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.

Stelek wrote:I for one hope you do try stealer shock.

Let me enlighten you as to how it works against smart opponents in just one mission, taking the objective from the enemy.

Keep 1 unit on your objective in one mission and hope no one comes to clear you off it. So, you're down 1 stealer unit.

Then take everything else you've got and start marching towards the objective I've cunningly placed on my board edge, about 30" away from my shooty force--with nary a cover save to be found. About 24" away on the other side of it, I've placed my speed bump mobile assault force. I have a unit in reserve or one that is fast enough to get around you, and take your objective from you.

You can come play with my shooty element, in which case odds are you'll send 1 stealer unit towards my objective.

Gee, now you are down 2 stealer units. How many ya got? 6? So 4 gotta make it across the board to me, and you still have to deal with my assault force as I will gladly let you kill my entire shooty force in turns 3-5, and win by moving to the objective with my assault force. All I have to do is take one objective from you, and if you think you can stand around to contest an objective the other guy has placed so you can't get any cover saves you don't bring with you....yeah, I gotta kill you to the last stealer. Even with a 4+ save, you should know most armies will annihilate you if you are plinking them with 3 carnifexes worth of pathetic 5th ed shooting.

If I have a fast skimmer, I can avoid most of your army and most of your fire for most of the game (if not all of it) and force you off it. I win.

If I have a land raider, and you don't have a MC that can get to it--you can never take my objective from me with stealers, so...who cares? Oh since you are talking about 'efficiency' and telling me what a no-brainer is, don't forget to bring your S5 upgrade so you can at least glance AV14. You might be able to whittle down a LR then. Otherwise, I win by killing your MC and laughing at your stealers.

You won a tournament? Really? I had no idea. Glad Adepticon's missions are so uber you can beat them with stealer shock. Real tough competition and all. Point and click, WIN!

When you run Dawn of War, and your stealer shock list ends up behind the eight ball, and you lose every game--don't complain, ok? It'll be unseemly for a mighty 40k champion such as yourself to bitch your gak got nerfed and it's not you, it's the scenario. Remember, 3 gunfexes only! 6 stealer units. Rofl.

Zip diddle diddle, right up the middle. Yeah, good luck with your stealer army cent. You can't follow your creation rules and have a army that can win.

Not that GW intentionally nerfed your list or anything. Oh wait, they did.

Oh so by smart opponent, you mean an opponent who sets up the terrain, decides the mission and just knows that Centurian99 is going to do exactly what he expects him to do. Right. You remind me of Mauleed, except with an even more inflated sense of your own self accomplishment. At least Mauleed had real, documentable proof that he knew what he was talking about. All you have is talk. You've insulted everyone who's played and lost against Centurian as not being smart, you've assumed that he's going to lose games that haven't even taken place yet, and you assume he'll whine about it. Congratulations Stelek, you just got ignored.

Sweet. I guess this means you "win".

Not sure how rolling for random terrain, random mission, and reading each others army lists and laughing together at the sucktitude that is stealer shock in certain missions (aka dawn of war) makes for weaker opponents.

Lemartes wrote:I believe it was Darrian who first mentioned the GT and Adepticon btw. To me personally winning Tournaments does give someone special insight, validity, and credibility. I mean your all scout army might be dominating at your local shop but has it won a tournament. Those that have not won a sanctioned tourney may have some great insights or get the thought process rolling in different directions but it usually takes some one competent to make a new list or idea happen. If the new rumor on MC's firing one weapon only turn out to be true it may force new shock armies to actually require the dakka fex to make up for the sniper fex's decreasing shots. This may have the opposite effect of taking less shooty MC's because the barb strangler seems to be a less attractive option than the venom cannon on the sniper fex?

Not sure what the whole bit about tournaments is about, but if you explain it a bit better I could try and answer it.

I agree with you on the barb strangler being less attractive.

I guess I didn't really explain how stealer shock has changed well enough. Nidzilla has changed too. A hybrid of both gives you a better chance at winning more games across more mission types.

We know the non-shooty nid army has flaws. When you playtest a theory, you need to define the theory and then run it.

The theory was, in 5th edition where so much shooting has been removed--can you just put up large amounts of bodies and aim at the objective and win?

We found nidzilla could not, because people could run at you and you lost 50% of your shooting.

We found stealershock could not, because tanks are now bunkers and lose no efficiency and sniper fexes are ineffective. Given that enemy troops can sucker you into kill zones and your troops can be split up by the mission so you cannot just roll my army and win...it's usefulness went down.

So we combined the two. We removed all shooting and virtually all upgrades, and ran the objective missions. Sometimes with alot of terrain (50%-60%) and sometimes with just 25%.

We ran the theory that a nid list that has carnifexes and MC to inflict post combat casaulties and stealers to beat you in combat (and chase you down if you did run) while not offering much resistance other than getting more cover saves than usual in 4th edition...could it move onto the objectives and stay there long enough to win the game or draw even if all it did was get shot at all game?

