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.

Regarding the discussion:
I understand that it's possible to "unhide" the Nob, but I do see problems with whittling down the unit to a fightable size, especially considering the cheapness of boyz and the not that über effectiveness of tyranid melee (gaunts not so, stealers moreso, but against other targets) to cause that many wounds. It shouldn't be a problem for the ork player to react to inevitable attacks and placing the nob appropriately.

Lining boyz up like you suggesting just begs to be barraged, though, tageus. Or didn't I understand you statement?

After all, I see the Orks a more viable melee army than tyranids, who seem to have moved from "fast melee army" to "tough high rate of fire army (with assault elements)".

Trukks, Stormboyz and the basic grunts seem to make a good army which is very competitive unlike the tyranid army.

What do you guys think about that? Not considering a 1 on 1 matchup of two melee tyranid and ork armies?

In the hands of a good player, even the old codex was pretty formidable, and this new one just ups the power of an Ork horde. I pretty much agree with you that a Tyranid army will have a very rough time against Orks. I think a
'Nidzilla army would be particularly vulnerable to Orks.
I have to admit, though, that it's only theory hammer about the new codex and what I've seen happen to previous Tyranid armies with the old Ork codex at the hands of this Ork player I'm talking about that drive my statements.

Schepp himself:

Lining boyz up like you suggesting just begs to be barraged, though, tageus. Or didn't I understand you statement?

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's what Nurglitch assumed the boyz would be doing, turtling. My intention was to show that the consequences that he projects following from this assumption are incorrect.

Schepp himself: My point is that the application of firepower can prevent the Ork player from taking advantage of having large cheap mobs of troops to hide in by killing them prior to assaulting them.

Neither Tyranids nor Orks are specifically melee armies. Like all armies in 40k these armies have a specific blend of speed, lethality, and capacity to endure (or inflict) friction. To start pigeon-holing them as melee is to miss the way the shooting and assault elements of an army need to complement each other.

tegeus-Cromis: That's incorrect. I pointed out that if the Orks turtled up then they exposed themselves to barrages (among other things), while if they remain dispersed they wouldn't be able to take advantage of their numerical superiority in assaults. I thought I had been reasonably clear that it was something they could do, an option, rather than what they would always do (and indeed should avoid doing).

Whoops, you're right. I misread what you said.

It is true, though, that turtling doesn't have the other consequence you said it did, i.e. leaving the Nob out of combat if the unit is charged.

No, the consequences of turtling are themselves conditional upon what is turtling, and how. Turtling, to reiterate, is moving a unit into base-to-base contact in order to maximize the number of models that may attack in an assault.

If a mob turtles up and the Nob is within 2" of at least one model in base to base contact then the turtling does not leave the Nob out of contact. As I said this is when you want to either assault from a direction where this is not the case, or thin the unit so it is not the case, or carve up the unit so that the Nob can be killed before he can accomplish anything.

If a mob turtles up and the Nob is not within 2" of at least one model in base to base contact (perhaps because you are assaulted from behind and the nob was leading from the front, or conditions are such that the mob cannot or did not assume an idealized 'deepstrike' formation ) then the Nob will be left out of combat and you will have nothing to fear from him on the first turn you assault, so make it a good one and run him down in a sweeping advance.

Nurglitch, I would let this slide if it came from any other poster, but hey, live by the sword. . . .

Here's the statement of yours that I mentioned the deep strike effect in response to.

And yes, of course I realize that the Nob could be at the very center of a deep mass of Orks. That's not a problem at all. If means I don't have to bugger about making sure the git isn't a problem because the Ork player has done that for me.

The meaning of this claim is so obvious that it doesn't need formalisation: if the Nob is at the centre of a big mass of Orks, then he will have taken himself out of the combat in the event that the squad is charged. Yes? No? You can't claim that you meant that this is sometimes the case, because you said that the scenario is "not a problem at all". I have shown that there is at least one situation in which he can be as deep in Orks as deep gets, yet be guaranteed of being engaged if the squad is charged. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

Actually you'll find that if you formalize the statement expressed by that sentence you'll find that it may sometimes be the case that the Nob will not be able to participate in close combat, and that it may sometimes by the case that the Nob will be able to participate. And the phrase "a deep mass of Orks" refers to the former and not the latter, and hence the scope of the phrase "not a problem at all" lies within the scope of 'a deep mass of Orks' in the former sentence rather than equivocating between the former and latter senses. As my signature says: The problem with the obvious is that you tend to overlook the evidence. Particularly when something is "so obvious that it doesn't need formalisation". Hence:

If the Nob cannot be involved in close combat because the deep mass of Orks he's buried in is a deep mass of Orks and as such insulates him from the engagement zone, then that's not a problem for the Tyranids because the Nob won't be involved in the close combat that turn.

If the Nob can be involved in close combat because the deep mass of Orks he's supposedly buried in still includes him in the engagement zone, then that's not a problem for the Tyranids because he's not actually at the center of a deep mass of Orks, he is at the center of a shallow mass of Orks and one shallow enough that he cannot be kept out of close combat.

