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.

Mad.. wrote:


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.

The good thing about the big contributors to this thread, is that for the most part people sure know how to give supporting logic to their opinions. There is very little petty bickering and the strategy debate is always good, really well delivered and really good to add to or debate against when you feel you have further opinions on it. And what's a good point of view without someone to contest it? If you are right you will be able to explain the grievances someone may have with your opinion thus strengthening your opinion and answering some of the questions people reading may be wondering, and if you can't do this, well maybe your opinion was not so strong after all. I've had my opinion changed on a few models from the people in this thread alone, sometimes you need that second perspective to properly highlight the strengths or flaws of a unit/strategy for you.


It's cool because this is a really good way to sharpen strategical knowledge, it's definitely about multiple perspectives and being able to recognise which one makes the most sense.

barnowl wrote:
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.

I use MOA quite often. Here are a few observations I have.

Advantages of MOA
-Infiltrating a flyrant gives you a chance to get back armor quite often.
-Dakkafexes / Tyrannofexes can contribute early.
-You can use it to dictate or confuse your opponent target priority
-Most things will have a chance for a turn 2 charge.
-Works well if you plan to control the middle of the board.

What should you infiltrate:
-If your opponent is shooty and doesn't have an assaulty deathstar you want to infiltrate you warlord, a support unit (Malanthrope is the best by a mile), and as many walking MCs as you can (Dakkafexes are #1 Option, but TFex, Dimacharon, Tervigon, or even Exocrine are also viable options).
-If your opponent has something that can threaten you MCs in assault. IE. Wraith Knight, Thunder puppies, Demon Prince, Necron Catacomb Command Barge, etc. Then you should infiltrate a Flyrant, a support unit, an MC, and a screening unit of some sort (Gargoyles work, but Gants are slower, and thus gain more advantage).
-I know that you don't use venoms or Malans, therefore your support unit would likely be a Zoey or Tervigon. In that case consider outflanking or deploying your flyrant.

Where should you infiltrate:
-Rarely an opponent may leave open a section of their deployment zone. Perhaps along the back board edge. In this case you want a screening unit. If you are deploying first, and didn't include a screen, then you should deploy somewhere else that you can get a cover save from ruins.
-Ruins that are Near midfield. This is especially great if you can use it as a LOS blocker to get closer.
- If you only have one shrouded giver, you might choose to line him up at the very edge of your deployment zone and infiltrate within 6" to get the shrouding.

When should you not infiltrate:
-If your opponent is going to come to you. The worst part of infiltrating is that you can't assault anything in assault range on turn 1.
-If you don't have enough support. For instance if you have 1 Malan, and 1 zoey as your only backfield synapse, you should not infiltrate, or perhaps infiltrate just screening units.
-Drop Pod Marines

Things to remember:
-If you and your opponent deploy at the edge of your deployment you are 24" apart. Infiltrating usually only closes that gap to 18"
-You are giving your opponent the opportunity to advance more aggressively, because several of your MC's aren't an assault threat.
-It is almost always better to give up infiltrating inches to keep your infiltrators in cover.

If my opponent deploys at his central board edge or close to it, I can infiltrate within my Synapse from Warriors on my board edge and still be within shooting after movement. These situations I generally infiltrate 2x2 Squads of Dakkafex and an Exocrine. If backfield deployment, I instead take a Flyrant, a Dakkafex squad and either my Exocrine if the AP2 will be big or just a second Dakkafex squad. So yeah to say the least I use it highly aggressively without giving a single slot to anything that doesn't have an excellent amount if firepower, and although this is anecdotal, I have never ONCE lost a game doing this.

I would use MOA often if I ever could roll for it....I swear a one-in-three chance means nothing to my dice. In fairness, it meant nothing in 6th edition when I was making grounding checks, and it still means nothing when I play Wraithwing with my Crons, so that's an ok trade-off

Tag, that's an awesome tactica....maybe we should start calling them tagticas but seriously it's great to see that other Nid players use similar tactics, as I've really only got one or two in my local group. I really think stuff like this is what should be frequently expounded upon in this thread (though different uses and synergies for various units is huge as well, which is what I feel takes up the bulk of this thread). But for the newer players, as well as people who play more for fun, it's great to have resources available to bring their game to the next level by knowing and understanding different approaches, whether it's how to use MOA (which I feel is SO IMPORTANT for Nids in particular) or how to learn the way of the water warrior (great name by the way jy2!)

Also, Shuppet, I have to say that although we don't always see eye-to-eye on various things (partly because the Nid builds that we run tend to be very different) I don't think I've read something that you've written in 190+ pages that I agree with more than your last post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

The good thing about the big contributors to this thread, is that for the most part people sure know how to give supporting logic to their opinions. There is very little petty bickering and the strategy debate is always good, really well delivered and really good to add to or debate against when you feel you have further opinions on it. And what's a good point of view without someone to contest it? If you are right you will be able to explain the grievances someone may have with your opinion thus strengthening your opinion and answering some of the questions people reading may be wondering, and if you can't do this, well maybe your opinion was not so strong after all. I've had my opinion changed on a few models from the people in this thread alone, sometimes you need that second perspective to properly highlight the strengths or flaws of a unit/strategy for you.


