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.
2014/10/19 19:29:56
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Necrons - This is a tough one. AV13 is tough for Tyranids, especially when they can shoot so well with teslas. Almost every vehicle is a threat, not to mention those bargelords. Go after the night scythes at every opportunity that you can. You want to stop him from doing the Turn 5 objective drops. Beware of the night scythe alpha-strikes. Go 2nd and 1 strategy you may want to consider is to fly your flyrants off the table on Turn 1 and then have them come back on the table on Turn 2 after the Necron night scythes have come in. Keep all your guys within Shrouding range of the malanthrope but in ruins for the 2+ cover....you're going to need it against Necron shooting! Hide that malan/venom. Even with 2+ cover, he WILL NOT survive the concentrated fire of all those teslas. Fortunately for me, that is one of the reasons why I bring a bastion - it gives me protection from the likes of necrons, eldar and Tau.
Astra Militarum - honestly, I don't have too much experience against them in this edition. Depending on what they run - mech or blob infantry, your strategies will be much different. Blobs may be easier to deal with, especially if you are running LAN or biovores. But with a tank-heavy list, you need to somehow close the distance with your core army. Either ways, your flyrants will be a big plus here. A tank-heavy AM army will have trouble against flyrants (especially if you are running quad-flyrants) but against a blob army (or hybrid blob/tanks), you've got to focus all your dakka into them (pray he isn't running some type of psyker to give them Invisibility). For a quad-flyrant list backed by dakkafexes, the IG tank list is definitely the much easier one to deal with.
Orks - I really don't have very much experience with Orks in this edition as well. Tyranids can usually handle the standard ork lists. It's the formations you've got to watch out for. In any case, get your flyrants into the air and kill any transports that you can see (i.e. trukks). Battlewagons can be killed on Turn 2 when your flyrants can get into their rear arcs (or on Turn 1 even if orks are going 1st and they advance aggressively). But the main weakness of orks is their anti-air. Most ork players won't be spamming those anti-air guns of theirs and so you will have free reign over the skies. Skyblight will be a nightmare for most ork players, as should quad-flyrants.
Hey man, thanks. One issue Ive yet to learn is when to go second...against most armies I feel first is best, especially for the quad tyrant setup. Ill keep that in mind with the necrons.
One thing I forgot and havent read in this thread yet, how are the new Hellfrost Space Wolf weapons being handled? Should I fear them if I get a SW matchup?
Im also considering my strategy for running up against a drop pod army with my list. Bunker/corner up with my tyrants around the malanthrope and my 30 gargoyles as widely spaced as possible to stop the alpha as much as possible seems like the best/only option, unless anyone has other ideas. (Besides list changing, Im stuck with what I have at this point)
Necrons almost always want to go 2nd. That is because their alpha-strike isn't really that strong (they are more of a beta-strike army when their night scythes come in). However, their ability to capture objectives going 2nd is second to none. That is why you almost always want to go 2nd against Necrons. You can survive their alpha-strike and you want to prevent them from doing their last turn objective-grabs. Moreover, going 2nd, you can fly your flyrants into reserves, wait until their night scythes come in on Turn 2 and then beta-strike their flyers.
Helfrost weapons are about as bad as wraithknight distort weapons....if he rolls a 6 to wound, you better make your cover or you will lose your MC. However, they do lack volume to make me really too concerned. As for the SW flyers themselves, they're about as hard to deal with as the stormraven. Just kill everything on the ground first.
Against drop pod marines, you want to deploy in the zone that has ruins. You NEED the 2+ cover against them. Otherwise, it's going to hurt. Fortunately for you, most marines (other than the Legion of the Damned) cannot ignore cover so you have a decent chance to survive their alpha-strike....depending on how pods come down on T1.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/19 19:30:50
tag8833 wrote: I've got a general question. I see 1 Malanthrope showing up in every list. I almost always lose a single Malanthrope in every game these days. Sometimes that and some gargoyles are all I lose in a game. Some of that has to do with my local meta being well trained and coached by me to beat tyranids. If I was running a ground pound army like the one above, I would want a 2nd Malanthrope so that I have flexibility in deployment and my army doesn't start falling apart when I lose 1 model.
I'm curious that not only do most tyranid players seem to run only one Malanthrope, but also they never seem to lose them. Do you think that as the general player base adapts, we will start seeing more people sniping out Malanthropes before firing fruitlessly into 2+ cover?
A single Malan in a bastion is one thing, but if you are making the long walk, and/or hoping for Master of Ambush, a 2nd Malanthrope would seem to be called for.
First of all, it is tough dealing with Tyranid biggies with 2+ cover. It takes a huge amount of firepower, which most casual lists won't be able to do. It is only against the high-firepower lists where you need to be concerned about redundancy for your Shroud-givers.
Secondly, you only need him there to mainly protect your army for 1 or 2 turns. If he's done that, then he's done his job and it then doesn't matter if he bites it or not.
Experienced players can make it work with a single malan/venomthrope, but only with the use of LOS-blockers or if they bring protection in the form of a bastion/bunker. Because if you are playing against the likes of Tau or Eldar without decent BLOS terrain, then it doesn't matter if you bring 1 or 2 malanthropes - they will both still die on Turn 1.
Mainly, you can thank your flyrants if your malanthrope survives. After Turn 1, your opponent should be too busy dealing with those flyrants to care about the malan/venom. Then after Turn 2, they'll be dealing with almost your entire army (assuming you are bringing shooty units) to have to worry about your malan/venom.
I don't build lists for best case matchups. When I'm looking at the number of shrouding units I need, I'm looking at armies with some amount of Ignore cover or extreme firepower.
LOS blocking is a thing but the Malanthrope is a Tall model, and so many LOS blockers can't hide it. As I said, if you Take a Malan and a bastion you are fine, but I wouldn't expect to see enough LOS blockers to help you out in most games. Especially against the sort of things that are most likely to kill a Malanthrope (Wave Serpents, Riptides, Skyrays, Legion of the Damned), plus because most LOS blocking terrain is also impassible, it means you don't get your 2+ when something does see you.
