Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/09/21 16:14:24
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
SHUPPET wrote: If your Warriors haven't done anything until turn 4, the fault is not on the unit. They do not take that many turns to get started. Turn 1 or 2 they are threat, 9 times out of ten, and they carry 3 long range guns per squad. They are actually putting the hurt on quicker than Exocrines are.
What? 9 tyranid warriors shooting with venom cannons or barbed stranglers are putting the hurt on quicker then an exocrine? If your opponents are stupid enough to move directly within 18 inch deathspitter range at the first turn then yea, warriors rock. Also realise that warriors cannot shoot and advance at the same time. Moving 9 warriors slower to shoot with 3 venom cannons is silly.
SHUPPET wrote: Running a bunch of units through no mans land for a turn vs corner gunline armies is a staple of Tyranid play since they were implemented and many strong units are built with this in mind.
And thats why we got shooting MC in 5th edition + flying hive tyrants lists in 7th edition and now we got a lot of tyranid players who actually want to run a bunch of units across no mans land and face the same problem as before.
SHUPPET wrote: They simply cannot chew through everything, and the Warrior is a great example of a unit that punishes them heavily for not doing so if he gets in, while supporting your army at the same time, and sacrificing no points worth of aggression.
They're still toughness 4 with 4+ save. They're not any scarier/faster then your shooty carnifexes and the enemy will simply shoot down the units that 'advance' the fastest/closest. If you bring 6 carnifexes and exocrine then you should not bring toughness 4 infantry. Go full MC-list that makes all anti-infantry shooting harder to wound stuff. I'am actually giving you a great tip here so don't think I cannot be constructive.
I think I'm going to do a BR or two and make it pretty with photos attached, should be fun but also might blow the lid right off a closed mind to see how Nids can play like this and still perform even against some of the best armies in the game right now.
Then please let me know your armylist first, so that I can give you some alternatives. Play it out both ways then and see whats better.
2017/09/21 16:15:03
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Niiai wrote: Yes, please do a BR with photoes. :-)
Yeah, that would be awesome.
luke1705 wrote: I would also like an explanation as to how the warriors are a threat on turn 1 with 6" move. They technically create a small area of denial that some opponents might not want to move into for fear of getting assaulted on turn 1, but surely you aren't suggesting that the warriors are going to make a turn 1 charge. Even with the swarm lord ability, that's literally mathematically impossible unless the opponent decides to move into their threat range. Even on turn 2, that's a very rare occurrence. Did you feel like your 6" move carnifexes often got a turn 2 charge in 7th edition without using that awesome infiltrate warlord trait? I know I didn't.
Genestealers outpace them handily, and genestealers are one of the more prevalent troop choices, pretty much always having a brood lord anyhow so they don't need Warriors. Even hormagants will move forward much faster, albeit they'll probably still be in synapse range if you footslog them.
The problem is that Tyranids really kind of need the Trygon drop pod strat, which negates a lot of the value of warriors. Especially if you have a prime.
I think the idea is that Warriors can shoot in addition to assault. They also have Assault weapons, meaning they can move 6+D6 and still put down fire. I know that's my plan anyways.
And while Genestealers are awesome in CC, I think the ability to shoot at some targets, and charge another is underrated. Hormagaunts and Stealers can't do that because they can't shoot, which also means they're blocked by bubble wrap. Warriors can at least shoot beyond the bubble wrap at better targets, then launch the inevitable assault on the wrap itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 16:29:00
I would also like an explanation as to how the warriors are a threat on turn 1 with 6" move. They technically create a small area of denial that some opponents might not want to move into for fear of getting assaulted on turn 1, but surely you aren't suggesting that the warriors are going to make a turn 1 charge.
Shuppet said back quite a few pages that he runs his Warriors with Deathspitters (18'' range) and basic Bio-cannons (36'' range), so assuming they deploy at the edge of their deployment zone they should be able to start shooting "something" more or less immediately after moving up or worst-case scenario advancing.
