb, Semp Weave 145pt

Troops:

Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt
Immortals X5 with Nightscythe 185 pt

Heavy:

Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt
Annihilation Barge 90pt

This comes out to 1755 pt which gives 95 pts to spread around as necessary. You could remove the war gear on the Overlords and free up another 110 pts. You could use the points to get a CCB and take gear from the other Overlord to gear it out. A little flexibility there.

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

The ground presence is very important for a TAC army.

Please put some turns up!!!! I wanna see this one play out!

I think getting that many onslaughts will be very valuable.

 herpguy wrote:
I think getting that many onslaughts will be very valuable.

Very lucky that 4/5 Flyrants got the one power that would prove most useful against av13/13/11 skimmers.

Your powers alone here to me suggest the fate of this game! Unless your opponent keeps his skimmers rear on the board edge of course.

Should we start calling this style of game tabletop masturbation?


Edit: Sorry, I thought of that one and couldn't resist

It is an interesting match none the less... jy2's two favorite armies !!

I don't understand the necron deployment though. I'd have hung back further with the 36" threat range looking for a beta strike. No reason to be up that far.

PanzerLeader wrote:
I don't understand the necron deployment though. I'd have hung back further with the 36" threat range looking for a beta strike. No reason to be up that far.

Hanging back is for wusses. Real robots know no fear. Haha....j.k.!

Seriously , I deployed the way that I did for several reasons.

1. I am very aggressive with my Necrons. I am willing to sacrifice a barge in order to not give my opponent board control. That is why I try to keep my forces near the middle.

2. With all the Onslaughts in the Tyranid army, 36" May not be far enough. I didn't want to concede that much real estate to the bugs.

3. First Blood here in the ETC format is a lot less important than it is in the BAO format.

 herpguy wrote:
I think getting that many onslaughts will be very valuable.

I was actually hoping for Warp Blast in this game. S10 AP2 shots are very useful in this matchup against open-topped vehicles and T5 lords.

Under current (idiotic) rules would the Haywires not be useless against CCB's?

Conveniently my question was answered in YMDC:

Hit pools from Blast and Template weapons are always resolved against the Chariot [profile].

I was simming a Pentyrant against one of my own groups, and it was doing quite well, until the Vindicare discovered the Skyfire Nexus. I wonder how many semi-dependable ways there are to unsnapshot a ground-pounder against air without using gun emplacements.

Naw wrote:
Under current (idiotic) rules would the Haywires not be useless against CCB's?

Conveniently my question was answered in YMDC:

Hit pools from Blast and Template weapons are always resolved against the Chariot [profile].

Fortunately for Necrons, there is only 1 army in the game with a haywire template.

Unfortunately for them, they are facing that army in this game.

IsawaBrian wrote:
I was simming a Pentyrant against one of my own groups, and it was doing quite well, until the Vindicare discovered the Skyfire Nexus. I wonder how many semi-dependable ways there are to unsnapshot a ground-pounder against air without using gun emplacements.

You could get lucky with Skyfire objectives, although that isn't an offense you can rely on. It isn't even semi-dependable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:


Battle report completed (on p. 1).

Kind of saw this coming after the first few turns. I agree that we'll have to see what happens in January. I seriously doubt the matchup will be the same

Good tactic for the necrons by moving flat out under the flyrants to force them to go to ground but a FMC Nid player should foresee this coming and as as you where playing yourself... well, I kind of think you may have been favouring the necrons game play - just a little!

Anyhow, a very good point for every other Nid player to pick up on - don't get too close to enemy vehicles if you can't hurt a certain AV. otherwise they'll get behind you and jerk you around

 Wilson wrote:
Good tactic for the necrons by moving flat out under the flyrants to force them to go to ground but a FMC Nid player should foresee this coming and as as you where playing yourself... well, I kind of think you may have been favouring the necrons game play - just a little!

Anyhow, a very good point for every other Nid player to pick up on - don't get too close to enemy vehicles if you can't hurt a certain AV. otherwise they'll get behind you and jerk you around

As a Tyranid player, what can you do? Just keep on ignoring stuff that is hard to kill? The best that you could hope for is to just swallow your lumps and try to kill 3 AV13 vehicles in 2 turns. Now you may sacrifice a flyrant, but you are getting 6-VP's (due to Big Guns) as well as handicapping your opponent's shooting majorly.

To win, especially in a matchup that potentially favors your opponent, you can't do it by playing it safe. You have to take risks. As a Tyranid player, I had to try to take out his barges. Because every turn where I play it "safe", that is a turn the Necrons are shooting at me with their barges at full strength.

Yeah, I did know what the Necron player was going to do and as a Tyranid player, I did it anyways because that was what I felt was my greatest chance for a victory....take out the enemy firepower at all costs.

What does the AV13 Necron wall with Bargelords do against a Lance list w 3x Knights?

 Lord Commissar wrote:
What does the AV13 Necron wall with Bargelords do against a Lance list w 3x Knights?

Shooting from different arcs.

Sweep attack by the bargelords.

Haywire crypteks and glancing gauss.

Stay in terrain with the bargelords and let the knights charge into terrain.

Oh, and here's my favorite one.....ignore the knights and kill everything else.

 jy2 wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
Good tactic for the necrons by moving flat out under the flyrants to force them to go to ground but a FMC Nid player should foresee this coming and as as you where playing yourself... well, I kind of think you may have been favouring the necrons game play - just a little!

Anyhow, a very good point for every other Nid player to pick up on - don't get too close to enemy vehicles if you can't hurt a certain AV. otherwise they'll get behind you and jerk you around

As a Tyranid player, what can you do? Just keep on ignoring stuff that is hard to kill? The best that you could hope for is to just swallow your lumps and try to kill 3 AV13 vehicles in 2 turns. Now you may sacrifice a flyrant, but you are getting 6-VP's (due to Big Guns) as well as handicapping your opponent's shooting majorly.

To win, especially in a matchup that potentially favors your opponent, you can't do it by playing it safe. You have to take risks. As a Tyranid player, I had to try to take out his barges. Because every turn where I play it "safe", that is a turn the Necrons are shooting at me with their barges at full strength.

Yeah, I did know what the Necron player was going to do and as a Tyranid player, I did it anyways because that was what I felt was my greatest chance for a victory....take out the enemy firepower at all costs.

fair enough man but perhaps in this scenario it wouldn't have been a bad idea to deep strike some of the tyrants(2 of them?) to get the rear armour easier. it would have helped you surround the barges and would have meant that you wouldn't have had to go into gliding mode to get shots off.