With troops scoring down to the last, mobile shooting being nerfed, and MC being able to run...it did indeed have a serious impact on the game. If you run a old style list, you can shoot the nids and they might get annihilated. Newer books however have a hell of a time dealing with so many MC and stealers. You really can pare down the costs of the MC and up the number of stealers dramatically. Tossing 60 gaunts into the mix around the super tyrant unit was done once, and it was impossible to stop reliably. If you kill the super tyrant unit, you've probably killed little else.

Anyway it's entirely possible to give every fex a gun to provide some kind of firepower, but in the end you can't just rush a bunch of stealers at an experienced players army and hope you can win by beating his army down. It's not like there aren't tons of options for players to bypass your main horde and get to the unit holding your own objective, and then what? If you don't take back your own objective you cannot win, and if he holds his because your stealer shock was diluted by 5th edition...well, good luck with it.
Same thing goes for nidzilla. You've got to change the army into a hybrid if you want to win.

Frankly 4th edition tyranid armies personafied everything wrong with the game as it is. I mean take the nastiest cc army in the game, and all of a sudden there best configuration involves monstrously strong shock troops...shooting little slugs at you. If 5th edition brings back the punch to nids-and i mean a dedicated cc army that moves every model forward every turn-it will be a good thing.

Carnifex should be walking around with huge ripping claws and sharp barbed tails overturning puny human tanks, not being a broodmother for a colony of flesh eating slugs gestating in sacks under its armpit.

Armpit slugs.

lol

Stelek, stelek, stelek. Ad hominem attacks make your arguments so much better. After all, attacking me for something I didn't say is so much better than actually making a counter-argument. But thank you for actually bothering to try. Even bad arguments can help refine plans.

Now, some of the points you raise are valid, depending on the accuracy of the rumors. But I must have forgotten to read the part where "Stelek knows all and has supreme knowledge of good tactics". In fact, based on a lot of your comments on other threads, I honestly don't respect your opinion that much in terms of your ability to generate good 40K 4 tactics...which seems to imply to me that your ability to generate good 40K 5 tactics may be flawed as well. But you do occassionally bring up some good points, like the efficacy of acid maw (which, as I agreed, helps you hit harder, but in terms of enhancing survivability doesn't exactly do anything)

Anyways, last I read, MC shooting is, at best, undetermined, so we can't know exactly which option is going to come into play. Hence, this thread, and the lots of options that we're considering.

For example, if MCs can still shoot two weapons while standing still, gunfexes remain a viable choice, while dakkafexes and dakka-flyrants become much less useful. On the other hand, some rumors discount those rumors. So we have to consider both situations. If its true, and MCs are limited to a single weapon, than there needs to be a serious discussion about whether a twin-linked barbed strangler or a barbed stangler/scytal or barbed strangler/crushing claws is a viable alternative.

AV 14 is another problematic area. Quite likely the only real solution to it will be warp blast, as HTH has many of its own flaws. 3 Zoanthropes may be useful (and help keep the scuttling gaunts in play) as may a new flyrant configuration.

So let's examine all the flaws in your so-called arguments:

Stelek wrote:
Let me enlighten you as to how it works against smart opponents in just one mission, taking the objective from the enemy.

Okay, lets examine your straw man argument here. Sounds like fun!

Stelek wrote:
Keep 1 unit on your objective in one mission and hope no one comes to clear you off it. So, you're down 1 stealer unit.

Honestly, why bother?

Stelek wrote:
Then take everything else you've got and start marching towards the objective I've cunningly placed on my board edge, about 30" away from my shooty force--with nary a cover save to be found. About 24" away on the other side of it, I've placed my speed bump mobile assault force. I have a unit in reserve or one that is fast enough to get around you, and take your objective from you.

Ah yes. You've got all the cover conveniently where you want it, and none where it helps me. Of course that's fair, because you're Stelek! If that's how you win games (by stacking the terrain in your favor) I salute you. You must be one sweet guy to consistantly convince your opponents that lopsided terrain is a good thing.

Stelek wrote:<snip - lots of boneheaded tactics on my supposed part>

Okay, now let me tell you what I'd really do in your lopsided situation. There's a lot of variables, obviously, depending on exactly what army you have, but here's some general principles.

First critical decision: who goes first!

Using the leaked PDF as a guide, there are really two options:

#1 - I'm know I 'm going first, so I place my genestealers and spinegaunts as close as possible to the objective in your deployment zone. Surrounding my objective are the other units, spread out a bit, depending on terrain, etc.

#2 - I know I'm going second, so I deploy all of my stealers and spinegaunts as close to your largest assault force as possible. Other units are placed so that they can start shooting at your shooty units.

In case #1, here's what happens. Barring ridiculously poor fleet rolls, you get one turn of shooting at my stealers before all of them pile in on your objective. Because in two turns, scuttling stealers will average 31" of movement, assuming that there is something in assault range at the end of turn 2. Which, by your description, should be true. I also don't care about the lack of cover saves, because I've got spinegaunts providing a screen for the genestealers.

Let's assume they win. I leave one unit to hold the objective, and everything else heads back to my own objective. Since assaults are more decisive, that leaves me with four more turns of movement to maneuver and either head back for my objective (to contest/claim). Unless you've managed to steamroll over my blocking force, you haven't got there yet.