It's cool because this is a really good way to sharpen strategical knowledge, it's definitely about multiple perspectives and being able to recognise which one makes the most sense.

Not only do I appreciate someone playing devil's advocate (which I know isn't what you're doing but it serves a similar purpose nonetheless), but there is absolutely something to be said for the necessity of being able to defend one's own opinion - if you can't, it's probably time to re-evaluate that opinion. Furthermore, against-the-grain thinking is exactly how we're going to find anything else out about the codex that we don't already know. There are countless examples of builds not being figured out until months to a year after the codex came out, and although we may have somewhat limited options in the way of competitive builds, tweaking and improving them is always worthwhile, as well as finding ways to use our typically underutilized units.

It's cool to remember that if you infiltrate an Exocrine, he doesn't have to move to shoot turning his usual BS3 into BS4, and if he's in range of the Warriors he gets twin-linked on his blast. Stand a very good chance of dropping a perfectly aimed large plasma blast and absolutely wrecking a pile of even heavy infantry. If this is less relevant, just using it for BS4 Ap2 Dakka is a great way of dealing with any MC or something with an armour save that your TL-Devs won't trade as efficiently against. Failing this, just infiltrate a Flyrant anyway and go for some rear armour.

My alpha of 72 Dakkashots, an Exocrine Blast or Dakka, 3 Twin-linked Biovores and a twin-linked Venom Cannon from the Warriors has always set the pace of the match for me.

It's also worth pointing out that there are some who believe that once you get to a certain number of infiltrating Carnifexes (Carnifexen? Carnifexi?) you have essentially won the game. While I don't believe that this is true, it certainly becomes a LOT easier when those rowdy boys are bearing down on the opponent looking at a likely turn 2 assault. Same goes for Dima.

tag8833 wrote:

barnowl wrote:
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.

I use MOA quite often. Here are a few observations I have.

Spoiler:

Advantages of MOA
-Infiltrating a flyrant gives you a chance to get back armor quite often.
-Dakkafexes / Tyrannofexes can contribute early.
-You can use it to dictate or confuse your opponent target priority
-Most things will have a chance for a turn 2 charge.
-Works well if you plan to control the middle of the board.

What should you infiltrate:
-If your opponent is shooty and doesn't have an assaulty deathstar you want to infiltrate you warlord, a support unit (Malanthrope is the best by a mile), and as many walking MCs as you can (Dakkafexes are #1 Option, but TFex, Dimacharon, Tervigon, or even Exocrine are also viable options).
-If your opponent has something that can threaten you MCs in assault. IE. Wraith Knight, Thunder puppies, Demon Prince, Necron Catacomb Command Barge, etc. Then you should infiltrate a Flyrant, a support unit, an MC, and a screening unit of some sort (Gargoyles work, but Gants are slower, and thus gain more advantage).
-I know that you don't use venoms or Malans, therefore your support unit would likely be a Zoey or Tervigon. In that case consider outflanking or deploying your flyrant.

Where should you infiltrate:
-Rarely an opponent may leave open a section of their deployment zone. Perhaps along the back board edge. In this case you want a screening unit. If you are deploying first, and didn't include a screen, then you should deploy somewhere else that you can get a cover save from ruins.
-Ruins that are Near midfield. This is especially great if you can use it as a LOS blocker to get closer.
- If you only have one shrouded giver, you might choose to line him up at the very edge of your deployment zone and infiltrate within 6" to get the shrouding.

When should you not infiltrate:
-If your opponent is going to come to you. The worst part of infiltrating is that you can't assault anything in assault range on turn 1.
-If you don't have enough support. For instance if you have 1 Malan, and 1 zoey as your only backfield synapse, you should not infiltrate, or perhaps infiltrate just screening units.
-Drop Pod Marines

Things to remember:
-If you and your opponent deploy at the edge of your deployment you are 24" apart. Infiltrating usually only closes that gap to 18"
-You are giving your opponent the opportunity to advance more aggressively, because several of your MC's aren't an assault threat.
-It is almost always better to give up infiltrating inches to keep your infiltrators in cover.

Absolutely agree on most of what you go there. It may just be the shear amount of White Scar marines in my meta, but I have found there is frequently space in opponent's backfield for an objective grabber that forces the opponent to split his forces. Getting my infiltrators cover is what lead me to doing the backfield deploys. Also good call on what my MoA inflitrators Zoe, Fex and *something*.

As Shuppet points out, an infiltrated Exocrine is just very very mean.