 Wilson wrote:

fair enough man but perhaps in this scenario it wouldn't have been a bad idea to deep strike some of the tyrants(2 of them?) to get the rear armour easier. it would have helped you surround the barges and would have meant that you wouldn't have had to go into gliding mode to get shots off.

That would have also been a mistake IMO, at least from a statistics perspective. 40K is a numbers game. Gernerally speaking, the more you have, the better you are. 5 flyrants against 4 AB's means that Tyranids have the mathematical advantage. 3 flyrants vs 4 AB's will give Necrons the advantage. 3 flyrants isn't even guaranteed to kill 1 AB (there's a 1/3 chance that it would survive with 1HP remaining), but with 5 flyrants, I did 5HP's worth of damage.

Besides, there's the usual risks with deepstriking, including 1) not coming in on Turn 2 even with the re-rolls on reserves, 2) scattering outside of egrubs range and/or rear armor arc and 3) worse yet, mishapping.

Just a word of advice, in most cases (probably 99% of the time), ALWAYS START ALL YOUR FLYRANTS ON THE TABLE.

 jy2 wrote:

 Wilson wrote:

fair enough man but perhaps in this scenario it wouldn't have been a bad idea to deep strike some of the tyrants(2 of them?) to get the rear armour easier. it would have helped you surround the barges and would have meant that you wouldn't have had to go into gliding mode to get shots off.

That would have also been a mistake IMO, at least from a statistics perspective. 40K is a numbers game. Gernerally speaking, the more you have, the better you are. 5 flyrants against 4 AB's means that Tyranids have the mathematical advantage. 3 flyrants vs 4 AB's will give Necrons the advantage. 3 flyrants isn't even guaranteed to kill 1 AB (there's a 1/3 chance that it would survive with 1HP remaining), but with 5 flyrants, I did 5HP's worth of damage.

Besides, there's the usual risks with deepstriking, including 1) not coming in on Turn 2 even with the re-rolls on reserves, 2) scattering outside of egrubs range and/or rear armor arc and 3) worse yet, mishapping.

Just a word of advice, in most cases (probably 99% of the time), ALWAYS START ALL YOUR FLYRANTS ON THE TABLE.

Id agree with you 99% of the time but the fact is...
therefore in this particular game, the way you played it - I think you would have been better off with putting at least 1, Maximum of 2 Flyrants in reserve to suround the barges. 3 should just about wreck one barge in turn 1. 4 would almost certainly wreck 1.

Then when 1-2 barges get behind you, you can DS a Flyrant behind them to get the jump on their rear.

I'd like to see this game played again but with you vs another player. Just to see how it would go. Maybe get inControl to play you with the 5 star Flyrant list.

Lol. You got me there. I ran the numbers in my head, but the game just didn't pan out for Tyranids statiscally. Oh well, that's a dice game for you. Even when the odds are with you, you can still tank it.

I think a lot of times depending on what you're up against its okay to reserve 2 Flyrants. As Wilson has pointed out it lets you react better plus you don't always need to alpha strike.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I think a lot of times depending on what you're up against its okay to reserve 2 Flyrants. As Wilson has pointed out it lets you react better plus you don't always need to alpha strike.

It is ok to reserve them if you want to handicap your own army. Let me ask you, why do you think it lets you react better when you've got a flyrant with a 42" threat range? No, when you've got 5 flyrants, each with a 42" threat range? Deepstriking is how you get your units in range when otherwise, they wouldn't be. Flyrants will be in range on Turn 1 or at the very latest, on Turn 2. Why take the risk of deepstriking when you don't need to? Why do you want to nerf your initial firepower when you don't have to?

Depending on cover and deployment (e.g., H&A) it may not be possible to target everything in your opponent's army. Some units with high rate of fire can outrange the Flyrants such as Lootas. It might be better to come in uncontested for the free shots second turn or later rather than opting for the alpha strike.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Depending on cover and deployment (e.g., H&A) it may not be possible to target everything in your opponent's army. Some units with high rate of fire can outrange the Flyrants such as Lootas. It might be better to come in uncontested for the free shots second turn or later rather than opting for the alpha strike.

And why would you want to target everything in your opponent's army? You need to focus down 1 unit at a time, not trying to target the entire army. Basically, the strategy that Pentyrants should employ is the surgical strike. Hit one unit and hit it hard until it is dead. Then go on to the next one. You should never be just targeting everything in your opponent's army.

Lootas? Oh please. You know how much damage 1 unit will do? Assuming 15 lootas with 3 shots each, that's 45 shots, 7.5 hits, 5 wounds and 2W goes through if out in the open (3+) or only 1W if in malanthrope range (2+). And that's not factoring in the Void Shields yet.

Let me ask you, in your game against Pentyrants, did you feel that your opponent played it correctly by reserving 2 of his flyrants? Or did you feel that the extra 24 TL-S6 shots that he would have gotten had he deployed those flyrants would have been the better play?

 jy2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Depending on cover and deployment (e.g., H&A) it may not be possible to target everything in your opponent's army. Some units with high rate of fire can outrange the Flyrants such as Lootas. It might be better to come in uncontested for the free shots second turn or later rather than opting for the alpha strike.

And why would you want to target everything in your opponent's army? You need to focus down 1 unit at a time, not trying to target the entire army. Basically, the strategy that Pentyrants should employ is the surgical strike. Hit one unit and hit it hard until it is dead. Then go on to the next one. You should never be just targeting everything in your opponent's army.

Lootas? Oh please. You know how much damage 1 unit will do? Assuming 15 lootas with 3 shots each, that's 45 shots, 7.5 hits, 5 wounds and 2W goes through if out in the open (3+) or only 1W if in malanthrope range (2+). And that's not factoring in the Void Shields yet.

Let me ask you, in your game against Pentyrants, did you feel that your opponent played it correctly by reserving 2 of his flyrants? Or did you feel that the extra 24 TL-S6 shots that he would have gotten had he deployed those flyrants would have been the better play?

As Dozer said, in situations where your faced with things such as the AV13 spam you just took on, it would make more sense to reserve 1-2 flyrants. Although you may be 24 TL S6 shots down, thats also 24 shots that can't actually hurt anything in turn 1.

The obvious choice (99% of the time) is too put all tyrants on the board to overwhelm the enemy but in this instance I strongly believe you would have had a better shot at taking down this list by deep striking - besides, you had a lictor in your list to DS next too to avoid mishaps anyway.

