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.

 ace101 wrote:

I am not familiar with warpfire, all i know is that warpflame makes a unit take a toughness test or suffer d3 extra wounds w/ no armor/cover saves allowed, but passing improves FNP. Whats the difference, because if the Portalglyph had stayed for a turn or two, some flamers near the objective would have seriously messed up any gaunt horde, which would have help out those daemons. Maybe something to consider: maybe a balance of shooting and assault units in that daemon list would better balance the list, furthering your desire to make a TAC list, since CC armies are not as powerful in 6th edition as shooting or TAC armies.

I apologize.

In last edition, Flamers had 2 types of shooting. The first was Breath of Chaos, which is a nastier version of this edition's temp weapon. The second was Warpfire, which is basically an 18" S4 AP4 Assault 3 gun. Right now in the new edition, they only have their temp weapon (which, BTW, has been nerfed) and lost their ranged shooting, thus making them less competitive in a daemon army filled with very competitive Elite/Fast Attack choices (at least to me). If they had retained their shootiness, I would gladly include them in my army.

 mercer wrote:

In your game I would have considered moving all three big monsters down the right flank (towards Tyrants) as they are bigger threats with them evil guns and vector striked the warlord-Tyrant. Depending on distance of course, but I think the Tyrant managed to hit some Bloodletters first turn or was that a Biovore? With the triple vector strike the warlord probably would have gone down first turn. Of course this is based off images. Or I would have moved the Prince down the flank you did with support from the 'Thirsters, though I wouldn't have landed the Prince so close to the horde and would have done a spot of cheeky premeasuring

I've only play tested Daemons once. They certainly are a random army and if the dice are on fire then they could be good, but that could be said about any army. Have you used Pink Horrors btw?

Hmmm, overwatch, the Tyrant should hit with 4 on average, then wound with 2 and the 'Thirster fail one, so yeah I guess law of average says that sucker should have gone down to flying maggot attack.

The odds are slightly better for the Tervigon as unlike the Soul Grinder it cannot be totalled in a single turn. If the Grinder gets hit with a weapon destroyed result then it is screwed. Crushing claws ftw .

That is an entirely feasible strategy, though you are going towards the tyranids strong side. There are a lot of "what if's" to this scenario, but I guess I will leave that up to speculation and future game testing.

Yeah I have used pink horrors with Tzeentch Heralds. They are a good unit/combo. My next game will include them in a more balanced daemon build.

BTW, the grinder has 2 DCCW so the tervie will have to get 2 weapon destroyed results on the grinder. The chances for it to wreck the grinder with 2 smash attacks are:

2 attacks x 1/2 hit x 3/4 pen x 2/3 penetrate invuln (approximately, not factoring the re-roll 1) x 1/3 destroy (5,6 on the vehicle damage chart) = 17% per turn.

So in 2 turns, that's a 33% to wreck the grinder.

In 2 turns of combat, the grinder will do: 8 attacks x 1/2 hit x 5/6 wound = 3.33 Wounds (against a tervigon with only 4W left).

Yeah, the tervigon could get lucky and kill the grinder in 1 hit, but the probability favors the grinder slightly (assuming the tervigon is already wounded).

Just based of pictures, dude. When you say strong side do you mean the Tyrant side or little gribbly side?

No, dude, the Soul Grinder doesn't have 2 x dccw. Technically it doesn't have any, it as an iron claw. This acts like a dccw, but it only armed with one. So a weapon destroyed could do it, providing you got the right rolls of course.

 mercer wrote:
Just based of pictures, dude. When you say strong side do you mean the Tyrant side or little gribbly side?

No, dude, the Soul Grinder doesn't have 2 x dccw. Technically it doesn't have any, it as an iron claw. This acts like a dccw, but it only armed with one. So a weapon destroyed could do it, providing you got the right rolls of course.

Both sides had gribblies. The flyrant side also had a tervigon who could spawn gribblies.

As for the soulgrinder, you are right. My mistake.

Sounds like the gribbly side had less bad boys while the Tyrant side had gribblies plus big bad boys. Either way I would have sent all flyers towards that flank.

This is how I normally play against tyranids. I need to split them up. If I send everything to 1 flank (or 1 side), then tyranids can more easily defend themselves. They are at their strongest when they are working together, with tervigons buffing up gants, giving the army synapse and counter-charging assaulting enemies. It is also easier for them to bubble-wrap/screen out their units because everyone is closer together. However, split them up and now they start to have problems. Gants have a harder time trying to stay within buffing range of those tervigons. It is harder to focus-fire on a particular unit when your forces are spread apart and now, it takes more bodies to bubble-wrap their VIP units. Not only that, but units will also have a harder time screening out flying monsters because they are more spread out and when you assault them, it is harder for tyranids to react with counter-charge/tarpitting units because they have to travel further out.

Of course there is a risk for you as well when you spread out your units (i.e. less support), but I felt that it would be tougher for the bugs to try to take on the enemy on 2 split fronts than 1 united front. Hence, the reason for the DP flanking them opposite the thirsters.

How are the guants assaulting a Soul Grinder/Vehicle?

vehicle section pg 76 under "charging a vehicle":

...a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt

This would apply to walkers as well.

Are you basing it on the GW Rule Book FAQ found on page 4:

Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can't hurt
A: Yes

I believe you should read a FAQ in the context of the Rule Book and thus interpretted the ruling as that you may charge a unit you cannot hurt as long as it is not a vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL...sorry, late to the party. Anyways, you are back on my reading radar

 wyomingfox wrote:
How are the guants assaulting a Soul Grinder/Vehicle?

vehicle section pg 76 under "charging a vehicle":

...a unit cannot charge a vehicle that it cannot hurt

This would apply to walkers as well.

Are you basing it on the GW Rule Book FAQ found on page 4:

Q: Can I charge an enemy unit that I can't hurt
A: Yes

I believe you should read a FAQ in the context of the Rule Book and thus interpretted the ruling as that you may charge a unit you cannot hurt as long as it is not a vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL...sorry, late to the party. Anyways, you are back on my reading radar

No worries.

Yeah, we already settled this rules discrepancy in YMDC. It's all good now.