The other thing that one Malan does for you is preclude the use of Master of Ambush warlord trait, or any other deployment versatility.
Though I would consider your lists to be less representative of this trend because you normal have a bastion to protect you Malan which fixes most of my concerns.
2014/10/19 20:45:50
Subject: Re:The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Wilson wrote: How do we do about tackling tank companies?
I.e the IG tank formation?
I'm taking on my bud later who's bringing his tournament list;
8 russ's of different variety including pask.
1 hydra
1 knight errant.
So... Yeah haha.
How does one tackle this?
Skyblight? Most of those tanks are going to suck at AA, and one Hydra is not going to kill all the MCs. I don't think the Tanks get OS, so the gargs can snipe objectives from them. A Wrecker Node comes to mind all. A 3 fex node has a decent chance of dropping a knight on HoW alone, a cheap melee fex still wrecks russes. The biggest issue is going to Pask and his shot volume. Maybe a t-fex to deal with that.
Hey Barnowl!
I've just got back from my friends house and that game went completely differently to how I imagined it!
I will be posting a bat rep on my blog tonight or tomorrow so if you don't want any spoilers and intend on checking it out - don't click below!
The knight was wrecked turn 2 by both flyrants and hive crone.
one of the mawloc popped up behind an executioner squad and did 2 pens when it came in and wrecked one of them( - lol, that'll never happen again.)
The dima being an absolute monster on the field drew so much fire away from the flyrants. he tanked so many wounds that could have gone else where. A real key player IMO. ( even if that's all he did - apart from look pretty too.
)
We called it at turn 6 as all he had left was 1 punisher, 2 vanquishers and the hydra.
I had FB ( Knight)
Warlord ( Pask)
Line breaker
Relic
6-0 to Nids!
Now I don't know if that list looks scarier on paper ( the IG list) or if I just outplayed my friend ( he's a good guy and great player so no disrespect to him!) but I lost 1 mawloc and the Dimachaeron in that game and that was it.
Also, Id liked to add that a Malanthrope in a ruin is just beautiful.
Odd that you didn't take out the Hydra fairly early. They die pretty easy, and can threaten your FMC's more than anything else except for the pask punisher.
Hey Tag,
I kept the Crone out of LOS from Hydra after the first turn - so it wasn't all that much of a big threat.
anyway, I've written up the game and posted on my blog.
Let me ask you, have you ever tried running a malanthrope? Did you try it and then switched back to the venomthrope? If so, I am curious as to why.
I don't own the model but I had a few games using my Doom model to represent one (seems like the best use for Doom conversions in 7th) so while it may have had sizing differences I do n think it was too far off. And every game, at no stage did I ever feel it was worth dedicating extra points towards, it was just a Venomthrope who is much harder to block LoS to. There isn't many shooting units that will kill a Venom but not a Malanthrope, the margin isn't big enough. I don't want to dedicate more points to my first blood bait model. It's personal choice as I said, but you are fooling yourself if you think taking a Malanthrope in a bastion is an inherently better choice than taking a single Venom. While you might have a slightly tougher cover-provider, I have a stronger army elsewhere. You need to recognise that it's a balanced trade off and Malanthropes are far from the auto-include that you list them as, because while it's stats and rules are better than a Venom, ithe most important stat of all, it's point cost, is twice as worse as the Venom. There IS a very real sacrifice to be made by taking a Malan, just because it's a small one doesn't mean it can't hurt your efficiency.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/19 21:45:57
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/19 22:23:46
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Let me ask you, have you ever tried running a malanthrope? Did you try it and then switched back to the venomthrope? If so, I am curious as to why.
I don't own the model but I had a few games using my Doom model to represent one (seems like the best use for Doom conversions in 7th) so while it may have had sizing differences I do n think it was too far off. And every game, at no stage did I ever feel it was worth dedicating extra points towards, it was just a Venomthrope who is much harder to block LoS to. There isn't many shooting units that will kill a Venom but not a Malanthrope, the margin isn't big enough. I don't want to dedicate more points to my first blood bait model. It's personal choice as I said, but you are fooling yourself if you think taking a Malanthrope in a bastion is an inherently better choice than taking a single Venom. While you might have a slightly tougher cover-provider, I have a stronger army elsewhere. You need to recognise that it's a balanced trade off and Malanthropes are far from the auto-include that you list them as, because while it's stats and rules are better than a Venom, ithe most important stat of all, it's point cost, is twice as worse as the Venom. There IS a very real sacrifice to be made by taking a Malan, just because it's a small one doesn't mean it can't hurt your efficiency.
Throwing the Malanthrope (or even a Venomthrope) inside a bastion is pretty expensive, though not without its benefits. However, the mere 40 points that it costs to upgrade a Venomthrope into a Malanthrope offer a pretty significant durability boost. Some things that ignore cover are low strength or high ap, which means that they will struggle more to put unsaved wounds on a Malanthrope. You gain twice as many wounds, immunity to strength 8 instant death, and synapse (meaning he can babysit backfield units if you need that). Plus, he has regen! Sure it won't make a huge difference every game to gain wound(s) back, but even a single wound that durable is worth something. Remember that the Venomthrope only has a 5+ save inherently, so any ap5 ignores cover will make it fold like a wet paper bag. The Malanthrope doesn't care unless it's ap3. Even if it's a serpent shield or something else that's high/no ap, the Malanthrope still saves twice as many wounds (before factoring in the increased toughness). The only benefits of the Venomthrope are being cheaper and easier to hide out of LOS. If you need those points for a specific build that you want or can't/won't use/buy a Malanthrope, then that's one thing. I would argue that the Malanthrope is probably a much more efficient use of points due to the ridiculous increase in durability if you run a Venomthrope, but it's not like you can't play Tyranids without him. But pretending that you're making your army worse by getting a much better Venomthrope for a small increase in cost is pretty far-fetched in my meta.
