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.
2017/09/22 19:10:54
Subject: Re:Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Good point about the synapse, for some reason I thought the Trygons had synapse but its just the Try primes that have it and that the lictors and DL were immune to it.
Bummer.
Yeah I noted the # of reserves VS starting on the board in matched play. Very limiting :(
Really knocks out the possibility of ninja type lists (for better or worse).
Oh well!
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
"Feelin' goods, good enough".
2017/09/22 19:29:37
Subject: Re:Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
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.
I would loose the wings off the HT. When the HT is going full guns it's alreay a pretty quick model and with your other melee you won't need him zipping about. It doesn't provide the survivability it did before so you just don't need it. I would also combine the gargs into a single unit to get the bonus for being 20+ models.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2017/09/22 21:09:30
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.
I may be misinterpreting your posts, but it sounds like you are taking the moral high ground. In reality, every other codex is not getting balanced downwards. Codex comes out, army gets tougher lists. Pure Nids were on the low end of the Index lists. The Nid codex has got to pump up the armies power level, or they will not compete. I too prefer a game where balanced lists played well thrived. But until that happens, units like Warriors are relegated to minor roles or friendly games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 21:10:28
2017/09/22 23:19:14
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
I think its more of a strategic philosphy thing. Some lists are designed to fight every battle the same way with specialized units. Unit x does a, unit y does b, and so forth. You ca finely tune every unit to play its role, because you know what role it will play every game.
With flexible units, the strategy is almost the opposite. You look at what the opponent has and you use your flexible units to change your strategy. Each unit is less efficient, but the army as a whole can adopt a more effective counter, potentially making up for individual inefficiencies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 23:26:05
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.
I may be misinterpreting your posts, but it sounds like you are taking the moral high ground. In reality, every other codex is not getting balanced downwards. Codex comes out, army gets tougher lists. Pure Nids were on the low end of the Index lists. The Nid codex has got to pump up the armies power level, or they will not compete. I too prefer a game where balanced lists played well thrived. But until that happens, units like Warriors are relegated to minor roles or friendly games.
I wouldn't call it morale high ground, just an interpretation of the numbers and lists i see around.
Tyranids have a solid 50/50 win/lose ratio and we all agree in here that apart from some unusable models (spore mines and pyrovores) all our units are playable without really gimping yourself. We have a lot of freedom in list building. On the other hand when we struggle to find a really competitive list, the lists we are compared to are always composed of the same models: conscripts, artillery, scions, stormravens and 2 or 3 other units, tipically from SM or AM. Where are the eldars? The necrons? Chaos marines? Dark eldars? Tau? Orks? Dark angels? Space wolves? Blood angels? Grey knights? Or even just a non gimmick list from vanilla marines?
If tyranids get buffed to compete with that 5% of models then the balance toward the other 95% models is gone, while right now we compete on equal terms with everyone except that 5%. This tells us that tyranids do not have a problem, AM has one. Buffing nids would be a step back for the balance of the game.
Let's wait for the AM codex, maybe that GW sees it the same as i do and will curb down the worst offenders.
The only real change i want in the codex is (apart from fixing our few unfortunate models) something to help us counter very big models, something that has always been a problem for nids. We struggled against knights in7th and we will struggle against primarchs in 8th. For example, if we could have a stratagem that for 2 or 3 cps made the synapse of a hive tyrant into a null zone...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/23 06:38:00
2017/09/23 08:58:33
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.
I may be misinterpreting your posts, but it sounds like you are taking the moral high ground. In reality, every other codex is not getting balanced downwards. Codex comes out, army gets tougher lists. Pure Nids were on the low end of the Index lists. The Nid codex has got to pump up the armies power level, or they will not compete. I too prefer a game where balanced lists played well thrived. But until that happens, units like Warriors are relegated to minor roles or friendly games.
I wouldn't call it morale high ground, just an interpretation of the numbers and lists i see around.
