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.

Razerous wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I always Swarmlord sadly. I find his extra move too valuable. I keep him hidden using his extra move ability on my units until I get most of the heavy shooting tied up or killed off, then I run him in to slaughter what's left.

Okay interesting - what do you find he kills well or the best? How fragile is he?

He is fragile to shooting, which is why I chain my units to him to benefit from his special ability early on and keep him as hidden as possible. Once things are nice and messy though and the armies are clashed, he is a wrecking ball. There really isn't much he isn't good at fighting. He is one of the best melee units in the game.
I run a lot of shooting in my list and some melee. I'm mostly a horde army with only a few large monsters (2 exocrines, swarmlord and trygon prime). I rely a lot on my genestealers, termagaunts, gargoyles and Hive Guard.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They need to fix venomthropes by making them not targetable or expanding their aura to cover everything instead of just infantry. Its not the malanthropes fault venoms dont get taken. Venoms are far too vulnerable for their niche benefit.

This. Venomthropes are ass. Forgeworld isn't allowed in tournaments in my region, so I can't take Malanthropes. Even so, I don't run Venomthropes. There's no way I'm paying 93pts for that.

Venomthropes should be 1-3 per unit and protect all Tyranid units like the Malanthrope, not just infantry.

For large hordes you get a HUGE radius with venomthropes, they are the same points as a malanthrope also.

Yes they should be 1-3.

And..... your area sucks lol.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They need to fix venomthropes by making them not targetable or expanding their aura to cover everything instead of just infantry. Its not the malanthropes fault venoms dont get taken. Venoms are far too vulnerable for their niche benefit.

This. Venomthropes are ass. Forgeworld isn't allowed in tournaments in my region, so I can't take Malanthropes. Even so, I don't run Venomthropes. There's no way I'm paying 93pts for that.

Venomthropes should be 1-3 per unit and protect all Tyranid units like the Malanthrope, not just infantry.

I believe you can pick a single model as an auxiliary support detachment. This way you can field a single venomthrope and keep it behind cover out of sight. Indirect fire could take it out put then it only cost 31 points. Also cost a command point but could be good addition to heavy infantry tyranid armies. Keep it between 3x3 biovores or something like that.

So what you are hoping for Hive Fleet tactics?

It is obviously isn't going to be named Hive Fleet Tactics, probably it will be something like Hive Fleet Adaptation or Hive Fleet Mutation or something like that.

GW loves to reuse stratagems and sub factions rules when possible (practically everyone has Raven Guard tactics), so we should use already existing "tactics" to get an idea, specially Chaos ones as chaos has plenty of assault based tactics.

Tyran wrote:
So what you are hoping for Hive Fleet tactics?

It is obviously isn't going to be named Hive Fleet Tactics, probably it will be something like Hive Fleet Adaptation or Hive Fleet Mutation or something like that.

GW loves to reuse stratagems and sub factions rules when possible (practically everyone has Raven Guard tactics), so we should use already existing "tactics" to get an idea, specially Chaos ones as chaos has plenty of assault based tactics.

Raven guard tactics is a given, now Adeptus has it too. I think they are GW answer to gunlines, inserting a certain number of lists that counter those by default.

For other chapter tactics i would look at Adeputs traits more than other factions, since this is the first faction with traits not based around infantry (and dreadnaughts).

I would bet money that we get a general strategem that allows us to respawn or refill a unit similar to the one for the one forgeworld in admech.

 Lance845 wrote:
I would bet money that we get a general strategem that allows us to respawn or refill a unit similar to the one for the one forgeworld in admech.

Yep, I think we'll get an "Endless" strategem like "Tide of Traitors", and something like Alpha legion/ Raven Guard after that, it depends...will they mostly copy/paste (likely) or get creative.. Maybe Hive Fleet Gorgon will get a "Mutations for victory" that gives all gribblies +1T vs a gun of your choice (Laser, Plasma, etc) That would be mondo fluffy...and I don't Thinks its too powerful....

I'd look to how they've handled Chaos for hints about us Nids....

It's going to be real great just refilling Hormagaunts and Termagants and such. With their speed, having to refill and get back across the board won't be an issue at all.

Gargoyles... oh jeez. a unit of 30 gargs that can refill and then rush back accross the board. So good.

It will probably be limited to gaunts.
I actually look forward to what stratagems and traits we will get. There is so much room for some really creative stuff here. I'm also wondering if we will get Biomorphs like Artifacts. Acid Blood or harden exoskeleton might be nice for us.
The safe bets for traits are the -1 to hit camo thing, the endless gaunts one and probably one that allows us to leave combat and assault in the same turn.
As far as Stratagems, I'm hoping for a Death Throes one that does mortal wounds when a monster is killed and maybe one for Biovore assault.