That being said, I don't mean to discredit Shuppet's experiences. It's possible that he doesn't face Wave Serpents, Thunderfire cannons, or other popular ignores cover items. It's possible that he doesn't face many alpha-strike armies that employ meltas or long range strength 8 that can instagib the Venomthrope on a lucky shot. I face all of these things often, so I wouldn't leave home without a Malanthrope, but everyone's meta is their own
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/10/19 22:47:42
2014/10/19 22:47:53
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
luke1705 wrote: But pretending to hat you're making your army worse by getting a much better Venomthrope for a small increase in cost is pretty far-fetched in my meta.
And pretending that I said things that I didn't is a pretty weak way to twist an argument in your favour. I've quite clearly said that they are options that are on par with each other, and subject to personal opinion, and that I'd never tell someone they are making the wrong choice by picking a Malanthrope and that it's just far from an auto include when there are other options on par with it. But sure, twist my words into me saying this, I mean it helps further your point right?
That being said, I don't mean to discredit Shuppet's experiences. It's possible that he doesn't face Wave Serpents, Thunderfire cannons, or other popular ignores cover items. It's possible that he doesn't face many alpha-strike armies that employ meltas or long range strength 8 that can instagib the Venomthrope on a lucky shot. I face all of these things often, so I wouldn't leave home without a Malanthrope, but everyone's meta is their own
Nice. I actually do face this sort of stuff though as I did mention, and it's exactly what helps mold my decisions on list building. Infact didn't I specifically mention that my two hardest opponents are Eldar, and Tau. I play a bit by the logic if you can beat the best, you can beat the worst. I do to build to take on my easier matches, I build my TAC to deal with the hardest. Exactly why I would want more points dumped into the durability of a cover save provider against Wave Serpents, or against Tau makes nonsense to me, I'd rather block Line of Sight to a smaller model and do it cheaper too, it's the difference between what, 1 volley of shooting from a Wave Serpent, and likely no difference at all in the Tau match up where they will be using a unit that can 1 volley it anyway, to synergise with the markerlights, making Venom a FAR better choice there without a doubt? That LoS is far more relevant than you give it credit for, ESPECIALLY against ignores cover. Also, what you need to realise is that 40 points is ALWAYS relevant. It's the difference between taking a Carnifex and taking a Dima. It's the difference between taking 3 Warriors and taking a Mawloc. If you aren't using every point available in the most efficient way possible, you are playing a worse list than someone who does. That being said, I don't dump those 40 points into my army per we, I use them to pay the bulk of a Zoanthrope to give me the Synapse coverage I lose from not having the Malan, and giving me 2 WC and an extra roll hoping for Onslaught. It's much more relevant to me than a bit of extra durability. The best ya to do it for every list? Certainly not, plenty of lists (namely Flyrant spam) would much rather the synapse points put into the durability of a Malan, or use to upgrade a troop squad into a squad of warriors for extra aggression, than an extra Onslaught roll. However for my list, it's the better way to do it, which is my supporting argument for the statement that Malanthrope isn't an auto include, because fact is sometimes it's the less efficient choice.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/10/19 23:05:11
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/20 00:10:32
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
The venomthrope is to the malanthrope what a close-combat walkrant is to a dakka flyrant. In terms of basic needs, they both fill the same role as synapse provider and psychic beacon. And if you take a walkrant , yeah, you save on some points to use for the rest of your army.
But if you are taking a walkrant/venom over a flyrant/malanthrope, then you and I are playing 2 very different games.
The only reason the malanthrope isn't an auto-include is if you want to dumb down your list or if you are going for a certain Tyranid theme (or if Forgeworld isn't allowed in your meta).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 00:15:04
Nice, well I'm pretty sure while taking a walkrant over a Flyrant is completely underutilising the model and paying a bunch of unnecessary points for what is basically a Dakkafex, while there is plenty of purpose to taking a Venom+Zope instead of a Malanthrope that you are often not going to see any return from its added durability or niche special rules. But we can ignore that I guess.
Even more so if you are taking a bastion seeing as the durability is a moot point. Although it may give you some late game bearing out of the Mal its probably going to be less relevant than a Catalyst roll, or Onslaught roll depending on your list. But whatever, I'm not arguing that its a bad choice, just that its not the only one and not always the best one. I think the only "dumbing down" of Nid gameplay is assuming that just because it has better stats and is still fairly cheap that it MUST be the best option and anything else is subpar. You need to look deeper into the cost of opportunity encumbered by spending more points on anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/20 00:38:17
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/20 01:09:29
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
SHUPPET wrote: There isn't many shooting units that will kill a Venom but not a Malanthrope, the margin isn't big enough. I don't want to dedicate more points to my first blood bait model. It's personal choice as I said, but you are fooling yourself if you think taking a Malanthrope in a bastion is an inherently better choice than taking a single Venom. While you might have a slightly tougher cover-provider, I have a stronger army elsewhere. You need to recognise that it's a balanced trade off and Malanthropes are far from the auto-include that you list them as, because while it's stats and rules are better than a Venom, ithe most important stat of all, it's point cost, is twice as worse as the Venom. There IS a very real sacrifice to be made by taking a Malan, just because it's a small one doesn't mean it can't hurt your efficiency.
The last sentence is where you imply that you're making tradeoffs, "sacrifices", as you call them, saying that it can hurt your efficiency. To me, that sounds like you're saying the army at least could be worse by the inclusion of a Malanthrope over a Venomthrope. Although not every army needs to have a Malanthrope, the only point I'm trying to make it that it's very good, and much better than a Venomthrope in nearly every situation. It's also worth pointing out that a Malanthrope isn't just first blood bait - even when not out of LOS it can often survive and allow you to obtain first blood, even when you're going second. That's a big deal in many missions, and to me the definition of "return on added durability", even if it just takes more shots to down (which it will without exception).