I think the main point of contention in this entire argument is one side is viewing Warriors in the context of a tournament which has to worry about time while the other is looking more at the context of a setting where time isn't as large a concern. Warriors in my experience are good at being TROOPS but they are not an alpha strike unit designed to inflict a lot of damage very quickly. They are designed to hold objectives and chase away other troops trying to contest, something that generally isn't a factor in tournaments where the current meta is to aim for a tabling of the opponent and play for objectives only if the other guy survives.
What? 9 tyranid warriors shooting with venom cannons or barbed stranglers are putting the hurt on quicker then an exocrine? If your opponents are stupid enough to move directly within 18 inch deathspitter range at the first turn then yea, warriors rock. Also realise that warriors cannot shoot and advance at the same time. Moving 9 warriors slower to shoot with 3 venom cannons is silly.
Minor nitpick, but all of the guns available to Warriors are of the Assault type save Spinefists.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 16:35:48
2017/09/21 16:34:51
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Ah yes forgot about the assault rule. Been shooting with heavy weapons mostly so forgot about that one...
Still, 3 venom cannons/barbed strangler on a 250+ unit is not really a great investment/game changer at turn 1 and 2. Average 6 venom cannon shots, 3 hits, 2 wounds on a big target that gets a -1 save. One wound/damage, big whoop. Barbed strangler are anti-infantry weapons but then it's better to field a tyrannocyte with devourer gaunts for that same amount of points.
2017/09/21 16:54:30
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Venom cannons are only a small part of the damage, the real hurt comes from the deathspitters. I don't even put venom cannons on my warriors.
Sure, on the first turn they have a limted selection of targets, but from the second turn you are averaging a lot of damage between assaulting and shooting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 16:55:27
2017/09/21 16:55:54
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.
Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice
People were hyping them up pretty forcefully. I may agree that it's solid from a game design perspective. But winning tournament lists have zero models that are solid from a game design perspective.
Let's not move the bar.
2017/09/21 16:57:30
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
They are probably our best targets for onslaught too, if they get ignored turn 1, then onslaught, run, shoot at full BS and assault with ease on turn 2.
xmbk wrote: I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.
Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice
People were hyping them up pretty forcefully. I may agree that it's solid from a game design perspective. But winning tournament lists have zero models that are solid from a game design perspective.
Let's not move the bar.
Luckily nids are the best designed faction in the game right now. Sure this means that we struggle against top lists, but that's the fault of the other codices, not ours. Our index is close to perfection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 16:59:02
2017/09/21 17:00:29
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.
Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice
People were hyping them up pretty forcefully. I may agree that it's solid from a game design perspective. But winning tournament lists have zero models that are solid from a game design perspective.
Let's not move the bar.
I don't think the bar has been moved. Good troops choice just means good troops choice. I'm not expecting to win tournaments with an all Warrior list, although I do think it will give at least some of my local players an awesome headache.
pinecone77 wrote: Yeah, I think "smite spam" is a viable way to go with Nids. It might even be a little "counter meta" in the form that everyone fighting Nids Expects a 'bucket of Claws!" (tm) The "problem" is smite spam won't work so good vs conscript spam. But maybe there is a list not yet found.
Well those FW units and that IG list is getting nerfed, GW already said they are looking into it at Nova.
When FW and IG changes comes out, we will see a different meta again, if DG and Mortarion becomes the #1 meta, Nids Smite spam might be a thing. Nids codex is also on the horizon as well.
If Maleceptors and Zoanthropes get some good Stratagems to cast better or more powers, it could work well.
Also there are Spore Mines too, Biovores should work and maybe even Sporocyst, if that thing gets some lovin it could be really good.
Would be awesome to see some of our dedicated psykers becoming playable... at the moment I think our best psykers are Broodlords, which is kinda funny
Funny...in a cry into your beer way. I think I'd build a "Smite spam" around three Broodlords. And that is kinda wack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/21 17:32:11
The will of the hive is always the same: HUNGER
2017/09/21 17:17:11
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Spoletta wrote: Luckily nids are the best designed faction in the game right now. Sure this means that we struggle against top lists, but that's the fault of the other codices, not ours. Our index is close to perfection.