I want to see pyrovores be good if not great maby give them additional mortal wound when they roll6s for damage.

Pyrovores are actually really nasty right now if you are forced to face them in close combat. Heavy flamer, decent melee, pour a lot of mortal wounds when you attack them and have 4 wounds. Problem is that they are slow and will never make it to the enemy in the majority of games.

With a raven guard trait though...

Pyrovores have always had the same problem in that they were a pure glass canon pulled by a sloth. Which in a game with a lot of ranged firepower, means they tend to end up blown up before they get to hit.

The idea of the pyrovore is great - a close combat beast that spews out flames and if killed, explodes to harm all those around it. The trick is getting it into close combat alive so that it can actually do something.

They could certainly use a speed increase or the ability to run and shoot.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
They could certainly use a speed increase or the ability to run and shoot.

Well it can already run and shoot, but speed 5" is really too low.

There are two new Hive Fleets mentioned in the new Death Guard codex, Scitalis and Lotan. Not much information is provided on Scitalis apart from it attacking from the galactic north (looks like it might be on course for Baal again, but is currently bogged down in Death Guard/Nurgle space), but Lotan is funny. Their response to the Death Guard's bio-warfare tactics was to deploy mass Toxicrenes and Venomthropes, resulting in an escalating toxin arms race between the two sides that ended with the everything on the planet's surface being reduced to a sea of inedible sludge. Technically was a loss for Lotan in the sense the planet was too polluted to harvest (one ship tried and its mouthparts melted from the attempt) but they did succeed in beating the Death Guard at their own game which is impressive.

Even if they can't eat the world now I'd be willing to bet the hive ship will return in time- or eventually evolve past the problem of a highly acidic world.

I have collected a number of Tyranid Warriors, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried spamming them en-masse. By En-masse I mean six squads of 9. Crazy I know, just wondering. . .

I have not, but would like to know also.

I would assume you would do them as Jack of all Trades, DS's LW/BS, a couple Primes and some Venom Thrope, also some Venom Cannons would be good.


Let me know how it goes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have collected a number of Tyranid Warriors, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried spamming them en-masse. By En-masse I mean six squads of 9. Crazy I know, just wondering. . .

And then the just walk forward and simply get shot to pieces. Multi-wound creatures are vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, so its better to pick genestealers.

Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have collected a number of Tyranid Warriors, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried spamming them en-masse. By En-masse I mean six squads of 9. Crazy I know, just wondering. . .

I recently posted a list built around Warrior, but I used a Supreme Command of three Fly'rants for anti-air and all around problem solving.

shogun wrote:

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They need to fix venomthropes by making them not targetable or expanding their aura to cover everything instead of just infantry. Its not the malanthropes fault venoms dont get taken. Venoms are far too vulnerable for their niche benefit.

This. Venomthropes are ass. Forgeworld isn't allowed in tournaments in my region, so I can't take Malanthropes. Even so, I don't run Venomthropes. There's no way I'm paying 93pts for that.

Venomthropes should be 1-3 per unit and protect all Tyranid units like the Malanthrope, not just infantry.

I believe you can pick a single model as an auxiliary support detachment. This way you can field a single venomthrope and keep it behind cover out of sight. Indirect fire could take it out put then it only cost 31 points. Also cost a command point but could be good addition to heavy infantry tyranid armies. Keep it between 3x3 biovores or something like that.

Nope, it's single unit, not single model.

 Niiai wrote:
Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

He just said that Genestealers are better than multi-wound creatures slowly footslogging across the board.

 Niiai wrote:
Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

Also depends on your local meta, if players are spamming Tac squads i think he'll do just fine, if they are spamming ML's err.. well thats different lol.

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

He just said that Genestealers are better than multi-wound creatures slowly footslogging across the board.

Your statement N.I.B. is not true. You are qupoting Shogun's conclusuon. Genestealers are better then warriors. In fact you are even adjusting his statement.

I am attacking the argument that leads Shogun to his conclusion: Argument: "Multi-wound creatures are vulnerable to multi-damage weapons," leading to the conclution: "so its better to pick genestealers."

First, this argumentation is false: It would mean every multi wound creature in our codex is bad. This is simply not true. There are many good multi wound creatures and units in our codex.