Tyranids have a solid 50/50 win/lose ratio and we all agree in here that apart from some unusable models (spore mines and pyrovores) all our units are playable without really gimping yourself. We have a lot of freedom in list building.
On the other hand when we struggle to find a really competitive list, the lists we are compared to are always composed of the same models: conscripts, artillery, scions, stormravens and 2 or 3 other units, tipically from SM or AM.
Where are the eldars? The necrons? Chaos marines? Dark eldars? Tau? Orks? Dark angels? Space wolves? Blood angels? Grey knights? Or even just a non gimmick list from vanilla marines?
If tyranids get buffed to compete with that 5% of models then the balance toward the other 95% models is gone, while right now we compete on equal terms with everyone except that 5%. This tells us that tyranids do not have a problem, AM has one. Buffing nids would be a step back for the balance of the game.
Let's wait for the AM codex, maybe that GW sees it the same as i do and will curb down the worst offenders.
The only real change i want in the codex is (apart from fixing our few unfortunate models) something to help us counter very big models, something that has always been a problem for nids. We struggled against knights in7th and we will struggle against primarchs in 8th. For example, if we could have a stratagem that for 2 or 3 cps made the synapse of a hive tyrant into a null zone...
I agree with this for the most part. I don't want a super cheesy list codex. I could see HT getting a slight buff or cost decrease. Maybe the Swarmlord gaining a new buff bubble or a slight decrease in cost. We don't need a lot. Just a few slight adjustments.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2017/09/23 14:22:00
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Pure Nids can't compete with Tau, Space Wolves, Chaos, or Orks, at least not at the tournament level. Eldar are in the same boat, where they need soup lists. I love the ideal of balancing every model, but I don't think the game is as close as you think. The Nid lists that are competing are mostly not pure Nids, from what I've seen.
I can't shake the feeling that this is a classic "friendly list v competitive list" discussion. I would love to see 8th make that the same thing, but more likely it's just going to be better at frequent updates to nerf the flavor of the day, so it doesn't become the flavor of the year (or more).
2017/09/23 15:12:02
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: Pure Nids can't compete with Tau, Space Wolves, Chaos, or Orks, at least not at the tournament level. Eldar are in the same boat, where they need soup lists. I love the ideal of balancing every model, but I don't think the game is as close as you think. The Nid lists that are competing are mostly not pure Nids, from what I've seen.
I can't shake the feeling that this is a classic "friendly list v competitive list" discussion. I would love to see 8th make that the same thing, but more likely it's just going to be better at frequent updates to nerf the flavor of the day, so it doesn't become the flavor of the year (or more).
This is the first time i hear something like this, why do you think that those factions are out of our reach?
I can maybe see a Tau commander spam being a problem, but again, that's a problem centered on a single model.
2017/09/23 17:27:09
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Tyran wrote: The game is currently in a phase of quick codex release. Which means that the meta changes every month.
Not the best environment for balance changes.
Warhammer has always been like this. Except now the updates come faster. Hopefully when we come full circle and start the dnace over againt things will be in harmony.
I think Tau are out of reach from personal experience, both for and against. Tau have better synergy. They can throw out literally hundreds of S5 shots hitting on 4's before any meaningful assault other than GSC. Unlike past editions, once Nids hit their line, it isn't a consolidation party. I like to use non-"Apocalypse" (Flyers, huge stuff, soup). With that limitation, Tau are possibly the toughest list I can field from any army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/23 19:19:10
2017/09/23 20:01:19
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: I think Tau are out of reach from personal experience, both for and against. Tau have better synergy. They can throw out literally hundreds of S5 shots hitting on 4's before any meaningful assault other than GSC. Unlike past editions, once Nids hit their line, it isn't a consolidation party. I like to use non-"Apocalypse" (Flyers, huge stuff, soup). With that limitation, Tau are possibly the toughest list I can field from any army.
