xmbk wrote:
I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.

xmbk wrote:
I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.

 SHUPPET wrote:

xmbk wrote:
I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.

Then that's a good unit. If they had an impact equivalent to their cost and didn't tip the game against you, and provided Synapse at the same time, then they've done their job. Nobody is saying they are the new Flyrant, just a good troop choice

 luke1705 wrote:

xmbk wrote:
I've played several games with 4 units of 3 Warriors. Just don't see what has anyone excited. They haven't done anything to tip the game one way or the other.

I'm with you. Not impressed with them tbh. Providing synapse from the troop slot is nice and all, but eh. Make them characters in the codex and then we're cooking with salami.

 Niiai wrote:
I woul say we mostly do that to make some person in the netherlands cringe.

 Niiai wrote:
I woul say we mostly do that to make some person in the netherlands cringe.

shogun wrote:

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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

You talk about this a lot, but have you actually done the math yourself?

I'm going to use the example you provided so that you can't say I'm cherry picking some weapon profile, and tell you some of the units that take more damage from Basilisk shots than 30ppm kit Tyranid Warriors.

Exocrine
Tyrannofex
Trygon & Trygon Prime
Swarmlord
Hive Tyrant (even completely naked)
Tervigon

and more I can't even be bothered checking. Only the really point efficient wounds (Carnifex & Mawloc) seemed to tank shots better than them. To most everything else Warriors are tankier vs multiwound weaponry.

So your logic for why we shouldn't take them rules out so many units that we know are fine. Warriors aren't half as bad as you think they are, I think you just misunderstand the unit.

 Niiai wrote:
Shogun please do not make a strawman of Shuppet. You are taking his arguments and twisting them.

Shuppet took your argument (warriors die to easy therefore you should not take them I am paraphrasing, but yeah) and looked at what performs worse then warriors in that metrick.

Exocrine, Tyrannofex, Trygon & Trygon Prime, Swarmlord, Hive Tyrant (even completely naked), Tervigo was the list he came up with. Further Shuppet only once who do notiseble better then warriors is Carnifex and Mawlocks because of their low cost.

Now instead of focusing on Shuppets argument, warriors performs well, you are implying a whole lot that Shuppet did not say. Hence building a straw Shuppet that you are 'arguing against'.

Your argumentation is not very good. Some pages back when the question was raised you made a list that would 'beat any warrior list' because you would just have biovores drop spore mines in front of them. This argument can be aplied to any non flying unit. For your 'great insights' (I am using that sarcasticly) there is often little to take away.

I am not doubting you have some good insight into Tyranid tips. But currently you are not representing them in a fruitfull way. On the subject of warriors in particular, a unit that is good because it is very versatily for it's cost (it has guns, can fight mellee, is a troop choise, T4 4+ save and 3 wounds) you are often singeling out one aspect the warrior does not do very well and then you compare then to a specialist unit that performs the function better.

Examples are genestealers are better then warriors in mellee, shrikes are faster then warriors for running across the field, or as Shuppet estrapolates from your argumentation Mawlocks are harder to kill. While all of those statements are true, the warrior would come in second place with a good margine in all of those metrics.

Edit: On a second read through this came out harsher then intended. I am sorry, it is not meant personally, AKA something about your person who is wrong. You are a great contributer to this thread. It is meant as a critique of your argumentation tecnique that often misses it's intended target. I think you can craft your words in a way that brings your points more in focus. I do not think how you are arguing is representing the intent in your reasoning.

shogun wrote:
But because its more vulnerable to a basilisk shot then the same amount of points warriors, warriors are 'good'? A weird non-argument and actually made me cringe...
--
I guess all these pro-warrior players got some great results against the local 12 year old player with the fluffy armylist and actually think warriors are good.
--
If you can do a little bit of math and got half a brain it's so obvious
--
Etc.

