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.
Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.
The key here is to create a balanced list.
You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.
We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.
BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).
That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.
Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.
Quick question, have you tried playing Nids vs Dark Eldar in 7th edition? It's laughably bad for the Elves. A flyrant will likely kill a Venom and half the squad inside each turn. Also, with a VSG he is pretty much immune to a turn one Alpha strike, and let's not even mention the shrouding and cover that will laugh off Lance weaponry. I will say that the Pentryant list will have hard counters, but I am very confident that DEldar are not on that list. Now, what actually will counter a Pentyrant list? The best bet is to have a stronger ground presence than them. Let's look at what Flyrant's aren't good at killing:
Wraithknights stand out as being incredibly hard for a Flyrant to deal with, but also have very low threat to the Flyrants in return. But, 3 Wraithknights could potentially control the game by sitting on objectives and preventing the Flyrants from ever wanting to land. The flyrants could likely kill most of the Eldar army, but it takes 5 Flyrants a full 2 turns to average 5.9 wounds on a single Wraithknight... They'll definitely be targeting something else early on.
Mass 2+ saves. Mawlocs help here, but Riptides are a pain to deal with. Without Feel no Pain, 5 Flyrants average just under 5 wounds a turn here.Also, bikes: with Apothecaries for FNP included, these can get pretty tough. Bikes with a durable tank model (like a Command squad with a Chapter Master) are a real pain to deal with. Basically any unit with both a high toughness and a great save is going to cause problems.
But, the most annoying single unit for Flyrants has to be Skyrays. In a competitive list these aren't ultra rare, but also aren't top choices. With Flyrant's alone though, they can weather turn 1 shooting easily thanks to AV 13 up front since they will rarely be in range of EG turn 1 (unless the Tau player doesn't know what he's doing). This is why I won't be taking 5 Flyrants, there is just the possibility of a bad matchup messing with you. Crones can reach out and strip hull points immediately, possibly forcing jink moves, which I think is very important.
Ultimately, I think the hardest matchup for Pentyrant will be a Skyfire heavy Tau list with multiple Skyrays. Broadsides, in my opinion, won't cut it here. Skyrays and Riptides with HBC and FNP are crucial, and Markerlights as well to strip cover. That would be my nightmare list at least, but then Eldar allies (for better troops) would also make for a good list.
EDIT: And of course, AV13 spam by the Necrons, as demonstrated here, is very bad for this list of Nids. But, we'll see how Necrons change in a month...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/22 18:21:18
That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.
Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.
Venom-spam won't be able to handle a flyrant-spam list. They can't get past the void shields and then the flyrants have 2+ cover on top of that.
BTW, 3 ravagers firing at 3 void shields. 9 shots, 6 hits, 3 goes through, so it takes all 3 ravagers just to penetrate 3 void shields. Next turn, DE will potentially lose 5 venoms from the 5 flyrants.
Razorwing-spam will stand a better chance, but even that isn't a guarantee. If Tyranids are going 1st, they will alpha-strike the DE army and then fly off the table at the top of T2, only to come back in on T3 to beta-strike any razorwings that came in.
If Tyranids are going 2nd, they move forwards to the edge of the Void Shield bubble but still stay within VS range. Or they move forwards but still stay within VSG and malanthrope range. The defensive capabilities of the VSG + Shroud should let them survive most alpha-strikes that don't ignore cover.
Spamming just for the sake of spamming doesn't necessarily make it a good list. This list, while it will give some armies a difficult time, isn't necessarily a better list. That's because it is less balanced than my current list and has a weaker ground presence. Despite all the hoopla about flyers and flying units, an army lives or dies by its ground presence. One of the good things about the Pentyrant list is that the flyrants can land to give it a stronger ground presence. That is why I don't run a pure Necron Airforce. While it is strong and can dominate a lot of matchups, it is not as great of a Take-All-Comer's list and can be countered hard by some army builds. The same goes with this army using the new Necron detachments.
The key here is to create a balanced list.
You could just as easily drop the night scythes and take two more barge lords, the point I was trying to make was that the new FOC gives necrons the ability to change the current dynamic for necrons pretty heavily. It doesn't really matter in this case because your current necron list for this fight is just a bunch of barge lord spam. Taking three of the most powerful unit and putting it into one army doesn't necessarily make it balanced. It's like triptide or triple wraith knights, there doesn't need to be a whole lot of thought into what you do.