In case #2, I simply wipe out your assault force first, then take out your own force. Maybe I send a unit back to my objective...or maybe I simply make it so that the Spinegaunts are outside of synapse, so they fall back on the synapse that happens to be sitting on my objective. Or whatever. Too many situations.

...

Now, you throw in some other possible situations. Okay, I'll bite - both of them seem to assume that you went second, and then you seem to conveniently forget that the units you mention aren't scoring any more, (except in one or two cases), and both seem to assume that you've got some magical knowledge of when the game will end. But lets assume that you meant the squad inside, and that you do have the magic 8-ball that lets you know when the game is going to end.

Stelek wrote:If I have a fast skimmer, I can avoid most of your army and most of your fire for most of the game (if not all of it) and force you off it. I win.

Not quite, because your squad has to disembark. You tank shock a squad of stealers...they pass (LD 10 or synapse). To get the rear hatch so that you can deploy over the objective, you've actually got to move a bit beyond the objective. Assuming that I am not a moron, I've got my models placed so that they cover the entire 3" radius circle that is the objective. You tank shock, I move out of the way, and its nearly impossible for you to tank shock me in such a way that I'm not going to be able to prevent you from disembarking. And even if you do, chances are that we've got a contested objective.

Stelek wrote:If I have a land raider, and you don't have a MC that can get to it--you can never take my objective from me with stealers, so...who cares? Oh since you are talking about 'efficiency' and telling me what a no-brainer is, don't forget to bring your S5 upgrade so you can at least glance AV14. You might be able to whittle down a LR then. Otherwise, I win by killing your MC and laughing at your stealers.

Well, there's always the warp blasts, which, as I said, may be the best option in the Tyranid Codex for taking out AV14. A flyrant /w dual scytals and warp blast backed up by three zoanthropes may be the order of the day. Or there's the fact that land raiders aren't scoring. Or the fact that if you park it on the objective, you're letting any nearby MCs get a bunch of free hits at it, or if you want to be in range to move it on top of the objective, you're within about 7 " of the objective...

Stelek wrote:
When you run Dawn of War, and your stealer shock list ends up behind the eight ball, and you lose every game--don't complain, ok? It'll be unseemly for a mighty 40k champion such as yourself to bitch your gak got nerfed and it's not you, it's the scenario. Remember, 3 gunfexes only! 6 stealer units. Rofl.

Dawn of War is seemingly tailor-made for the Stealer Shock (and may be a valid argument for inclusion of a lictor). If you can't see how an army consisting of lots of scuttling units could run rampant in that deployment...

Tell you what, Stelek. I'm going to two GTs this year. (hopefully) - Chicago and baltimore. (Can't make Vegas...got a work-related convention that my presence is required at).

Show up at either one and I'll be available to play a game against you on Saturday night (or Friday, for Baltimore) and I'll make sure I've got my 5ed Stealer Shock along - just let me know ahead of time, because for at least one GT I'll be using the Eldar I'm currently working on (based a lot on the guy who had the highest Eldar battle score at GT Baltimore, Blackmoor).

Ah yes. You've got all the cover conveniently where you want it, and none where it helps me. Of course that's fair, because you're Stelek! If that's how you win games (by stacking the terrain in your favor) I salute you. You must be one sweet guy to consistantly convince your opponents that lopsided terrain is a good thing.

Terrain placement done randomly, like I said.

Since I place my objective where I want in my deployment zone, if you really believe at a GT the terrain is going to be so dense I can't find an open spot to place it so you get forced into a shooting gallery--well, good luck winning those GT's.

Why I'd fly out to Chicago or Baltimore just to beat you in a game is beyond me. I wouldn't go that far for a piece of ass, and you want me to go to play 1 game of 40K?

Remember that bit about respect?

Dawn of War is seemingly tailor-made for the Stealer Shock (and may be a valid argument for inclusion of a lictor). If you can't see how an army consisting of lots of scuttling units could run rampant in that deployment...

Really? 2 units stay on the board. I put a fast unit down so you can't scuttle towards me.

Your other 4 units come in from the left, the right, or your choice of left or right...and if you choose not to use your infiltrate special rule, all of the units you chose not to have randomly deployed come in from your table edge.

Remember that bit about respect?

Because in two turns, scuttling stealers will average 31" of movement, assuming that there is something in assault range at the end of turn 2. Which, by your description, should be true. I also don't care about the lack of cover saves, because I've got spinegaunts providing a screen for the genestealers.

Sorry, the rest of your comments were laughable theoryhammer that aren't worth replying to.

So, you assume I'd want to go second. Against Tyranids?! Are you crazy? Or just plain dumb? I can deploy a suicide squad right at the center of the board and/or deploy vehicles to push you back. Remember, I deploy first and I go first.

I then deploy my objective ALL the way in a corner.

You CANNOT scuttle forward (please read the rules) and I've forced you back to about 24" from the table center.

If it's just a pure stealer shock list, I'll run the vehicles away at maximum speed and you cannot catch me.