 Wilson wrote:
Good tactic for the necrons by moving flat out under the flyrants to force them to go to ground but a FMC Nid player should foresee this coming and as as you where playing yourself... well, I kind of think you may have been favouring the necrons game play - just a little!

I felt that the Nids were played too aggressively when they really didn't need to. I expected them to stay put and wait for their ground presence. That or flying off and then coming behind the enemy AB's or fliers.

I mentioned Lootaz since I've seen them outshoot Flyrants. As to my game just wait and see how it plays out. For some armies it's best not to reserve and play very aggressive.

Can't find myself disagreeing with the concept of reserving the Tyrants. A smart opponent will mitigate your 1st turn shooting by denying that rear arc as much as possible, so those extra shots aren't going to do much anyways. Keeping them reserved does give you some flexibility turn 2 and on once it starts getting harder and harder for him to keep that rear arc locked up.

Against most armies you shouldn't have to play like that, but against this one, it might have been the better option.

In this case, where the Tyranid player was going first vs those annihilation barges, the Idea should have been to hide the malanthrope behind the VSG so it wouldn't die, deploy all 5 flyrants, and swoop them off of the table on turn 1. That way all 5 come in on turn 2 with no reserves roll needed, plus as many of the ground troops that make their 3+ reserve roll as well. The necron player would either move up on his turn, or stay back in this DZ and lose a turn of board control.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
In this case, where the Tyranid player was going first vs those annihilation barges, the Idea should have been to hide the malanthrope behind the VSG so it wouldn't die, deploy all 5 flyrants, and swoop them off of the table on turn 1. That way all 5 come in on turn 2 with no reserves roll needed, plus as many of the ground troops that make their 3+ reserve roll as well. The necron player would either move up on his turn, or stay back in this DZ and lose a turn of board control.

great shout tetrisphreak. I think that is exactly how I would have played it.

Guys, I'll give you the pros and cons of deepstriking 2 flyrants:

PROS:

1. They come in swooping, thus, making them more survivable.

2. They can get potential rear armor shots at the barges.


CONS:

1. You're giving up another 24 shots or 2 haywire attacks on Turn 1.

2. 3 flyrants isn't guaranteed to kill anything. There's a 1/3 chance an enemy annihilation barge might survive. That means instead of 5 flyrants versus 3 barges on Turn 2, it's 3 flyrants versus 4 barges. You give up the numerical advantage.

3. 1 flyrant isn't guaranteed to wreck a barge, even against rear armor. 12 shots, 11 hits, 3.67 glances/pens, 2 glances/pens gets through the jink saves. Or 6 shots, 5 hits, 1.8 glances/pens, 1 glance/pen gets through jink + 1 haywire = 2 glances/pens. On average, you'll do 2 glances/pens to the rear of a jinking AB.

4. Even with the re-rolls to reserves, flyrants are not guaranteed to come in on Turn 2.

5. They might scatter out of rear arc or egrubs range.

6. They might mishap.

7. So 2 flyrants deepstrike in. I still would have most likely gone into Glide mode with the other 3 flyrants, thus exposing them to the risk of assault anyways.

8. Necron player could have counter-deployed if they knew Tyranids were deepstriking 2 flyrants. Not necessarily with their butts against the board edges, but having them around 6" from the board edges (keep in mind Hammer & Anvil deployment) makes deepstriking to the rear extremely risky while still giving them good range to almost any flyrant on the table.

9. Tyranids were going 1st. Normally, you would reserve in the hopes of getting the beta-strike against enemy flyers, but in this case, my flyrants would have came in before the Necron flyers. So why deepstrike when you can't get the drop on the opponent's reserves?

10. I didn't have the benefit of hindsight in the game. How could you possibly know the results of the game during the game? I went with what I felt was my best chances, and in this case, I felt having the numerical advantage over the Necrons would have given me the best chances. Besides there is no guarantee that deepstriking 2 flyrants would have netted me a better chance at victory.

H&A deployment is rough. Even with 24" movement, coming in from the edge on reserve only puts a FMC at the deployment line.

This particular matchup is very tough for tyranids. The av13 wall of skimmers are so difficult to take out, as compared to many of the other lists people see these days. While the necron codex is slated for an update soon, I doubt they'll lose their AV13 spam type lists altogether.

Had all those flyrants who rolled "onslaught" for their power rolled "warp blast" instead, the edge might very well have shifted back in the tyranids' favor. Either way it was tough going, and the result showed how strong and resilient the necron codex still is.

Naw wrote:

 Wilson wrote:
Good tactic for the necrons by moving flat out under the flyrants to force them to go to ground but a FMC Nid player should foresee this coming and as as you where playing yourself... well, I kind of think you may have been favouring the necrons game play - just a little!

I felt that the Nids were played too aggressively when they really didn't need to. I expected them to stay put and wait for their ground presence. That or flying off and then coming behind the enemy AB's or fliers.

Tyranids were going 1st. If they fly off on T1, they'd still come back on before Necron flyers came in.

Also, this is H&A deployment. Enemy flyers can come in and stay out of range of flyrants coming in next turn (staying about 54" from the Tyranid's deployment edge means flyrants can do nothing to them on the way in). AB's, if they really wanted to, can stay 30-36" away from the Tyranid board edge to avoid devourers to the rear.

 Wilson wrote:

As Dozer said, in situations where your faced with things such as the AV13 spam you just took on, it would make more sense to reserve 1-2 flyrants. Although you may be 24 TL S6 shots down, thats also 24 shots that can't actually hurt anything in turn 1.

The obvious choice (99% of the time) is too put all tyrants on the board to overwhelm the enemy but in this instance I strongly believe you would have had a better shot at taking down this list by deep striking - besides, you had a lictor in your list to DS next too to avoid mishaps anyway.

In this case, it is not so much the 24 TL shots as it is in the 2 egrubs that you'd be missing.

Lictors have to already be on the table in order for the flyrants to use. Thus, I can't rely on the lictor tactic.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For some armies it's best not to reserve and play very aggressive.

Right, and this one is it. Don't reserve the flyrants and be very aggressive with them.

 djones520 wrote:
Can't find myself disagreeing with the concept of reserving the Tyrants. A smart opponent will mitigate your 1st turn shooting by denying that rear arc as much as possible, so those extra shots aren't going to do much anyways. Keeping them reserved does give you some flexibility turn 2 and on once it starts getting harder and harder for him to keep that rear arc locked up.