We'll see if the bargelords are even worth taking when the new Necron codex comes out. Currently, they are usually the all-stars in my battles, much as the flyrants are the all-stars of the Tyranid army in most cases.
BTW, I'm not too big on the new Meherit Dynasty detachment. While it's true that it allows you to legally run 6 AB's, it also requires you to take 5 troops to be able to run normal CAD + Meherit. IMO, that isn't as optimal a configuration as the one that I am currently running. There is just not enough of a counter-assault presence against assault or deathstar armies (and I've ran 6 AB's dual-CAD necrons before).
That is a minor disadvantage at this point but I think we will see what happens with the new codex. If the Mephrit dynasty is being represented, I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more organizations for necrons. This SOB book and white dwarf is the first love necrons have had since the Tranny C'Tan.
Have you considered fighting a Dark Eldar Army? Razorwings with splinter cannons and disintergrators would be a pretty traumatic event for a hive tyrant. Venom spam could give your hive tyrants fits as well. Like you said, every army has a hard counter and razorwings and deep striking venoms would be able to get the best of most of what is in your army especially with the raider detachment and a null deployment.
Quick question, have you tried playing Nids vs Dark Eldar in 7th edition? It's laughably bad for the Elves. A flyrant will likely kill a Venom and half the squad inside each turn. Also, with a VSG he is pretty much immune to a turn one Alpha strike, and let's not even mention the shrouding and cover that will laugh off Lance weaponry. I will say that the Pentryant list will have hard counters, but I am very confident that DEldar are not on that list. Now, what actually will counter a Pentyrant list? The best bet is to have a stronger ground presence than them. Let's look at what Flyrant's aren't good at killing:
Wraithknights stand out as being incredibly hard for a Flyrant to deal with, but also have very low threat to the Flyrants in return. But, 3 Wraithknights could potentially control the game by sitting on objectives and preventing the Flyrants from ever wanting to land. The flyrants could likely kill most of the Eldar army, but it takes 5 Flyrants a full 2 turns to average 5.9 wounds on a single Wraithknight... They'll definitely be targeting something else early on.
Mass 2+ saves. Mawlocs help here, but Riptides are a pain to deal with. Without Feel no Pain, 5 Flyrants average just under 5 wounds a turn here.Also, bikes: with Apothecaries for FNP included, these can get pretty tough. Bikes with a durable tank model (like a Command squad with a Chapter Master) are a real pain to deal with. Basically any unit with both a high toughness and a great save is going to cause problems.
But, the most annoying single unit for Flyrants has to be Skyrays. In a competitive list these aren't ultra rare, but also aren't top choices. With Flyrant's alone though, they can weather turn 1 shooting easily thanks to AV 13 up front since they will rarely be in range of EG turn 1 (unless the Tau player doesn't know what he's doing). This is why I won't be taking 5 Flyrants, there is just the possibility of a bad matchup messing with you. Crones can reach out and strip hull points immediately, possibly forcing jink moves, which I think is very important.
Ultimately, I think the hardest matchup for Pentyrant will be a Skyfire heavy Tau list with multiple Skyrays. Broadsides, in my opinion, won't cut it here. Skyrays and Riptides with HBC and FNP are crucial, and Markerlights as well to strip cover. That would be my nightmare list at least, but then Eldar allies (for better troops) would also make for a good list.
EDIT: And of course, AV13 spam by the Necrons, as demonstrated here, is very bad for this list of Nids. But, we'll see how Necrons change in a month...
All very good points made by jifel. DE is no longer the feared matchup it once was for Tyranids (at least not to a flyer-heavy Tyranid list).
Everything else that jifel mentioned above are hard counters to a flyrant-heavy list (though I feel that flyrants can take on a bikestar list....or any deathstar-type lists).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/22 18:56:54
@jifel I've used a chapter master quite a few times, I can tell you they die easily. Anything that's causing 12 or more wounds a turn will take him down.
One method I find useful against flyrants is placing reaper squads in a las-cannon mounted bastion. Allying in tractor cannons in tandem with wraithknights also works well.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?
