Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/08 04:03:58
Subject: Re:Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
The only time I would take a DOG chance with my tyranids is if success would make the difference between a loss and a win, and I was already losing. That doesn't happen very often, in my experience.
I have had some success against the 2 monolith army with two screamer-killer fexes with bio-plasma. Granted, that was really only one game, but since fexes and monoliths have the same speed, it worked out pretty good. In the future, with fexes able to run, that should work even better.
I had regretted being to lazy to convert my fexes, and now I'm glad that I didn't. I think that my third edition tyranid list is going to work pretty well for 5th edition.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/08 06:28:03
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
You know, totally forgot about bio-plasma.
That might actually be worthwhile.
|
"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers
Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/08 16:37:47
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Phoenix wrote:
I ran some numbers on different weapons to see how things shake out and here is what I came up with. This is done assuming stranglers are S8 and venom cannons are S10 on gun fexes. If these numbers are off (or you want to see different ones run as well) please let me know.
A BS3 model firing a S8 weapon at an AV13 vehicle (no cover) on average will need 36 shots to destroy the vehicle.
A BS3 model firing a S10 weapon that can only glance at an AV 13 Vehicle (with 3 weapons and no cover) on average will need 45 shots to destroy it via weapon destroyed and immobilized results (5 required).
For a comparison, both weapons required 18 shots (on average) to destroy an AV 13 vehicle (no cover) under the 4th edition rules.
So with venom cannons shooting 2 shots each, they come out ahead of the strangler for doing anti tank work even with the nerf. An interesting side note here, imperial tanks become much more resistant to being killed via glancing hits if they purchase a pintle mounted storm bolter. This effectively gives them an additional weapon that must be destroyed before the tank can be blown up via glancing shots.
Phoenix, nice breakdown.
But, as Wherkind touched on already, your numbers don't take the new blast scatter rules into account. That ST8 BS3 shot is actually a ST8 scattering large blast marker, so BS is irrelevant. And I don't recall seeing anything posted on how twin-linked is going to affect such weapons, will it be a re-roll to scatter or a re-roll to wound or what? And does the blast marker get full strength just for touching the vehicle or not? Assuming that touching gives a full strength hit, then the ST8 large blast marker has a better chance of hitting than a ST8 BS3 shot, so it's numbers should go up.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/08 18:10:36
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Wehrkind wrote:How are scattering blast markers going to work against vehicles in 5th? Will it still be half str if the hole is not over the hull, or will it change like the lack of partials to be full strength if touched?
No change from 4th. If the hole is not over the hull of the vehicle, the hit is at half strength. The only possible saving grace (maybe) is that if the hole is not over the vehicle, the armor facing that the shot hits is determined from the direction of the hole. So if the shot scatters behind the vehicle, it may be able to damage the rear armor. Landraiders though... assuming a 'fex can not shoot two weapons on the move, maybe a TL V-cannon and some manner of angry claw for melee would be the trick. LR's are not scary if they are not transporting things (usually) so perhaps the answer will be to shake them, then try and rip them apart in melee when they get close to you?
Looking at a gun fex venom cannon, it takes an average of 60 shots to destroy a land raider. However, after 24, chances are you've immobilized it and destroyed a weapon so that may be the point at which you ignore it. 36 shots should immobilize it and blow off 2 weapons. All in all though, hand to hand is significantly more dangerous to it since you get to roll 2d6 armor pen and you don't have to worry about the always glancing. The trick is getting there. Keep in mind that unless you are fleet (and fexes are not) you can't assault on turns that you run so that makes catching a tank a little more difficult (although still easier than it was in 4th).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/05/08 18:12:35
**** Phoenix ****
Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/08 19:41:11
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
|
But luckily vehicles are not as mobile as in 4ed either. If they want to go faster then the fex that is chasing them then they will likely have to sacrifice firepower. Not a bad thing.
Also, Bio-plasma becomes a bit more useful against troops too, since the rumored charge reaction will force more base to base with the fex on the charge.
