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.

I notice a lot of cookie cutter tyranid lists generally focus around tervigons, termagants, hive guard then trygon/mawloc to taste. Ive never seen any lists focusing around tyranid warriors backed up by a prime with a venomthrope to provide a mobile 5+ cover save bubble. I know their overcosted but to be honest so long as you can get them into CC I reckon they would shine, so dakkaites, do you think its possible a warrior spam list?

One of the issues with warriors is they really don't like the fact they will have every S8 anti tank gun aimed at them. Even with their cover, they ID on a failed save. With the prevalence of ML spam, DL spam, and GK dread spam, I really don't think its all that competitive. Also in CC they aren't as exciting as they look, more than a few units that are more than a match for them (plus not much chance of delivering them intact enough to ensure success even against some of the more basic units).

I wouldn't play more than one or two broods. Either drop them in with a pod, or use a tyrant with hive commander to outflank them. Of course, both of these options prevent you from taking a Tyranid Prime with them (thanks GW for that brilliant FAQ), but it should get more of them into combat.

Eh. One or two small Broods for aggressive countercharge, with appropriate Termagant screening for cover works as a cover generator for your Monstrous Creatures (except Trygons of course). Warriors can survive by merit of lower target priority (I want to shoot your Tervigons/Hive Guard first.). Add Primes as needed: A Lashwhip/Bonesword Prime with Bonesword Warriors isn't exactly a pleasant experience...Think Bloodcrushers to an extent: Killy if you can reach your opponent...

Then again, I'd honestly just run the Primes semi-solo, and use creative Tervigon Spawning to slingshoot your Primes into combat. It's one of those dirty little tricks which makes the game more interesting, if you ask me. :3

Spam is not a good idea, in my opinion. There is just too much S8 AP4 or better shooting and CC on the boards to make it worthwhile.

IF they can get into CC with boneswords and/or lashwhips, they are suprisingly nasty and worth their cost...until the TH/PFs and active forceweapons begin to hit back or DCCWs. Then they start being really, REALLY expensive for their effect. Shooting wise, you will need screening units and judicious use of cover (or outflanking and getting a bit lucky with being in CC range of something.) to protect them until they can make a difference.

One of the issues with warriors is they really don't like the fact they will have every S8 anti tank gun aimed at them. Even with their cover, they ID on a failed save. With the prevalence of ML spam, DL spam, and GK dread spam, I really don't think its all that competitive.

But is that really true? Instead of fielding warriors, field MCs instead? If you look at it points wise, 5 warriors cost about the same as a base trygon. They get one less wound against heavy weapons, but get easy cover, and are still very resilient to small arms (and can hide behind terrain). In fact, 5 warriors are more resilient against AI weapons than a trygon, and due to cover are more resilient against anti tank. They can also get long range shooting weapons and are troops.

Yes, anti-tank weapons instant death them. But anti-tank weapons work well against MCs and vehicles as well, which a lot of people field. It's really no different.

Also in CC they aren't as exciting as they look, more than a few units that are more than a match for them (plus not much chance of delivering them intact enough to ensure success even against some of the more basic units).

But that's the same for virtually everything isn't it? If you footslog an assault unit you can't really expect it to get to its target intact. Thankfully, warriors come with a halfway decent shooting weapon, and can be upgraded with a decent longer range anti-infantry weapon. So while they may not arrive intact to their target, they should still easily slaughter their way through basic troops, especially if they've been softened by the warrior's own shooting.

Really all you're missing is good anti tank. Throw in some zoanthropes (which probably rather be sot by anti-tank weapons than small arms because of the invulnerable save frustrating those expensive missiles) and 2ish units with rending claws (including the prime) and you can handle most anything.

Assuming my math is right (I don't own Tyranids) you can get 5 squads of 5 warriors with the large S4 blast each, plus 2 units with rending and one with toxin, plus 4 zoanthropes in 2 units of 2, and a unit of shrikes with dual bone swords to chase down a nice infantry target (or maybe hive guard or more anti-tank of some kind), all led by a prime with rending should come out to about 1500 points, and is pretty hard to deal with if you can make use of terrain.

It's kind of like nob bikers or grey knights: you don't want to get in combat with them, but you can't just leave them alone as their shooting is a problem too.

