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.

Eldercaveman wrote:
Does it explicitly say move through cover stops the penalties from changing through terrain?

You don't have the -2 charge penalty, but you do strike at I1 unless you have grenades.

Eldercaveman wrote:
Does it explicitly say move through cover stops the penalties from changing through terrain?

Not the penalties, just the -2 to the roll. So, they're still Initiative 1 but our models are no longer slowed (distance wise) by assaulting through terrain, another buff to our assault units in 7th edition.

jy2 wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
Does it explicitly say move through cover stops the penalties from changing through terrain?

You don't have the -2 charge penalty, but you do strike at I1 unless you have grenades.

jifel wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
Does it explicitly say move through cover stops the penalties from changing through terrain?

Not the penalties, just the -2 to the roll. So, they're still Initiative 1 but our models are no longer slowed (distance wise) by assaulting through terrain, another buff to our assault units in 7th edition.

Where does it say this? Sorry I'm on holiday and don't have my book with me.

Its in the move through cover special rule section.

 jifel wrote:

Asmodas wrote:

coredump wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
To be fair 7E is much more supportive of assault armies than 6E was. .

Really? How so?

The only thing I can think of is the change to pinning, gtg and overwatch. That is definitely helpful to us, but I don't know that it counterbalances the loss of assaulting after swooping, etc.

Move through cover units assault through terrain with no movement penalty.

No, it doesn't...

What's the pinning/gtg buffs that make us better sorry?

 SHUPPET wrote:


No, it doesn't...

What's the pinning/gtg buffs that make us better sorry?

If a unit has gone to ground, it doesn't get to fire overwatch (huge). Also, if a unit has gone to ground, it hasn't set itself to defend against a charge, and thus, units charging through difficult or dangerous terrain to assault a unit that has gone to ground do not suffer any initiative penalties, even if the unit is in difficult terrain. (or something like that....pg 38) (even more huge)

All of this makes genestealers with Broodlords much more interesting...

Also...Broodlords get dominion now (all of there power(s) come from one tree). I didn't even consider it, but when reading the Tyranid FAQ on Blacklibrary's website, it says:

"Add the following sentence to the end of Dominion's Rule:

'If the psyker does not have the synapse creature special rule, it gains it for the duration of this power and has a synapse range of 6"'

When looking through the book, the only psyker that doesn't have the synapse rule is the Broodlord. Why would they write that FAQ unless...hrumph....sneaky devils. It's not a game breaker, but considering they can be infiltrated pretty much anywhere (and CC units are best when fearless), it's a decent free power to have access to.

Oh yeah the loss of overwatch, if a unit is pinned. Hardly what I'd call a significant buff to assault in 7th. The rest was already the same as it is now. And barrage losing pinning hurts as well.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 jifel wrote:

Asmodas wrote:

coredump wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
To be fair 7E is much more supportive of assault armies than 6E was. .

Really? How so?

The only thing I can think of is the change to pinning, gtg and overwatch. That is definitely helpful to us, but I don't know that it counterbalances the loss of assaulting after swooping, etc.

Move through cover units assault through terrain with no movement penalty.

No, it doesn't...

What's the pinning/gtg buffs that make us better sorry?

1. Page 168, units with Move Through cover are not slowed by assaulting through terrain. They do not recieve the -2 penalty to their assault move, but are still Initiative 1.
2. Pinned units (Voluntarily or Forced) may not perform overwatch. Since we have a lot of pinning units, this is good!

3. Moreover, if a unit is pinned or already locked in assault previously, then another unit charging it doesn't receive the Init 1 penalty if charging through terrain.

 jy2 wrote:

3. Moreover, if a unit is pinned or already locked in assault previously, then another unit charging it doesn't receive the Init 1 penalty if charging through terrain.

That is why I like the little guys so much, if they are in synaspe range than you tie them up than charge with your big guy to do the damage.

 CKO wrote:

Thank you JY2 for making a list that can maximize the potential of the dimachaeron with your skill, your battle report will put to sleep this myth about cc on this thread.

What myth? Or are you still pretending people are saying CC is impossible?

rigeld2 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

Thank you JY2 for making a list that can maximize the potential of the dimachaeron with your skill, your battle report will put to sleep this myth about cc on this thread.