That's an interesting perspective. If we are talking Nids only, no Genestealer cult, then yeah, it's got decent balance. But I play a lot of different armies, and Nids are right down there with Eldar in terms of competitiveness. Might be that I'm not grasping them, but I've played the army with some success since 3rd. Internal balance isn't enough to make me happy, and I don't like the mix and match army lists that come from combining factions. Hopefully November will fix that for Nids and Eldar.
2017/09/21 18:06:34
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
I do have to disagree that warriors are "point and click units" simply because they can do soo many things. They can be decent at combat, but when to engage? They are decent at shooting but how long do you stay that way? They are decent at objective holding as they are infantry, and native fearless/ multiwound, but is it worth keeping them out of combat so they are capturing? I have been playing nids since 3rd and warriors have always been a weird conundrum for me. Also, the only time (if you are taking them) to ever walk them up the field is if you are using a prime, and the prime isn't worth the cost in my opinion, unless you are taking 2 or more units of warriors. Otherwise I pod or trygon them, both of which are good options as they pass synapse to either, and both solve uniquely separate rolls. My favored tactic with them thus far is with a trygon, blasting a unit behind a screening unit, and then charging the screen, while the trygon goes in against WHATEVER. This happening, while multiple mawlocks are appearing, spore mines are being placed by biovores, and OOE or something getting slingshot by swarmy. Just filling the opponent's line with SO MUCH CRAP that though I know what the best choice of targets are, my opponent may not.
And this describes what I found to be their best use, downfield synapse. I don't know about anyone else, but establishing synapse in the opponents deployment zone I have found to be rather difficult...hahaha
(I know this is going to cause contention ) I also feel the best melee weapon for them is lash whip and bonesword...In my experience, the ap-2 is extremely valuable, and the fact that they still get to fight when they die has more than once caused opponents to question whether charging them or not is a good idea.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 18:13:05
Armies I play:
-5000 pts
-2500 pts
Mechanicus -1850 pts
2017/09/21 18:20:29
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
I use 6 warriors in my list currently. Most of my units are Gargoyles, Termagaunts and Genestealers. I also run 6 Hive Guard for AT and hitting things behind screens.
2017/09/21 22:14:05
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
SHUPPET wrote: If your Warriors haven't done anything until turn 4, the fault is not on the unit. They do not take that many turns to get started. Turn 1 or 2 they are threat, 9 times out of ten, and they carry 3 long range guns per squad. They are actually putting the hurt on quicker than Exocrines are.
Can you please explain how warriors are "putting the hurt on quicker than Exocrines are"? By all accounts, the Exocrine is our premier shooting unit.
I would also like an explanation as to how the warriors are a threat on turn 1 with 6" move. They technically create a small area of denial that some opponents might not want to move into for fear of getting assaulted on turn 1, but surely you aren't suggesting that the warriors are going to make a turn 1 charge. Even with the swarm lord ability, that's literally mathematically impossible unless the opponent decides to move into their threat range. Even on turn 2, that's a very rare occurrence. Did you feel like your 6" move carnifexes often got a turn 2 charge in 7th edition without using that awesome infiltrate warlord trait? I know I didn't.
shogun wrote:
SHUPPET wrote: If your Warriors haven't done anything until turn 4, the fault is not on the unit. They do not take that many turns to get started. Turn 1 or 2 they are threat, 9 times out of ten, and they carry 3 long range guns per squad. They are actually putting the hurt on quicker than Exocrines are.
What? 9 tyranid warriors shooting with venom cannons or barbed stranglers are putting the hurt on quicker then an exocrine? If your opponents are stupid enough to move directly within 18 inch deathspitter range at the first turn then yea, warriors rock. Also realise that warriors cannot shoot and advance at the same time. Moving 9 warriors slower to shoot with 3 venom cannons is silly.
They are threatening some wounds from the door thanks to 3 Biocannon's. Their move before shooting is 6" + Advancing + 1 thanks cheapest AG in the dex. Which they can do, because of the Assault weapon rule, you might want to brush up on assault weapon rules, as they are great for us and it is a big part of many units play, especially the Warrior as it's maybe the dexe's only BS4+ on a run. However I don't know why I said they put the hurt on quicker than Exocrines, they don't, it was late and I was thinking of something else. Unsure what. Warriors and Exocrines are about as different as two units can be.
xmbk wrote: I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.
Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice
People were hyping them up pretty forcefully. I may agree that it's solid from a game design perspective. But winning tournament lists have zero models that are solid from a game design perspective.
Let's not move the bar.
When you play against a list of top units with top units of your own, the average performance from each unit should just be "solid". I don't think anyone is saying that this unit is at a power level HIGHER than the strongest things in the game, because they definitely aren't, they are just at the level of other good units in our dex. On top of that, Warrior's role is largely as an offensive support unit. They aren't the guillotine (although can be brutal).
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2017/09/21 23:34:38
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2017/09/21 22:51:05
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Ideally with an all purpose unit you want to shoot assault units and assault shooting units. To achieve this they are best when paired with something else. Like how you use a counter charge unit, bot on the offense as your army advances.
xmbk wrote: I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.
Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice
People were hyping them up pretty forcefully. I may agree that it's solid from a game design perspective. But winning tournament lists have zero models that are solid from a game design perspective.
Let's not move the bar.
When you play against a list of top units with top units of your own, the average performance from each unit should just be "solid". I don't think anyone is saying that this unit is at a power level HIGHER than the strongest things in the game, because they definitely aren't, they are just at the level of other good units in our dex. On top of that, Warrior's role is largely as an offensive support unit. They aren't the guillotine (although can be brutal).
Thank goodness for that. Some of the hype on here is over the top enough, without saying they are better than the best. They aren't even in the conversation that includes top units, and I don't think they'll be an important part of any lists that win on their own. They're a great unit for friendly all-comers games, which is nice. But if the Nid codex is going to allow pure Nid armies to compete with the other codexes, some unit buffing is going to be needed, including Warriors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 02:29:22
2017/09/22 03:56:12
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
The thing that really puts the nail in the coffin of warriors for me is that they're a good all rounder unit. So if such a unit is appropriately costed, that means that they will do nothing exceedingly well. When I create a list, a unit that can do 3 things kind of well has no place in my list. I just take 3 different units that can do each of those things really well. I think the general specialist is kind of dead nowadays, outside of friendly games anyhow.
I'm also not sure how the argument of "they didn't actively cause me to lose the game" is a rationale for taking a unit unless you just don't have other units to take.
2017/09/22 05:05:35
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: But if the Nid codex is going to allow pure Nid armies to compete with the other codexes, some unit buffing is going to be needed, including Warriors.
Or points adjustments. If it's any indication, my Chaos list dropped by about 200 points when the codex came out. That's probably on the extreme end, but I would expect some amount of shifting.
luke1705 wrote: The thing that really puts the nail in the coffin of warriors for me is that they're a good all rounder unit. So if such a unit is appropriately costed, that means that they will do nothing exceedingly well. When I create a list, a unit that can do 3 things kind of well has no place in my list. I just take 3 different units that can do each of those things really well. I think the general specialist is kind of dead nowadays, outside of friendly games anyhow.
I'm also not sure how the argument of "they didn't actively cause me to lose the game" is a rationale for taking a unit unless you just don't have other units to take.
You nailed the reason why many don't get good mileage out of warriors, but got it completely inverted.
Actually all rounder units are tipically a cheaper option to the specialized approach. With this i mean that if in my army i need X, Y and Z, i can take a specialized unit for X, another one for Y and another one for Z. Together they will cost more than 2 units of a general purpose unit who covers X,Y and Z and since you could spend more on them, they are actually better at each of these roles. So if you don't know which role you will need before the game, all rounder units are actually really good.
The reason why this isn't happening in practice, is because lists are heavily skewed toward one role (all first turn assault, all shooty and so on), so you are just better taking 3 units of X and don't care about Y and Z.
Warriors really shine in balanced take all comers lists which, since we have a really balanced codex internally and externally, struggle against lists made from factions badly designed.
2017/09/22 07:12:26
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
luke1705 wrote: The thing that really puts the nail in the coffin of warriors for me is that they're a good all rounder unit. So if such a unit is appropriately costed, that means that they will do nothing exceedingly well. When I create a list, a unit that can do 3 things kind of well has no place in my list. I just take 3 different units that can do each of those things really well. I think the general specialist is kind of dead nowadays, outside of friendly games anyhow.