IF they can get into CC with boneswords and/or lashwhips, they are suprisingly nasty and worth their cost...until the TH/PFs and active forceweapons begin to hit back or DCCWs. Then they start being really, REALLY expensive for their effect.

But that's why they aren't that good. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that most footslogging assault units without fleet aren't very good because they have such a hard time getting to their target, and get shot up on the way. You can't expect warriors to be any different, so don't make them 50 points each and run them across the table. You wouldn't do that with assault termies would you? Also, active force weapons aren't that good against warriors since the effect is only after all saves, so at most will only account for another 2 wounds, and you have SitW making that hard to get off. As for the others, don't put them against that target. Similarly, don't send gaunts against a tank, or fire dragons against a horde of ork boys.

Ail-Shan wrote:

One of the issues with warriors is they really don't like the fact they will have every S8 anti tank gun aimed at them. Even with their cover, they ID on a failed save. With the prevalence of ML spam, DL spam, and GK dread spam, I really don't think its all that competitive.

But is that really true? Instead of fielding warriors, field MCs instead? If you look at it points wise, 5 warriors cost about the same as a base trygon. They get one less wound against heavy weapons, but get easy cover, and are still very resilient to small arms (and can hide behind terrain). In fact, 5 warriors are more resilient against AI weapons than a trygon, and due to cover are more resilient against anti tank. They can also get long range shooting weapons and are troops.

Yes, anti-tank weapons instant death them. But anti-tank weapons work well against MCs and vehicles as well, which a lot of people field. It's really no different.
A point worth playtesting.

Also in CC they aren't as exciting as they look, more than a few units that are more than a match for them (plus not much chance of delivering them intact enough to ensure success even against some of the more basic units).

But that's the same for virtually everything isn't it? If you footslog an assault unit you can't really expect it to get to its target intact. Thankfully, warriors come with a halfway decent shooting weapon, and can be upgraded with a decent longer range anti-infantry weapon. So while they may not arrive intact to their target, they should still easily slaughter their way through basic troops, especially if they've been softened by the warrior's own shooting.

Really all you're missing is good anti tank. Throw in some zoanthropes (which probably rather be sot by anti-tank weapons than small arms because of the invulnerable save frustrating those expensive missiles) and 2ish units with rending claws (including the prime) and you can handle most anything.
The only problem here is that the 'Nids Anti Tank comes in 3 forms. Zoanthropes/Hive Guard. T-Fexs and CC-MCs.
Zoanthropes are hard to justify with all the Psyker stopping (see: Rune-Priests, GK) and even then are as reliable as any psykers.
Hive Guard provide more tank-suppression than tank-destruction.
And getting MC's into CC is obviously risky at best. Vehicles have done their damage by then.

All in all the most reliable method to back up your Warriors would be the Hive Guard. But then we run into the problem of the Hive Guard being Elites, and therefor blocking out our Venomthropes (i.e. Warrior protection).

Hello rock, hello hard place.

Assuming my math is right (I don't own Tyranids) you can get 5 squads of 5 warriors with the large S4 blast each, plus 2 units with rending and one with toxin, plus 4 zoanthropes in 2 units of 2, and a unit of shrikes with dual bone swords to chase down a nice infantry target (or maybe hive guard or more anti-tank of some kind), all led by a prime with rending should come out to about 1500 points, and is pretty hard to deal with if you can make use of terrain.

Shrikes, though expensive--might be a way to go. Take some big units of T-Gaunts (maybe 1 or two) to provide Cover for your Warriors, and then a Tervigon or two to use Catalyst on your Warriors/whatever(FnP helps wonders, in jut about everything), just make sure they're advancing behind everyone else.
You can make up for the loss of Warrior choices with some Shrikes in the FA slot. Though this will be a hefty price to pay for mere force organization compensation.

It's kind of like nob bikers or grey knights: you don't want to get in combat with them, but you can't just leave them alone as their shooting is a problem too.
I hope so.

IF they can get into CC with boneswords and/or lashwhips, they are suprisingly nasty and worth their cost...until the TH/PFs and active forceweapons begin to hit back or DCCWs. Then they start being really, REALLY expensive for their effect.