What myth? Or are you still pretending people are saying CC is impossible?

All he's saying is that people tend to play more shooty lists than CC-oriented lists, and he believes that a CC-oriented list is still feasible. This has been hashed over many times and you know this. I think it's fair to say that many people were/are attracted to Nids because they can hack, slash, and otherwise dismember their way to victory, even if that is not the MO of an army that will win a GT (if Tyranids even are still able to do this). To pretend that an all assault army can be a top-tier competitive list is folly, but so too is pretending that including some dedicated assault units in your army will be an insurmountable handicap in friendly games.

My FLGS hosted a tournament last week where a Daemons army that was nearly mono-khorne took third place. Sure, it's not the most competitive meta, but by definition, most places are not the most competitive meta. I do believe that a list with a Dimey or two (indeed, I think they probably run better in pairs) can still win games at a very reasonable clip. Many people have no desire to win a GT, or even to get close. I think a lot of us play with units that net-think would call "sub-optimal" at best and do just fine. It's why you play the game - to have an awesome time and field super-cool models while doing it.

Once I get the models, I fully intend to try out this 1750, or some variant of it:

Flyrant w/2 TL BL Devs, EGrubs
Flyrant w/2 TL BL Devs, EGrubs

Malanthrope
Malanthrope

Dimey
Dimey

3 Rippers
3 Rippers
3 Rippers

Mawloc
Mawloc
2 Dakkafexes

The only thing that I'd like to tweak is giving the rippers deep strike, but that's what 1850 is for, right?

On a completely unrelated note, was I the only one that missed that the Malanthrope has SYNAPSE????? DEAR JESUS THAT'S AMAZING.

luke1705 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

Thank you JY2 for making a list that can maximize the potential of the dimachaeron with your skill, your battle report will put to sleep this myth about cc on this thread.

What myth? Or are you still pretending people are saying CC is impossible?

All he's saying is that people tend to play more shooty lists than CC-oriented lists, and he believes that a CC-oriented list is still feasible. This has been hashed over many times and you know this. I think it's fair to say that many people were/are attracted to Nids because they can hack, slash, and otherwise dismember their way to victory, even if that is not the MO of an army that will win a GT (if Tyranids even are still able to do this). To pretend that an all assault army can be a top-tier competitive list is folly, but so too is pretending that including some dedicated assault units in your army will be an insurmountable handicap in friendly games.

Tears of joy someone finally understands me!

luke1705 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CKO wrote:

Thank you JY2 for making a list that can maximize the potential of the dimachaeron with your skill, your battle report will put to sleep this myth about cc on this thread.

What myth? Or are you still pretending people are saying CC is impossible?

All he's saying is that people tend to play more shooty lists than CC-oriented lists, and he believes that a CC-oriented list is still feasible. This has been hashed over many times and you know this. I think it's fair to say that many people were/are attracted to Nids because they can hack, slash, and otherwise dismember their way to victory, even if that is not the MO of an army that will win a GT (if Tyranids even are still able to do this). To pretend that an all assault army can be a top-tier competitive list is folly, but so too is pretending that including some dedicated assault units in your army will be an insurmountable handicap in friendly games.

And no one is saying the underlined. Seriously. Go back and quote the post saying so if you disagree.
The issue is that while the Dime is strong in CC, it's slow and its area of threat is much smaller than similarly priced models.
I recognize that. CKO was comparing the Dime to a Dakkafex which has a significantly larger threat range and acting confused as to why one is praised and the other not.

Once I get the models, I fully intend to try out this 1750, or some variant of it:

I listed something similar earlier, but I hate Mawlocs.

On a completely unrelated note, was I the only one that missed that the Malanthrope has SYNAPSE????? DEAR JESUS THAT'S AMAZING.

It... It does? Omfgbeautiful

shrouded bubble, toxic miasma, 3+ armor, regen, fleet, synapse, etc. it's nasty.

Super nasty. By the way does shooting through units still require the screening unit to be 25% as tall as the thing behind it? Having 3+ cover for all of the MCs would be pretty sweet. In any case, what do you guys think is the best way to screen the MCs to try and give them better than a 5+ shrouded save while running up the table? With the exception of the FMC who can jink for a glorious 2+ of course, regardless of whether they're swooping or gliding.