The Stealers well, I like using them and the opponent can't really ignore them so they find a way in to my lists. Eventually I will add a Venom (FW is not really played much in my area) to this army, but I am trying to keep this list fully painted while I catch up my other armies (Second nid,Marines and Tau)

luke1705 wrote:


Also, Shuppet, I have to say that although we don't always see eye-to-eye on various things (partly because the Nid builds that we run tend to be very different)

I don't think there is anyone in this thread who fully sees eye to eye with me haha, that being said I do agree with some of what all of you say and disagree with other parts. I'll often not be as vocal about something I agree with since it's already been said making further posts from me somewhat unnecessary , however when I see something that I disagree with it often needs a conflicting opinion added! I do hope that I never seem deliberately combative or that I'm "arguing against a person and not a statement", as I always state what Ive found and believe to be the most efficient way to cram a list full of the most value, and I don't post an opinion on something less it's fully thought through to the maximum, I'm not one for snap decisions. I also strive to support everything I say with strong logic, and to recognise when the opposing logic outweighs my own, and to redirect a debate back to the strategy when I feel that it's being (sometimes unintentionally) delivered through statements not always that relevant to the strategical nature of the debate.

luke1705 wrote:
Not only do I appreciate someone playing devil's advocate (which I know isn't what you're doing but it serves a similar purpose nonetheless), but there is absolutely something to be said for the necessity of being able to defend one's own opinion - if you can't, it's probably time to re-evaluate that opinion. Furthermore, against-the-grain thinking is exactly how we're going to find anything else out about the codex that we don't already know. There are countless examples of builds not being figured out until months to a year after the codex came out, and although we may have somewhat limited options in the way of competitive builds, tweaking and improving them is always worthwhile, as well as finding ways to use our typically underutilized units.

This is so true and will continue to be. What we have to remember is that there is a TINY sample of players for this game to be judged by, and there is no proper competitive medium for players to really be recognised for their grasp of the game concepts above others, unlike games of MTG, or even Starcraft and Dota. Wherein hundreds of thousands of dota games are played daily, giving trends a very relevant significance, and there is one of the highest competitive platforms available to gaming right now, we have an unsupported community-based competitive circuit that GW contributes to in no manner (least of which even balancing for such a state of play), consisting of a bunch of tournaments each with different house rules, played by people in a game with a STUPIDLY high fee just to build a base army let alone tweak it, and no medium to actually make money off it unlike MTG or esports. Comparatively the player base is tiny, a tiny amount of games are played, and a tiny amount of events are even available let alone even possible for a potential prodigy to attend. There is no such thing as a professional 40k player, there is no legendary players sitting at the top of the ladder for his achievements, as such there is nobody whose grasp and skill at the game has propelled him to heights above the rest of the competitive player base, there's nobody to look to for definitive strategies to emulate or learn from. Where Starcraft has people like flash and MC, dota has it's Dendis, the closest we have is bloggers that are interesting enough to hold people's attentions. FLG at least has an overall decent standard of skilled players behind it even if critical flaws in their reasoning are quite obvious and prominent, however look to someone like natfka, whose strategy statements are capable of setting current beliefs and be regurgitated constantly as the "way to do it", as 40k players love to do, yet to any higher level players reading his stuff it's quite obvious that he's a mid tier player at BEST whose grasp of game concepts has a lot of room for improvement (excuse the elitism , that was just he only way to deliver the statement I was trying to make about his blog). However, it doesn't stop the masses and a bunch of other players who don't actually know anything further than what they've read there, from regurgitating it as fact over and over on boards such as this. As such, anybody who blindly follows the mass opinion, or regurgitates stuff they've read and haven't practiced or theorised HARD about themselves, or uses the statement in debate "everyone does it this way" or "everyone knows that" or "that's what Geoff from FLG says to do" (sorry, couldn't resist taking a little jab at InControl but this is one that I have literally seen said, in this thread as well. Same could apply to jy2 and it's an extremely unhealthy mindstate strategically ), is severely limiting their own capability for growth as well as that of anybody absorbing the circular statements they put forth.

Although it's true that the sample size is comparatively small, it's important to realize the distinction between a list and a strategy. Many people think that if they run InControl's list, they'll win games. What they really need to do to win games is adopt strategies and tactics like InControl (or whatever tournament player floats your boat) and they'll win games. The key is tactical flexibility. It's not just about running the Trapdoor Spider, or the Way of the Water Warrior. It's about realizing when to run one or neither and adopt a third or fourth different strategy based on a number of fairly complex factors. What tournament players do well is make these snap judgements and decide what will give them the best chance to navigate the minefield that is the dice we must roll and emerge victorious. And they do all of this incredibly quickly while trying to out-think and out-maneuver the opponent.

Because of this tactical flexibility, I greatly appreciate seeing the battle reports and hearing the anecdotes from the tournament veterans. Much of the time, the advice that they give is rooted in the experiences they have.

And to add to that I think personal playstyle is a varied thing. We all choose different positioning placements, and take different gambles, might different sacrifices across the board of play, and generally employ different calls of judgement with different plans in mind for a turn or two later on what you are counting to pay off etc. There's a lot more to playing the game than just "in or out of cover" and "target priority", and I think copying another players list and advice is a fine start point, but you should be tweaking for your own ends from that point onwards to infinity.

Well said all around.

Can you put MC's in a building such as a bastion I cannot remember if MC count as extremely bulky.

 NightWrench wrote:
Can you put MC's in a building such as a bastion I cannot remember if MC count as extremely bulky.

No you can't. The vehicle rules only allow for infantry to embark on.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the next list I am thinking of running this coming Thurs for funsies. I call it my Fast Attack Tyranids.