40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.
This is wrong. you just have to think what each unit's best action would be regardless of which side it is.
Stating that you'd know the "best action" for every unit in two different armies at all times is a bit presumptuous. It's easy to say "well, the thing [this unit] is most likely to kill/the way [this unit] is most likely to stay alive," but that's a one-turn problem with no followup taken into account, and in most cases doesn't even address victory conditions in the slightest.
If you're playing high-end competitive 40k and you're able to flawlessly map out your opponent's moves every turn without fail, then congratulations.
Thinking like this tends to be the downfall of "well if he X, then I'd Y, and win anyway"-style 40k theorycraft. It begins with the assumption that you're the smartest 40k player alive and, therefore, no move your opponent could ever make would surprise you in the least, as you've already taken every possible outcome into account.
Maybe it's just me, but when playing late rounds at GTs, I tend to find that my opponent actually does know more about how to play their army than I do. And I'm pretty confident I know more about how to play my army than they do. And reacting to unexpected events--however rare that may be--tends to be a rather important capability to have.
I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself
CrownAxe wrote: I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself
He didn't say it is "objectively impossible" (and I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it if he had), he said playing against yourself objectively is impossible, and I think he's absolutely correct.
A pretty huge portion of the game is trying to predict what your opponent is going to do. If you're playing against yourself, that is never a problem in the first place. There's also the inherent imbalance present if you aren't at the exact same skill level with both armies (which is relatively unlikely) and any inherent subconscious bias you might have toward the outcome.
You're basically just slamming units into each other and simulating dice rolls, which is all a game versus yourself is really good for. Personally, I would never put any stock in a game I simulated against myself--I do know some who will do it on rare occasion, and I always caution them to not put too much stock into the outcome. It can be good for simulating positioning and movement (things which are hard to theorycraft, but not super reliant on player skill) or "X vs. Y" unit comparisons, but that's about it. It definitely shouldn't be used as any sort of indicator of how a real game would play out or as a reflection of decisionmaking that would take place in a tournament game.
CrownAxe wrote: I was more or less calling out Red Corsair for claiming it was objectively impossible. Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from learning how to play other armies and using that knowledge to play by yourself
He didn't say it is "objectively impossible" (and I'm not sure I'd even disagree with it if he had), he said playing against yourself objectively is impossible, and I think he's absolutely correct.
A pretty huge portion of the game is trying to predict what your opponent is going to do. If you're playing against yourself, that is never a problem in the first place. There's also the inherent imbalance present if you aren't at the exact same skill level with both armies (which is relatively unlikely) and any inherent subconscious bias you might have toward the outcome.
You're basically just slamming units into each other and simulating dice rolls, which is all a game versus yourself is really good for. Personally, I would never put any stock in a game I simulated against myself--I do know some who will do it on rare occasion, and I always caution them to not put too much stock into the outcome. It can be good for simulating positioning and movement (things which are hard to theorycraft, but not super reliant on player skill) or "X vs. Y" unit comparisons, but that's about it. It definitely shouldn't be used as any sort of indicator of how a real game would play out or as a reflection of decisionmaking that would take place in a tournament game.
Totally agree.
Appreciate the effort and time put into these reports and I still find them enjoyable Jy2 but without playing this out vs another person it doesn't tell us the full picture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 13:00:45
WrentheFaceless wrote: Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?
40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.
This is wrong. you just have to think what each unit's best action would be regardless of which side it is.
That assumes two things that aren't true:
1: There is always one right choice.
2: You know all the Best choices at all times.
EDIT: To add something more light hearted because it is still a lot of hard work and very entertaining. I cheered when the Scrotum looking bug flew into the french pastry and blew it out the sky
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 14:40:04
WrentheFaceless wrote: Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?
Not really. When I play, I usually do what I feel is the best move for either armies. So in a ways, it is somewhat predictable, especially in terms of my overall strategy. However, there are minute differences and adjustments you need to make while playing and those are harder to predict. For example, let's say you target an enemy unit but fail to kill it. That then throws a monkey wrench into your plans and now you will have to adjust your tactics to account for not achieving what you wanted to achieve that turn. So there are variations in the game that forces you to adjust your tactics that you can't really account for.