I have yet to lose to tau, never had too much of a problem with them
Armies I play:
-5000 pts
-2500 pts
Mechanicus -1850 pts
2017/09/23 20:20:36
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: Pure Nids can't compete with Tau, Space Wolves, Chaos, or Orks, at least not at the tournament level. Eldar are in the same boat, where they need soup lists. I love the ideal of balancing every model, but I don't think the game is as close as you think. The Nid lists that are competing are mostly not pure Nids, from what I've seen.
I can't shake the feeling that this is a classic "friendly list v competitive list" discussion. I would love to see 8th make that the same thing, but more likely it's just going to be better at frequent updates to nerf the flavor of the day, so it doesn't become the flavor of the year (or more).
It's not. Look at the competitive results Spoletta just linked. I think you might be just blaming your personal lack of success on the army instead of improving your game, I haven't seen anyone else thinks Nids are as weak as you do.
It would be nice if people could stop calling everyone who disagrees with them, or just things they don't understand, "casual play" however. I do get a chuckle though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/23 22:50:00
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2017/09/24 07:57:37
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk wrote: Pure Nids can't compete with Tau, Space Wolves, Chaos, or Orks, at least not at the tournament level. Eldar are in the same boat, where they need soup lists. I love the ideal of balancing every model, but I don't think the game is as close as you think. The Nid lists that are competing are mostly not pure Nids, from what I've seen.
I can't shake the feeling that this is a classic "friendly list v competitive list" discussion. I would love to see 8th make that the same thing, but more likely it's just going to be better at frequent updates to nerf the flavor of the day, so it doesn't become the flavor of the year (or more).
It's not. Look at the competitive results Spoletta just linked. I think you might be just blaming your personal lack of success on the army instead of improving your game, I haven't seen anyone else thinks Nids are as weak as you do.
It makes sense that tyranids got average tournament results. Mid field control gives them the opportunity to keep scoring points during the first turns and some armies are not capable to deal with the tyranids 'in your face' approach to drag out a full win. Those who can, outshoot the tyranids and could wipe them. Only army lists that cannot deal with 'deep strike' lists can be wiped by tyranids and those armylist are not competitive in any way in a tournament setting, because it is so easy to block this. First turn is also a very big deal and can tip the balance quick. 30 conscripts that get first turn and move forward quick (order) simply push the deep strike bubble back so that the tyranid player might have well deployed regularly. Add two scions deep striking at the flanks and tyranids deep strike units cannot deep strike anywhere 'good' anymore. And then it's a shooting gallery.
I think in 8th edition you really need the tools to remove a specific unit in one go. My current armylist got 3x3 biovores, manticore, 3x basilisk and 3 wyverns. I got a pretty good chance to kill of a specific tank or MC and make sure it cannot shoot back. You really have to commit to it. One exocrine is 'nice' but 2 exocrine and some other long distance shooting can delete something in one go. Tipping the balance fast is the key. This die quick so you cannot run with a bunch of carnifexes towards the enemy and think 'I'am going to win with half the amount that survived".
SHUPPET wrote: It would be nice if people could stop calling everyone who disagrees with them, or just things they don't understand, "casual play" however. I do get a chuckle though.
Tyranid warriors are bad/average compared to other (enemy)units. When I compare them with the 'good' units then pro warrior players go "yea but stormravens, conscripts, assault razorbacks are overpowered so that doesn't count." and "not everybody is a die hard tournament player dude...". When Tyranid warriors get compared with mediocre enemy units the say; "yea but nobody play's those units so it doesn't count".
I do understand why people use specific armylists/units because the got the models on the shelf and if fits within their casual play and regular opponents.
2017/09/24 09:41:11
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
SHUPPET wrote: It would be nice if people could stop calling everyone who disagrees with them, or just things they don't understand, "casual play" however. I do get a chuckle though.
Tyranid warriors are bad/average compared to other (enemy)units. When I compare them with the 'good' units then pro warrior players go "yea but stormravens, conscripts, assault razorbacks are overpowered so that doesn't count." and "not everybody is a die hard tournament player dude...". When Tyranid warriors get compared with mediocre enemy units the say; "yea but nobody play's those units so it doesn't count".