So, all that said, let's catch up so you might grasp the problem. Remember if I've won the first turn, you will deploy second for all the good it's going to do you. I know where my objective is. So I know where you are going to setup. You can try and play a flank maneuver with stealers, and I'll chuckle to myself as I crush your army for it's trouble.

So I go first. I've placed my army to fire at you as you run towards the objective. If I'm a real douchebag, I've got surveyors in my army and YOU are in range of ALL of my weapons. Now let's see, you gonna deploy your army on your table edge so I don't get the free pre-game shots because it's difficult to roll 24"? Man, I sure hope you deploy backwards. Oh yeah, you can get to me quickly, but let me see if I get this right--you run forward into the gunline setup at midfield, and win? Only way is if you setup 12" in so you can guarantee an assault. That means I get to move up and rapid fire you to death, right?

Now just so you are aware of the autoloss situation a stealer shock list finds itself in: If I have a land raider, it's parked diagonally across the objective in a corner and ALL of my shooting is going to go right into your flyrant, fexes, and any warp blast units you have as my land raider is immune to stealers and you can't do thing one about it. What, tactics gonna save ya? Explain it to me. My 1750 points is going to suicide itself against your 3 lousy fexes and tyrant, or 2 fexes tyrant and zoanthropes. Doesn't take a genius to figure out most armies can drop those units in the time it takes you to get to me. Even 2 turns is enough to kill that all crap.

So go ahead and show me the money. You wonder why I don't give a crap how many people you've beaten? How when you insult my tactics and my lists I don't care about that either?

See Lemartes remarks. You play the patently obvious. The pedantic. The norm. Whatever the flavor of the month is. You and your fanboyz do. Well, it doesn't impress. Rolling people with the internets latest fancy army? Gee, really? I should bow down to your mad gaming skills? Please. You're just another scrub to me. You wanna have another WWF title? Oh boy, there's so many to be had this year.

Know what's the best part? All the players I play every year at the GT, who were the top 3 the year before.

They don't win the GT the year they play me.

Nobody does.

Get it now?

Good.

Stelek wrote:
Since I place my objective where I want in my deployment zone, if you really believe at a GT the terrain is going to be so dense I can't find an open spot to place it so you get forced into a shooting gallery--well, good luck winning those GT's.

I notice you ignore the fact that scuttling stealers move 31" in two turns.

Stelek wrote:Remember that bit about respect?

I suggest you read my sig.

Stelek wrote:
Really? 2 units stay on the board. I put a fast unit down so you can't scuttle towards me.

Based on the PDF I'm reading, it goes, "The players roll-off, and then the winner can deploy up to two units from his Troops selection and one unit from his HQ section in one of the
two halves, more than 12” from any enemy. His opponent can then do the same in the opposite half."

So nothing says I have to deploy anything, if I so choose. Also the mission specifically limits the infiltrators, but does nothing to negate scouts, so if I want, I can deploy every unit with scouts as per the scouts USR. And as far as I can read the outflanking rules, the declaration doesn't need to be made until they come in.

Stelek wrote:
Remember that bit about respect?

Again, read my sig about my response to inexcusably silly ideas.

Stelek wrote:So, you assume I'd want to go second. Against Tyranids?! Are you crazy? Or just plain dumb? I can deploy a suicide squad right at the center of the board and/or deploy vehicles to push you back. Remember, I deploy first and I go first.

I see nothing in the PDF mission rules that say that there's any choice involved. Whoever wins the roll has to go first. So why do you get to choose?

Stelek wrote:
I then deploy my objective ALL the way in a corner.

You CANNOT scuttle forward (please read the rules) and I've forced you back to about 24" from the table center.

Why not? Infiltrators is limited in dawn of war, scouts isn't. Again, an inexcusably silly idea. In fact, since your entire argument revolves around these mistaken ideas:

#1 - Dawn of war somehow disallows the scout rule - it doesn't.
#2 - Dawn of war has a 24" pushback - it has a 12" pushback (well, infiltrators are pushed back 18" if they're in line of sight).
#3 - Objectives are somehow nominated after deployment is completed for both sides.
#4 - You automatically get to go first for some reason.

Now lets see...you've tried to stack the scenario as much as possible against a stealer shock. Except you've done so incompetently. (note here - you need to learn the difference between attacking someone's argument and attacking someone personally).

We're talking about one specific mission Take and Hold and one specific deployment Dawn of War. You win the roll to deploy and go first, and you somehow know exactly when the game will end.

So, essentially, I deploy second, go second, and have the bottom of the last turn. Excellent. I get to see where your objective is and you've deployed your two troops and HQ before I place anything or nominate an objective. Depending on what kind of army you've got, I can choose whether to deploy lots, deploy some, or start everything off-board.

Stelek wrote:
See Lemartes remarks. You play the patently obvious. The pedantic. The norm. Whatever the flavor of the month is. You and your fanboyz do. Well, it doesn't impress. Rolling people with the internets latest fancy army? Gee, really? I should bow down to your mad gaming skills? Please. You're just another scrub to me. You wanna have another WWF title? Oh boy, there's so many to be had this year.

Stelek...maybe I'm having problems reading, but I think Lemartes comments were more directly related to you than to me. In fact, in his short post he's contributed more to this discussion than you have in your novellas.