I'm also not sure how the argument of "they didn't actively cause me to lose the game" is a rationale for taking a unit unless you just don't have other units to take.
You nailed the reason why many don't get good mileage out of warriors, but got it completely inverted.
Actually all rounder units are tipically a cheaper option to the specialized approach. With this i mean that if in my army i need X, Y and Z, i can take a specialized unit for X, another one for Y and another one for Z. Together they will cost more than 2 units of a general purpose unit who covers X,Y and Z and since you could spend more on them, they are actually better at each of these roles. So if you don't know which role you will need before the game, all rounder units are actually really good.
The reason why this isn't happening in practice, is because lists are heavily skewed toward one role (all first turn assault, all shooty and so on), so you are just better taking 3 units of X and don't care about Y and Z.
Warriors really shine in balanced take all comers lists which, since we have a really balanced codex internally and externally, struggle against lists made from factions badly designed.
This right here is basically the best summary I think anyone could give for the unit. I'm going to stop talking about Warriors now because I think I've said all I really can and it's just been a back and forth for the past few pages without much change in opinion from either side. This post serves to be the perfect conclusion to how I also feel about the unit. I think in a suited list, it's a unit choice more practical than Stealers or other alternatives, even if some games, the Stealers may have had more impact. They also require a much smaller points commitment, a handful of Stealers does nothing always, a handful of Warrior's still performs its role but to a lesser degree. If I weigh in on the topic again I think it will be only to post a BR, unless I have something really new to say.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 07:12:41
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2017/09/22 09:49:38
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
luke1705 wrote: The thing that really puts the nail in the coffin of warriors for me is that they're a good all rounder unit. So if such a unit is appropriately costed, that means that they will do nothing exceedingly well. When I create a list, a unit that can do 3 things kind of well has no place in my list. I just take 3 different units that can do each of those things really well. I think the general specialist is kind of dead nowadays, outside of friendly games anyhow.
I'm also not sure how the argument of "they didn't actively cause me to lose the game" is a rationale for taking a unit unless you just don't have other units to take.
This is a know trope in game design. I think it was most notisble with the Red Mages in final fantasy. A mage that should do fighting and spellcasting, and it falls short on both. If a pure RPG character can do something 100%, a hybrid should not be stuck at doing 2 things 50%. That would be very weak. It needs to be pushed closer to at least 80% capasaty in both fields before it starts being considered as a choise.
In much the same way a unit that can perform 2 roles, both mellee and shooting, should not cost 200% of the cost of a unit that perform 1 of those things. If it costed around 120% of a unit that is specialised, that slight point increase can very well leed to situations where it over performs in situations over the game where a specialised unit would not do so. I am of course talking purly abstract here.
The crutch of the argument that luke1705 puts forward is that a multi purpose unit appropriately costed is over costed. I find this a tricksy error in definition. If 'appropriately costed' = 'over costet' I would argue that the defenition is wrong. 'Over costed' should mean 'over costed'. With the logic i present you could keep reducing the cost of warriors to the point where they are good for what you get. Currently I think they are quite good for what you pay for them.
The sourse the problem we currently have is that our codex is very balanced, internally and also externally for the most part. The problem is that on a competetive level you are often paired against undercostet units that are poorply balanced extarnaly. Usually in the form of costing to little points.
If you let go of the hard science of mathhammering averadges (that has come up with mixed resoults in this matter of warriors) and move over to the soft science of qualitative resurch we see that some people in semi competetive / competetive settings thinks warriors are good, and some think they are bad. This is a good indicator that the unit is priced as a reasonable cost. For it to see more play it would have to be an undercostet unit. Like the 10 point cult genestealers before the price increase. Or the 3 point razowing flock.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 09:55:01
Warriors are correctly costed. A deathspitter/BSAG warrior come at 33 points.
A devastator with heavy bolter is 23 (similar shooting profile, less range and BS but more mobile).
A chaos marine possessed is 22 (similar melee profile, less attacks and more strenght).
Durability wise the warriors are on par with the possessed and harder than the devastator. Warriors are fearless.