But that's why they aren't that good. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that most footslogging assault units without fleet aren't very good because they have such a hard time getting to their target, and get shot up on the way. You can't expect warriors to be any different, so don't make them 50 points each and run them across the table. You wouldn't do that with assault termies would you? Also, active force weapons aren't that good against warriors since the effect is only after all saves, so at most will only account for another 2 wounds, and you have SitW making that hard to get off. As for the others, don't put them against that target. Similarly, don't send gaunts against a tank, or fire dragons against a horde of ork boys.

Tervigon can let them run and shoot with Onslaught. It's no fleet, but it's something... Just saying. Might be worth considering.

Colored text mine.
(edited to find a non eye-bleed color)

Comparing MC to Warriors is not that effectice. True that they are nearly the same cost per wound, and true that they are often targeted by the same weapons. However, warriors lose effectiveness for every wound taken, where MCs keep fighting at 100% until they are dead. Compare what happens when a Trygon gets hit with 3 missiles to what happens when warriors get hit with 3 missiles and you'll see you have a 40% strong warrior squad compared to a fully combat effective Trygon.

So... I love warriors an all (used to have a warrior-based army in the last codex), but it's just too hard to get around the fact that they are going to get instakilled by so much stuff it isn't funny. Going against another nid player? Hive Guard instakill warriors very quickly. Going against Terminators? Be prepared to take 15 fearless wounds.

Better way to look at it... what types of units would you really want warriors against? I'm not seeing much reason for it honestly.

-Myst

The only problem here is that the 'Nids Anti Tank comes in 3 forms.

All of which is unreliable and just in general poor. As a quick point, I'm not arguing for 'top tier competitiveness' or anything similar. I have my own issues with that whole region of thinking and their arguments, but I don't have experience in large tournaments (just background for anyone reading).

Anyway, in most cases, you don't need more than suppression. The biggest issue for a warrior spam army would be assault termies in a land raider because they're so difficult to stop before they hit a squad. And that's why you want the 4 zoanthropes. Against lighter targets, I don't think that Tyranids would be as concerned. Transports are rear armor 10 so you can pen with rending warriors. Not point efficient in the slightest, but warriors are very resilient against any weapons a transport is sporting.

Really, the point is you don't lose any real effectiveness by fielding rending warriors as anti-tank instead of MCs. You get less stregth and pen ability surely, but you have attacks and numbers to make up for it.

In addition, there really isn't a reason to support warriors with venomthropes. It seems the main reason for venomthropes is to help MCs get cover (specifically the trygon and tyrants without guards) because otherwise they have a lot of difficulty getting saves against heavy weapons. Warriors, however, can easily find 4+ cover on a decently covered table (area terrain, enemy units, los blocking terrain and so on). They wont have a screen, sure, but cover saves should still be at least decently available, and they only matter if the squad is in sight of heavy weapons.

Take some big units of T-Gaunts (maybe 1 or two) to provide Cover for your Warriors, and then a Tervigon or two to use Catalyst on your Warriors/whatever(FnP helps wonders, in jut about everything), just make sure they're advancing behind everyone else.
You can make up for the loss of Warrior choices with some Shrikes in the FA slot. Though this will be a hefty price to pay for mere force organization compensation.

Trouble is you're now spending far too many points on not warriors. The point of the warrior spam is to overwhelm the enemy with 3W models that are decently resilient in their own way against heavy and light weapons. In addition you're immune to morale which is very nice. Anyway, with the tervigon and 1-2 units of gants, you're down to 3 units of warriors. The gants don't really help because you should be able to get cover from elsewhere, and you don't need FNP as 5 warriors are resilient enough against light firepower (should take 60 S4 hits to kill all 5, so 90 S4 shots).

You just lose far too much adding in a tervigon. I think catalyst is far more useful on other MCs as it's a save against missiles and other AP3 weapons, but on lighter units it's unnecessary.

Tervigon can let them run and shoot with Onslaught

While true, my point was for cc equiped warriors which lose their guns. Footslogging an expensive cc unit and expecting it to be useful is just asking for trouble. But if the warriors still have their guns they can cause damage on the way in, or just stay at range against more cc oriented enemies.

However, warriors lose effectiveness for every wound taken, where MCs keep fighting at 100% until they are dead. Compare what happens when a Trygon gets hit with 3 missiles to what happens when warriors get hit with 3 missiles and you'll see you have a 40% strong warrior squad compared to a fully combat effective Trygon.