Against most armies you shouldn't have to play like that, but against this one, it might have been the better option.

Flexibility at the expense of loss firepower and added risk to the army.

To me, it wasn't worth it. You reserve them and you might get rear shots, but you keep them on the table and you are guaranteed 2 attacks with the egrubs (as well as rear shots if you really wanted).

 tetrisphreak wrote:
In this case, where the Tyranid player was going first vs those annihilation barges, the Idea should have been to hide the malanthrope behind the VSG so it wouldn't die, deploy all 5 flyrants, and swoop them off of the table on turn 1. That way all 5 come in on turn 2 with no reserves roll needed, plus as many of the ground troops that make their 3+ reserve roll as well. The necron player would either move up on his turn, or stay back in this DZ and lose a turn of board control.

This is what I, as the Necron player, would have done had Tyranids attempted this strategy.

AB's would have stayed back slightly about 36" from the Tyranid board edge. Thus, Tyranids would have to to cast Onslaught in order to have any chance at all to hit the barges with the egrubs. They will be fire support and will take out the void shields.

All 3 bargelords would have moved up 30" on T1 for a T2 assault against the VSG and malanthrope.

Now flyrants could have targeted and killed a bargelord on T2 when they came in. However, the lord has a 50% chance to get up and if he does, then the flyrant offense would have been for nothing.

Necron T2 - flyers come in (assuming 2). Flyrants will have 2+ jink cover, but they will have to bear the brunt of 2 flyers and 4 AB's shooting at them and without VSG protection (AB's should have taken them out last turn). Then the bargelords assault the malanthrope and VSG or any other Tyranid reserves that came in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
H&A deployment is rough. Even with 24" movement, coming in from the edge on reserve only puts a FMC at the deployment line.

This particular matchup is very tough for tyranids. The av13 wall of skimmers are so difficult to take out, as compared to many of the other lists people see these days. While the necron codex is slated for an update soon, I doubt they'll lose their AV13 spam type lists altogether.

Had all those flyrants who rolled "onslaught" for their power rolled "warp blast" instead, the edge might very well have shifted back in the tyranids' favor. Either way it was tough going, and the result showed how strong and resilient the necron codex still is.

Yeah, the power that I really wanted was Warp Blast. S10 AP2 vs open-topped vehicles or T5 lords can potentially be very good.

I think with the Necron update, they will still be tough and good, but they won't be as good as they are currently. The nerfhammer is definitely going to drop on them. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

 jy2 wrote:

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.

You can lead a horse to the water...

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.

We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.

BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You can lead a horse to the water...

You could even make it drink if your argument was persuasive enough.

 jy2 wrote:

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.

We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.

BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).

That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.

Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.

Warmonger2757 wrote:

Spoiler:

 jy2 wrote:

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.

We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.

BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).

That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.

Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.

Quick question, have you tried playing Nids vs Dark Eldar in 7th edition? It's laughably bad for the Elves. A flyrant will likely kill a Venom and half the squad inside each turn. Also, with a VSG he is pretty much immune to a turn one Alpha strike, and let's not even mention the shrouding and cover that will laugh off Lance weaponry. I will say that the Pentryant list will have hard counters, but I am very confident that DEldar are not on that list. Now, what actually will counter a Pentyrant list? The best bet is to have a stronger ground presence than them. Let's look at what Flyrant's aren't good at killing:

Wraithknights stand out as being incredibly hard for a Flyrant to deal with, but also have very low threat to the Flyrants in return. But, 3 Wraithknights could potentially control the game by sitting on objectives and preventing the Flyrants from ever wanting to land. The flyrants could likely kill most of the Eldar army, but it takes 5 Flyrants a full 2 turns to average 5.9 wounds on a single Wraithknight... They'll definitely be targeting something else early on.

Mass 2+ saves. Mawlocs help here, but Riptides are a pain to deal with. Without Feel no Pain, 5 Flyrants average just under 5 wounds a turn here.Also, bikes: with Apothecaries for FNP included, these can get pretty tough. Bikes with a durable tank model (like a Command squad with a Chapter Master) are a real pain to deal with. Basically any unit with both a high toughness and a great save is going to cause problems.

But, the most annoying single unit for Flyrants has to be Skyrays. In a competitive list these aren't ultra rare, but also aren't top choices. With Flyrant's alone though, they can weather turn 1 shooting easily thanks to AV 13 up front since they will rarely be in range of EG turn 1 (unless the Tau player doesn't know what he's doing). This is why I won't be taking 5 Flyrants, there is just the possibility of a bad matchup messing with you. Crones can reach out and strip hull points immediately, possibly forcing jink moves, which I think is very important.

Ultimately, I think the hardest matchup for Pentyrant will be a Skyfire heavy Tau list with multiple Skyrays. Broadsides, in my opinion, won't cut it here. Skyrays and Riptides with HBC and FNP are crucial, and Markerlights as well to strip cover. That would be my nightmare list at least, but then Eldar allies (for better troops) would also make for a good list.

EDIT: And of course, AV13 spam by the Necrons, as demonstrated here, is very bad for this list of Nids. But, we'll see how Necrons change in a month...

Warmonger2757 wrote:

That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.

Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.

Venom-spam won't be able to handle a flyrant-spam list. They can't get past the void shields and then the flyrants have 2+ cover on top of that.

BTW, 3 ravagers firing at 3 void shields. 9 shots, 6 hits, 3 goes through, so it takes all 3 ravagers just to penetrate 3 void shields. Next turn, DE will potentially lose 5 venoms from the 5 flyrants.

Razorwing-spam will stand a better chance, but even that isn't a guarantee. If Tyranids are going 1st, they will alpha-strike the DE army and then fly off the table at the top of T2, only to come back in on T3 to beta-strike any razorwings that came in.

If Tyranids are going 2nd, they move forwards to the edge of the Void Shield bubble but still stay within VS range. Or they move forwards but still stay within VSG and malanthrope range. The defensive capabilities of the VSG + Shroud should let them survive most alpha-strikes that don't ignore cover.

 jifel wrote:

Spoiler:

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.

The key here is to create a balanced list.

You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.

We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.

BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).

That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.

Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.