1850 FAST ATTACK TYRANIDS

Dakka Flyrant - Egrubs

Malanthrope

Tervigon - Egrubs
30x Termagants
3x Rippers - Deepstrike

Dimachaeron
Dimachaeron
30x Gargoyles

Dakka Flyrant - Egrubs

3x Rippers - Deepstrike

8x Raveners - Rending Claws





Automatically Appended Next Post:

luke1705 wrote:
Although it's true that the sample size is comparatively small, it's important to realize the distinction between a list and a strategy. Many people think that if they run InControl's list, they'll win games. What they really need to do to win games is adopt strategies and tactics like InControl (or whatever tournament player floats your boat) and they'll win games. The key is tactical flexibility. It's not just about running the Trapdoor Spider, or the Way of the Water Warrior. It's about realizing when to run one or neither and adopt a third or fourth different strategy based on a number of fairly complex factors. What tournament players do well is make these snap judgements and decide what will give them the best chance to navigate the minefield that is the dice we must roll and emerge victorious. And they do all of this incredibly quickly while trying to out-think and out-maneuver the opponent.

Because of this tactical flexibility, I greatly appreciate seeing the battle reports and hearing the anecdotes from the tournament veterans. Much of the time, the advice that they give is rooted in the experiences they have.

If you like battle reports, here's a little something for you to pass your time with.


1850 Sky Fleet Pandora at the BAO GT 2014

Polkadragon wrote:



Update to this: apparently the tournament does allow Forge World, but no superheavies or gargantuans from FW, so the Hierodule is out :(

the good news is, this gives me 565 points to spend, the bad news is, there really is no decent replacement for the Hierodule long distance firepower :(
So, next try:

--CAD
Hive Tyrant: twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; wings; electroshock grubs
Hive Tyrant: twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; wings; electroshock grubs

3 Ripper Swarms: Deep Strike
3 Ripper Swarms: Deep Strike

1 Malanthrope
3 Hive Guard

Hive Crone
15 Gargoyles

Mawloc
Mawloc

-- Living artillery
3 Tyranid Warriors: barbed strangler

3 Biovores
Exocrine

Comes to 1735 points currently, also plays a bit different I guess. I'm not sure about the Gargoyles in this list though, might it be worth it to replace them with some Shrikes to hunt Wraithknights and such?

All opinions welcome!

Would this list be better? Shrikes give me some Riptide and Wraithknights killing...

-- CAD
Hive Tyrant: twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; wings; electroshock grubs
Hive Tyrant: twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; twin-linked devourer with brainleech worms; wings; electroshock grubs

3 Ripper Swarms: Deep Strike
3 Ripper Swarms: Deep Strike

1 Malanthrope

Hive Crone
6 Tyranid Shrikes: 6× scything talons; 2× lash whip and bonesword; toxin sacs; flesh hooks

Mawloc
Mawloc

-- Living Artillery
3 Tyranid Warriors: barbed strangler
3 Biovores
Exocrine

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Durability is a huge factor. The points difference between the two isn't. That is because the malanthrope is a force-multiplier and his effectiveness is amplified almost geometrically relative to his durability.

Take for example, you are going up against a normal army (not including Tau and mechdar, which are both exceptions to the norms with their ability to ignore cover). Let's say Necrons with triple-annihilation barges, a common enough tournament army. For this example, I'm am going to take LOS blockers like the bastion and BLOS terrain out of the equation and assume enemy guns are able to fire upon your M-thrope/V-thropes. All 3 AB's fire at it. Being BS4 twin-linked and with tesla, it will average about 5 hits per (x 3 barges). That's 15 hits and 13 wounds. Now assuming your thrope is in cover for 2+. The 13 wounds = 2 failed saves. That means your venomthrope is dead and your malanthrope survives with 2W until next turn.

So the venom is gone T1 and your malan survives to keep on buffing next turn. If he saves a wound for one of your flyrants, that is 240/4W = 60-pts that you've just saved. A dakkafex wound saved due to the malan is 38-pts saved. He also just saved 43-pts for your exocrine, and so on. What if he helps to save multiple wounds on your flyrant or other MC's as well? So the 40-pts extra you spend on the malan over the venom can potentially save you 3x points, 4x and even more in wounds suffered by the rest of your army. You really can't measure the impact of the malanthrope (and his increased survivability) to the rest of the army by just the cost difference between him and his smaller cousin. Doing so would be like comparing the walkrant over the flyrant. Well, the walkrant saves you 30-pts and that can be used to boost up the rest of the army. Well, the wings for the flyrant just gives you so much more utility and increased survivability that it is well worth. Same goes with the malanthrope. Every extra wound you save because of the increased survivability of the malanthrope goes back into the army, making it tougher and better. Investing in just 1 normal unit helps only that unit. Investing in a force-multiplier benefits the entire army. To me, that is a no-brainer where my points are going into.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw a reference to jy2's coined strategy term "Positional Dominance" from an earlier page. The individual went on to describe that the main goal of this strategy is to control the corners and attack from the sides...I thought it was more: Take the middle and force your opponent to react to you.

Could you explain this strategy another time jy2?

Should the Malanthrope's larger base size not also factor? His base should add an inch or two to his shrouding bubble diameter to cover your gribblies and critters.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Should the Malanthrope's larger base size not also factor? His base should add an inch or two to his shrouding bubble diameter to cover your gribblies and critters.