Nope. You're absolutely wrong, and they are not bad or even average units. They are one of our better units, and I've never once used any sort of argument even resembling ANY of the stuff you just said, in a single one of my posts to state why they are good. I've explained to you why I disagree with you, but this narrative you are pushing is just outright incorrect, and once again completely putting words in my mouth.
Warriors are an great unit for us, and can fill a role in the best lists. If you can't see that, it's probably because your play is at a lower/casual level.
Feel free to disagree with that assertion, I don't care. But please stop using it as your own argument, and move on. My post wasn't about Warriors.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2017/09/24 12:20:33
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
It would be nice if people could stop calling everyone who disagrees with them, or just things they don't understand, "casual play" however. I do get a chuckle though.
Think about it, man. You and I disagree, I have 2 choices - I'm wrong or you are. Clearly I respect my own opinion. That leaves the "you're wrong" option. In that case, play environment differences are the most likely reason. What else do you want me to attribute it to? I will certainly continue to rethink how I use Warriors, but so far I have high confidence that they are a meh unit. You feel differently, great. Outside this thread, I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertion. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it's not personal.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/09/24 13:34:05
2017/09/24 13:37:40
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Those results posted don't mean much to me, because almost all the competitive lists I see include GSC, often with some AM.
It makes sense. Genestealer Cult nicely covers damage output and alpha strike capabilities while Tyranids provide an anvil for objective capture. As far as the AM are concerned, they are the gatekeepers of the edition so far so thus having access to their toolbox is a huge boon competitively.
As for the discussion of Warriors and how good or bad they are, could we drop it for the time being before this thread gets locked?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/24 13:41:13
2017/09/24 13:47:36
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Timeshadow wrote: I know it seems almost sacrilegious but what of they took synapse away from warriors but gave them the hive node ability of the sporocyte instead. This would hopefully bring down their points making them more viable also it would make the prime actually usefully to take with them it would also make them still a "node" of the hive mind esp if they did not have instinctive behavior.
If the cost of warriors goes even more down they become criminal
Don't be confused by our other exceptional troop choices, warriors in any other faction would be the MVP of the codex (troops wise).
This was the overhype that first made me want to comment. Pretty much none of this is true. Warriors could go down in price and still not appear in tournament lists. Our other troop choices are weak. Many other factions have better troop choices (I dare you to post that on an Ork, AM, or Chaos board).
Those results posted don't mean much to me, because almost all the competitive lists I see include GSC, often with some AM.
It makes sense. Genestealer Cult nicely covers damage output and alpha strike capabilities while Tyranids provide an anvil for objective capture. As far as the AM are concerned, they are the gatekeepers of the edition so far so thus having access to their toolbox is a huge boon competitively.
As for the discussion of Warriors and how good or bad they are, could we drop it for the time being before this thread gets locked?
Sorry, cross post. Why would the thread get locked, though? Seems like a good place to have the discussion. At the very least, has me wanting to test a Warrior heavy list. Though tbh, I'm ready for the codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/24 13:51:28
2017/09/24 14:44:59
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
I agree. Looking through the Mechanicus threads it is incredible how the additions made certain lackluster options (Corpsucari, Dunestriders) suddenly become somewhat attractive as list options. I don't expect much to change as far as unit profiles go, but stratagems and fleet traits should add some extra diversity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/24 14:47:49
2017/09/24 15:22:59
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
xmbk I think you are wrong in your assessement that a debate, especially one on a forum like this, is to find a winner. Especially one in the style of 'You are wrong, I am right'.
Usually a debate is had to persuade or enlighten a 3rd party. Very rarly is the aim of a debate to convince the opponent that you are right, they are usually sett in their way. When you say 'you are wrong, I am right' you are mostly pointing out the premmise of the debate.