Quick question, have you tried playing Nids vs Dark Eldar in 7th edition? It's laughably bad for the Elves. A flyrant will likely kill a Venom and half the squad inside each turn. Also, with a VSG he is pretty much immune to a turn one Alpha strike, and let's not even mention the shrouding and cover that will laugh off Lance weaponry. I will say that the Pentryant list will have hard counters, but I am very confident that DEldar are not on that list. Now, what actually will counter a Pentyrant list? The best bet is to have a stronger ground presence than them. Let's look at what Flyrant's aren't good at killing:

Wraithknights stand out as being incredibly hard for a Flyrant to deal with, but also have very low threat to the Flyrants in return. But, 3 Wraithknights could potentially control the game by sitting on objectives and preventing the Flyrants from ever wanting to land. The flyrants could likely kill most of the Eldar army, but it takes 5 Flyrants a full 2 turns to average 5.9 wounds on a single Wraithknight... They'll definitely be targeting something else early on.

Mass 2+ saves. Mawlocs help here, but Riptides are a pain to deal with. Without Feel no Pain, 5 Flyrants average just under 5 wounds a turn here.Also, bikes: with Apothecaries for FNP included, these can get pretty tough. Bikes with a durable tank model (like a Command squad with a Chapter Master) are a real pain to deal with. Basically any unit with both a high toughness and a great save is going to cause problems.

But, the most annoying single unit for Flyrants has to be Skyrays. In a competitive list these aren't ultra rare, but also aren't top choices. With Flyrant's alone though, they can weather turn 1 shooting easily thanks to AV 13 up front since they will rarely be in range of EG turn 1 (unless the Tau player doesn't know what he's doing). This is why I won't be taking 5 Flyrants, there is just the possibility of a bad matchup messing with you. Crones can reach out and strip hull points immediately, possibly forcing jink moves, which I think is very important.

Ultimately, I think the hardest matchup for Pentyrant will be a Skyfire heavy Tau list with multiple Skyrays. Broadsides, in my opinion, won't cut it here. Skyrays and Riptides with HBC and FNP are crucial, and Markerlights as well to strip cover. That would be my nightmare list at least, but then Eldar allies (for better troops) would also make for a good list.

EDIT: And of course, AV13 spam by the Necrons, as demonstrated here, is very bad for this list of Nids. But, we'll see how Necrons change in a month...

All very good points made by jifel. DE is no longer the feared matchup it once was for Tyranids (at least not to a flyer-heavy Tyranid list).

Everything else that jifel mentioned above are hard counters to a flyrant-heavy list (though I feel that flyrants can take on a bikestar list....or any deathstar-type lists).

Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

@jifel I've used a chapter master quite a few times, I can tell you they die easily. Anything that's causing 12 or more wounds a turn will take him down.

One method I find useful against flyrants is placing reaper squads in a las-cannon mounted bastion. Allying in tractor cannons in tandem with wraithknights also works well.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.

This is wrong. you just have to think what each unit's best action would be regardless of which side it is.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.

This is wrong. you just have to think what each unit's best action would be regardless of which side it is.

Stating that you'd know the "best action" for every unit in two different armies at all times is a bit presumptuous. It's easy to say "well, the thing [this unit] is most likely to kill/the way [this unit] is most likely to stay alive," but that's a one-turn problem with no followup taken into account, and in most cases doesn't even address victory conditions in the slightest.

If you're playing high-end competitive 40k and you're able to flawlessly map out your opponent's moves every turn without fail, then congratulations.

Thinking like this tends to be the downfall of "well if he X, then I'd Y, and win anyway"-style 40k theorycraft. It begins with the assumption that you're the smartest 40k player alive and, therefore, no move your opponent could ever make would surprise you in the least, as you've already taken every possible outcome into account.

Maybe it's just me, but when playing late rounds at GTs, I tend to find that my opponent actually does know more about how to play their army than I do. And I'm pretty confident I know more about how to play my army than they do. And reacting to unexpected events--however rare that may be--tends to be a rather important capability to have.

I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself

 CrownAxe wrote:
I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself

He didn't say it is "objectively impossible" (and I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it if he had), he said playing against yourself objectively is impossible, and I think he's absolutely correct.

A pretty huge portion of the game is trying to predict what your opponent is going to do. If you're playing against yourself, that is never a problem in the first place. There's also the inherent imbalance present if you aren't at the exact same skill level with both armies (which is relatively unlikely) and any inherent subconscious bias you might have toward the outcome.

You're basically just slamming units into each other and simulating dice rolls, which is all a game versus yourself is really good for. Personally, I would never put any stock in a game I simulated against myself--I do know some who will do it on rare occasion, and I always caution them to not put too much stock into the outcome. It can be good for simulating positioning and movement (things which are hard to theorycraft, but not super reliant on player skill) or "X vs. Y" unit comparisons, but that's about it. It definitely shouldn't be used as any sort of indicator of how a real game would play out or as a reflection of decisionmaking that would take place in a tournament game.

DJ3 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself

He didn't say it is "objectively impossible" (and I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it if he had), he said playing against yourself objectively is impossible, and I think he's absolutely correct.

A pretty huge portion of the game is trying to predict what your opponent is going to do. If you're playing against yourself, that is never a problem in the first place. There's also the inherent imbalance present if you aren't at the exact same skill level with both armies (which is relatively unlikely) and any inherent subconscious bias you might have toward the outcome.

You're basically just slamming units into each other and simulating dice rolls, which is all a game versus yourself is really good for. Personally, I would never put any stock in a game I simulated against myself--I do know some who will do it on rare occasion, and I always caution them to not put too much stock into the outcome. It can be good for simulating positioning and movement (things which are hard to theorycraft, but not super reliant on player skill) or "X vs. Y" unit comparisons, but that's about it. It definitely shouldn't be used as any sort of indicator of how a real game would play out or as a reflection of decisionmaking that would take place in a tournament game.

Totally agree.

Appreciate the effort and time put into these reports and I still find them enjoyable Jy2 but without playing this out vs another person it doesn't tell us the full picture.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.

This is wrong. you just have to think what each unit's best action would be regardless of which side it is.

That assumes two things that aren't true:

1: There is always one right choice.

2: You know all the Best choices at all times.


EDIT: To add something more light hearted because it is still a lot of hard work and very entertaining. I cheered when the Scrotum looking bug flew into the french pastry and blew it out the sky

I love it just for the entertainment !

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

Not really. When I play, I usually do what I feel is the best move for either armies. So in a ways, it is somewhat predictable, especially in terms of my overall strategy. However, there are minute differences and adjustments you need to make while playing and those are harder to predict. For example, let's say you target an enemy unit but fail to kill it. That then throws a monkey wrench into your plans and now you will have to adjust your tactics to account for not achieving what you wanted to achieve that turn. So there are variations in the game that forces you to adjust your tactics that you can't really account for.