Second, Shogun is cherry picking hos result. (Chosing results that he likes, while ignoring the once that does not suport his claim.) All gaunts and gargoyles are also not multi wound creatures, but they are hardly as good as Shoguns argument would have them be.

I also think his awnser is just wrong, as I will explain below.

The problem is that Insectum7 is looking for awnsers to how good his warriors are. This indicates that Insectum7 is looking for good advice, and Shogun is just muddeling the water. The arguments on this forum between running warriors to not running warriors has been very passionetly engaged on this thread. Often going on for pages.

To sum up these arguments:
- They are very versatile, something our codex has very little of. Versatilaty is often bad in a specialist codex. However in the case of warriors some think they are in the goldi-lock aria, being just versatile enough to make up for the points.
- They came worst out on the dakka mathhammer.
- They are very hard to compare with shrikes. With passionate opinioons on both sides.
- Shuppet, who started out as an anti-warrior, has recently become pro-warrior. This could indicate that there is an argument to be made for warriors.

If Shogun had said 'Warriors are highly debated. But genestealer is considered one of the best units in the codex.' it would have been much better. Not only would he not be making bad arguments with cherry picked conclutions. Insectum7 would be more informed. Insectum7 can with good faith throw together a list with warriors and feel good about it.

N.I.B. wrote:

shogun wrote:

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
They need to fix venomthropes by making them not targetable or expanding their aura to cover everything instead of just infantry. Its not the malanthropes fault venoms dont get taken. Venoms are far too vulnerable for their niche benefit.

This. Venomthropes are ass. Forgeworld isn't allowed in tournaments in my region, so I can't take Malanthropes. Even so, I don't run Venomthropes. There's no way I'm paying 93pts for that.

Venomthropes should be 1-3 per unit and protect all Tyranid units like the Malanthrope, not just infantry.

I believe you can pick a single model as an auxiliary support detachment. This way you can field a single venomthrope and keep it behind cover out of sight. Indirect fire could take it out put then it only cost 31 points. Also cost a command point but could be good addition to heavy infantry tyranid armies. Keep it between 3x3 biovores or something like that.

Nope, it's single unit, not single model.

Rulebook FAQ:

Page 242 – Understrength Units
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If you are using Power Ratings, you must still pay
the Power Rating cost as if you had a minimum-sized unit, even though it contains fewer models. If you are using points, you only pay the points for the models you actually have in an understrength unit (and any wargear they are equipped with). An understrength unit still takes up the appropriate slot in a Detachment. If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary Support Detachment.’

Niiai wrote:Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

No, its simple math. A decent enemy shooty list can take down at least 9 warriors a turn so in the end the warriors just bite the dust. They're to slow to make up for the first casualties. It's a reason not to take warriors, not a reason to only take guants and genestealers.

This is my armylist (2000):

DETACHMENT1: TYRANIDS SPEARHEAD DETACHMENT

WARLORD HQ: Broodlord

HEAVY SUPPORT: 3x Biovore
HEAVY SUPPORT: 3x Biovore
HEAVY SUPPORT: 3x Biovore
HEAVY SUPPORT: Mawlock
HEAVY SUPPORT: Mawlock
HEAVY SUPPORT: Mawlock

DETACHMENT2: GENESTEALER CULT- AUXILIARY SUPPORT DETACHMENT
HQ: Magus

DETACHMENT3: ASTRA MILITARUM BATALLION DETACHMENT

HQ: Company commander, plasma pistol + power sword
HQ: Primaris psyker

ELITE: Commissar, plasma pistol, power sword
ELITE: Master of ordnance

TROOPS: 30x conscripts
TROOPS: 5x Militarum tempestus scions 2x plasmagun + plasma pistol
TROOPS: 5x Militarum tempestus scions 2x plasmagun + plasma pistol

HEAVY SUPPORT: Manticore
HEAVY SUPPORT: 3xBasilisk
HEAVY SUPPORT: 3x Wyverns

I made this list for a tournament that;
- doesn't allow forgeworld,
- detachments are unique,
- dataslates are limited to max 3,
- allowed to pick the warlord trait and psychic powers.

This amount of shooting takes down warriors easily. I can always move the biovores and deploy my missing sporemines 3 inch in front of a particular warrior unit preventing it from moving forward. After 2/3 turns of shooting I can drop in the mawlocks also preventing the warriors from moving forward. If a warrior unit get's to close I always got a bunch of astra M. characters + conscripts counterassaulting with a broodlord backing them up. I like my odds.

Tournament play =/= all play

Local meta depends on what you can and can not play, the more friendlier the meta the more viable units/lists you can take.