I have a feeling 5 rending warriors are, in most cases, more effective than a single trygon. In addition, let's say the warriors have cover (as they should), and you're down to losing 1-2 warriors compared to the trygon taking half its wounds characteristic.

Fair points--I personally have never been a huge fan of the Tervigon. (I am a huge fan of FnP though. Maybe it's the Blood Angels player in me).

So in theory are you thinking of outfitting different choices of warriors with different things?
I.e. some rending, some boneswords + lashwhips, some scything talons?

Or just the best general set up you can manage for CC warriors?

Also the assumption may be including Primes in this type of army as your HQs. Are you leaning that way or favoring Hive Tyrants? (Old Adversary could be helpful here).

It'll get pricy quickly.
(For the audience at home: 6 Full squads of 9 warriors will put a list over 1,500. So it's a hefty investment of troops alone).


I'll say I do like the thought of it. Warriors are pricey but, with W3, per...Very appealing.

What is probably a better unit to field is Ravagers, who make it a point to excel in charing headfirst into combat and best operate as a countercharge unit without taking up a vital troop option.

So in theory are you thinking of outfitting different choices of warriors with different things?

I wouldn't go with boneswords at all. I'm thinking 5 squads of 5, 2 with rending claws (not sure if that replaces the gun), one with poison, and all 5 with the barbed strangler if possible. That way you have a decent amount of shooting, especially with the 4 large blasts, and yet are still a threat in cc with the rending and even the regular warriors due to how resilient they are.

And yes, they would be led by a prime (only need one). Gives you the BS buff if I recall as well as a S5 model with rending (give him rending, and MAYBE toxin to threaten MCs, but keep him cheap).

What is probably a better unit to field is Ravagers, who make it a point to excel in charing headfirst into combat and best operate as a countercharge unit without taking up a vital troop option.

That's similar to space wolves taking thunderwolf cavalry because they can charge into combat without taking up a vital troop option. The whole point of the army is to overwhelm the enemy with 3 wound targets. Fielding gants or MCs takes away from the point of the army, so the troop slot isn't coveted at all. However a squad of raveners with rending could work instead of the shrikes to provide a quick unit to run down targets, and would be slightly more resilient AND have rending to aid with vehicles.

If I had the money to spare, I would definitely start up a warrior themed Tyranid list.

I am in the experimenting phase and currently...I like Raveners. They're missilebait but at the same time you can get cover for them rather easily, and point-for-point, they're still more durable than a Trygon, at least until Battlecannons get factored in. If nothing else, their assault speed will let them threaten carparks rather well; Raveners threaten *one* vehicle at a time, after all...

Honestly, were I running, say, Swarmlord, that would be my Fast Attack option: A single large unit of unupgraded Raveners. Furious Charge them in, and watch hilarity ensue. We'd be talking each model making 5 S5 attacks rerollable. The opponent *has* to deal with this.

As for Warriors? They're mostly a "I want cover for my Tervigons, and a mobile beater to threaten anyone who hurts my Termagantscreen unit. That's it, mostly. Run two Primed/Scy. Talon Bonesword units up the center of the map and dare your opponent to come near. Optionally, pair these with Harpies (an additional set of Venom Cannon shots which should be able to take cover by means of Tervigon) for additional speed/suppression of enemy units, and to effectively double the Initiative of your Warriors on the charge. :3

But that's why they aren't that good. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that most footslogging assault units without fleet aren't very good because they have such a hard time getting to their target, and get shot up on the way. You can't expect warriors to be any different, so don't make them 50 points each and run them across the table. You wouldn't do that with assault termies would you? Also, active force weapons aren't that good against warriors since the effect is only after all saves, so at most will only account for another 2 wounds, and you have SitW making that hard to get off. As for the others, don't put them against that target. Similarly, don't send gaunts against a tank, or fire dragons against a horde of ork boys.

The primary offender for killing you with force weapons, is going to be GKs. GKs who have banners, making SiTW pointless. And what "After all saves" are you talking about exactly? FWs don't ALLOW armor saves or FNP. You don't have the ability to wound-allocate. This will end very poorly for the guy fielding warriors. Now, against anything else where there is one FW here, one there per army, sure! Valid point here.