Obviusly we are not trying to convince some 3rd party. However a good discussion can help to outline thoughts behind the arguments. Shupperts idea of using the assault function of the weapon, combined with a prime (it was implied) to hit on 4+ is quite good. Run and gun with a good range. It had not occured to me to cattledrive a unit of warriors in this way. Also, Shogun was not so in tune with the rules for assault weapons, and he learned something new. A good debate is a road to some form of enlightenment. And I must agree a debate that goes beyond 'I am right, you are wrong' is more fruitfull then one who does not.
If they stick with no characters being unique to any particular hive fleet we wont even need to pick and choose between main character (RG or Cawl) and the other hive fleets.
Pretty pumped.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2017/09/24 23:58:33
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Warriors are an great unit for us, and can fill a role in the best lists. If you can't see that, it's probably because your play is at a lower/casual level.
This argument doesn’t make any logical sense. If people are playing at a casual level, then units that are supposedly good at a competitive level should look even better by comparison in casual games. The only time a unit is incorrectly identified as a poor or average unit is when people are playing exceedingly competitive lists, and one could say, “this unit is ok or good in a casual meta, but doesn’t work competitively”
2017/09/25 04:22:32
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Warriors are an great unit for us, and can fill a role in the best lists. If you can't see that, it's probably because your play is at a lower/casual level.
This argument doesn’t make any logical sense. If people are playing at a casual level, then units that are supposedly good at a competitive level should look even better by comparison in casual games. The only time a unit is incorrectly identified as a poor or average unit is when people are playing exceedingly competitive lists, and one could say, “this unit is ok or good in a casual meta, but doesn’t work competitively”
Thanks for coming around to my perspective, because when it was said earlier by others along the lines of "Genestealers are always a better choice than Warriors and I think people who disagree are playing casually" and I said this is an illogical argument, I didn't see the same agreement from you.
You realise my post that you just quoted was purely being ironic directly towards people who can't seem to stop using statements like that as the crux of their argument right? I already said earlier, word for word:
SHUPPET wrote: It would be nice if people could stop calling everyone who disagrees with them, or just things they don't understand, "casual play" however.
You are right, such arguments don't make any logical sense at all for a whole multitude of reasons, and it's complete projection, borderline inflammatory, adds nothing to support your perspective, and should be left at home.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 04:24:28
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2017/09/25 05:29:57
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
Not only is everyones meta different, but since 8th has dropped nids play style has changed drastically in that it has vastly opened up options.
Almost every unit has a place but to truely get the most bang for your buck out them you need to find the right combinations. Very difficult to hammer out when we have 46 units (including FW) available to us.
I agree with the 1d4chan tactic page about synapse.
When choosing synapse units for your army, its worth considering where they are going to be placed and what role they will fill. If you want an Exocrine providing fire support while your Broodlord and a unit of Genestealers advance, then having a cheap synapse unit (such as a Malanthrope or a bare bones unit of warriors) to babysit him will help keep him on target. Conversely, if you want a fast moving core of Hormagaunts to advance on the enemy, relying on a slow moving unit of Zoanthropes for synapse is asking for trouble. Walking Hive Tyrants, the Swarmlord, Broodlords, Maleceptors, and Trygon Primes can all keep pace with your basic assault units like Hormagaunts and Genestealers. If you intend to run fast units (12" move or higher) such as Raveners, Harpies, Crones, Gargoyles, or Sky-slashers, then adding Shrikes or a winged Hive Tyrant will help you keep up. If you intend to invest in Biovores, Exocrines, Hive Guards, or a Tyrannofex, consider, consider taking a Tervigon (with associated termagant screen), a Malanthrope, or a unit of Zoanthropes. Warriors and Tyranid Primes are your flexible option. Equip them as required, but don't go overboard.
But expand that to all units. You really need to consider what they are doing. How they are supported. How does each cog in your list work with the rest of the list.