But overall strategy can be somewhat predicted (i.e. Necron flyers will drop troops on objectives at the end, bargelords will go after MSU Tyranid units and act as counter-assault, etc.), depending on how well you know your opponent (for example, I am really aggressive with both of those armies) and how skilled your opponent is (I am skilled with both armies and really know how to take advantage of their strengths).
WrentheFaceless wrote: Is it tough to do a self batrep J since you know exactly what the other army is thinking?
40k isn't chess. It doesn't have set movements and reactions, thus playing a game against yourself objectively is impossible.
You can't play it with 100% objectivity, but IMO you don't really need to. As long as you are equally familiar with both armies, then it isn't a matter of how to surprise you opponent with trick moves. Rather, it is a matter of predicting which is the best path solution each turn that can potentially give you the highest returns for each army, both offensively and defensively. It's more like you are playing the odds on what you think will give you the best advantage and so is your opponent. For example, Tyranid Turn 1, I think that my best chances is to down as many AB's as possible. Thus, I play very aggressively in order to try to take out as many barges as possible. Necron turn. I think that Necron's best chances is to force the flyrants to go into Glide mode. Thus, I move all of my vehicles behind the flyrants. Tyranid T2, I still think it is in the Tyranid's best interest to continue taking out those barges (hey, they're worth double-VP's as well as reduces Necron shooting greatly as I take them out). Thus, I am willing to risk being assaulted and ground my flyrants in order to continue taking them out. To me, it's a matter of playing what you think might give you the best chances for a victory. The only Objectivity is in what you think is the best choice. I think that starting 5 flyrants on the table and going for the throat early may give my Tyranids the best chances, though someone else may think that reserving 2 of the flyrants to come in later may be the best chance for Tyranids to win. That is the main objectivity in the game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/25 08:43:07
Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.
IsawaBrian wrote: Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.
Tank-heavy builds shouldn't be a problem. I've got 5 haywire templates in my army. Moreover, if he is running tank squadrons, that means that haywire templates are guaranteed to hit multiple tanks. That adds up quickly to maybe 10-12 HP's a turn of damage. That's potentially 3-4 dead tanks a turn (with diminishing returns over time as tanks start dying, of course).
With regards to hydras, I can always angle for A10 side shots with the devourers.
In short, on average, my Pentyrant army should be able to destroy a Steel Legion type of army with minimal loss to any of the flyrants. The game would be rather lopsided in most cases.
IsawaBrian wrote: Out of curiosity, how would you deal with your PenTyrant Tyranid list against a pure Heavy tank list? By either doubling formation or increasing the squadron size, you can field an entire army with just Leman Russes (and a few Hydras nestled safely within the mass) from out of the Steel Host. With Eradicators (and Paskisher) to eat infantry, and Exterminators (and Paskisher) to hit fliers, the Host seems like it could handle a lot of comers. I've only simmed it against Tyranids so far; I need to dig out my Tau test list.
Tank-heavy builds shouldn't be a problem. I've got 5 haywire templates in my army. Moreover, if he is running tank squadrons, that means that haywire templates are guaranteed to hit multiple tanks. That adds up quickly to maybe 10-12 HP's a turn of damage. That's potentially 3-4 dead tanks a turn (with diminishing returns over time as tanks start dying, of course).
With regards to hydras, I can always angle for A10 side shots with the devourers.
In short, on average, my Pentyrant army should be able to destroy a Steel Legion type of army with minimal loss to any of the flyrants. The game would be rather lopsided in most cases.
I'm not sure it would be as one-sided as you think, as long as the opposing commander doesn't line up the squads at the 12" from the center line-- and the Steel Host only benefits from the 12" bubble, it doesn't require the closeness for anything but the Tank Commanders. You can, for example, leave the Hydras in the back or under cover for everything but the turrets and the 72" range covers the majority of the table. Since Egrubs aren't torrent, you have to bring yourself in close, and AV 14 means that the brainleeches just go fffst for a while. Depending on the mix of tanks, the Host can generally deal with most infantry before it gets close enough for even a 12" charge, leaving the main guns forward. Executioners would be pointless in this matchup, but the exterminators, for example, have a good chance of getting a wound past armour each even if you're flying (I've been assuming that the tyrants go first in these) from far past flyrant effective range. And the Hydras can generally flay off at least 1 void shield from distance as well, even if the flyrants aren't in the air.