This is true, and when looked at in the sense of a malanthrope vs venom/zoan, there are multiple things to consider. Malanthrope is tougher than both. Yes it is a single model and therefore easier to focus (and high up so easy to see) but it is T5 so immune to S8 ID and is harder to wound by small arms fire, has a 3+ save normally, which is on par with the zoan though not an invul, but also makes it immune to SMS which is one of the v-thropes GREATEST weaknesses. It also comes stock with it will not die, on a 4+ which is fantastic, and as was mentioned in the quote above, has a larger sphere of influence than the v-thrope.

And for sh%^# and giggles, if you manage to get him into a combat where you kill and enemy unit (or win combat, can't remember) then he ow has a preferred enemy bubble as well. Drop pod marines anyone?

All in all, 90 points is an immense bargain for what you get. Oh, forgot to mention he only takes up one elite slot which gives you greater list flexibility.

I dont use emplacements with nids, cause that is too much outside the fluff for me. After playing one game with my tau against nids with venoms, and seeing how one SMS is the death of them, I was like NOPE!

 jy2 wrote:

Spoiler:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Durability is a huge factor. The points difference between the two isn't. That is because the malanthrope is a force-multiplier and his effectiveness is amplified almost geometrically relative to his durability.

Take for example, you are going up against a normal army (not including Tau and mechdar, which are both exceptions to the norms with their ability to ignore cover). Let's say Necrons with triple-annihilation barges, a common enough tournament army. For this example, I'm am going to take LOS blockers like the bastion and BLOS terrain out of the equation and assume enemy guns are able to fire upon your M-thrope/V-thropes. All 3 AB's fire at it. Being BS4 twin-linked and with tesla, it will average about 5 hits per (x 3 barges). That's 15 hits and 13 wounds. Now assuming your thrope is in cover for 2+. The 13 wounds = 2 unfailed saves. That means your venomthrope is dead and your malanthrope survives with 2W until next turn.

So the venom is gone T1 and your malan survives to keep on buffing next turn. If he saves a wound for one of your flyrants, that is 240/4W = 60-pts that you've just saved. A dakkafex wound saved due to the malan is 38-pts saved. He also just saved 43-pts for your exocrine, and so on. What if he helps to save multiple wounds on your flyrant or other MC's as well? So the 40-pts extra you spend on the malan over the venom can potentially save you 3x points, 4x and even more in wounds suffered by the rest of your army. You really can't measure the impact of the malanthrope (and his increased survivability) to the rest of the army by just the cost difference between him and his smaller cousin. Doing so would be like comparing the walkrant over the flyrant. Well, the walkrant saves you 30-pts and that can be used to boost up the rest of the army. Well, the wings for the flyrant just gives you so much more utility and increased survivability that it is well worth. Same goes with the malanthrope. Every extra wound you save because of the increased survivability of the malanthrope goes back into the army, making it tougher and better. Investing in just 1 normal unit helps only that unit. Investing in a force-multiplier benefits the entire army. To me, that is a no-brainer where my points are going into.

Couldn't agree more. I find it odd that someone wouldn't consider a Malanthrope more viable than the venomthrope. Perhaps it's because all of the hype it has received in the last few months, and so people are expecting too much from it but on paper and on the board - its clearly the better choice!

Venom is 22.5 pts per wound - 5+ AS T4
Malan is 21.25 pts per wound - 3+ AS T5

The difference there alone is pretty substantial, but just to make a point it has all of these additions too;
synapse, shadows, boost in initiative,strength, Regen, grasping tail...

No brainer at all.

The only reason I would take a Venom now is if I couldn't run Forgeworld or was playing Kill Team.

 jy2 wrote:


Take for example, you are going up against a normal army (not including Tau and mechdar, which are both exceptions to the norms with their ability to ignore cover). Let's say Necrons with triple-annihilation barges, a common enough tournament army. For this example, I'm am going to take LOS blockers like the bastion and BLOS terrain out of the equation and assume enemy guns are able to fire upon your M-thrope/V-thropes. All 3 AB's fire at it. Being BS4 twin-linked and with tesla, it will average about 5 hits per (x 3 barges). That's 15 hits and 13 wounds. Now assuming your thrope is in cover for 2+. The 13 wounds = 2 failed saves. That means your venomthrope is dead and your malanthrope survives with 2W until next turn.

So the venom is gone T1 and your malan survives to keep on buffing next turn.

Holy CRAP that is a wildly specific, doctored situation. For starters, why on earth would I ever position myself in such a manner against Assault Barges? My venom would most definitely be out of sight to them, unless they've chewed through 2 squads of Dakkafex WITH the cover save up, in which case Venom has made its points back, or unless they try some crazy forward push positioning (and even then it's unlikely), in which case the Venom has made its points back better than a Mal would anyway as this puts them in hurt range of Dakkafex / other nastys by making a positioning decision they wouldn't have to against a Mal. You can't just say "lets assume he isn't out of LoS" that's like me saying "lets just assume the Malanthrope is ahead of your entire army and only gets a 5+ save for this example". It doesn't make sense at all, position wise. But ASSUMING that for some reason I did position it terribly and do that, and the Barges shoot at both it and the Venom, my next question is, why does the Malan have a 2+ save? Do you position yours in the ruin every game? Because if not, and if we go with the far more likely scenario that he has 3+ save, those barges DO kill the Malanthrope (4 failed saves) with the same amount of points invested, giving the advantage right back to the Venom anyway.