Stelek wrote:
They don't win the GT the year they play me.

Nobody does.

Get it now?

Good.

I'd better get out of this thread...the Stelek's ego is taking up all the space.

Lemartes wrote:I believe it was Darrian who first mentioned the GT and Adepticon btw. To me personally winning Tournaments does give someone special insight, validity, and credibility. I mean your all scout army might be dominating at your local shop but has it won a tournament. Those that have not won a sanctioned tourney may have some great insights or get the thought process rolling in different directions but it usually takes some one competent to make a new list or idea happen. If the new rumor on MC's firing one weapon only turn out to be true it may force new shock armies to actually require the dakka fex to make up for the sniper fex's decreasing shots. This may have the opposite effect of taking less shooty MC's because the barb strangler seems to be a less attractive option than the venom cannon on the sniper fex?

Missed this one earlier...a productive comment! Thanks, Lemartes.

I don't know. I think the barbed strangler (potentially twin-linked) may actually become the preferred loadout in that situation. The venom cannon is crippled by being unable to pen, where the barbed strangler can at least pen the AV12 skimmers. Warp Blasts are going to be the only means of dealing with AV14 vehicles.

The barbed trangler also uses a template, so when shooting at a vehicle, a spot-on hit isn't required. I'm actually thinking twin-linking may be worthwhile, because we won't want our shooting fexes getting up close and personal.

I notice you ignore the fact that scuttling stealers move 31" in two turns.

No, they don't. Please read the rules before you make statements of fact that are in actuality, inaccurate blubbering. Scuttling stealers deployed second in fact move as follows:

Scuttle is denied by being within 12" of the enemy. Duh.
You move 6, move 6, and fleet 2D6. That's 24" possible movement but on average it's only 19". Assuming I put stuff forward you can assault, you can indeed increase it with an assault move + consolidate move if you win.

No Guarantee of that, of course it does depend on the level of play you go up against and what army you are facing. I wager 2 tactical squads and a librarian suicided into your Flyrant and 2 stealer units would effectively leave little left of either army after turn 1. Then you can start walking.

By the way, you did know most players place the objective on your left as average dice rolls will place your worthless stealers 6 feet away? Oh yeah, I can see how you totally knew that.

So, essentially, I deploy second, go second, and have the bottom of the last turn. Excellent. I get to see where your objective is and you've deployed your two troops and HQ before I place anything or nominate an objective. Depending on what kind of army you've got, I can choose whether to deploy lots, deploy some, or start everything off-board.

No, you don't. Please read the rules before you make statements of fact that are in actuality, inaccurate blubbering. I've covered this nonsense below. You MAY deploy up to 1 HQ and 2 troops...that's it.

I see nothing in the PDF mission rules that say that there's any choice involved. Whoever wins the roll has to go first. So why do you get to choose?

I said nothing about choosing. I WANT to go first. If I win the roll, I WILL go first.

So nothing says I have to deploy anything, if I so choose. Also the mission specifically limits the infiltrators, but does nothing to negate scouts, so if I want, I can deploy every unit with scouts as per the scouts USR. And as far as I can read the outflanking rules, the declaration doesn't need to be made until they come in.

What declaration? You decide on deployment whether your units start on the board or not. Then it's a dice roll as to when and where they show up--both being random.

Lie #1 - Dawn of war somehow disallows the scout rule - it doesn't.

You can deploy your 2 troops and 1 HQ. You missed the point about scuttling being nerfed apparently. I'll try one more time to get it through the thickness around your brain pan. SCOUTS DO NOT DEPLOY ON THE BOARD FOR FREE. GET IT? So you can deploy TWO troops and ONE HQ, period.

Lie #2 - Dawn of war has a 24" pushback - it has a 12" pushback (well, infiltrators are pushed back 18" if they're in line of sight).

Welcome to 5th edition. BOARD HALVES. I CAN DEPLOY ANYWHERE. SO CAN YOU. GET IT? I deploy 24" up, not 12" up. That pushes YOU back 24" if you were to deploy first. Understand now?

Lie #3 - Objectives are somehow nominated after deployment is completed for both sides.

Gee, where did I ever say that? Stop being a tool. I place my objective, and we deploy. It's in the rules. It's what I said.

Lie #4 - You automatically get to go first for some reason.

I sure hope not. There are lots of missions I don't want to go first. Against a stealer shock list, I sure as gak do want to go first.

Maybe you should check your bull at the door. I've been playtesting 5th edition for well over a year. You? You're a theoryhammer 5th edition scrub trying to tell me what you know.

Which obviously, ain't much.

Stelek wrote:

I notice you ignore the fact that scuttling stealers move 31" in two turns.

No, they don't. Please read the rules before you make statements of fact that are in actuality, inaccurate blubbering. Scuttling stealers deployed second in fact move as follows:

Scuttle is denied by being within 12" of the enemy. Duh.

Nothing says I have to move directly at your units.

Stelek wrote:
No Guarantee of that, of course it does depend on the level of play you go up against and what army you are facing. I wager 2 tactical squads and a librarian suicided into your Flyrant and 2 stealer units would effectively leave little left of either army after turn 1. Then you can start walking.