The problem with the Haywire, as I see it, is that the range of the template is basically 8" plus maybe 1" or 2" if you're starting from the edge of the base. All the opposing player has to do is be willing to sacrifice one or two tanks to close the 24" guns, and start at 30". If you move first and get within Haywire range, at maximum move you'll only be able to concentrate fire on one or two tanks; on the others, you'll be able to get at most 1 or 2 overlaps. You take out one of the 24" tanks and get hit with a wide variety of return fire that does actually have a chance of hitting even though they're all grounded (exterminators, punishers, and the Hydras, especially if the Preferred Enemy-generating commander survives). If she moves first or you cede the turn, the void shields are thin protection, especially if there's any ordinance or Pask on the other side.
I wouldn't say it's wholly one-sided the tanks' way, though. The Hydras' use on the first turn especially is very much luck based, and from turn 2+, keeping the Hydras protected and your deep strike/infiltrator types (especially the Mawloc) are issues for them both. But I suspect that luck and skill would have much more to say, since the sheer variety of tank that goes into a Leman Russ (and that's not even counting the Forgeworld Variants-- I have to say I'd prefer, say, an Annihilator to a Vanquisher most of the time) means that the Steel Host could be an effective means of creating a non-shut out game.
All of this of course presumes Eternal War and not the vagaries of Maelstrom, which change so much based on terrain. To a lesser extent, it also presumes Pask can count for one of the Steel Host's commanders, since putting him in a Punisher makes that particular tank much more of a threat if it closes the 24", and hence leaves the workhorses free.
I'm not sure it would be as one-sided as you think, as long as the opposing commander doesn't line up the squads at the 12" from the center line-- and the Steel Host only benefits from the 12" bubble, it doesn't require the closeness for anything but the Tank Commanders. You can, for example, leave the Hydras in the back or under cover for everything but the turrets and the 72" range covers the majority of the table. Since Egrubs aren't torrent, you have to bring yourself in close, and AV 14 means that the brainleeches just go fffst for a while. Depending on the mix of tanks, the Host can generally deal with most infantry before it gets close enough for even a 12" charge, leaving the main guns forward. Executioners would be pointless in this matchup, but the exterminators, for example, have a good chance of getting a wound past armour each even if you're flying (I've been assuming that the tyrants go first in these) from far past flyrant effective range. And the Hydras can generally flay off at least 1 void shield from distance as well, even if the flyrants aren't in the air.
The problem with the Haywire, as I see it, is that the range of the template is basically 8" plus maybe 1" or 2" if you're starting from the edge of the base. All the opposing player has to do is be willing to sacrifice one or two tanks to close the 24" guns, and start at 30". If you move first and get within Haywire range, at maximum move you'll only be able to concentrate fire on one or two tanks; on the others, you'll be able to get at most 1 or 2 overlaps. You take out one of the 24" tanks and get hit with a wide variety of return fire that does actually have a chance of hitting even though they're all grounded (exterminators, punishers, and the Hydras, especially if the Preferred Enemy-generating commander survives). If she moves first or you cede the turn, the void shields are thin protection, especially if there's any ordinance or Pask on the other side.
I wouldn't say it's wholly one-sided the tanks' way, though. The Hydras' use on the first turn especially is very much luck based, and from turn 2+, keeping the Hydras protected and your deep strike/infiltrator types (especially the Mawloc) are issues for them both. But I suspect that luck and skill would have much more to say, since the sheer variety of tank that goes into a Leman Russ (and that's not even counting the Forgeworld Variants-- I have to say I'd prefer, say, an Annihilator to a Vanquisher most of the time) means that the Steel Host could be an effective means of creating a non-shut out game.
All of this of course presumes Eternal War and not the vagaries of Maelstrom, which change so much based on terrain. To a lesser extent, it also presumes Pask can count for one of the Steel Host's commanders, since putting him in a Punisher makes that particular tank much more of a threat if it closes the 24", and hence leaves the workhorses free.