If the Nob can be involved in close combat because the shallow mass of Orks he is actually buried in includes him in its engagement zone, then that's not a problem for the Tyranids since I've pointed out how such 'shallow' mobs can be thinned and shaped to prepare it for an assault that very likely kills the Nob before he can come into play and be a problem.

Indeed you have not shown that there is at least one situation in which the Nob can be as deep in Orks as it gets because the deep-strike formation is not as deep in Orks as it gets since one can imagine situations where the Ork is in the middle of a two-file Ork column sandwiched between two impassable barriers, and it thus up to 12" away from the close combat zone.

Live by the sword? Nah, I prefer the pen.

Actually you'll find that if you formalize the statement expressed by that sentence you'll find that it may sometimes be the case that the Nob will not be able to participate in close combat, and that it may sometimes by the case that the Nob will be able to participate.

Your statement is saying that for every case in which the Nob is "at the very center of a deep mass of Orks", it is also the case that "[you] don't have to bugger about making sure the git isn't a problem because the Ork player has done that for [you]". You then added, "Instead I just get to barrel in with some assault units and wipe the floor with the regular Ork boyz unmolested by power-claws or big choppas or what." What could this mean other than the Nob being out of CC range?

If the Nob can be involved in close combat because the deep mass of Orks he's supposedly buried in still includes him in the engagement zone, then that's not a problem for the Tyranids because he's not actually at the center of a deep mass of Orks, he is at the center of a shallow mass of Orks and one shallow enough that he cannot be kept out of close combat.

The Nob in the scenario I mentioned is in the center of a mob of 30 Orks, and the formation has room for another 7, only the mob can't ordinarily get that big.

Indeed you have not shown that there is at least one situation in which the Nob can be as deep in Orks as it gets because the deep-strike formation is not as deep in Orks as it gets since one can imagine situations where the Ork is in the middle of a two-file Ork column sandwiched between two impassable barriers, and it thus up to 12" away from the close combat zone.

Fair enough, but thankfully, "as deep in Orks as deep gets" is my own embellishment and not part of your actual claim. For your claim to be proven false, it is enough that there is at least one situation in which the Nob is "at the very center of a deep mass of Orks" and yet is always able to attack when the unit is charged. Unless you consider a full-strength mob to not be "a deep mass of Orks", there is such a situation.

My statement could mean plenty of things besides the Nob being out of the close combat zone. It could mean that the Nob is inside the close combat zone and still not a problem, such as when you hit a single unit of Orks with the combined force of two or more units of Tyranids. It is not a literal statement, and no doubt that is why you have misunderstood it.

However I should point out that you're quite right, as it was constructed the phrase a 'Nob buried in a deep mass of Orks' did refer to a formation in which the Nob that was out of the close combat zone. And what it meant was that any time a unit of Orks was formed so that its Nob would be left out of any engagement zone, that Nob would be 'buried', and when that Nob was left out of the close combat zone of a unit because of many intervening Ork models, that unit would be 'deep'. Likewise any Nob that was in the close combat zone was not buried, although perhaps still in a deep mass of Orks. It's a simple identity statement, and pointing to a situation where the Nob is within the engagement zone is not pointing to a situation where the Nob is buried in a deep mass of Orks.

Whether a mob is at full strength is irrelevant to it being a deep mass of Orks. We are not talking pure numbers here, but the arrangement of those numbers. Sometimes a model will be buried in a deep mass of its unit-mates because it is on the wrong side of the unit, or the unit adopts a formation causing it to be outside of whatever close combat zones open up. Certainly there are formations in which a deep mass of Orks can become a shallow mass of Orks in order to maximize the Orks in the engagement zone, but positing that possibility as an argument against a tactic working on a deep mass of Orks, that is to say a mob that did not adopt a shallow formation, is not a logically valid argument.

Essentially speaking you're trying to prove a tautology to be false. Why, I'm not sure...

Problem I see is that neither a melee with orks nor tyranids lasts only one round either due to synapse or 'eads.

And if you somehow (I don't want to go into details here) single out or avoid the klawnob he will into the fight in the second round or enough of his angry buddies will try to cut the guys down who killed their boss...

Greets
Schepp himself

How do you figure that an assault would necessarily last more than one round? Part of what I'm trying to argue with the Tyranids is hitting an Ork unit with several Tyranid units after softening them up with shooting. By the time a Tyranid assault on a unit is over, presuming you executed it in the way I'm recommending, the Ork unit should be well under 10 models and well out-numbered.

Nurglitch wrote:How do you figure that an assault would necessarily last more than one round? Part of what I'm trying to argue with the Tyranids is hitting an Ork unit with several Tyranid units after softening them up with shooting. By the time a Tyranid assault on a unit is over, presuming you executed it in the way I'm recommending, the Ork unit should be well under 10 models and well out-numbered.

Er, yeah, everyone gets that. The big thing, though, is whether or not it's actually viable in the game as a whole -- as you end up devoting a lot of resources to kill enough orks in one round that the klaw doesn't get to swing. What's to stop the ork player from having as many units in the area as there are bug units?