That being said, I don't mean to discredit Shuppet's experiences. It's possible that he doesn't face Wave Serpents, Thunderfire cannons, or other popular ignores cover items. It's possible that he doesn't face many alpha-strike armies that employ meltas or long range strength 8 that can instagib the Venomthrope on a lucky shot. I face all of these things often, so I wouldn't leave home without a Malanthrope, but everyone's meta is their own
Nice. I actually do face this sort of stuff though as I did mention, and it's exactly what helps mold my decisions on list building. Infact didn't I specifically mention that my two hardest opponents are Eldar, and Tau. I play a bit by the logic if you can beat the best, you can beat the worst. I do to build to take on my easier matches, I build my TAC to deal with the hardest. Exactly why I would want more points dumped into the durability of a cover save provider against Wave Serpents, or against Tau makes nonsense to me, I'd rather block Line of Sight to a smaller model and do it cheaper too, it's the difference between what, 1 volley of shooting from a Wave Serpent, and likely no difference at all in the Tau match up where they will be using a unit that can 1 volley it anyway, to synergise with the markerlights, making Venom a FAR better choice there without a doubt? That LoS is far more relevant than you give it credit for, ESPECIALLY against ignores cover. Also, what you need to realise is that 40 points is ALWAYS relevant. It's the difference between taking a Carnifex and taking a Dima. It's the difference between taking 3 Warriors and taking a Mawloc. If you aren't using every point available in the most efficient way possible, you are playing a worse list than someone who does. That being said, I don't dump those 40 points into my army per we, I use them to pay the bulk of a Zoanthrope to give me the Synapse coverage I lose from not having the Malan, and giving me 2 WC and an extra roll hoping for Onslaught. It's much more relevant to me than a bit of extra durability. The best ya to do it for every list? Certainly not, plenty of lists (namely Flyrant spam) would much rather the synapse points put into the durability of a Malan, or use to upgrade a troop squad into a squad of warriors for extra aggression, than an extra Onslaught roll. However for my list, it's the better way to do it, which is my supporting argument for the statement that Malanthrope isn't an auto include, because fact is sometimes it's the less efficient choice.
I do see the desire for more warp charge, and I don't disagree with it. I'm also not saying that your approach is wrong, that it can't work, or that it can't have synergy and win games. I myself am working on a list that has two single squads of Zoans to give a bunch of warp charge. I completely agree that those 40 points are relevant and I'm simply saying that in my meta, and against many top tier armies that employ the units I've listed above, plus many other units, the points efficiency of the Malanthrope is simply so much higher than the Venomthrope that it's hard to overlook. You can certainly field a Venomthrope instead of a Malanthrope, but in most situations that will end worse for you, no matter what else you do with those 40 points.
SHUPPET wrote: I think the only "dumbing down" of Nid gameplay is assuming that just because it has better stats and is still fairly cheap that it MUST be the best option and anything else is subpar. You need to look deeper into the cost of opportunity encumbered by spending more points on anything.
Seems like a fairly reasonable assumption to me, one rooted in statistics and probability. The opportunity cost of taking a Malanthrope is much lower than the opportunity cost of taking a Venomthrope.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 01:16:57
2014/10/20 01:23:26
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
luke1705 wrote: But pretending to hat you're making your army worse by getting a much better Venomthrope for a small increase in cost is pretty far-fetched in my meta.
And pretending that I said things that I didn't is a pretty weak way to twist an argument in your favour. I've quite clearly said that they are options that are on par with each other, and subject to personal opinion, and that I'd never tell someone they are making the wrong choice by picking a Malanthrope and that it's just far from an auto include when there are other options on par with it. But sure, twist my words into me saying this, I mean it helps further your point right?
See the below quote for where you said that the Malanthrope can be worse than a Venomthrope. My apologies if I misunderstood your use of a double-negative, as well as the phrase "twice as worse"
I said it CAN be worse than the Venom, in specific lists. Making the Malanthrope not an auto-include, even if the other options are not inherently better, they are not inherently worse. EG Flyrant is an auto-include, no other option is on par with it - not the case here. You know what I'm saying here, stop pretending you don't.
Also, taking three words out of my post DELIBERATELY misconstruing the context of those 3 words, is not a "phrase". That's merely 3 words excerpted from a phrase, with the intention of doing what I just stated. Thus, you are making it look as tho I am saying the Malanthrope is "twice as worse" as the Venom, as that would further your argument, when in reality:
Shuppet wrote:it's stats and rules are better than a Venom [...] it's point cost is twice as worse
Having to resort to this sort of crap hurts your point of view more than it helps it, please try to argue the actual point I'm making, not embellish one for me and argue against that.
SHUPPET wrote: I think the only "dumbing down" of Nid gameplay is assuming that just because it has better stats and is still fairly cheap that it MUST be the best option and anything else is subpar. You need to look deeper into the cost of opportunity encumbered by spending more points on anything.
Seems like a fairly reasonable assumption to me, one rooted in statistics and probability. The opportunity cost of taking a Malanthrope is much lower than the opportunity cost of taking a Venomthrope.
Yet an assumption nontheless, and quite an easy an obvious one to make when comparing the models at surface level one is obviously better, yet when you look deeper, you can see that having a roll on a table of 5 spells with 3 positive results, 2 more warp charges to your pool, and your thrope being able to hide from LOS at the cost of 2 wounds and a point of toughness, for almost the exact same price, can often easily outweigh the durability difference between a Malanthrope and Venomthrope, especially in a meta where one unit can kill both of them just as easily, as well as in a meta where cover saves are rarely allowed and doubling down on on strictly that will not in a lot of match ups be the most efficient use of points for the aggression or Powers such a decision is costing you.