And rigeld, I overstated the section that you underlined because this is effectively what net-think implies - that a unit that isn't top-tier isn't worth owning, let alone fielding. I think it's important to focus on the WAY to field a unit, if one was so inclined, rather than whether or not to field them. Unless it's the pyrovore of course

What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

av13 and 14 is what they're there for. we just have no reliable answer for it in the codex.

also, you dont' take egrubs on one flyrant, you take it on all of them. 3 dakka flyrants with egrubs and a crone for VS/tentaclids (along with two HVC harpies if you're using skyblight) is at least a functional solution.

 CKO wrote:

Yes, my 1850 list that I posted a few pages ago uses 2 squads of them for the reasons listed above, I have a knack for noticing and getting the best out of each unit. By popular belief the unit is not considered good because it needs to be in cc but as you have notice by your own personal experience the unit is very good.

What I have noticed, is that you have a 'knack' for patting yourself on the back and assuming you are the smartest person around.

Using TG on their own is *old news*, giving them CClaws is *old news*. It has been discussed...repeatedly...

2xTyrant Guard - Crushing Claws/Rending Claws, Adrenal Glands Comes in at 150pts, The exact same as a CC fex with CCLaws and AG. The comparison, is actually almost exact. T6 4W 3+ save, same movement, fleet.... TG have better WS and the Fex has much higher S. The biggest problem is with IB, the fex will charge the nearest enemy, while the TG will kill each other with AP2 weapons.
Oh, and they are both really slow...

To claim that CC TG are "very good" is the same as claiming CC fexes are "very good"....

For the same points, you can get CC warriors that are also very comparable..... Worse save, more wounds, lower S, more attacks. etc. Still really slow.
Or you can go for speed, and grab shrikes......

IOW, this has been a known issue, and the problem keeps coming down to units taking too long to get into CC, and not resilient enough for the trip.

omerakk wrote:
What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

Gigasnail has it right, it's for the AV 13 and 14. I also find it very helpful for Wave Serpents and their highly annoying cover saves, and for any open topped vehicle to hit guys inside. Another perk is being able to potentially hit multiple vehicles with it, which is always great.

luke1705 wrote:

All he's saying is that people tend to play more shooty lists than CC-oriented lists, and he believes that a CC-oriented list is still feasible. This has been hashed over many times and you know this. I think it's fair to say that many people were/are attracted to Nids because they can hack, slash, and otherwise dismember their way to victory, even if that is not the MO of an army that will win a GT (if Tyranids even are still able to do this). To pretend that an all assault army can be a top-tier competitive list is folly, but so too is pretending that including some dedicated assault units in your army will be an insurmountable handicap in friendly games.

I don't think anyone is debating against this.

It seems pretty self evident that if your opponents are playing sub-optimal lists, that our sub-optimal units will do better.

That doesn't make out stuff 'better', it makes the competition 'worse'...

My FLGS hosted a tournament last week where a Daemons army that was nearly mono-khorne took third place. Sure, it's not the most competitive meta, but by definition, most places are not the most competitive meta. I do believe that a list with a Dimey or two (indeed, I think they probably run better in pairs) can still win games at a very reasonable clip. Many people have no desire to win a GT, or even to get close. I think a lot of us play with units that net-think would call "sub-optimal" at best and do just fine. It's why you play the game - to have an awesome time and field super-cool models while doing it.

Of course... when playing in a small tourney, or in my basement... competition is different, and all sorts of things might work....

rigeld2 wrote:
The issue is that while the Dime is strong in CC, it's slow and its area of threat is much smaller than similarly priced models.
I recognize that. CKO was comparing the Dime to a Dakkafex which has a significantly larger threat range and acting confused as to why one is praised and the other not.

I never once use the word threat range, I asked what is the difference between shooting down a dakkafex and shooting down a close combat monster such as the dime? Just because it has a larger threat range doesnt increase its survivability, and I used the dakkafex as an example.

coredump wrote:
What I have noticed, is that you have a 'knack' for patting yourself on the back and assuming you are the smartest person around.