"Local force superiority" isn't really a trivial counter to the hidden klaw: what makes the hidden klaw strong is you have to put that level of effort in to it because of the mechanics of it. Weakening something first with shooting and then having enough assault power to wipe out your kill zone... well, solves every problem in 40k.

Really, the better bug solution for it is target denial: it's not particularly scary when it's beating down cheap bugs that aren't appreciably harder to kill with a choppa.

Nurglitch wrote:You simply massacre the available Orks, break the unit, and run them down in a sweeping advance.

Completely random nitpick, but you realize you can't sweeping advance if you clear your killzone, right?

There's nothing to stop the Ork player from having as many units in the area as there are Tyranid unit, except for the Tyranid player.

As a Dark Eldar player I'm used to using my superior mobility to pick and choose where I'm going to fight and which units I'm going to kill. And a Tyranid player has access to things that a Dark Eldar player doesn't, like large template weapons, spore mines, and swarms of assault troops. These are really useful tools for influencing the movement of an enemy force, and making sure that you can gain local force superiority.

I mean I'm not simply saying: If Tyranids have "local force superiority" over the Orks they'll win, I'm saying that the Tyranids have a wealth of tools for gaining that local superiority, from speed to area denial to hard-hitting and short-ranged shooting. One to one they definitely can't match the Orks in assaults. But good 40k players aren't stupid enough to go one for one, they know that you can't trade unit for unit and expect to win. They know that you need to play the other player into giving you situations where you can get the 3:1 odds that will win you the game.

I disagree. The new Ork codex is replete with units that will get a second turn charge, no matter what the Nid player does. Local force superiority assumes a mobility advantage that the nids simply don't have. It bears repeating, but the Orks are far more mobile, and hit far harder, than the Nids. If anyone will achieve local force superiority, it'll be the Orks.

The question is basically too vague to be answered. Ignoring questions of player ability, it will depend on the lists chosen by the ork and tyranid players and the strategies each player employs. Both tyranids and orks can tool up for melee, for shooting, and for a whole host of playing styles somewhere in between.

Unless you define the lists taken by the two players you can’t really answer the question. And once you do answer the question and provide two lists (perhaps ‘nidzilla vs stormboy/loota spam), you’re only really demonstrating that one specific tyranid list will win or lose melee with one specific ork list.

I play tyranids, and have written a few ork lists that I’ll being collecting soon. I can tell you my typical tyranid list will slaughter my probable ork lists in melee… but I typically focus on melee with my tyranids, and plan on focusing on shooting with my orks. But that’s just my preference, there’s a lot of ways to play each army and in each iteration you’d have to weigh up the advent

It is true that the dominant tyranid list for tournaments, ‘nidzilla, would most likely lose to the suggested optimum ork list, stormboy/loota spam. But who cares? That’s only one type of list played by a minority of players a few times a year.

Lowinor: Yup, I sure do. I take it you thought "massacre" meant "clear the kill-zone of Orks"?

40kenthusiast: So it's impossible for the Tyranid player to move its models backwards out of the Ork charge radius? Or impossible for the Tyranid player to charge those Ork models that have advanced during their first turn? Or simply shoot them to ribbons? The Tyranids don't merely have a mobility advantage, but a reliability advantage as well.

Sure, you can take Zagstruk, but the odds of him coming down accurately on Turn 2 are pretty steep. I mean it's possible, but pretty unlikely to happen and thus damned difficult for a player to pull off in the advent of Da Vulcha having engine problems and the Vulcha Boyz missing their cue. The Tyranid player may not be able to stop the Vulcha Boyz from turning up in Turn 2 of the game, but they can can make sure that they receive a friendly Tyranid welcome when they do. That is, of course, assuming that one unit is "replete", because anything that's moving on the ground, even 24" a turn (especially 24" a turn) is either going to be avoided or jumped first.

I mean that's what I find amusing about these conversations: the material you're using is nothing without the tactical acumen to make it work in the right place and at the right time. If all I wanted to do was win games then I'd definitely be encouraging Ork players to throw their Orks willy-nilly into the waiting gullets of the Great Devourer. But I'd prefer interesting games where players rely on their skill with the material rather than throwing unit across the table and hope they have enough stompy material to capitalize on their dice-rolling.

Take the second turn charge, for example. I remember doing my damnedest back in 3rd edition to get that charge with my Dark Eldar. Whenever I did that, I lost, and for good reason. Eventually I got tired of losing by the third turn of the game and decided to do things like hang back, make people try to chase me, and then cut them apart with concentrations of firepower and assault power.

I mean you could get the second turn charge with some units, and even make them work in your favour rather than feeding yourself to your opponent in small chunks, but in order to do so you'd need the Tyranid player to throw themselves forward without regard for tactics or sense. If armies played themselves, as they apparently do on the internet, maybe you'd be right, the armies would crash together in the middle of the table and then we'd play risk until the turns ran out and someone won.

Attempting a second turn charge would be throwing your Orks right into the Tyranid guns and assault units, laying yourself open to being surrounded by flying Tyranids, and burrowing Tyranids, and fleeting Tyranids. Unlike Orks Tyranids don't sacrifice numbers for speed.