Not everyone plays Hyper comp.

Won't warrior squads benefit greatly from a Malanthrope? Thinking their slower speed and larger footprint/cost.

Shogun that list you posted would easily stop cold a genestealer list as well, so i don't see the relevance here.

Also:

shogun wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have collected a number of Tyranid Warriors, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried spamming them en-masse. By En-masse I mean six squads of 9. Crazy I know, just wondering. . .

And then the just walk forward and simply get shot to pieces. Multi-wound creatures are vulnerable to multi-damage weapons, so its better to pick genestealers.

A genestealer suffer 4 points of damage from a bolter hit, compared to the 1,75 points of a sponge warrior.

Single-wound models are vulnerable to bolter fire, so its better to pick warriors.

Niiai wrote:

 N.I.B. wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Shogun that is just closed minded. By that argumentation you can only run gaunts and stealers.

He just said that Genestealers are better than multi-wound creatures slowly footslogging across the board.

Your statement N.I.B. is not true. You are qupoting Shogun's conclusuon. Genestealers are better then warriors. In fact you are even adjusting his statement.

I am attacking the argument that leads Shogun to his conclusion: Argument: "Multi-wound creatures are vulnerable to multi-damage weapons," leading to the conclution: "so its better to pick genestealers."

First, this argumentation is false: It would mean every multi wound creature in our codex is bad. This is simply not true. There are many good multi wound creatures and units in our codex.

Second, Shogun is cherry picking hos result. (Chosing results that he likes, while ignoring the once that does not suport his claim.) All gaunts and gargoyles are also not multi wound creatures, but they are hardly as good as Shoguns argument would have them be.

N.I.B. understands that we are talking about a 6 inch walking infantry model that are much more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons compared to genestealers. The question was; would a 6x9 warrior setup be any good. Players are always looking at individual units but don't talk about the whole strategy of the army. Fielding 6x9 warriors gives you a force that is slowly walking forward and try to get within 18 inch devourer range. Thats the whole strategy? Then you are better of fielding a whole army of genestealers if you want to go down that road. Warriors are very average for a decent price but spamming them gives you a 'decent' army but nothing more. Not enough punch in shooting, close combat and speed.

Niiai wrote:I also think his awnser is just wrong, as I will explain below.

The problem is that Insectum7 is looking for awnsers to how good his warriors are. This indicates that Insectum7 is looking for good advice, and Shogun is just muddeling the water. The arguments on this forum between running warriors to not running warriors has been very passionetly engaged on this thread. Often going on for pages.

To sum up these arguments:
- They are very versatile, something our codex has very little of. Versatilaty is often bad in a specialist codex. However in the case of warriors some think they are in the goldi-lock aria, being just versatile enough to make up for the points.
- They came worst out on the dakka mathhammer.
- They are very hard to compare with shrikes. With passionate opinioons on both sides.
- Shuppet, who started out as an anti-warrior, has recently become pro-warrior. This could indicate that there is an argument to be made for warriors.

If Shogun had said 'Warriors are highly debated. But genestealer is considered one of the best units in the codex.' it would have been much better. Not only would he not be making bad arguments with cherry picked conclutions. Insectum7 would be more informed. Insectum7 can with good faith throw together a list with warriors and feel good about it.

Like I already mentioned, you look at tyranid warriors in general and not at the 6x9 unit spam setup. You can do a whole lot of math but it means nothing if you don't look at the complete picture, and thats 'how do you take down a variation of enemy armies'? Put average+ armies against a warrior army and see how fast the die. If you can do a little bit of math and got half a brain it's so obvious.

If I would ever take warriors, it would be a cheap unit of 3 for some synapse support, or maybe 9 fully tooled crawling out of a trygon hole. Synapse support is better done by a malanthrope and/or broodlord and deep striking a big unit like that is easily blocked by enemy bubble wrap and then it's still better to go for 20 genestealers. So no, I would never take warriors.

Amishprn86 wrote:Tournament play =/= all play

Local meta depends on what you can and can not play, the more friendlier the meta the more viable units/lists you can take.

Not everyone plays Hyper comp.

No, but this post is about tactics so I assume that people want the best tactics to take on an enemy armies. Then players should ask for advice and mention their local meta.

I know it seems almost sacrilegious but what of they took synapse away from warriors but gave them the hive node ability of the sporocyte instead. This would hopefully bring down their points making them more viable also it would make the prime actually usefully to take with them it would also make them still a "node" of the hive mind esp if they did not have instinctive behavior.