Now, to the other points...with the loss of EW for being in synapse range, and the cost of their upgrades, they just cost too much for what they do. Now, not making them 50 points each and running them up the board is good advice..However....if you want them to viably take on marines in CC (I don't know about your meta, but mine is very, very marine heavy.) you are looking at 40-45 point minimum. I am speaking from experience: Rending claws on small to mid sized warrior broods are not scary to MEQs. They are "Meltagun/Krak it and dare them to charge the powerfist" bait. Boneswords, on the other hand, Do...but then you get back to the whole "50 points each" thing.

Now, you make an excellent couple of points here with "You wouldn't footslog ATs would you?" and "Keep the damn things in their engagement envelope"...however...I -WOULD- footslog ATs with a lot more enthusiasm than I would warriors. They are durable even against the big guns, warriors are not. They can be fleet of foot, warriors can not. While both warriors and ATs are marching into the teeth of heavy weapons that each cost as much as a body in the squad...the ATs can take it.

What -is- the engagement envelope of warriors exactly? Well...without making them cost a lot, it seems to be shredding medium and light infantry...like the rest of the tyranid codex. This is versus say...a Trygon, which can pretty much shred any infantry unit that IS NOT an assault terminator squad, has fleet, has deep strike built in... they just bring more utility for the points, despite being slightly less efficient against taking small arms hits. But that is what FNP is for!

And what "After all saves" are you talking about exactly? FWs don't ALLOW armor saves or FNP. You don't have the ability to wound-allocate. This will end very poorly for the guy fielding warriors. Now, against anything else where there is one FW here, one there per army, sure! Valid point here.

You can't activate a force weapon until after saves, which is after wound allocation. So all wound from force weapons are taken just like they were power weapon wounds first. AFTER all those wounds are completely resolved, THEN you activate the force weapon.

So if 6 warriors take 4 wounds from force weapons, and the force weapon is activated, you will lose 2 warriors. Three wounds are put on one warrior (as per wound allocation) and one wound on a second warrior. THEN the force weapon is activated, and the warrior that has taken one wound is killed (assuming the test is passed).

Also, I don't know about you, but how many banners in GK armies have you seen? People kept building them up, but I haven't seen a single list using them.

However....if you want them to viably take on marines in CC (I don't know about your meta, but mine is very, very marine heavy.) you are looking at 40-45 point minimum.

Why? You have longer range and better shooting than foot marines (other than blood angels who have the long assault range and GK who have longer range shooting), so why not just sit relatively back and shoot them. Tacticals at most are getting the missile (because you're out of melta range) which accounts for less than half of a warrior killed assuming you have cover. If you stay out of assault, you don't care about the fist, and if it's only 2-3 marines you may risk charging them anyway.

Really, I think you only "need" the bone sword against BA because of FNP. Other marines shouldn't be as big a deal.

I -WOULD- footslog ATs with a lot more enthusiasm than I would warriors.

What for? The whole reason thunder hammer termies in a land raider are effective is because of the land raider. Without that you just have no way of effectively getting to the enemy. Assault termies on foot aren't a threat until around turn 3 if you haven't moved very much, and you should be able to keep out of their range with most any army.

the ATs can take it.

And the warriors can shoot while marching up. Each has their advantage. Besides, if the warriors find cover somewhere they only lost 1 point on the save compared to assault termies, and again can shoot back.

a Trygon, which can pretty much shred any infantry unit that IS NOT an assault terminator squad, has fleet, has deep strike built in

Doesn't have synapse and has mediocre shooting (unless it's a prime which puts it up to a comparison of 6 warriors), less resilient against small arms than equal points of warriors, less resilient against heavy weapons compared to equal points of warriors making use of the table, has fewer attacks, and does not score (as well as doesn't have sitw unless it's a prime, and sitw has use despite all the nerfs). I don't see the more utility, other than it's better at catching tanks and fighting elite infantry, but the latter isn't all that necessary when you can outrange the elite infantry with warriors.

But that is what FNP is for!

Then make it 10 warriors for equal points, and they're STILL more resilient than you're now FNP trygon (and should shred a tervigon).

The more I look at it, the more it seems warriors are MORE points efficient than a trygon. Just less....drop and assault closest target.