This logic is hugely doctored for your scenario. On top of that, we had to rule out any situations concerning Eldar and Tau, when I specifically explained that they are my 2 hardest opponents (not Crons) and it would surprise me if anyone else was finding any other match up harder than these two, and during these two match ups the benefits of Venom over a Malan for that cheaper price outweighs it over and over. The other match ups, a Venom is guaranteed to make its points back regardless I've found.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilson wrote:
on paper and on the board - its clearly the better choice!

Venom is 22.5 pts per wound - 5+ AS T4
Malan is 21.25 pts per wound - 3+ AS T5

The difference there alone is pretty substantial, but just to make a point it has all of these additions too;
synapse, shadows, boost in initiative,strength, Regen, grasping tail...

No brainer at all.

The only reason I would take a Venom now is if I couldn't run Forgeworld or was playing Kill Team.

Or if the investment into either was killed just as easily as the other, and it's cost per wound never comes into play and one just ends up netting you free points. Or if you wanted to block LoS to it, I don't think anything except some ridiculous stacked positioning of multiple Crones and Carnifexes is capable of blocking LoS to a Mal, which is sacrificed if you get first turn anyway.

The fact that a lot of people are having trouble grasping is that the points difference is always relevant, and the durability is not. 1 Malanthrope is no more durable than 2 Venoms, how many of you deemed your cover save to be worth 2 Venoms before Malanthrope was released? I don't remember any of you really doing so. Yes, the Mal gets Synapse I know but thats not the point I've seen argued at all yet, just that he keeps cover up longer thus > take him. The rest of his special rules will be irrelevant 19 games out of 20. Probably less. If your Malan survives long enough to make it into CC, he's either been wasted points because your opponent doesn't care about the cover save, or you've already won the game anyway as if this is not the case they have failed to kill him off within 2-3 turns of shooting,


How bout I suggest a situation where those extra points for a Zope net me a roll of Onslaught, pushing 2 Dakkafex into shooting range of something on the board edge a turn early, netting me an extra 24 Devourer shots (the firepower of 2 Flyrants we are talking here)? This alone outweighs a Malanthropes advantages added. How about we allow Tau back in, as realistically there is no reason that I won't be playing some of my hardest match ups against Tau, and in my opponents turn he markerlights my Venom (which I once again, have stupidly chosen to leave in LoS of him?) killing it or a Malanthrope pretty much just as easily as the other, both being a mostly irrelevant unit this game regardless.


At the end of the day, the LoS blocking is getting really overlooked and does leagues for his durability making him possibly even on par or better with the Mal, synergising with his role better, and still costing less than the Mal.

But assuming the durability IS less on the Venom, I think maybe it's time to consider that the trade off of durability for extra aggression for an aggressive playstyle is definitely very viable. Not necessarily better every game if you insist, but definitely viable. Yes I would consider as good or better than a Malanthrope often enough, but I'm not asking anyone to share that opinion, just to admit that the difference isn't as far flung as some are insisting.

And let's not forget that most of us already have Venomthropes, and not all of us can afford Malanthropes +IA rulebook.
:(

Malanthropes from China arent expensive...neither are screencaps...just saying.

SBG wrote:
And let's not forget that most of us already have Venomthropes, and not all of us can afford Malanthropes +IA rulebook.
:(

No worries if you would rather use your own models and not spend any more money on new ones (and/or new books). We are all limited by our resources (i.e. financial situations).

The only thing that I am saying is that, gamewise, the malanthrope is better than the venomthrope even though it costs almost double that of the venomthrope. Now whether you use him or not in your army is entirely dependent on your circumstances and the circumstances of your meta.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoiler:

 jy2 wrote:


Take for example, you are going up against a normal army (not including Tau and mechdar, which are both exceptions to the norms with their ability to ignore cover). Let's say Necrons with triple-annihilation barges, a common enough tournament army. For this example, I'm am going to take LOS blockers like the bastion and BLOS terrain out of the equation and assume enemy guns are able to fire upon your M-thrope/V-thropes. All 3 AB's fire at it. Being BS4 twin-linked and with tesla, it will average about 5 hits per (x 3 barges). That's 15 hits and 13 wounds. Now assuming your thrope is in cover for 2+. The 13 wounds = 2 failed saves. That means your venomthrope is dead and your malanthrope survives with 2W until next turn.

So the venom is gone T1 and your malan survives to keep on buffing next turn.