But overall strategy can be somewhat predicted (i.e. Necron flyers will drop troops on objectives at the end, bargelords will go after MSU Tyranid units and act as counter-assault, etc.), depending on how well you know your opponent (for example, I am really aggressive with both of those armies) and how skilled your opponent is (I am skilled with both armies and really know how to take advantage of their strengths).

 Red Corsair wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?

40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.

You can't play it with 100% objectivity, but IMO you don't really need to. As long as you are equally familiar with both armies, then it isn't a matter of how to surprise you opponent with trick moves. Rather, it is a matter of predicting which is the best path solution each turn that can potentially give you the highest returns for each army, both offensively and defensively. It's more like you are playing the odds on what you think will give you the best advantage and so is your opponent. For example, Tyranid Turn 1, I think that my best chances is to down as many AB's as possible. Thus, I play very aggressively in order to try to take out as many barges as possible. Necron turn. I think that Necron's best chances is to force the flyrants to go into Glide mode. Thus, I move all of my vehicles behind the flyrants. Tyranid T2, I still think it is in the Tyranid's best interest to continue taking out those barges (hey, they're worth double-VP's as well as reduces Necron shooting greatly as I take them out). Thus, I am willing to risk being assaulted and ground my flyrants in order to continue taking them out. To me, it's a matter of playing what you think might give you the best chances for a victory. The only Objectivity is in what you think is the best choice. I think that starting 5 flyrants on the table and going for the throat early may give my Tyranids the best chances, though someone else may think that reserving 2 of the flyrants to come in later may be the best chance for Tyranids to win. That is the main objectivity in the game.

Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.

IsawaBrian wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.

Tank-heavy builds shouldn't be a problem. I've got 5 haywire templates in my army. Moreover, if he is running tank squadrons, that means that haywire templates are guaranteed to hit multiple tanks. That adds up quickly to maybe 10-12 HP's a turn of damage. That's potentially 3-4 dead tanks a turn (with diminishing returns over time as tanks start dying, of course).

With regards to hydras, I can always angle for A10 side shots with the devourers.

In short, on average, my Pentyrant army should be able to destroy a Steel Legion type of army with minimal loss to any of the flyrants. The game would be rather lopsided in most cases.

 jy2 wrote:

IsawaBrian wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.

Tank-heavy builds shouldn't be a problem. I've got 5 haywire templates in my army. Moreover, if he is running tank squadrons, that means that haywire templates are guaranteed to hit multiple tanks. That adds up quickly to maybe 10-12 HP's a turn of damage. That's potentially 3-4 dead tanks a turn (with diminishing returns over time as tanks start dying, of course).

With regards to hydras, I can always angle for A10 side shots with the devourers.

In short, on average, my Pentyrant army should be able to destroy a Steel Legion type of army with minimal loss to any of the flyrants. The game would be rather lopsided in most cases.

I'm not sure it would be as one-sided as you think, as long as the opposing commander doesn't line up the squads at the 12" from the center line-- and the Steel Host only benefits from the 12" bubble, it doesn't require the closeness for anything but the Tank Commanders. You can, for example, leave the Hydras in the back or under cover for everything but the turrets and the 72" range covers the majority of the table. Since Egrubs aren't torrent, you have to bring yourself in close, and AV 14 means that the brainleeches just go fffst for a while. Depending on the mix of tanks, the Host can generally deal with most infantry before it gets close enough for even a 12" charge, leaving the main guns forward. Executioners would be pointless in this matchup, but the exterminators, for example, have a good chance of getting a wound past armour each even if you're flying (I've been assuming that the tyrants go first in these) from far past flyrant effective range. And the Hydras can generally flay off at least 1 void shield from distance as well, even if the flyrants aren't in the air.

The problem with the Haywire, as I see it, is that the range of the template is basically 8" plus maybe 1" or 2" if you're starting from the edge of the base. All the opposing player has to do is be willing to sacrifice one or two tanks to close the 24" guns, and start at 30". If you move first and get within Haywire range, at maximum move you'll only be able to concentrate fire on one or two tanks; on the others, you'll be able to get at most 1 or 2 overlaps. You take out one of the 24" tanks and get hit with a wide variety of return fire that does actually have a chance of hitting even though they're all grounded (exterminators, punishers, and the Hydras, especially if the Preferred Enemy-generating commander survives). If she moves first or you cede the turn, the void shields are thin protection, especially if there's any ordinance or Pask on the other side.

I wouldn't say it's wholly one-sided the tanks' way, though. The Hydras' use on the first turn especially is very much luck based, and from turn 2+, keeping the Hydras protected and your deep strike/infiltrator types (especially the Mawloc) are issues for them both. But I suspect that luck and skill would have much more to say, since the sheer variety of tank that goes into a Leman Russ (and that's not even counting the Forgeworld Variants-- I have to say I'd prefer, say, an Annihilator to a Vanquisher most of the time) means that the Steel Host could be an effective means of creating a non-shut out game.

All of this of course presumes Eternal War and not the vagaries of Maelstrom, which change so much based on terrain. To a lesser extent, it also presumes Pask can count for one of the Steel Host's commanders, since putting him in a Punisher makes that particular tank much more of a threat if it closes the 24", and hence leaves the workhorses free.

IsawaBrian wrote:

I'm not sure it would be as one-sided as you think, as long as the opposing commander doesn't line up the squads at the 12" from the center line-- and the Steel Host only benefits from the 12" bubble, it doesn't require the closeness for anything but the Tank Commanders. You can, for example, leave the Hydras in the back or under cover for everything but the turrets and the 72" range covers the majority of the table. Since Egrubs aren't torrent, you have to bring yourself in close, and AV 14 means that the brainleeches just go fffst for a while. Depending on the mix of tanks, the Host can generally deal with most infantry before it gets close enough for even a 12" charge, leaving the main guns forward. Executioners would be pointless in this matchup, but the exterminators, for example, have a good chance of getting a wound past armour each even if you're flying (I've been assuming that the tyrants go first in these) from far past flyrant effective range. And the Hydras can generally flay off at least 1 void shield from distance as well, even if the flyrants aren't in the air.