You could. would it win? No, they're nice, but with a 4+ sv, they're going to get the same flak from the strong weapons(frag missles, keak missles, lascannons, melta, and just about anything with an ap of 4 or less). The upgrades vary upon play style, a reason you shouldn't depend on what others online recommend, however, be advised that an army of warriors, shrike, and raveners will be expensive points wise. Death spitters are decent, and for close combat, boneswords and venom sacs do wonders in close combat. With all the biomorphs available to tyranids, you still need to be careful against armies like blood angels, dark angels and guard, as I've been able to mow down tyranids with my vindicator, baal predator, and typhoon frag missles, as well as shoot them down with bolters as they closed in the distance. Their shadow in the warp will be able to hose all but the most daring psyker users, as well as having synapse for your raveners, mawloch, amd trygon prime providing a decent method of creating a spot to deploy your reserves from. All in all, it'd be fun for casual, but, don't expect to win a whole lot of games, however, I'm curious to see what you come up with, because I used to play tyranids.

I don't actually run warrior spam, but I do like to run a Prime with regeneration in a lash whip / bonesword warrior bomb. He can eat a few instant death wounds, and maybe even get a couple back, and the BS / WS boost is nice.

One glaring problem with a lash whip / bone sword warrior bomb is that they're *too* killy. If your opponent is running squads of 5-ish MEQ, you're going to have multiassault if you don't want your hind parts hanging in the wind on your opponent's turn. Functionally, this means you have to pop two transports between when you start walking and when you get into assault range *or* you have to make damn sure you'll be able to consolidate into cover.

I also run them with dakka / heavy venom-fexen, since they move about the same speed, they're S8 shooting magnets, they're a reliable answer to any heavy vehicles stupid enough to come into assault range, and they can dakka open light transports for the warriors to assault the contents.

Count me in as a fan of raveners, by the way. Personally, I run them with rending claws so they can threaten light vehicles. Zoanthropes as well. I got sick of walking hive guard into the teeth of multiple psyfledreads, so I decided I wanted something that could deep strike into a gunline and take some pressure off of the fexen and the warriors.

I don't think warrior *spam* has a place, but I do think one or *maybe* two decent-sized units of lash whip / bonesword warriors have a place in a carnifex-heavy list.

As has been mentioned, the number of STR 8 weapons makes warrior spam tricky.
The only solution would be if they could stay out of the range of melta, and if enemy LC had juicier targets.

If you want to test it, proxy some models with friends to see how it does at your FLGS

How more resilient are Warriors? I'm not overly convinced; yes there's more bodies and wounds in there but you're also suffering from T4 Sv4+ compared to T6 Sv3+. There's also a plethora of heavy weapons out there which deny 4+ saves something the Trygon can shrug off.

The main problem with Warrior spam is utility. What exactly are you expecting them to do?

Ail-Shan wrote:
I wouldn't go with boneswords at all. I'm thinking 5 squads of 5, 2 with rending claws (not sure if that replaces the gun), one with poison, and all 5 with the barbed strangler if possible. That way you have a decent amount of shooting, especially with the 4 large blasts, and yet are still a threat in cc with the rending and even the regular warriors due to how resilient they are.

So for your whole points allocation you're getting 20 devourers (assuming you've paid to upgrade your scything talons and keep the gun) and five barbed stranglers. That will deal with light infantry (the rest of the tyranid book can deal with this more effectively and more cost efficient) and not a lot else. That is not decent shooting. Sure if you can get into combat with the rending squads you might unreliably pop a transport or two but that's about your lot. A dedicated to shooting unit will blow them off the board, a cc unit will smash them (9/10 getting the charge).

The only way warriors are affective is to screen MC's, counter charge and synapse. Shrikes can be a decent combat unit but they also cost, including the screening gargoyle unit they need.

I'm thinking 5 squads of 5, 2 with rending claws (not sure if that replaces the gun), one with poison, and all 5 with the barbed strangler if possible. That way you have a decent amount of shooting, especially with the 4 large blasts, and yet are still a threat in cc with the rending and even the regular warriors due to how resilient they are.

You can replace the scything talons with the rending claws, but it has to be done on all models in the squad.
You can add poison, but all models must take it. (Works well with rending claws, allows more chances to roll a 6, but then you might as well buy a pair of boneswords and be much, MUCH better served against infantry.)
You can only have one barbed strangler per brood. (Perhaps you meant "All five squads" rather than "All five IN the squad"?)