You're right. It probably isn't just as simple as how I was describing it, but nonetheless, a flyrant-spam list is just a counter to a tank-heavy list. With the exception of the hydras and Pask's tank, they just can't reliably deal with that many flyrants. Can they (Steel Host) still win? Yeah, but it'll be an uphill battle for them.
BTW, what is this 12" bubble that you are talking about. I guess I'm not as familiar with the Steel Host as I thought.
In any case, the flyrant list should go after the tanks that can hurt it most. That means Pask if he is in range and exterminators on T1 and then the hydras on T2. If tanks are going 1st, then flyrants are protected not only by the Void Shields, but by 2+ malan/venomthrope cover as well.
The Steel Host is composed of 3 regular squadrons, the commander, and the Hydra. Other than ditching an FOC for the formation, the benefit is that all vehicles within 12" of the commander get a blanket Preferred Enemy, which makes it great for Executioners.
Sorry for short reply; @ work so I can't post the Swiss army list & starts that follow from.
So I am still a little confused about how the pentyrant and the newly proposed setxabarge army lists are being built?
When I look at them I see the leviathan detachment as being similar to a codex, like farsight enclave, or iyanden. In which case you would be using them as an ally. How are you combining them with a codex tyranid army to gain so many flyrants?
They have an entire FOC so they certainly are not a formation.
I look forward to some enlightenment.
IsawaBrian wrote: The Steel Host is composed of 3 regular squadrons, the commander, and the Hydra. Other than ditching an FOC for the formation, the benefit is that all vehicles within 12" of the commander get a blanket Preferred Enemy, which makes it great for Executioners.
Sorry for short reply; @ work so I can't post the Swiss army list & starts that follow from.
Still will have problems against flyrant-spam IMO, especially if the flyrants can take out the commander early.
Jambles wrote: Awesome battle report, as always! The pentyrant build seemed unstoppable... leave it to Necrons to out-cheese em
This might be a bit off-topic, but I really like those converted Tomb Blades. Mind sharing how they got made?
Thanks.
Tomb blades were made from bits and parts from the annihilation barges (and parts of an Immortal body and a Destroyer's head). This was before the actual tomb blade models were out. Here are some more pictures of the parts:
seapheonix wrote: So I am still a little confused about how the pentyrant and the newly proposed setxabarge army lists are being built?
When I look at them I see the leviathan detachment as being similar to a codex, like farsight enclave, or iyanden. In which case you would be using them as an ally. How are you combining them with a codex tyranid army to gain so many flyrants?
They have an entire FOC so they certainly are not a formation.
I look forward to some enlightenment.
While they "look" like a Primary detachment, they are not. That is why you can still run a normal Primary detachment + New Supplement detachment. That's the trend currently. All of the new codices coming out has this, which then lets you spam certain things.
Space Wolves have the Wolves Unleashed detachment.
Grey Knights have the Nemesis Strike Force detachment.
Orks have the Ork Horde detachment.
Dark Eldar has a formation (forgot what it's called) that lets them run 6 Fast Attacks.
Tyranids have the Leviathan detachment.
Necrons have the Mephrit Dynasty.
Blood Angels have the Archangels Strike Force and the Flesh Tearer's Strike Force.
All of these formations are a work-around for Dual-CAD, making Dual-CAD less and less of an issue going forwards.
However, all of these formations do give up something very important - Objective Secured troops. That's one advantage that regular detachments still have over these detachments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 17:14:29
So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?
What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.
I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?
Something you've got to understand is that the tournament scene is constantly evolving. When the BAO came out, it was the very 1st major tournament of 7E. At the time, none of those detachments existed. There was only dual-CAD to worry about. Well, fast forwards almost a year in and now the 40K scenery has changed. The old BAO standard is basically obsolete in light of all of these formations. They have evolved to just 2 detachments with the only exception being each detachment is 0-1. Thus, you cannot run dual-CAD or 2 Leviathan formations (for 6 flyrants!), but you can run CAD + Leviathan because they are different.
Tau cannot bring 6 riptides because each detachment still has a limit of 0-1. However, if you really wanted, you can actually run 5 riptides with self-allying allowed (Ovesa, 3 riptides and 1 allied riptide).