Warriors are very flexible, not expensive, and relatively durable. In a pure melee assault list with GS and trygons they don't have much of a place. In a pure shooty army they do better, but I think they work best in a flexible army that is bringing both long range and melee and is trying for a threat overload.
Either shots are wasted trying to take out the inexpensive warriors to cut out a source of our synapse (leaving the more killy focused units to murder it up) or they get left alone and their bio cannons and other all around decent to good options can bring some pain of their own.
Warriors are not the greatest of units in the world. But they ARE great in the right list filling the right roles.
SHUPPET wrote: Warriors are an great unit for us, and can fill a role in the best lists. If you can't see that, it's probably because your play is at a lower/casual level.
Post a small battle report with my current list against a warrior list.
My current list (Got a tournament coming up with no forgeworld, unique detachments, max 3 units spam)
Company commander, plasma pistol, power sword
Primaris psyker
Commissar plasma pistol, power sword
Master of ordnance
30 conscripts
5 scions with 2x plasmagun + plasma pistol
5 scions with 2x plasmagun + plasma pistol
1 manticore
3 basilisks
3 wyverns
Playing against 3 warrior primes with spitter and bonesword/lash + 7 x 9 warriors squad with deathspitters + 3x boneswords each.
Roll ICT missions and get a 6, deployment spearhead assault.
warriors deployment:
My army deployment:
Making cool exocrine mutants at the moment and play them as astra artillery, but for know I proxi them. Artillery with master of ordnance in the middle at the rightflank. conscripts + characters behind them in the middle and broodlord + biovores at the left flank. scions and mawlocs in reserve.
WARRIORS FIRST TURN
Moving in fast with a few '5' result advance. But nothing to shoot at.
MY FIRST TURN
Conscripts move a bit back. Biovores and broodlord also moves a bit back/towards the conscripts.
Primaris psyker puts a +1 save on the conscripts. Broodlord tries to put catalyst on the front biovores but fails.
Conscripts get extra lasgun shots order.
All shooting apart from the biovores take down the front warrior unit. Biovores shoot at the other warrior unit and deploys 5 mines in front of that unit as a roadblock.
WARRIORS SECOND TURN
Moving forward (around spore mines) and able to shoot with 6 deathspitters at the conscripts and kill only one. Spore mines get removed with split shooting.
MY SECOND TURN
One mawloc deep strikes at the left flank within 2 inch of the two warrior units. Wounding a warrior and killing another one.
Other two mawlocs deep strike at the other flank killing a warrior and wounding a prime.
Scions deep strike in the warriors backfield within 24 inch of a warrior unit.
Conscripts + characters move forward within rapid fire range and biovores move to the side behind the conscripts.
1 wyvern moves 12 inch towards a front warrior unit.
With CP reroll my primaris gives the conscripts again +1 save and conscripts get double rapid fire lasguns order.
conscripts shooting suck but manticore gets a 6+1 shots result so I reroll the 1 with CP-reroll and get another 6 so a whopping 12 shots! Don't hit a lot and also two ones for to wound but still manage too take down a full warrior squad and a few other warriors with all shooting apart from the biovores. First turn I forgot I also got heavy bolters and a artillery barage(master of ordnance) and used them now.
biovores shoot at the other warrior unit ,few wounds, and deploy 4 spore mines between the mawloc and the wyvern.
Scions shoot down a single warrior in the back.
Wyvern assault the front unit with 4 remaining warriors and gets one wound.
WARRIORS THIRD TURN
At the right flank the primes + unit warriors (green) move towards the mawloc. The other warrior unit moves toward the wyvern.
At the left flank the 2 full warrior units move forward. Warrior unit green is planning to shoot at the mawloc and try to assault the conscripts, and the other warrior unit is planning to shoot and assault the mawloc.
Right flank: Primes + 1 warrior shoot down the spore mines and the other warriors shoot at the mawloc and put 3 wounds on it.
Left flank: 2 warrior units shoot at the mawloc and put 4 wounds on it.
Warrior unit fail to reach the conscript with assault even with reroll.