33 is the correct point value if you consider 1 or 2 points for the synapse. They are near that 120% value and are clearly not paying full price for all the things they have.
Lowering price on warriors in not the solution, will ruin our internal balance. Increasing price of undercosted units on the other hand is.
2017/09/22 10:28:02
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Spoletta are devenstators or possessed marines being played? I ask because I do not know. Comparing them to unplayed units tells us little, as they would be to far bellow the baseline.
(I base this on the fact that almost all units in warhammer see play at one point if the cost is low enough. In warhammer point's is usually the restricting metric, lack of detachements is rarly a restriction, although having to many models can be a problem in tournaments when you run out of time.)
33 might be some points, but man o man can they take a beating, they shoot and they slice and dice. It is like a comersial on the home shopping channel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 10:32:57
Devastators are not a top unit for SM, but they are seen in many lists. HB version is not the most common though, because the stormravens and assault cannon razorbacks are preferred for that role. Like all undercosted units they tend to overshadow all similar models.
No idea on possessed.
2017/09/22 14:42:33
Subject: Re:Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Razerous wrote: Quick rules question - does a hive tyrant pay for 2 bio cannons or 4?
So would rending claws (free) + devourers = 10pts or 20pts?
Well, for that particular set up, the option for "Monstrous Bio-Cannons" specifically says: "Two devourers with brainleech worms". So you would have to pay for two of them.
If you replaced both ScyTals with that option, you'd have to pay for four of them.
Nobody bit in the army list section (the lazy gits) so I turn to yee fellow Hive Commanders.
This is attempting a take at JY2s Maximum Threat Overload lists from 6/7th ed.
The basic idea is that everything drops/pods in barring the Flyrant with Gargs who fly as fast as possible upfield supported by the Mal early on (Stealers go with Trygons and Warriors/gants pod in).
Biggest issues I see is how to defend VS proper alpha strike armies and balancing in match play games # of units on the board VS reinforcements.
Ratius wrote: Nobody bit in the army list section (the lazy gits) so I turn to yee fellow Hive Commanders.
Spoiler:
This is attempting a take at JY2s Maximum Threat Overload lists from 6/7th ed.
The basic idea is that everything drops/pods in barring the Flyrant with Gargs who fly as fast as possible upfield supported by the Mal early on (Stealers go with Trygons and Warriors/gants pod in).
Biggest issues I see is how to defend VS proper alpha strike armies and balancing in match play games # of units on the board VS reinforcements.
Is this for matched play? In matched play you gotta have half or more of the total units deployed at start of game. You are planning on way less than that, meaning its not matched play legal.
If going for a lictorshame null deploy type list in 8ed, spore mines/mycetic spores are your friend. Cheap non-VP granting units you can deploy to get your ratio up
You lack synpase coverage. Don't be fooled by how instinctive behavior has improved, it still can hurt your tactics if it triggers, but more importantly morale tests will wipe stuff quick.
New edition doesn't do tyranid MTO and lictorshame style lists any favors. Consider before you'd easily grab 5+ cover (3+ for lictors) with good shot at 4+/2+. You aren't getting that kind of durability if you get cover and getting cover is much much harder. You aren't diluting fire because everyone has split fire. Units can just leave combat so no way to clip and stay locked in (mainstay msu assault tactic).
Best bet for this type of list is GS cult with cheap IG heavy support, sprinkle in tyranid stuff to taste (spores specifically to ensure lots of points in reserve). Pure tyranid style, I think a midtier build is biovores and hive guard deployed initially with as much stealer, raveners and devgaunts in reserve as you can afford. However that is bound to change when the codex comes out as I suspect we will get some deployment stratagems that let stealers 'infiltrate' and some other things that give us more damage potential when the threats hit the enemy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 17:48:55
snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."
Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away."
It might even be a little "counter meta" in the form that everyone fighting Nids Expects a 'bucket of Claws!" (
But maybe there is a list not yet found. 
I think I'd build a "Smite spam" around three Broodlords. 
) I also feel the best melee weapon for them is lash whip and bonesword...In my experience, the 
-5000 pts
-2500 pts