The problem with the Haywire, as I see it, is that the range of the template is basically 8" plus maybe 1" or 2" if you're starting from the edge of the base. All the opposing player has to do is be willing to sacrifice one or two tanks to close the 24" guns, and start at 30". If you move first and get within Haywire range, at maximum move you'll only be able to concentrate fire on one or two tanks; on the others, you'll be able to get at most 1 or 2 overlaps. You take out one of the 24" tanks and get hit with a wide variety of return fire that does actually have a chance of hitting even though they're all grounded (exterminators, punishers, and the Hydras, especially if the Preferred Enemy-generating commander survives). If she moves first or you cede the turn, the void shields are thin protection, especially if there's any ordinance or Pask on the other side.

I wouldn't say it's wholly one-sided the tanks' way, though. The Hydras' use on the first turn especially is very much luck based, and from turn 2+, keeping the Hydras protected and your deep strike/infiltrator types (especially the Mawloc) are issues for them both. But I suspect that luck and skill would have much more to say, since the sheer variety of tank that goes into a Leman Russ (and that's not even counting the Forgeworld Variants-- I have to say I'd prefer, say, an Annihilator to a Vanquisher most of the time) means that the Steel Host could be an effective means of creating a non-shut out game.

All of this of course presumes Eternal War and not the vagaries of Maelstrom, which change so much based on terrain. To a lesser extent, it also presumes Pask can count for one of the Steel Host's commanders, since putting him in a Punisher makes that particular tank much more of a threat if it closes the 24", and hence leaves the workhorses free.

You're right. It probably isn't just as simple as how I was describing it, but nonetheless, a flyrant-spam list is just a counter to a tank-heavy list. With the exception of the hydras and Pask's tank, they just can't reliably deal with that many flyrants. Can they (Steel Host) still win? Yeah, but it'll be an uphill battle for them.

BTW, what is this 12" bubble that you are talking about. I guess I'm not as familiar with the Steel Host as I thought.

In any case, the flyrant list should go after the tanks that can hurt it most. That means Pask if he is in range and exterminators on T1 and then the hydras on T2. If tanks are going 1st, then flyrants are protected not only by the Void Shields, but by 2+ malan/venomthrope cover as well.

The Steel Host is composed of 3 regular squadrons, the commander, and the Hydra. Other than ditching an FOC for the formation, the benefit is that all vehicles within 12" of the commander get a blanket Preferred Enemy, which makes it great for Executioners.

Sorry for short reply; @ work so I can't post the Swiss army list & starts that follow from.

Awesome battle report, as always! The pentyrant build seemed unstoppable... leave it to Necrons to out-cheese em

This might be a bit off-topic, but I really like those converted Tomb Blades. Mind sharing how they got made?

So I am still a little confused about how the pentyrant and the newly proposed setxabarge army lists are being built?

When I look at them I see the leviathan detachment as being similar to a codex, like farsight enclave, or iyanden. In which case you would be using them as an ally. How are you combining them with a codex tyranid army to gain so many flyrants?

They have an entire FOC so they certainly are not a formation.
I look forward to some enlightenment.

IsawaBrian wrote:
The Steel Host is composed of 3 regular squadrons, the commander, and the Hydra. Other than ditching an FOC for the formation, the benefit is that all vehicles within 12" of the commander get a blanket Preferred Enemy, which makes it great for Executioners.

Sorry for short reply; @ work so I can't post the Swiss army list & starts that follow from.

Still will have problems against flyrant-spam IMO, especially if the flyrants can take out the commander early.

 Jambles wrote:
Awesome battle report, as always! The pentyrant build seemed unstoppable... leave it to Necrons to out-cheese em

This might be a bit off-topic, but I really like those converted Tomb Blades. Mind sharing how they got made?

Thanks.

Tomb blades were made from bits and parts from the annihilation barges (and parts of an Immortal body and a Destroyer's head). This was before the actual tomb blade models were out. Here are some more pictures of the parts:

 seapheonix wrote:
So I am still a little confused about how the pentyrant and the newly proposed setxabarge army lists are being built?

When I look at them I see the leviathan detachment as being similar to a codex, like farsight enclave, or iyanden. In which case you would be using them as an ally. How are you combining them with a codex tyranid army to gain so many flyrants?

They have an entire FOC so they certainly are not a formation.
I look forward to some enlightenment.

While they "look" like a Primary detachment, they are not. That is why you can still run a normal Primary detachment + New Supplement detachment. That's the trend currently. All of the new codices coming out has this, which then lets you spam certain things.

Space Wolves have the Wolves Unleashed detachment.

Grey Knights have the Nemesis Strike Force detachment.

Orks have the Ork Horde detachment.

Dark Eldar has a formation (forgot what it's called) that lets them run 6 Fast Attacks.

Tyranids have the Leviathan detachment.

Necrons have the Mephrit Dynasty.

Blood Angels have the Archangels Strike Force and the Flesh Tearer's Strike Force.

All of these formations are a work-around for Dual-CAD, making Dual-CAD less and less of an issue going forwards.

However, all of these formations do give up something very important - Objective Secured troops. That's one advantage that regular detachments still have over these detachments.

So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?

What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.

I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?

Something you've got to understand is that the tournament scene is constantly evolving. When the BAO came out, it was the very 1st major tournament of 7E. At the time, none of those detachments existed. There was only dual-CAD to worry about. Well, fast forwards almost a year in and now the 40K scenery has changed. The old BAO standard is basically obsolete in light of all of these formations. They have evolved to just 2 detachments with the only exception being each detachment is 0-1. Thus, you cannot run dual-CAD or 2 Leviathan formations (for 6 flyrants!), but you can run CAD + Leviathan because they are different.

Tau cannot bring 6 riptides because each detachment still has a limit of 0-1. However, if you really wanted, you can actually run 5 riptides with self-allying allowed (Ovesa, 3 riptides and 1 allied riptide).

Currently as long as it is a unique detachment, you can run it (to a maximum of 2). That is how it works currently. So Primary CAD is a detachment. Allies is a detachment. Any of the new supplement/campaign detachments (or formations if you want to call it that) is a detachment. You can run a mix of them. You just can't repeat any single detachment.

 seapheonix wrote:
So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?

What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.

I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?

The BRB also only prohibits "Allied Detachments" (a very specific detachment) from being chosen from the same faction. There is nothing that prohibits you from taking a Combined Arms Detachment and a Codex specific detachment from the same faction.

Excellent, thanks for clearing that up.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 seapheonix wrote:
So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?

What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.

I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?

The BRB also only prohibits "Allied Detachments" (a very specific detachment) from being chosen from the same faction. There is nothing that prohibits you from taking a Combined Arms Detachment and a Codex specific detachment from the same faction.