Sure if you can get into combat with the rending squads you might unreliably pop a transport or two but that's about your lot. A dedicated to shooting unit will blow them off the board, a cc unit will smash them (9/10 getting the charge).

This, right here, is the current problem with warriors. With the loss of EW while in synapse and rending nerfs, they went from a unit that was kinda scary to something that I look at, throw a pair of melta shots at, and then charge with a powerfist. He may get a few rends in and take a few marines off before the sergeant starts breaking spines over his knee, but unless I get really unlucky with my armor saves or he has a large brood to begin with, I will have the bodies to allow the PF to wipe the remains of the brood.

How more resilient are Warriors? I'm not overly convinced; yes there's more bodies and wounds in there but you're also suffering from T4 Sv4+ compared to T6 Sv3+. There's also a plethora of heavy weapons out there which deny 4+ saves something the Trygon can shrug off.

It takes 60 S4 HITS to kill 5 warriors, compared to 54 S4 to kill a trygon, so that's decently significant. In addition, warriors are more resilient against heavy weapons (5 wounds with a 4+ save compared to 6 with no save, assuming you make use of cover and los blocking terrain).

So for your whole points allocation you're getting 20 devourers

Plus 4 warp lances and a squad of something (shrikes or whatever) at 1500. That's actually not too bad. Not a lot of ranged anti tank, but there isn't really any in the Nid book other than hive guard, and while it's useful you can get away without spamming it.

You can replace the scything talons with the rending claws, but it has to be done on all models in the squad.

I had no intention of pulling wound allocation shenannigans. I know the "all models in the brood" rule, and that you can only have one strangler per brood. All of my numbers were on a squad base not a model base.

Works well with rending claws, allows more chances to roll a 6, but then you might as well buy a pair of boneswords and be much, MUCH better served against infantry.

But much MUCH worse against MCs (unless you get toxin too, and now you're quite expensive) which is really the main concern. Toxin, or toxin+rending work fine against MCs. Probably don't even NEED rending since most MCs are less than S8.

This, right here, is the current problem with warriors.

"A dedicated shooting unit will blow them off the board"

A dedicated shooting unit will blow a trygon off the board, yet no one complains, and the warriors actually have potential to have a cover save or even be completely out of sight.

something that I look at, throw a pair of melta shots at, and then charge with a powerfist.

HOW? The warriors have the ability to limit that AT LEAST to just the melta shots, and then you, what, kill 1 warrior? Then he shoots you to death.

As a counter example, marines of all kinds (other than with FNP) are useless against Eldar because reapers with their anti-marine AP will blow them off the board. Long fangs are even worse because of how expensive they are and reapers still slaughter them. As a closer example, vehicles in general are useless (other than land raiders) because of how many S8+/melta weapons there are, and an entire vehicle can be killed in a single shot.

Really the only issue is vehicles, which overall aren't killing the warriors. Zoeys take care of big things, while everyone else just moves on (if you move slow enough to shoot you're slow enough to be effectively assaulted).

To say that warriors can be instant-deathed is like saying a vehicle can be supressed in one shot. Yes, it can, but who cares? They're cheap enough that you have enough of them you're safe from losing too many.

Ail-Shan wrote:

How more resilient are Warriors? I'm not overly convinced; yes there's more bodies and wounds in there but you're also suffering from T4 Sv4+ compared to T6 Sv3+. There's also a plethora of heavy weapons out there which deny 4+ saves something the Trygon can shrug off.

It takes 60 S4 HITS to kill 5 warriors, compared to 54 S4 to kill a trygon, so that's decently significant. In addition, warriors are more resilient against heavy weapons (5 wounds with a 4+ save compared to 6 with no save, assuming you make use of cover and los blocking terrain.

Six is significant? I would argue otherwise. I'm not going to go over your math-hammer as, although I'm sure it's correct, it has somewhat of a bias. Heavy weapons? No save? Sure ML, LC, PC and Melta will deny the Trygon it's save but it will still get it against a plethora of other heavy weapons unlike warriors who will find up against it from something as prevalent as an autocannon not to mention other middling small arms fire with high str and low ap. Also let's cover the topic of cover; whilst I agree finding cover for Trygon's is tricky there's no way you can convince me that the above mentioned list (with no term shield) can get by all game with 4+ cover.