Which army are we talking about here? You seem to pull whatever army you want out of your ass whenever it best suits you. What's next...a line of boyz 60 strong blocking off the whole half of the table?

Stelek wrote:
By the way, you did know most players place the objective on your left as average dice rolls will place your worthless stealers 6 feet away? Oh yeah, I can see how you totally knew that.

Now this one makes no sense at all.

Stelek wrote:

So, essentially, I deploy second, go second, and have the bottom of the last turn. Excellent. I get to see where your objective is and you've deployed your two troops and HQ before I place anything or nominate an objective. Depending on what kind of army you've got, I can choose whether to deploy lots, deploy some, or start everything off-board.

No, you don't. Please read the rules before you make statements of fact that are in actuality, inaccurate blubbering. I've covered this nonsense below. You MAY deploy up to 1 HQ and 2 troops...that's it.

On re-reading you are correct. Congratulations. That just means that if I have to deploy first, I'm going to deploy nothing at all, except possibly the HQ, depending on what your list looks like.

Stelek wrote:

I see nothing in the PDF mission rules that say that there's any choice involved. Whoever wins the roll has to go first. So why do you get to choose?

I said nothing about choosing. I WANT to go first. If I win the roll, I WILL go first.

So why are we assuming you go first. Either way, I'm either deploying second, or starting with nothing on the table.

Stelek wrote:

So nothing says I have to deploy anything, if I so choose. Also the mission specifically limits the infiltrators, but does nothing to negate scouts, so if I want, I can deploy every unit with scouts as per the scouts USR. And as far as I can read the outflanking rules, the declaration doesn't need to be made until they come in.

What declaration? You decide on deployment whether your units start on the board or not. Then it's a dice roll as to when and where they show up--both being random.

Yep. So what?

Stelek wrote:

Lie #1 - Dawn of war somehow disallows the scout rule - it doesn't.

You can deploy your 2 troops and 1 HQ. You missed the point about scuttling being nerfed apparently. I'll try one more time to get it through the thickness around your brain pan. SCOUTS DO NOT DEPLOY ON THE BOARD FOR FREE. GET IT? So you can deploy TWO troops and ONE HQ, period.

As I said, on re-reading you're correct. So out of what were three options, I now have two. Deploy two units and an HQ if I see and advantage in doing so, or deploy nothing. Or deploy, say...the HQ and a large brood of spinegaunts, with the spinegaunts preventing a charge on the HT.

Stelek wrote:

Lie #2 - Dawn of war has a 24" pushback - it has a 12" pushback (well, infiltrators are pushed back 18" if they're in line of sight).

Welcome to 5th edition. BOARD HALVES. I CAN DEPLOY ANYWHERE. SO CAN YOU. GET IT? I deploy 24" up, not 12" up. That pushes YOU back 24" if you were to deploy first. Understand now?

I'm afraid I don't understand. How does that push me back 24". Last time I checked, 12" does not equal 24". You're deployed 24" up. I may be 36" away from the objective...but I'm not seeing why I care.

Stelek wrote:

Lie #3 - Objectives are somehow nominated after deployment is completed for both sides.

Gee, where did I ever say that? Stop being a tool. I place my objective, and we deploy. It's in the rules. It's what I said.

Again, since we're assuming I go second, I start out knowing exactly where your objective is. You have no idea where mine is.

Stelek wrote:
Maybe you should check your bull at the door. I've been playtesting 5th edition for well over a year. You? You're a theoryhammer 5th edition scrub trying to tell me what you know.

Which obviously, ain't much.

Maybe you should try actually making sense. You've made a few good points - acid maw, and pointing out that scout didn't work the way I thought - but you still haven't explained:

#1 - how exactly this 24" pushback works. There's no way if you deploy first that I'm farther than 12 inches from your units after deployment.
#2 - Why I'd even want to start with anything on the board. You say that the objective gets placed in the rear corner of your deployment zone, with (I'm assuming) your troops & HQ placed 24" in front of it (thus, somehow a 24" pushback from the objective...as if I cared." Since you've done that the simple counter is to place my objective in the opposite corner, scuttle everything and start offboard, and then regardless of how the scuttlers come in, they're in position to either attack at your objective or hold mine.
#3 - Why exactly this is non-viable. You're creating this hypothetical scenario and trying to say that its nonviable, but even with your continual re-definitions of the scenario to handicap a stealer shock list, I still see options that allow for victory.

I just re-read the scenario and I'm afraid I'm also not seeing how it hurts scouting genestealers. If anything, the scout ability means they have a 2/3 chance of coming in exactly where the player wants them (assuming the opposing objective is placed in a back corner) and right alongside the objective and into assault with defending units without ever getting shot. They have up to an 18" threat range with fleet to get to covering terrain or an objective closer towards the middle.

Its only the gaunt screen and synapse units that will come in from far away, and they can defend the nid players' objective or move up in support if they're fast like winged HT's, raveners, gargoyles, etc. Stealers don't require synapse to function and since they can assault without getting shot up first they should do well.