Holy CRAP that is a wildly specific, doctored situation. For starters, why on earth would I ever position myself in such a manner against Assault Barges? My venom would most definitely be out of sight to them, unless they've chewed through 2 squads of Dakkafex WITH the cover save up, in which case Venom has made its points back, or unless they try some crazy forward push positioning (and even then it's unlikely), in which case the Venom has made its points back better than a Mal would anyway as this puts them in hurt range of Dakkafex / other nastys by making a positioning decision they wouldn't have to against a Mal. You can't just say "lets assume he isn't out of LoS" that's like me saying "lets just assume the Malanthrope is ahead of your entire army and only gets a 5+ save for this example". It doesn't make sense at all, position wise. But ASSUMING that for some reason I did position it terribly and do that, and the Barges shoot at both it and the Venom, my next question is, why does the Malan have a 2+ save? Do you position yours in the ruin every game? Because if not, and if we go with the far more likely scenario that he has 3+ save, those barges DO kill the Malanthrope (4 failed saves) with the same amount of points invested, giving the advantage right back to the Venom anyway.

This logic is hugely doctored for your scenario. On top of that, we had to rule out any situations concerning Eldar and Tau, when I specifically explained that they are my 2 hardest opponents (not Crons) and it would surprise me if anyone else was finding any other match up harder than these two, and during these two match ups the benefits of Venom over a Malan for that cheaper price outweighs it over and over. The other match ups, a Venom is guaranteed to make its points back regardless I've found.

It's a highly reasonable assumption. Not all tables will include large LOS-blocking terrain (BLOS terrain). Then you've got the instance where your opponent wins the roll for deployment and then puts your army on the side with the least favorable terrain setup. Yes, you will want to hide your venomthrope whenever you can, but in many instances, you just can't. Either that or you hide him further back behind BLOS terrain (because most likely you're not just going to have the BLOS terrain up front exactly where you need it to be for your entire army) and now you have to deploy your entire army back instead of as far forwards as possible just to put them in the venom's shrouding bubble.

And then you've got Dawn of War deployment, where unless you deploy your venom all the way back on backend of your deployment zone, annihilation barges which can move up to 12" for an effective 30-36" range of shooting will still most likely have range to wherever you put your venom. BTW, AB's snapfiring will also do about 4.5 hits on average so their output actually isn't affected all that much by snapfiring. As for all the other deployment methods, if you deploy your venoms back to try to get out of range of the barges, then you will be deploying the rest of your army back as well, thus taking it further out of position.

As for "dakkafexes" or whatever else MC is guarding the venoms, Necrons have Mindshackle Scarabs to deal with them in bargelords and/or destroyer lords + wraiths. Of course the AB's are not going to advance unsupported. They will be accompanied by bargelords/Necron wraithstars as well. With only LD8, the chances of the carnifexes hitting themselves from MSS is very high.

The malan will have a 2+ save because you can assume any decent player would put him in ruins (as well as to have the TMC's touching that same ruins). But you are right. If you want to go to the extreme to say that the table has no ruins as well, then yeah, both will die in just 1 volley by triple-AB's.

As for Tau and Eldar, they are 2 armies out of 10 where both the malan and venom will have problems against. That's 20% of the armies that you may face. However, the assumptions will still work against 80% of the armies out there. But even still, against Tau and Eldar, the malanthrope will survive much better. He can survive against Tau SMS, whereas the vthrope - as another poster (or 2) mentioned earlier - will just fold like a wet paper bag. Thanks to his 3+, T5 and 4W, the malanthrope will also survive better against the likes of markerlights + riptide fire and wave serpents. He may not survive the entire turn, but it'll most likely take 3 wave serpents to finish him off compared to just 1 wave serpent to finish off the venom. That means 2 less wave serpents to fire at the rest of the army if you've got the malanthrope in your army when going up against Eldar serpent-spam.

Of course all these can be avoided if you just do what I do and take a bastion in your army.

@jy2 With a Malanthrope inside synapse is measured from the edges of the fortification as well, correct?

Sinful, that's correct. So a bastion gives you a HUGE synapse bubble for a Malanthrope. The shrouding effect is also measured the same way. This is another reason why the bastion is advocated so much by Jy2. I don't run it as often because it's actually overkill against most of my usual opponents, but it's very good

I think the Mal or Ven+Zoe is a lot more army dependent than some want to admit. In a vacuum for 90% of the cases the Mal is probably the better buy, especially in flyer heavy lists. I find in foot heavy lists, the Zoe role on the powers chart is going to be more important.

The Malanthrope is 1/2" bigger in radius than a Venomthrope, so you gain an inch of shrouding over the Vope with the larger base. Not too big of a deal, but that means it also has an inch of synapse over the Zoanthrope/Zope? as well. Probably irrelevant for the most part.

That's a 1/2" on each side(radius), if there's any confusion.

If I can find my compass I'll edit a picture of the different bands later tonight.
I'm not pleased with my crafting skills, but I said I'd do it.(not to mention the poor picture quality)

Ok so I'm going to Mathhammer this Malanthope vs Venomthrope durability thing. I'll compare the durability of the two units in terms of how many shots to the face it takes for each unit to die. For the purposes of these calculations, I'll assume a Ballistic skill of 4 for the shooter, as this is average because of Tau (can get 5 much of the time) and then there are 3 and 2 units occasionally (hey Orks). If you want to see how many Lasguns it takes, for example. all you need to do is use the appropriate conversion factor. I'll do an example for the first comparison, how many bolter shots it takes, so you can see and do it for yourself if you care:

Chance to hit at BS 4: 2/3 (.66666) (for both)
Chance to wound at Strength 4: (.5 against Venomthrope) ( 1/3 or .3333) against Malanthrope
Chance to fail a save: 1/6 (.166666) (for both)

All you need to do is take the number of saves failed to die (2 for a Venomthrope) (4 for a Malanthrope) and divide that number by the product of the three decimals. So for a Venomthrope that would be 2 divided by .055 or (.666*.5*.166), which gives a result of 36. Meaning that it would take 36 bolter shots to get through the Venomthrope in cover. For the Malanthrope, you would use 4 as the numerand, and divide that by .037 or (.666*.333*.166). That would give the result of 108 bolter shots to drop a Malanthrope in that same 2+ cover.