Correct, although the BAO (and several other major formats like Nova) have house-ruled it that you can ally with a detachment from the same faction.

 seapheonix wrote:
Excellent, thanks for clearing that up.

No prob.

See you at TSHFT!

Why did the flyrants land on turn 2? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Staying in the air keeps them safe. You lost 3 because you landed them (1 died on your turn). You might have lost one in the air from the ABs, but there is no way you would have lost 3. Snap Shooting does matter to ABs. It will do 0.98 unsaved wounds to a flyrant if snap shooting. If using full BS, it will do 1.47 unsaved wounds. Sure, you might have passed MSS on one flyrant and killed a CCB, but trading 2 Flyrants for a CCB is a bad bargain by any measure especially when the CCB can come back.

Also why did you expect the Flyrants to kill the Night Scythes? A Flyrant will statistically do 1.78 hull points to a Night Scythe a turn. You actually outperformed averages by blowing the gun off.

I expected Necrons to win on points because of superior board presence, but they shouldn't have been a threat to table you.

That guy must have beat Raw Dogger.

tag8833 wrote:
Why did the flyrants land on turn 2? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Staying in the air keeps them safe. You lost 3 because you landed them (1 died on your turn). You might have lost one in the air from the ABs, but there is no way you would have lost 3. Snap Shooting does matter to ABs. It will do 0.98 unsaved wounds to a flyrant if snap shooting. If using full BS, it will do 1.47 unsaved wounds. Sure, you might have passed MSS on one flyrant and killed a CCB, but trading 2 Flyrants for a CCB is a bad bargain by any measure especially when the CCB can come back.

Also why did you expect the Flyrants to kill the Night Scythes? A Flyrant will statistically do 1.78 hull points to a Night Scythe a turn. You actually outperformed averages by blowing the gun off.

I expected Necrons to win on points because of superior board presence, but they shouldn't have been a threat to table you.

It was a calculated risk on my part. It's either offense or fly off the table and forego 1 turn of shooting to come back in next turn. At least those were the 2 options that I felt was best. So let me tell you why I decided to land.

1. I could have potentially taken out 2 of the annihilation barges (AB's), as one of them only had 1HP remaining. That actually reduces a good chunk of his shooting.

2. It was a long charge for one of the bargelords. He had to charge about 10" or so. Even with re-rolls, the odds of him making that charge wasn't very good.

3. Egrubs Overwatch had the potential to kill a bargelord on the charge. Or it had the potential to take off 2HP's and then my flyrant - if he passes his MSS test - can smash to finish off the bargelord. So 2/3 of the Overwatch results would have actually been favorable to my flyrants. Only 1/3 is bad. Again, the odds were actually on the Tyranid side in this battle.

4. I needed to turn around anyways because of all the action was behind my flyrants. So either fly off the table or just go into glide mode to reposition yourself.

In the game, you don't have the benefit of hindsight. All you can do is take calculated risks. In the case of my flyrants landing, the risks actually were in their favor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That guy must have beat Raw Dogger.

Are you talking about me? I beat Reece to make it into the team.

Commander_Farsight beat Raw Dogger.

I was referring to Farsight - saw the video Batrep when you beat Reecius .

 jy2 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
Why did the flyrants land on turn 2? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Staying in the air keeps them safe. You lost 3 because you landed them (1 died on your turn). You might have lost one in the air from the ABs, but there is no way you would have lost 3. Snap Shooting does matter to ABs. It will do 0.98 unsaved wounds to a flyrant if snap shooting. If using full BS, it will do 1.47 unsaved wounds. Sure, you might have passed MSS on one flyrant and killed a CCB, but trading 2 Flyrants for a CCB is a bad bargain by any measure especially when the CCB can come back.

It was a calculated risk on my part. It's either offense or fly off the table and forego 1 turn of shooting to come back in next turn. At least those were the 2 options that I felt was best. So let me tell you why I decided to land.

1. I could have potentially taken out 2 of the annihilation barges (AB's), as one of them only had 1HP remaining. That actually reduces a good chunk of his shooting.

Looks to me like you still could have gotten one and done about 2 hull points to the other.

 jy2 wrote:
2. It was a long charge for one of the bargelords. He had to charge about 10" or so. Even with re-rolls, the odds of him making that charge wasn't very good.

The odds of making a 10" charge with fleet are 36.7%. But the more problematic thing is that even if only 1 Bargelord made the charge, you are still losing a flyrant needlessly.

 jy2 wrote:
3. Egrubs Overwatch had the potential to kill a bargelord on the charge. Or it had the potential to take off 2HP's and then my flyrant - if he passes his MSS test - can smash to finish off the bargelord. So 2/3 of the Overwatch results would have actually been favorable to my flyrants. Only 1/3 is bad. Again, the odds were actually on the Tyranid side in this battle.

Your stats are off. Your odds of killing an unwounded barge in overwatch are 19%. Statistically, you will do 1.66 Hull points to it. Your odds of doing exactly 2 points to it are 34.7%. Your odds of failing MSS are just a tiny bit over 50%. Your Odds of killing a CCB that has only 1 HP left with a smash attack is only 59% so the odds of doing 2 wounds in overwatch, passing MSS, and killing it with smash are about 10%. Your odds of doing 1 or less hull points to the CCB on overwatch, passing MSS, and then doing 3 wounds to the Overlord in CC are about 2%. So add that all together. 19% chance you kill it in overwatch, 10% you smash it to death, and 2% you kill the lord in Close combat. There is about a 31% chance that it goes good for you. 1/3 good, 2/3 bad.

 jy2 wrote:
4. I needed to turn around anyways because of all the action was behind my flyrants. So either fly off the table or just go into glide mode to reposition yourself.

The other option is to keep them on the board but in the air. When flying parallel facing your opponents board edge, if everything gets behind you. Turn 90 degrees with each flyrant in the direction of the middle of the formation and fly the minimum distance.. It has the effect of reorienting you while keeping most flyrants roughly in the same place, and thus able to put your Flame Templates on those barges, while orienting you to fly towards either deployment zone. It isn't ideal, but is probably the best your could do in this situation, and is a common 2nd round move for me running 3 flyrants if terrain or opponents aren't providing better opportunities.

I agree with tag8833 about being able to keep the flyrants in the air.

Multiple flyrants should pair off and fly in X patterns, crisscrossing at 45 or 90 degrees up the battlefield. Turning around is not such a pain and you can keep overlapping fields of fire while still keeping your options open as to which direction you want to move next turn