Currently as long as it is a unique detachment, you can run it (to a maximum of 2). That is how it works currently. So Primary CAD is a detachment. Allies is a detachment. Any of the new supplement/campaign detachments (or formations if you want to call it that) is a detachment. You can run a mix of them. You just can't repeat any single detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/07 21:09:25
seapheonix wrote: So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?
What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.
I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?
The BRB also only prohibits "Allied Detachments" (a very specific detachment) from being chosen from the same faction. There is nothing that prohibits you from taking a Combined Arms Detachment and a Codex specific detachment from the same faction.
seapheonix wrote: So I thought seventh edition had a phrasing change that said to call all previous codex armies as "detachments" is that the reasoning behind being allowed to work in a second CAD? If so, what prevents tau from bringing six riptides with their two "detachments"?
What permission allows you to utilize them as a formation or datasheet instead of as an ally? Is it the lack of an ally chart in the respective books?
BAO rules previously had some pretty narrow definitions of how you could use the second detachment slot in constructing your army. At least how it pertained to parent codex and faction specific codices.
I am not trying to be argumentative or anything, I am just curious as to how it is being allowed?
The BRB also only prohibits "Allied Detachments" (a very specific detachment) from being chosen from the same faction. There is nothing that prohibits you from taking a Combined Arms Detachment and a Codex specific detachment from the same faction.
Correct, although the BAO (and several other major formats like Nova) have house-ruled it that you can ally with a detachment from the same faction.
Why did the flyrants land on turn 2? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Staying in the air keeps them safe. You lost 3 because you landed them (1 died on your turn). You might have lost one in the air from the ABs, but there is no way you would have lost 3. Snap Shooting does matter to ABs. It will do 0.98 unsaved wounds to a flyrant if snap shooting. If using full BS, it will do 1.47 unsaved wounds. Sure, you might have passed MSS on one flyrant and killed a CCB, but trading 2 Flyrants for a CCB is a bad bargain by any measure especially when the CCB can come back.
Also why did you expect the Flyrants to kill the Night Scythes? A Flyrant will statistically do 1.78 hull points to a Night Scythe a turn. You actually outperformed averages by blowing the gun off.
I expected Necrons to win on points because of superior board presence, but they shouldn't have been a threat to table you.
tag8833 wrote: Why did the flyrants land on turn 2? Doesn't make sense to me at all. Staying in the air keeps them safe. You lost 3 because you landed them (1 died on your turn). You might have lost one in the air from the ABs, but there is no way you would have lost 3. Snap Shooting does matter to ABs. It will do 0.98 unsaved wounds to a flyrant if snap shooting. If using full BS, it will do 1.47 unsaved wounds. Sure, you might have passed MSS on one flyrant and killed a CCB, but trading 2 Flyrants for a CCB is a bad bargain by any measure especially when the CCB can come back.
Also why did you expect the Flyrants to kill the Night Scythes? A Flyrant will statistically do 1.78 hull points to a Night Scythe a turn. You actually outperformed averages by blowing the gun off.
I expected Necrons to win on points because of superior board presence, but they shouldn't have been a threat to table you.
It was a calculated risk on my part. It's either offense or fly off the table and forego 1 turn of shooting to come back in next turn. At least those were the 2 options that I felt was best. So let me tell you why I decided to land.
1. I could have potentially taken out 2 of the annihilation barges (AB's), as one of them only had 1HP remaining. That actually reduces a good chunk of his shooting.
2. It was a long charge for one of the bargelords. He had to charge about 10" or so. Even with re-rolls, the odds of him making that charge wasn't very good.
3. Egrubs Overwatch had the potential to kill a bargelord on the charge. Or it had the potential to take off 2HP's and then my flyrant - if he passes his MSS test - can smash to finish off the bargelord. So 2/3 of the Overwatch results would have actually been favorable to my flyrants. Only 1/3 is bad. Again, the odds were actually on the Tyranid side in this battle.
4. I needed to turn around anyways because of all the action was behind my flyrants. So either fly off the table or just go into glide mode to reposition yourself.
In the game, you don't have the benefit of hindsight. All you can do is take calculated risks. In the case of my flyrants landing, the risks actually were in their favor.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
3000
4000 