So I don't know how to do tables, so bear with me here. I'll do percentages to make this a little more clear. When in 2+ cover, it will take:


54 Strength 3 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 216 Strength 3 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 400% more durable.
36 Strength 4 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 108 Strength 4 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 300% more durable.
27 Strength 5 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 72 Strength 5 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 266% more durable.
20 Strength 6 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 54 Strength 6 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 270% more durable.
20 Strength 7 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 42 Strength 7 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 200% more durable (rounding error)
6 Strength 8 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 42 Strength 8 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 700% more durable.
6 Strength 9 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 42 Strength 9 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so the Malanthrope is 700% more durable
6 Strength 10 shots to kill a Venomthrope vs 6 Strength 10 shots to kill a Malanthrope, so they are exactly the same in terms of durability



Let's talk for a second about ignores cover, which frequently happens, and ignore AP (which hugely benefits the Venomthrope, as it will only take 6 sternguard shots, or 3 sternguard at rapid fire range using their ignores cover ammo, to drop a Venomthrope) Ignores cover that it also AP 3 is rather rare, so that's a pretty big deal.

Venomthrope:

Strength 3: 14 AP - shots
Strength 4: 9 AP - shots
Strength 5: 7 AP - shots
Strength 6: 5 AP - shots
Strength 7: 5 AP - shots
Strength 8: 1.7 AP - shots

Malanthrope:

Strength 3: 108 AP - shots (770% more durable)
Strength 4: 54 AP - shots (600% more durable)
Strength 5: 36 AP - shots (514% more durable)
Strength 6: 27 AP - shots (540% more durable)
Strength 7: 21 AP - shots (420% more durable)
Strength 8: 21 AP - shots (1,230 % more durable)

The numbers only get more ridiculous when you take AP into account if it's 4 or 5 and ignores cover (which happens a LOT). The only reason that I included the number of raw shots is because if an army doesn't have that many shots to bring to bear, then it makes all the difference in the world. Contrary to Shuppet's assertion that the durability makes no difference, it makes all the difference in the world. Even if an army has 108 bolter shots (or more likely, 54 rapid-firing bolters) necessary to bring down the Malanthrope, you've still taken up 72 more shots away from the rest of your army compared to the Venomthrope. That's why I will always bring one - because the durability is almost never wasted. The only case where it could be is when a squadron (or unit) has SO MUCH FIREPOWER that it could kill either of them without missing a beat, and it can't split-fire so it would have to shoot at that one unit anyhow. Maybe Farsight Bomb that somehow decided to not give itself split-fire? I can't really think of any real-world example where this would be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:
I think the Mal or Ven+Zoe is a lot more army dependent than some want to admit. In a vacuum for 90% of the cases the Mal is probably the better buy, especially in flyer heavy lists. I find in foot heavy lists, the Zoe role on the powers chart is going to be more important.

Barnowl, for one thing, you have an awesome username. For another, I do agree that it's not all night-and-day because you do save points and a Zoan is good - however to me, I find it more important to have zero easy first blood targets versus 2 (or just 1 if you like the durability of the Venomthrope) Can't really rely on having enough BLOS terrain for both of them. However, the more Carnifex you bring, the more important the Zoan becomes, I agree. You want them to get across the table pronto, and the Onslaught often means the difference between being able to shoot first turn versus not being able to.

I don't think SHUPPET would argue that the Venomthrope is more durable than the Malanthrope, anyone can see that T5 W4 with 3+ is going to be better at taking hits than T4 W2 5+.

Looking through the comments, I think SHUPPET argues that a Venomthrope does have advantages over a Malanthrope, including being cheaper and being smaller and therefore, making it easier to block LOS. Durability isn't going to be a factor to consider when you can't even shoot at the model.

What would I take personally? Depends on the list I had taken. For more mobile lists such as Skyblight, I think the Malanthrope is better, as it doesn't need Synapse support. More static and grounded lists mind find more use out of a Venomthrope, where you can provide Synapse in the backfield, as well as provide more instances to completely block LOS (such as behind a MC), keeping your 45 buffer unit alive.

I've not tested a Malanthrope although I want to so I can't comment on it. I did have success running two Venomthropes for durability (alongside two single man Zoey units), although I'm inclined to make a switch from two Venoms to one Venom and a DS Ripper unit to see how that does.

It's nice to see healthy discussion taking place, I've just had to talk to someone who hates the new DE codex and yet provides no reasonable evidence for saying they got nerfed across the board (that's a discussion for another thread though).

@jy2 Raveners? Nice. Please share your results when you have your game, I've got about six that I want to make work