I dont know why you feel this way but ok.

coredump wrote:
IOW, this has been a known issue, and the problem keeps coming down to units taking too long to get into CC, and not resilient enough for the trip.

At the end of the day this is what it boils down to and if you cant get into cc and dont think its viable just say it but dont say I feel that I am smarter than other people just because I can get into cc pretty quickly.

 CKO wrote:
[

At the end of the day this is what it boils down to and if you cant get into cc and dont think its viable just say it but dont say I feel that I am smarter than other people just because I can get into cc pretty quickly.

Well.. at least you *think* you can.... since you have never actually played a single game with Nids yet....

 jifel wrote:

omerakk wrote:
What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

Gigasnail has it right, it's for the AV 13 and 14. I also find it very helpful for Wave Serpents and their highly annoying cover saves, and for any open topped vehicle to hit guys inside. Another perk is being able to potentially hit multiple vehicles with it, which is always great.

Again, are any of these situations actually worth it?

Against a wave serpent, you have to get extremely close to fire a single (most likely glancing) hit that gets to ignore its jink. At the distance, you probably could have been firing 12 twin linked devourer shots into its rear armor. Even with the jink saves, you should be doing more damage than the grubs.

Hitting guys inside an open topped vehicle? Doing minimal damage to troops inside vs just plowing the devourer shots into the vehicle and destroying it? I guess there are some situations where the template would still be ideal, but it still seems very inefficient.

For what gigasnail suggested, it would take 4 units at 800+ points to actually finish off a land raider; I can't call that a functional answer at all. That's giving up 36 shots (not even counting the crone) to hit 1 target. Imagine if you had just used all that to hit the rest of your opponents army instead? Surely the best answer here is to just ignore the land raider and destroy the rest of the army, then win the scoring contest at the end with superior numbers.

omerakk wrote:

 jifel wrote:

omerakk wrote:
What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

Gigasnail has it right, it's for the AV 13 and 14. I also find it very helpful for Wave Serpents and their highly annoying cover saves, and for any open topped vehicle to hit guys inside. Another perk is being able to potentially hit multiple vehicles with it, which is always great.

Again, are any of these situations actually worth it?

Against a wave serpent, you have to get extremely close to fire a single (most likely glancing) hit that gets to ignore its jink. At the distance, you probably could have been firing 12 twin linked devourer shots into its rear armor. Even with the jink saves, you should be doing more damage than the grubs.

Hitting guys inside an open topped vehicle? Doing minimal damage to troops inside vs just plowing the devourer shots into the vehicle and destroying it? I guess there are some situations where the template would still be ideal, but it still seems very inefficient.

For what gigasnail suggested, it would take 4 units at 800+ points to actually finish off a land raider; I can't call that a functional answer at all. That's giving up 36 shots (not even counting the crone) to hit 1 target. Imagine if you had just used all that to hit the rest of your opponents army instead? Surely the best answer here is to just ignore the land raider and destroy the rest of the army, then win the scoring contest at the end with superior numbers.

1. Yes, yes they are worth it. If you take a Land Raider down to one hull point left, you can now easily kill it with an MC in close combat. If you take it down by two hull points, you can do the same thing next turn. Or, you can shoot Crones at it to remove more Hull points. Against a Leman Russ squadron, you usually have a turn where you're in front before you can get behind, might as well take off two or three hull points!
2. A good Eldar player will never give you a shot at their rear armor, ever. The Serpents will be backed all the way up, and you just have to shoot them. The short range of the Grubs is a non issue due to our speed, but a single Devourer + EG takes off an average of about .6 more hull points a turn than two devourers.
3. Against a truck or Raider/Venom, the Grubs take a hull point, kill a few guys inside and then the Devourers can finish it off. It's not something you buy just for that, but it is useful.
4. Land raiders usually aren't a high priority target, I agree. You can kill the rest of the army first. But what about a unit of three Leman Russ Punishers with Pask? That needs to die ASAP, and all your haywire needs to go right there. Also, being able to reliably one shot a Land raider a turn isn't exactly a bad thing...