It's far from as one-sided as you would like to admit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just a thought, it's obvious what I am talking about when I say Zope (Zoanthrope), can we please use Vope and Mope to shorten the Venomthrope and the Malanthrope Malan sounds weird and Venom is the name of another 40k unit that I'm sure we are all too familiar with =/
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 01:56:50
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/20 03:35:56
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Shuppet, if a model in not inherently better, and it is not exactly the same, it has to be worse. That's how inequalities work. It may be marginally worse, but it's worse nonetheless. I'm not trying to change what you said - only pointing out (for the final time) that I think the points are spent incredibly effectively, even though there's a points markup. I see that you believe the points can be spent best elsewhere, like in a Zoanthrope. I just don't see the pros outweighing the cons, but to each their own. Your experiences are your experiences. I would love to hear about them in detail some time, even if just in the form of an abbreviated battle report since most tournament-goers that I've heard from (as well as my own experiences) seem to indicate that the Malanthrope outperforms the Venomthrope + Zoanthrope combo. I just haven't seen good returns from the warp charges, and all too often BLOS terrain has less-than-ideal placement, if it exists at all. Especially when you're trying to hide a solo Zoanthrope and a solo Venomthrope.
And you're welcome to call them whatever you like - I agree that it's pretty clear what you're referring to
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm curious to know what you guys think about the Harridan though - does it take up too many points to be good for what it does? I mean, you're guaranteed line breaker, it can operate on its own and I can't think of any list that could regularly kill it. It alone rules the skies.....but it takes up a hefty chunk of a list, even at 1850. And you get much of the same from a Barbed Hierodule at 170 less points. Is the mobility and ridiculous durability worth the points? I know most tournaments won't allow it, but for normal games I wonder if it will be a help or a hindrance for Nids
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/20 05:05:22
2014/10/20 12:04:15
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
luke1705 wrote: I'm curious to know what you guys think about the Harridan though - does it take up too many points to be good for what it does? I mean, you're guaranteed line breaker, it can operate on its own and I can't think of any list that could regularly kill it. It alone rules the skies.....but it takes up a hefty chunk of a list, even at 1850. And you get much of the same from a Barbed Hierodule at 170 less points. Is the mobility and ridiculous durability worth the points? I know most tournaments won't allow it, but for normal games I wonder if it will be a help or a hindrance for Nids
Its good. I don't own one. If I did, I wouldn't be able to play it except in a very few pre negotiated games. Not worth it to me.
Unless you heavily pre-negotiate games then it will leave you opponent with feel badsies. They won't be able to effectively hurt it, so they don't get to participate in a meaningful fashion in large chunks of the game. It doesn't mean they can't beat you, just that it won't be fun for them to play against you.
The reason the Barbed Heirodule is widely accepted is most opponents have it in their capacity to kill it. It isn't significantly tougher than a Wraith knight. The Harridan is. Even with the Barbed Heirodule, I can't play it against 50% of opponents because it frightens / overwhelms them and they interpret any victory as me relying on OP models.
The other day I ran a Barbed Heirodule alongside Death Leaper, Genestealers, Lictors, and Trygons, and I had to apologize effusively for beating him to keep him happy and engaged. It was my intention to run a list so bad around the Heirodule that I could still lose the game, and he would be less scared of it in the future. The Genestealer and lictors died as expect turn 1, unfortunately Deathleaper drastically over performed, and the Barbed Heirodule did lots and lots of work resulting in me prepared to table him on turn 4, so I "forgot" to roll for the Trygons on turn 3 and said (truthfully) that I was late for a party and had to go after his turn 3. If he had used better target priority he could have killed the Heirodule and tabled me instead. But it intimidates him into not shooting at it.
2014/10/20 13:57:04
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Part of the reason I love Nids is that they are looked at as a weaker army, making victories so much more satisfying. I mean, when you beat Nids with Tau what have you really left with? But when you beat Tau with Nids, your the fething man!
GC's in standard play would be the quickest thing I could do to do both deflate that feeling AND give my opponents a cop out when they lose, "oh you only won because _____" which can often further deflate a good victory.
I don't play for the win btw - i play for the challenge, winning is a good feeling when the odds are against you however!
All this being said, I have a Heirophant waiting to be made. Let em call my victories falsified. That thing is just too cool.
I might even give my opponents an extra 500 pts of models playing against a big bad LoW's from our army, I just want to have fun with the model I couldn't even care if he gets roflstomped haha, you could try something similar with your opponents, make it a scenario type thing. Or take on 2 people at once with your Harridan, yeah you'll probably lose but it will definitely be a fun experience, take a 2000 pt list and go up against 2x 1500 or even 2000 and watch the shrapnel fly.
I'd say if you want to play one and have fun with, grab it, you'll find a way for everybody to enjoy it. If you are wondering if it is a worthwhile purchase for game winning however, probably don't buy it, because win or lose people will quickly stop playing you, and thats the fastest way to stop winning games - not getting them in the first place.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/20 14:48:49
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
SHUPPET wrote: Part of the reason I love Nids is that they are looked at as a weaker army, making victories so much more satisfying. I mean, when you beat Nids with Tau what have you really left with? But when you beat Tau with Nids, your the fething man!
THis is why I picked up Daemonhunter...that and their shining badassery.
Kind of a new nid player here, i recently began my swarm..i have 16 termis, 16 horms, 8 genestealers, 3 nid warriors and a tyrant..i'm curious what a good next step would be? keep in mind this is my 100% fun army to play..also whats solid options for armor busting in the nids codex?
Man fears what he does not understand- Anton LaVey
2014/10/20 15:12:24
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Thats the question we'd all like to know... Your best bet is Dakkafex or Crone. Both are pretty terrible at this role (Crone p bad in general) but long story short you didnt pick a great army for having "fun" lol options that arent insanely bad are really limited.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/10/20 15:19:34
Subject: Re:The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Crimson Heretic wrote: Kind of a new nid player here, i recently began my swarm..i have 16 termis, 16 horms, 8 genestealers, 3 nid warriors and a tyrant..i'm curious what a good next step would be? keep in mind this is my 100% fun army to play..also whats solid options for armor busting in the nids codex?
Carnifex with Devourers is a great choice, but I think the Venomthrope probably takes precedence given what you have to work with. You will need that cover save to move that army up the field intact.