Ail-Shan wrote:

So for your whole points allocation you're getting 20 devourers

Plus 4 warp lances and a squad of something (shrikes or whatever) at 1500. That's actually not too bad. Not a lot of ranged anti tank, but there isn't really any in the Nid book other than hive guard, and while it's useful you can get away without spamming it.

Four warp lances still for me doesn't add up to significant shooting. I'm fond of Shrikes but I do feel they need a screen; they suffer even more from the reduced armour save. I agree that we have limited options for shooting in our book.

Ail-Shan wrote:"A dedicated shooting unit will blow them off the board"

A dedicated shooting unit will blow a trygon off the board, yet no one complains, and the warriors actually have potential to have a cover save or even be completely out of sight.

My point was to make light of the fact that warriors can choose to go cc or shooty. Shooty warriors can't (In my opinion) match other armies units that are dedicated shooters. CC warriors can hold their own in combat but kitting them out makes them expensive and actually delivering them is a problem. The lack of fleet, which the Trygon has, is a massive hindrance.

Ail-Shan wrote:

something that I look at, throw a pair of melta shots at, and then charge with a powerfist.

HOW? The warriors have the ability to limit that AT LEAST to just the melta shots, and then you, what, kill 1 warrior? Then he shoots you to death.

Although this wasn't a point I posted I think you're now severely over-estimating the shooting capabilities of warriors.

Ail-Shan wrote:They're cheap enough that you have enough of them you're safe from losing too many.

I have to disagree again; the whole point is they're not cheap at all.

I can imagine we're not going to come to an agreement on this but if you play any games with warrior spam I'd be really interested to see how they perform for you.

Sorry, I was getting a little heated with that last post....was getting tired.

Six is significant?

Saying significantly more resilient was misleading, you're right. It's better to say they are about as resilient as a Trygon against small arms.

However for AP4 heavy weapons, the main one is the autocannon (and prism cannon, but you're probably do the small blast to try for ID). Assault cannons and psycannons are AP4 too right? Okay so there's a decent number of weapons that give the trygon its save, but don't for the warriors. However all such weapons don't ID the warriors either. So it comes down to whether the Nid player can get cover or not.

Four warp lances still for me doesn't add up to significant shooting.

Because it isn't. You're not trying to outshoot your opponent though. Shooty warriors are still capable in cc against non-dedicated units, and if there isn't a big group protecting that power fist it may be worth it to just try charging anyway. The point is to be relatively adaptable.

Shooty warriors can't (In my opinion) match other armies units that are dedicated shooters.

That's probably true, but you don't always need to. I've seen a similar all warrior army being played before, and the goal is to force leadership tests (pinning/morale) on as many units as you can. While failing a leadership test isn't very likely, failing one of 5 or 6 has a decent chance, and a failed leadership test (especially on a shooty unit) is rather significant....other than marines with the free 3" reform and counting as stationary. At least it gets them out of position.

Although this wasn't a point I posted I think you're now severely over-estimating the shooting capabilities of warriors.

Sorry. I wasn't try to say that one squad of warriors would wipe a squad of marines off the table in one round. More that they should be able to reduce the squad to below an effective point (either through a leadership test or simple getting rid of a special weapon or both through wound allocation), all the while staying out of range of assault from the power fist.

I have to disagree again; the whole point is they're not cheap at all.

They aren't cheap, but I think they're worth what they cost. There's always complaints about instant death, but like I said above, equal points of warriors have one less wound than a trygon, and if you make use of cover they are more resilient against heavy weapons. Of course, that manticore launcher is not friendly in the slightest.

And like I said I don't own tyranids, but if I could afford/wanted another army, warrior spam would be what I'd go for.

Heavy bolters are the other big no-no for warriors. At 36", they 're a bigger problem than psycannons or assault cannons.

Heavy bolters

In the same way reapers are a problem for marines. I haven't seen either in a long time outside of very experimental games.

Some Grey Knights players have been running Heavy Bolter + Psybolt razorback spam.

Ail-Shan wrote:Sorry, I was getting a little heated with that last post....was getting tired.

No need to be sorry, you certainly weren’t rude, you just believed in your argument. I hope in return I’ve not come across as rude, decent debate is certainly meant to have a bit of friction

As for your other points I can certainly see where you're coming from. It's a thin line where one person gauges a unit as 'utility' whilst the other thinks of them as 'redundant'.