I've played quite a few games of 7th edition in the last month, and I've brought two EG flyrants to every one of them. They have been worth it in every single game so far. I've killed Bastions, Imperial Knights, a Venom and the whole unit inside, I've killed Pask about 4 times, I've taken out guardsmen in cover, I've killed Wave Serpents, and Drop Pods, Reaver jetbikes with 2+ cover, etc. There has been exactly one game so far that I have not used them, against a Tau list that was made up only of infantry units. For 10 points each they are a complete steal.

Your logic is actually very solid.But it's like what 10pts for a near guaranteed HP when you use it. It's definitely a must have on Tfex and Tgon where you sacrifice no firepower. On flyrants, it depends on your meta. I often see tank clusters to hide side armor. Even though they obviously won't deploy like that, it's worth the 20 pts to deny this and open up shots on side armor. It's by no means a must have, but considering how much we suck at dealing with tanks iun general, the thicker the harder, well as the saying goes, I'd rather have eGrubs and not need it than the games where you need it and don't have it.

I pack them, but that being said I don't use them by wasting 4 flyrant shooting phases on a landraider. You are absolutely right. However, when you play every game imagine you had eGrubs and see if they would have been a worthy pick. I enjoy the utility for 20 pts. However, it is 20 pts that I would cut pretty quickly if it's necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was to omerakk

They amazing against DE, being spammed, open-top, skimmers, that often end up clumped to abuse range. EGrubs by itself can be game changing here and only 10 pt each

 jifel wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 jifel wrote:

Asmodas wrote:

coredump wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
To be fair 7E is much more supportive of assault armies than 6E was. .

Really? How so?

The only thing I can think of is the change to pinning, gtg and overwatch. That is definitely helpful to us, but I don't know that it counterbalances the loss of assaulting after swooping, etc.

Move through cover units assault through terrain with no movement penalty.

No, it doesn't...

What's the pinning/gtg buffs that make us better sorry?

1. Page 168, units with Move Through cover are not slowed by assaulting through terrain. They do not recieve the -2 penalty to their assault move, but are still Initiative 1.
2. Pinned units (Voluntarily or Forced) may not perform overwatch. Since we have a lot of pinning units, this is good!

First i didn't say: "7E favors assaulty nids" i said "7E favors assault more than 6E". Also add to that list of buffs:

1) Challenges fixed. No longer will your flyrant/prime/deathleaper/nob/demon/whatever get disabled by a sergeant.
2) New cover rules, if one enemy model sees your first model in cover then all the firing unit sees that model in cover. This is a huge nerf to gunlines formed by multiple models like FW, crysis, TM etc... With just a little bit of positioning (easier without the movement penalty on charge) you have guaranted cover save against overwatch.
3) Maelstrom missions, the dead of gunlines.
4) Maestrom missions with objectives placed before choosing the side, the home of assaut armies.

jifel wrote:

omerakk wrote:
What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

Gigasnail has it right, it's for the AV 13 and 14. I also find it very helpful for Wave Serpents and their highly annoying cover saves, and for any open topped vehicle to hit guys inside. Another perk is being able to potentially hit multiple vehicles with it, which is always great.

This is more difficult now, because when targeting vehicles you must place as much as the template over the vehicle as possible.

Eldercaveman wrote:

jifel wrote:

omerakk wrote:
What is everyone's opinions on electroshock grubs?

I know putting them on your tyrant is pretty standard... but is it actually worth it? It seems like just using both devourers would end up doing better in most scenarios except for shooting at AV13 or 14 (assuming you can't find a vulnerable side like vs a land raider)

Even then, it seems like you could have more success firing your devourers at a different target than wasting a turn firing that single haywire shot for that single glance.

Gigasnail has it right, it's for the AV 13 and 14. I also find it very helpful for Wave Serpents and their highly annoying cover saves, and for any open topped vehicle to hit guys inside. Another perk is being able to potentially hit multiple vehicles with it, which is always great.

This is more difficult now, because when targeting vehicles you must place as much as the template over the vehicle as possible.

Not really when looking at flyrants due to their movement range. Easy to pop off to one side to strafe the 3 wave serpents sat in a row ... With my tervigon I just take what comes and often don't get to shoot it at all.

Harder but not overly so