For non-elite fexes tooled for taking out vehicles in CC would want to have 2 scything talons, bio-plasma, and tusked. On the charge that is six S9 + 2D6 pen that hit on 4+ (or 6's)and one S10 + 1D6 pen attacks that always hits on 4+. All for 129 points at its cheapest.
Assuming Ar14 and hitting on 4+ for all 7 attacks you should see at least one destroyed result 56% of the time.
If the normal attacks have to hit on 6's that drops to 26%. This does not include the possibility of multiple results causing destroyed (which on most Ar14 vehicles requires quite a few good rolls on the chart).
Also, with the above attacks you should atleast shake the target 97% of the time if hitting on 4+ (69% if hitting on 6's).
Combining the above with some warp blasts to help soften targets up (maybe even stun or immobilize) mightbe the only real chance of dealing with AR14.
Also, if you want to use an elite fex for CC anti tank duty you have to choose to drop either tusked or bio-plasma. Which one basically comes down to how often you think you'll be hitting on 6's, with the bioplasma having the edge with its 4+ hit.
|
snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."
Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/09 03:51:29
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Crafty Clanrat
Austin Metro
|
If MC's can only fire 1 weapon per turn, then here's one possible heavy support fex:
144 Fex with venom cannon, scything talons, +BS, bio plasma
You could add an extra wound, armor save, tusks, a mace tail, or toughness to taste.
An alternative could be:
121 Fex bio plasma, barbed strangler
The idea on both of those fexes is to move towards enemy armor to destroy it in CC, while shooting along the way just to try and stun the tanks to keep them from shooting. Flyrants and zoanthropes take care of land raiders & monoliths
The other question is what to give walking tyrants. It loos like extra shooting might be necessary, so a VC & scythes is one option. The other is 2x scythes and warp blast. It'll partly come down to how you use your walking tyrants. If you want him to sit back near objectives in your own board half as a stable synapse node, then the VC/Scythes might be the best option since you may never get into range to use the str 10 blast. If he'll be advancing, then by all means go with the blast.
SteveW
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/05/09 05:16:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/09 04:59:00
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
|
Mace tail doesn't work unless the fex is btb with 4 or more models. That is hard to do when charging a vehicle. Mace tail is not a bad upgrade for an already CC oriented fex but it won't help against vehicles.
|
snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."
Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/09 05:15:59
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Crafty Clanrat
Austin Metro
|
Darn it, I was thinking that was scyth tail only.
-Earlier post edited-
SteveW
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 17:02:27
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I kind of like the idea of 'fexes walking at vehicles while shooting to stun them, then ripping off their turrets with big claws. I don't know how it will play out game wise, but it makes a fun vision in my head.
My heart still goes out to all the 'nid players who have to break apart their models to correct for a sudden change in effectiveness though.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 19:33:20
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
Would this not technically await a FAQ?
The Tyranid codex specifies that TMC can fire two, and that pairs count as twin linked, leaving the dakkafex (et al) legal until that is covered by errata or a new codex?
Codex>BGB, right?
shrug
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 19:38:54
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Infiltrating Oniwaban
|
Ahhh. That's going to be a sticky point. One could argue that TMC are a different beast than regular MC. Hmm.
I'd go with the MC rules in the core rulebook, especially after a revision, just out of the spirit of fairness and playability. It could certainly be lawyered the other way, though.
|
Infinity: Way, way better than 40K and more affordable to boot!
"If you gather 250 consecutive issues of White Dwarf, and burn them atop a pyre of Citadel spray guns, legend has it Gwar will appear and answer a single rules-related question. " -Ouze |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 20:25:05
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
|
kirsanth, you beat me to that, had forgotten all about that till going through the codex again this weekend. Still could easily be changed in the FAQ set to release on the day 5ed is released.
As far as the rule being 'lawyered', I disagree. It is clear as day in the codex and I would be pretty upset if someone tried to rule otherwise without an official FAQ.
|
snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."
Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 22:17:30
Subject: Re:Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
good topic , here are some of my opinions : take broodlord or scuttlers genes , most time they will force opponent deploys away from the short table edge and put units more forward ,makes your zoanthropes get into 18" more quickly (dont forget they will running at first couple turns) also CC elite fex will have a chance, or the opponent just castles up at center of the edge which will lose the ability to take other objectives.
I will not change my gunfex weapons, because you will still have the ability to target hordes such as Orks(which even nids cant win through in CC) with BS while VC for anti tank, and with only troop counting as scoring unit more anti infantry fire powers seems a must.
btw,zoanthropes with synapse can also help gaunts to hold objectives, which I dont want warriors to do the job,because only CC warrior can make their points back and you cant let them just stand there holding objectives.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/12 23:01:17
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
kirsanth wrote:Would this not technically await a FAQ?
The Tyranid codex specifies that TMC can fire two, and that pairs count as twin linked, leaving the dakkafex (et al) legal until that is covered by errata or a new codex?
Codex>BGB, right?
shrug
Well spotted. The codex does indeed stipulate that tyranids which are also MCs may fire two weapons, without any sort of reference to the main rules. Thus, even if the one-gun rumor is true, it will only apply to tyranids if there's a FAQ.
Which, frankly, is as it should be. With changes to scoring units, the nerfing of glancing hits, and the overall toughness increases for vehicles rumored in 5th ed, nidzilla would seem to be appropriately reined in already, and nids in general can't afford to lose much more anti-tank shooting and still be competitive.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/13 06:08:32
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
kirsanth wrote:Would this not technically await a FAQ?
The Tyranid codex specifies that TMC can fire two, and that pairs count as twin linked, leaving the dakkafex (et al) legal until that is covered by errata or a new codex?
Codex>BGB, right?
shrug
Kirsanth now gets the newly created "C99 two thumbs up" award for best post of the day!
|
"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers
Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/13 06:53:05
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
Centurian99 wrote:kirsanth wrote:Would this not technically await a FAQ?
The Tyranid codex specifies that TMC can fire two, and that pairs count as twin linked, leaving the dakkafex (et al) legal until that is covered by errata or a new codex?
Codex>BGB, right?
shrug
Kirsanth now gets the newly created "C99 two thumbs up" award for best post of the day!
wait wait wait
now I daresay this isn't news, this is just hopeful delaying of wishes. I think the idea of single shot MC is stupid. Not to say that they will not occur, but even so, this has to have been brought up elsewhere - it was instictual first response to that nasty rumor! (which is probably correct and making me bitterly have to clip arms from the single "modern" elitefex I own)
Without the possibilities of matching the firepower of and mobility of vehicular units (even as reduced as it is, run doesnt cover it), reducing the firepower of MC seems an unnecessarily anti-zilla tactic that hinders the Tyranid codex at large. Hopefully if the FAQ hits TMC as much as hinted, something will give us the firepower to (re)cover from the nerfing.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/13 21:00:02
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Infiltrating Oniwaban
|
Wait- kirsanth, have there been rumors about the _FAQ_ already, or just the core rules, and we assume the FAQ will catch the issue?
Damn, now I wish we hadn't begun discussing this publicly. It might have been overlooked and remained viable, if nerfage is the intention of the FAQ.
|
Infinity: Way, way better than 40K and more affordable to boot!
"If you gather 250 consecutive issues of White Dwarf, and burn them atop a pyre of Citadel spray guns, legend has it Gwar will appear and answer a single rules-related question. " -Ouze |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2008/05/14 15:27:26
Subject: Nids Potential Anti-Tank Options in 5 Ed
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
There is a post about FAQs. Tyranids apparently are due for one a couple of months after the core rules are released.
My thoughts are rather the opposite though. I would rather have these things in the open. I am still hoping that the change will not abuse armies without vehicles just to spite the folks that take the time to read the rules that are published.
The rumors, as I have understood them, only state the core rules and the fact that FAQs are coming. How they interact, I am not touching.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
|