2014/10/20 15:23:48
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Your best thing to get would be wings for that tyrant if he doesn't already have them. You can also give him a thorax upgrade that is haywire for help with tanks. Especially when you can maneuver to get side/rear armor on tanks, 1 haywire plus 6 str 6 twin linked shots are often enough to do the job, or at least take multiple hull points.
Outside of the tyrant, Carnifexes are indeed good, although slow.
2014/10/20 16:43:17
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Shuppet wrote:it's stats and rules are better than a Venom [...] it's point cost is twice as worse
Having to resort to this sort of crap hurts your point of view more than it helps it, please try to argue the actual point I'm making, not embellish one for me and argue against that.
To be fair to luke, using the word "worse" here confuses your intent. "Better" and "worse" are judgment words, not factual ones. More points doesn't strictly mean it's worse, as models can be rather efficient for their cost. You're right, you do get better stats with the Mope (heh.) for twice the cost. But saying it's twice as worse is kind of nonsensical, because it depends on what you've purchased for the cost, not on the cost itself. So I can see why he's not clear on what you're trying to say. Luke's caught up in your language, sure. But I wouldn't say he's reframing your argument and embellishing.
I will add that 2 extra wounds and 1 point of toughness is at least twice as good as the original profile, and then you trade 2 Warp Dice and 10 points for Fleet, Regenerate, and occasional Preferred Enemy.
Yet an assumption nontheless, and quite an easy an obvious one to make when comparing the models at surface level one is obviously better, yet when you look deeper, you can see that having a roll on a table of 5 spells with 3 positive results, 2 more warp charges to your pool, and your thrope being able to hide from LOS at the cost of 2 wounds and a point of toughness, for almost the exact same price, can often easily outweigh the durability difference between a Malanthrope and Venomthrope, especially in a meta where one unit can kill both of them just as easily...
This is actually a really interesting point. While the Malanthrope has more inherent durability, it also relies more heavily on that durability because you can't hide it. That being said, Barrage is a thing, and I think many players are reluctant to consider LOS Terrain in their list building. In deployment, obviously, but you wouldn't usually know which LOS terrain pieces are available or where they'll be on the board. If you can't block LOS, then the Vope is certainly dead and those 45 points went toward directing about 1 unit's shooting phase.
...as well as in a meta where cover saves are rarely allowed and doubling down on on strictly that will not in a lot of match ups be the most efficient use of points for the aggression or Powers such a decision is costing you.
The other side of this (that I feel you gloss over) is luke's point about Ignoring Cover vs Strength and AP. Most of the ranged fire that ignores cover seems much more effective against Vopes than Mopes (heh.), where as most of the fire that nukes a Mope (heh.) often needs to punch through it's defences.
Shuppet, if a model in not inherently better, and it is not exactly the same, it has to be worse. That's how inequalities work.
And luke, this is just a false statement. First, to even get into better and worse requires context, and two models that are different could very easily equally useful or irrelevant in a given circumstance. One model is not necessarily better, worse, or equal to a different model.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 16:45:54
2014/10/20 16:54:26
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
One thing I'd say when gaining advice is not to always listen to the first person who comes at you with a definite answer. Some people have vastly different ideas of how the game is played, play in a strange meta (in terms of unit choice) or just don't understand the unit mechanics.
That being said, if you're not going to take a heriodule, then we don't really have any good options. (think of using a screw driver end to hammer a nail). Electro-shock grubs is probably the best one.
I'm going to assume that you want to use everything you've bought already and that you want to stick with the fun theme (rather than ultra competitive).
First thing I'd add is the Swarmlord. This thing has a lot of army buffing abilities with +1 to reserves, ML3 and one unit gains one of a few USRs.
Next, I'd look at a few Dakkafexes. These things work pretty well with shooting and assaulting. If you want to dual role them most effectively, I'd also add on adrenal glands.
From there, I'd add a venomthrope or a malanthrope (depending if FW is allowed or not). The malanthrope is the superior choice (despite the opinion of a single poster) but a venomthrope can work pretty well if you're lucky. This guy lets your ground force move up with shrouding.
Then you have a lot of options from there depending on how you want to play:
More smaller TR bugs (+ gargoyles)
More monsters
Tervigon to spawn gants
Flying hive tyrant + Crone
Exocrine + 3 biovore to add on Living Artillery Node
I don't play this style very often, but I always do have fun with a big massive blob moving up.
2014/10/20 17:18:54
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
NamelessBard wrote: First thing I'd add is the Swarmlord. This thing has a lot of army buffing abilities with +1 to reserves, ML3 and one unit gains one of a few USRs.
Swarmlord is definitely a unit for fun casual games. The main advantage is that you won't face an army unable to deal with it if they choose to. However, I would recommend that you take a Tyrant and you magnetize him. That way you can give him 4 swords for Swarmlord or Wings and 4 TL-Devourers for a Dakka Flyrant. I switch between the two quite often, and it is much easier than having 2 separate models.
2014/10/20 19:28:43
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
luke1705 wrote: I'm sure some of you guys have read Bigpig's tactics thread about what he calls the "Trapdoor Spider", either on Frontlinegaming or over on Tyranid Hive Proboards. I've seen some ideas over in both of those places (and I know many of us lurk in more than just one forum) but I'm curious to hear what you guys think about this play style. It sounds very interesting.
But going a little further down the rabbit hole, how would you guys go about this type of play style if you decided to try it, even just hypothetically? What units would you use? How would they function with respect to the rest of your army (in case it's not obvious).
For those of you who haven't read the article, I'd highly recommend it, even just as a tactical approach to try in certain situations. To give a 60 second overview, the strategy hinges on the Malanthrope (or Venomthrope) giving much of your army a 2+ cover save, which is easier done than most people think. The part where the strategy diverges from what most people do is in the fact that it waits. Your army sits in the shrouded bubble (which I have affectionately termed "shroudstar") and makes the opponent come to you. You wait in your fortress of solitude until turn 3 or 4 being just ridiculously durable and doing what you can at range. If they come to you, you can pounce when the time is right, having taken very few casualties since you didn't have to march across the board - your opponent did it for you! How considerate of them.