Right flank: 3x primes and warrior unit assault mawloc but only put 3 wounds on it. Wounding on 5+ really sucks.
Left flank: single warrior unit puts another 4 wounds on that mawloc.
Middle: warrior unit charge the wyvern and together with the already locked small warrior unit put 4 wounds on it.
MY THIRD TURN
Conscripts and broodlord move forward.
Wyvern makes a fall back move.
Other mawloc is eventually going to assault and help out his wounded brother, locking a warrior unit and prime in assault.
Scions just move midfield to grab objectives and board control.
Conscripts get another +1 save and broodlord puts catalyst on itself (with CP reroll). Magus smite kills a warrior
Conscripts get extra lasgun shots order
Big and small warrior unit that unlocked out of close combat with the wyvern get's shot down with everything except biovores.
biovores shoot at left flank warrior unit and deploy 5 mines
Broodlord assault the warriors and kills two, and get two wounds in return.
Left flank warriors wound the single mawloc and it only got one wound left.
Right flank: Other mawloc helps out his brother and actually wounds the prime but doesn't kill it. primes and warriors try to kill off the wounded mawloc but only wounds 3 times and the mawloc saves two of them. only gets one wound.
No reason to go further. probably did a few things wrong but I think the message is clear.
My armylist is not a lower level casual armylist, as you can see. I got a 'Take all comers" armylist that is very flexible and forces the enemy to act but still got a deep strike element that could harass the other shooty lists and assault lists.
- Great shooting against MC/Tanks
- Enough mortal wounds for the big targets
- Magus could make an imperial knight shoot at his own units. (GSC ambush and then mind control).
- Enough bubble wrap
- 4 characters with force/power weapons and a broodlord for countercharge if needed.
- Flexible units
- Nice psychic powers and capable of blocking powers.
- Spore mines that block movement.
Against a full warrior lists it's so easy to put the game to my hand. Mawloc's can just easily block warriors and even fall back out of close combat with a few scratches. Boneswords are still wounding on a 5+ so not really taking down MC/Tanks easily. Even a wyvern can move 12 inch and lock a warrior squad in close combat. Even without the scions and biovores I could have won this with sheer amount of shooting and falling back out of close combat and shoot again.
Does that mean my list is the best? No, I might struggle with full infantry lists (GSC genestealer army!) and fast shooting units that get first turn. The lists that are actually better at bringing the pain and tipping the balance from turn one onward.
But a walking list with slow units just are just lining up to get killed and outmanoeuvred. I read that your lists include 6 shooty carnifexes + exocrine + warriors? Thats not a lot of reach. It's better to drop the warriors and get a broodlord + another carnifex or free up points for another exocrine. Toughness 4 warriors just gives the enemy an excuse to drop all anti-infantry shooting on the warriors.
I simply don't believe that 'average at everything' is a good thing. Slow is not good for anything. An cheap tyrannocyte with 20 gaunts + 10 devourers upgrades is better at shooting and instead of another unit warriors you get 20 genestealers to do the close combat work. a few boneswords are nice but don't really take down the big targets with Strenght 4. 7x9 warrior list is actually even more silly because you cannot keep a 300 point warrior unit behind to sit on an objective.
I'am looking forward to your battle reports, BTW..
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/25 11:37:03
2017/09/25 10:45:39
Subject: Tyranids 8th ed Tactica - The Great Devourer is Nigh
As a pure Nid player, I can say the only list I really have problems against currently is the stupid Rowboat list. Against literally every other army, I win more than lose. Nids are in a great spot on a competitive level. We just don't have that one gimmick that people cling to for the cheesy wins.
-5000 pts
That leaves the "you're wrong" option. In that case, play environment differences are the most likely reason. What else do you want me to attribute it to? I will certainly continue to rethink how I use Warriors, but so far I have high confidence that they are a meh unit. You feel differently, great. Outside this thread, I'm not seeing a lot of support for your assertion. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it's not personal.