SteveW

Steve, you're my hero. A valid point.

The tactical way to stop stealers from doing much of anything when they come in on the board edge, and indeed, get them shot to pieces is simple:

Put your army in your corner, with 1 unit guarding the edge so stealers can't come in along your deployment zone.

Then place a vehicle, like say a rhino, along the top portion of the table edge.

It's very much like a drop pod defense, where you give them nothing to assault but said rhino. Remember the 'top' of your side defense should be 2" away from the Rhino so it's impossible for stealers to assault said unit.

If you have a MBT, it works even better as stealers tend to bounce off them. Just make sure you put your AV13 or your AV14 towards the top (so facing the enemy deployment zone) as Nids have a very hard time killing vehicles and stealers just don't kill that armor class.

Sorry Cent, you're just boring in your denial of reality.

Good luck with your army.

Just to throw something into the argument, Acid Maws and Feeder Tendrils can't be combined in a single unit.

Stelek wrote:Steve, you're my hero. A valid point.

The tactical way to stop stealers from doing much of anything when they come in on the board edge, and indeed, get them shot to pieces is simple:

Put your army in your corner, with 1 unit guarding the edge so stealers can't come in along your deployment zone.

Then place a vehicle, like say a rhino, along the top portion of the table edge.

It's very much like a drop pod defense, where you give them nothing to assault but said rhino. Remember the 'top' of your side defense should be 2" away from the Rhino so it's impossible for stealers to assault said unit.

If you have a MBT, it works even better as stealers tend to bounce off them. Just make sure you put your AV13 or your AV14 towards the top (so facing the enemy deployment zone) as Nids have a very hard time killing vehicles and stealers just don't kill that armor class.

Sorry Cent, you're just boring in your denial of reality.

Good luck with your army.

Stelek, so now you're somehow taking one squad, using it to block the table edge...another squad, spreading it out to try and do your mythical "pushback"...and somehow you're going to keep either squad from getting assaulted in the first turn? By backing a rhino up to the table edge at the edge of your deployment zone? When:

A) Stealers have a 13-18" threat radius.
B) Are allowed to charge multiple units...just like every other unit
C) and a hive tyrant (lets assume I have a hive tyrant and broodlord, and decide to bring the broodlord in and outflank you...just because its an obvious move)

You can't do everything at once. Either you're trying to keep me as far away from the objective as possible, and falling back to keep me out of charge range, or you're staying put up front and letting me outflank you.

You know, for a self-proclaimed genius and strategic master, you've got some odd ideas.

correct. you need a supporting unit nearby to get the feeder bonus.

Cadian16th wrote:Just to throw something into the argument, Acid Maws and Feeder Tendrils can't be combined in a single unit.

Good point. The only way to do so is on a Broodlord and his retinue. Going back to the original calcs I did, we're then comparing:

1 - 9 x Genestealer, extended carapace, scuttlers, feeder tendril - 216 points
2 - 8 x Genestealer, extended carapace, scuttlers, acid maw - 216 points

On the charge vs MEQs - 10 man squad /w pf
1 - 27 attacks, 22.5 hits, 3.75 rends + 7.5 wounds for 6.25 kills
2 - 24 attacks, 16 hits, 4 rends + 8 wounds for for 6.67

That's interesting. If we round up for 2 and round down for 1, the marines get an extra attack back...either way, you're only looking at the squad suffering 1 wound. Next turn, MEQs are toast.

Vs. Orks is an interesting case, I think. Lets go with shoota boyz, 30 strong, led by a nob.
1 - 10 wounds total, orks strike back with 38 attacks, 19 hit, 6.33 wound, 3.165 failed saves. Nob gets 3 attacks /w pk, 1.5 hits, 1.25 wounds. 4.415 total wounds.
2 - 10.66 wounds total - round up to 11 - orks strike back with 36 attacks, 18 hit, 6 wound, 3 failed saves. Nob gets 3 attacks /w pl, 1.5 hits, 1.25 wounds - 4.125 casualties

If we round both down, the orks inflict 4 casualties in return.
Round 2.
1 - 10 attacks, 8.89 hits, 1.48 rends, 2.96 wounds, 3.95 wounds total past save
2 - 8 attacks, 5.33 hits, .89 rends, 1.78 wounds, 2.37 wounds past save

Two turn total
1 - 13.95 total wounds
2 - 13.03 total wounds

Advantage - feeder tendrils, over more turns

1 - Orks return strikes - 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 wounds, 2.5 past save. 1.25 wounds from the power fist, for 3.75 total wounds. Genestealers remaining - 1
2 - Orks return strikes - 32 attacks, 16 hits, 5.33 wounds, 2.67 past save. 1.25 wounds from the klaw, for 3.91 total wounds. Genestealers remaining - 0

Based on those numbers, I'm leaning towards concluding that feeder tendrils are a better upgrade, because the actually make it less likely that you'll wipe out the enemy on ther charge (which you don't want to do, if possible) and seems to have better survivability long-term.