The question of course then becomes - why on earth would they come to me? What can I do to get them to come to me? The first question is more common than most people think, since even if they get within 24 inches of you, which most armies will have to do, then you can strike with everything whenever you want. If they're outside of 24", your firepower is somewhat reduced, but we do still have Biovores, the Barbed Hierodule if your group allows it, and the Exocrine/Hive Guard have some reach (although they won't likely be dueling with 36" range units).
Even if they won't ever want to come to you, do they have 2+ cover? Probably not. In short, you can likely win a war of attrition, whittling down what you need to while taking almost no damage in return. In short, I definitely want to try this.
We all use his "trapdoor" tactic to a degree. I mean, who doesn't want 2+ cover for their army. However, his strategy is only 1 tool in a toolbox of strategies. I have 2 main philosophies with regards to Tyranid (and other army) tactics:
1. Positional Dominance. The philosophy is that if you can control the Movement phase, then you've got the advantage in most cases in objectives-based scenarios. This philosophy usually requires 2 things - mobility and a more aggressive playstyle.
2. The Way of the Water Warrior. This philosophy is actually back from my Daemonhunter days (the old, old Grey Knights). The philosophy here involves having flexible strategies and being a reactive army. Basically, you see what your opponent brings, compare his strengths and weaknesses to yours, and then adjust your playstyle accordingly. If he's bringing a hyper-aggressive army (a "Fire" army), then the "trapdoor" style can work really well against these types of armies. If your opponent is bringing more of a static, gunline army (an "Earth" army), then you will have to be the aggressor. This is where Positional Dominance really pays off. Other armies include "Air" armies, or an army that is highly maneuverable and mobile, and other "Water" reactive armies. The key to playing against them is to be flexible in your strategies and adjusting to a playstyle counter to theirs if you can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wilson wrote: How do we do about tackling tank companies?
I.e the IG tank formation?
I'm taking on my bud later who's bringing his tournament list;
8 russ's of different variety including pask.
1 hydra
1 knight errant.
So... Yeah haha.
How does one tackle this?
Tank builds will have problems against flyrant/FMC-spam Tyranids as well as TMC's with 2+ cover. A more balanced, hybrid infantry/tank AM army would do better. Honestly, I think your opponent is going to have a harder time against your army than you will against his.
I do think BigPigs strategy of limited board control is a better approach to most games than using JY2's strategy of working the corners and edges of the board while surrendering the middle to your opponent at the start of the game. I would generally offer a much more aggressive strategy of either midfield board control If I'm using a Barbed Heirodule, or Threat containment if I'm running a Flying Circus. My strategies difference to BigPig and JY2 mainly reflect that I play in a meta that embraced Maelstrom missions much more than their metas which are sticking with Eternal war primarily with limited Maelstrom influence. Also, I think all three of us end up going the way of JY2 if things start going very badly. I call it starfishing when you realize that you are unable to hold your tactical deployment, and have to spread out in a effort to avoid being overrun.
Hey, that's only 1 of my strategies.
It's all about being aggressive but also being flexible depending on the matchup, like when you are going up against an army that is even more aggressive than yours (that's when you abandon your "nest").
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/20 19:41:28
Woohoo, you are posting in your blog again, I enjoy reading your batreps as it comes across you guys have a lot of fun.
Also a comment on this thread overall. I find it really useful to have people debating and discussing units pros and cons from different perspectives. I don't get to play a lot at all at the moment, so can't get my experience levels up, so reading different points of view and counter points is great for me as it keeps me constantly re-evaluating how to play with this awesome army.
Oh and I have never played competitive or in a tournament etc, so learning from the tournament goers and the generic strategy types they use is gold.
So to Jy2, Tag8833, Shuppet, Iechine, Wilson, Pinecone, luke and the many many many other contributors. Thank you and may this thread continue to be the living breathing changing beast it is today.
Hive Fleet Ngaro 4800 points
Cult of the Red Saviour 1700 points
Zerg Infested Terrans 2300 points
I do think BigPigs strategy of limited board control is a better approach to most games than using JY2's strategy of working the corners and edges of the board while surrendering the middle to your opponent at the start of the game. I would generally offer a much more aggressive strategy of either midfield board control If I'm using a Barbed Heirodule, or Threat containment if I'm running a Flying Circus. My strategies difference to BigPig and JY2 mainly reflect that I play in a meta that embraced Maelstrom missions much more than their metas which are sticking with Eternal war primarily with limited Maelstrom influence. Also, I think all three of us end up going the way of JY2 if things start going very badly. I call it starfishing when you realize that you are unable to hold your tactical deployment, and have to spread out in a effort to avoid being overrun.
Hey, that's only 1 of my strategies.
It's all about being aggressive but also being flexible depending on the matchup, like when you are going up against an army that is even more aggressive than yours (that's when you abandon your "nest").
Of Course. We all use a variety of strategies situationally. I called it yours because you wrote a tactica for it a few pages back.
2014/10/20 21:25:48
Subject: Re:The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
Woohoo, you are posting in your blog again, I enjoy reading your batreps as it comes across you guys have a lot of fun.
Also a comment on this thread overall. I find it really useful to have people debating and discussing units pros and cons from different perspectives. I don't get to play a lot at all at the moment, so can't get my experience levels up, so reading different points of view and counter points is great for me as it keeps me constantly re-evaluating how to play with this awesome army.
Oh and I have never played competitive or in a tournament etc, so learning from the tournament goers and the generic strategy types they use is gold.
So to Jy2, Tag8833, Shuppet, Iechine, Wilson, Pinecone, luke and the many many many other contributors. Thank you and may this thread continue to be the living breathing changing beast it is today.
You are most welcome my man, it's cool to be back posting again.
and Just to jump on the back of your comment Mad, us nid brothers know the true spirit of the game. Something about playing nids just brings the best out of gamers. True fact.
2014/10/20 21:31:40
Subject: The Strengths of the NEW Tyranids - The Foundation for Competitive Tyranids (Knight Tactica p.177)
tag8833 wrote: I've got a general question. I see 1 Malanthrope showing up in every list. I almost always lose a single Malanthrope in every game these days. Sometimes that and some gargoyles are all I lose in a game. Some of that has to do with my local meta being well trained and coached by me to beat tyranids. If I was running a ground pound army like the one above, I would want a 2nd Malanthrope so that I have flexibility in deployment and my army doesn't start falling apart when I lose 1 model.
I'm curious that not only do most tyranid players seem to run only one Malanthrope, but also they never seem to lose them. Do you think that as the general player base adapts, we will start seeing more people sniping out Malanthropes before firing fruitlessly into 2+ cover?
A single Malan in a bastion is one thing, but if you are making the long walk, and/or hoping for Master of Ambush, a 2nd Malanthrope would seem to be called for.
First of all, it is tough dealing with Tyranid biggies with 2+ cover. It takes a huge amount of firepower, which most casual lists won't be able to do. It is only against the high-firepower lists where you need to be concerned about redundancy for your Shroud-givers.
Secondly, you only need him there to mainly protect your army for 1 or 2 turns. If he's done that, then he's done his job and it then doesn't matter if he bites it or not.
Experienced players can make it work with a single malan/venomthrope, but only with the use of LOS-blockers or if they bring protection in the form of a bastion/bunker. Because if you are playing against the likes of Tau or Eldar without decent BLOS terrain, then it doesn't matter if you bring 1 or 2 malanthropes - they will both still die on Turn 1.
Mainly, you can thank your flyrants if your malanthrope survives. After Turn 1, your opponent should be too busy dealing with those flyrants to care about the malan/venom. Then after Turn 2, they'll be dealing with almost your entire army (assuming you are bringing shooty units) to have to worry about your malan/venom.
I don't build lists for best case matchups. When I'm looking at the number of shrouding units I need, I'm looking at armies with some amount of Ignore cover or extreme firepower.
LOS blocking is a thing but the Malanthrope is a Tall model, and so many LOS blockers can't hide it. As I said, if you Take a Malan and a bastion you are fine, but I wouldn't expect to see enough LOS blockers to help you out in most games. Especially against the sort of things that are most likely to kill a Malanthrope (Wave Serpents, Riptides, Skyrays, Legion of the Damned), plus because most LOS blocking terrain is also impassible, it means you don't get your 2+ when something does see you.
The other thing that one Malan does for you is preclude the use of Master of Ambush warlord trait, or any other deployment versatility.
Though I would consider your lists to be less representative of this trend because you normal have a bastion to protect you Malan which fixes most of my concerns.
There is no right or wrong amount here. It really all depends on what types of armies you play against in your meta and also the style of your army. If you're playing a mainly ground army that pushes up the middle with screening units and your heavy hitters, then you definitely want to consider 2. If you play more of a null deployment army (like I do) where your troops come in from reserves (rippers), your units come in from reserves (mawlocs, deepstriking gargoyles) and the only thing you have on the table are mainly flyers who will swoop on T1, then 1 is really all you need to survive enemy fire. If you play in a meta where there are few Tau, Eldar and other armies who can ignore cover, then you can even probably get away with just 1 venomthrope (though I would always recommend the malanthrope as long as FW is allowed). And if you play in a meta where there are a lot of Tau, Eldar, super-shooty armies and/or armies that have ways to ignore cover, then bring a bastion. Personally, 1 is all I'll ever need for my armies, but that is because I build my army assuming that my meta is highly competitive with lots of cover-ignoring firepower and take the bastion in my tournament TAC lists. See, I don't have any of those Malanthrope-survivability concerns either.
Woohoo, you are posting in your blog again, I enjoy reading your batreps as it comes across you guys have a lot of fun.
Also a comment on this thread overall. I find it really useful to have people debating and discussing units pros and cons from different perspectives. I don't get to play a lot at all at the moment, so can't get my experience levels up, so reading different points of view and counter points is great for me as it keeps me constantly re-evaluating how to play with this awesome army.
Oh and I have never played competitive or in a tournament etc, so learning from the tournament goers and the generic strategy types they use is gold.
So to Jy2, Tag8833, Shuppet, Iechine, Wilson, Pinecone, luke and the many many many other contributors. Thank you and may this thread continue to be the living breathing changing beast it is today.
I'm glad this thread has lasted til today and people are still contributing to it as well as referring to it for help and advice. The Tyranid community is great!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/20 21:33:41
I have been looking at other ways to achieve the alpha strike damage reduction for my army core. And one thing I have by accident found quite effective is a unit of Genestealers infiltrate on to the opponents board edge.
Couple of points, I don't have a Venom, Male, or fortification in this army so I had to find a way to pull fire someplace besides my front line. The first time I did it was running a Manufactorum Brood since I do have around 30 stealers. The board was setup with alot of ruins in the enemy deployment zone. Using the special rules I stuck 2 broods inside the ruins about 5" away from his HQ and parking lot. Between GtG and the blocked LOS, the little buggers took 3 turns of fire from about a 1/3 of the army, which let the rest of the foot list make the charge across the board and hit his Aegis line.
Since then I have been playing this approach against various armies with interesting results. Since we play mostly maelstrom missions in my area, the broods have even countered a White Scars army by forcing scouted units to move back to opponents Deployment zone on there turn 1. Now sometimes they don't make it past first time, some times they last long enough to make the broods points back, but they have always effected the opponents first turn movement plans in the same way as drop pods.
I am thinking about using MoA to do the same stunt with something a bit more painful like a dakkfex, but the risk of failing I.B. seems to great, and the unit cost is potentially to high, perhaps a Trevigon if you win first turn. I know this not an ideal approach, but is looking like a solid idea for those of us with out or not wanting to run certain units. A 70pt sacrifce brood that can earn it's points back if the opponent does not deal with seems like a good substitute for Venom in a box if you don't have one. Besides it is nice to have a use for the Icon little buggers.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
Malan sounds weird and Venom is the name of another 