Hmmm 24" with 10 guys? They'd be spread pretty thin. A safer bet would be 2 units with 2 rhino's because the table edge shenanigans will only cut out the stealers for 1 turn (see countercharge rules). With the length of a rhino to stop a fleeting unit from engaging said edge blocking unit, i'm inclined to favour the stealers making a 9 to 10 inch movement from past the rhino's front then 6 inch assault into the front guy in the board edge blocking conga line.

This tactic really comes down to using the disposable vehicle shield. Which unfortunately a rhino is quite easily destroyed by any sort of MC shooting the nids are bringing. As stelek mentioned using a bigger tank makes the tactic much more viable, but also means that a bigger portion of your force is dedicated to this "assault force" stuff you mentioned earlier.

In game terms you are looking at least at 1/3 of your force over in the far corner on the objective doing not so much.

Also I can't see how you can deploy 1-2 units over on the table side to ensure this tactic, then be prepared to sacrifice a HQ and two tac squads to push his forces back at the same time.

Across a battle front where you are letting your opponent choose to chomp a section of your army (either the shooty bit or the objective sitters), I think it would be hard to say exactly where and how you'd deploy those HQ and two tacs blind (assuming you are going first).

All the name calling aside it would only be a small portion of missions that pander to these defensive tactics.

I can't deny that scouting stealers are a good unit in 5th edition for antitroop but they'll suffer against heavy armoured tanks.

I think you should be looking at how to stay in combat for a turn under 5th edition nasty combat resolution rules, rather than trying to figure out what is the nastiest combo for dealing death.

I think the more models/units on the table (less spent on upgrades), the better off stealer shock will be.

Also building the list to mitigate the heavy tank fallibility of the stealers is the right direction.

I think you should be looking at how to stay in combat for a turn under 5th edition nasty combat resolution rules, rather than trying to figure out what is the nastiest combo for dealing death.

Agreed.

Against non-feerless enemies, this is a huge issue. No more creative charges. It's whole unit vs whole unit --always.

-Leo037

Gentlemen,

This discussion seems to have gotten unnecessarily out of hand. Without levelling attacks against anyone, let me point out what I consider an important flaw in this thread. Almost every post is taking specific instances for a hypothetical battle and removing them from the context of the army list as a whole. For example, we are looking at the statisical efficiency of Stealers with Acid Maw versus Stealers with Feeder Tendrils. While that is helpful when it comes to making decisions over which makes the Stealers better infantry killers, it ignores one critical factor---namely, which of those two upgrades will make the Stealers better in the context of your list?

Tactics is fundamentally driven not only by how your units effect enemy units, but also by how your units abilities complement each other. This principle is grasped on an intuitive level, since many threads in these forums advice people to add more anti-tank weapons to lists or to drop one unit in favor of another. If you really want to set up a legitimate debate over how to build a Stealer Shock list for the coming edition, I would make the following suggestion: Stelek submits a 1750 point list for the Army of his choice, designed as a Take All Comers list. Centurion simulteaneously submits a 1750 point list for a Stealer Shock, designed, again, as a Take All Comers list. Then, within the context of the respective lists, you can debate each lists best approach for dealing with the other. Or, preferrably, one of Stelek's regular opponents could playtest Centurion's list against Stelek's and the results could be posted for further debate.

As an aside, in the real world there always exists a trade off between firepower and mobility. The faster my tank goes, the less accurate my gunner is. Even though its a game, if vehicles would retain high mobility with high firepower and high survivability, the game would quickly become unbalanced and simplified because it would remove the tactical decision making from the equation. Essentially, without forcing players to make tradeoffs there are no tactics.

Respectfully,
Mike K.

Dude, you can't bring sense here. Just kidding.

Have you seen Mad Max? Man those gunners were highly accurate on those buggies. Wait a minute!

Cypher037 wrote:

I think you should be looking at how to stay in combat for a turn under 5th edition nasty combat resolution rules, rather than trying to figure out what is the nastiest combo for dealing death.

Agreed.

Against non-feerless enemies, this is a huge issue. No more creative charges. It's whole unit vs whole unit --always.

-Leo037

Not exactly. You can still overwhelm someone really strung out. Sure they can take casualties off anywhere, but you do still limit the attacks back your way.

PanzerLeader wrote:Gentlemen,

This discussion seems to have gotten unnecessarily out of hand. Without levelling attacks against anyone, let me point out what I consider an important flaw in this thread. Almost every post is taking specific instances for a hypothetical battle and removing them from the context of the army list as a whole. For example, we are looking at the statisical efficiency of Stealers with Acid Maw versus Stealers with Feeder Tendrils. While that is helpful when it comes to making decisions over which makes the Stealers better infantry killers, it ignores one critical factor---namely, which of those two upgrades will make the Stealers better in the context of your list?

You are missing the point of the thread, which is about the viability of a "Stealer Shock list", in which case the discussion of whether or not Acid Maw or Feeder Tendrils on Genestealers is extremely relevant if not critical, as most of your army will be Genestealers.

Another point - feeder tendrils are better (much) better against vehicles.

Not really. IC's and WS0 aren't affected.

Damn.

*peers over trench wall* is it over? Have they stopped fighting?

Keep down. They could just be reloading.

A brave person would ask what all that just meant in terms of options.