C4790M wrote:
How do we deal with mortarion? Aside from throwing enough canon fodder to keep him away from the important stuff

Timeshadow wrote:

C4790M wrote:
How do we deal with mortarion? Aside from throwing enough canon fodder to keep him away from the important stuff

Our easiest solution to just about anything is 20 genestealers and a broodlord. The only thing that changes really is getting them to him through the bubble wrap.

pinecone77 wrote:
Yeah, I think "smite spam" is a viable way to go with Nids. It might even be a little "counter meta" in the form that everyone fighting Nids Expects a 'bucket of Claws!" (tm) The "problem" is smite spam won't work so good vs conscript spam. But maybe there is a list not yet found.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

pinecone77 wrote:
Yeah, I think "smite spam" is a viable way to go with Nids. It might even be a little "counter meta" in the form that everyone fighting Nids Expects a 'bucket of Claws!" (tm) The "problem" is smite spam won't work so good vs conscript spam. But maybe there is a list not yet found.

Well those FW units and that IG list is getting nerfed, GW already said they are looking into it at Nova.

When FW and IG changes comes out, we will see a different meta again, if DG and Mortarion becomes the #1 meta, Nids Smite spam might be a thing. Nids codex is also on the horizon as well.

If Maleceptors and Zoanthropes get some good Stratagems to cast better or more powers, it could work well.

Also there are Spore Mines too, Biovores should work and maybe even Sporocyst, if that thing gets some lovin it could be really good.

 gameandwatch wrote:
Trying to absorb everything that is being discussed here but Ill try to tip my hat to the arguments present:

Warriors: A hot topic and one not easily solved by any means, I think the reason warriors cause such controversy is that they are not a "point-and-click" unit, in that they are so middle of the road in potential function, they end up being difficult to deploy properly. What I mean by this is that hive guard are very clearly shooty, stealers are very clearly stabby, both are delete units in their respective roles, but warriors are a high learning curve unit, that is both shooty and stabby and because of this, will rarely just delete a unit as with the 2 examples. Technically speaking, the warriors are better than either in a respective fight because they have advantages on both (can blast stealers and keep them at arms length, before getting a charge, run at and catch hive guard in combat and render them innefective), but are respectively worse at both in their specific roles. Worse, at straight shooting, worse at straight combat.

But this gives them an interesting distinction and one that is not unique to them in this army. Having units that are both reasonably jack of all trades are hard to utilize because the decisions always boil down to commitment. When do you commit them into combat, or just keep them shooting? In the end this decision paralysis is part of the reason they will never perform as well as many hope, because to use them well is extremely difficult.

They are also hard to compare when looking at shrikes, because you would think warriors being slower are more apt to being a shooting platform, and shrikes to a melee platform, but shrikes have fly and bouncing out of combat makes shrikes also an effective shooting platform.

Where warriors sit with me is this: They are a mid level effective offensive unit, best utilized as objective holders with multiple wounds and native fearless. They are a counter unit. Where as stealers, guard, etc are obvious offensive units, warriors sit as a defense counter unit where instead of commiting them early, it is better to use them as a "wait and see" type of unit. They are odd, but in no way bad, but the curve to learn to use them is very high.

Now that that is off my chest, Ill give the lowdown on my experience with other things thus far:

Swarmy: Damnit I want to love him, but he is just 50 points too expensive for a unit with no aura buffs, can be targeted, and has mid level heavy combat (degrading strength and attacks, forced to tail attack, no rerolls, etc) Even a list built around him is a bad idea in my opinion, because the list loses him and then loses its effectiveness. Best way to use him I have found is to have 1-2 units to really capitalize the HC ability, then if he is still alive, use it on himself to give him massive movement, or ONLY use it on himself.

Malanthrope:Incredible, cheap, best warlord in a gunline, just all round great.

OOE: My favorite character in the game at present. Cheap at 140 points and an absolute wrecking machine. My favorite unit to slingshot with swarmy BY FAR, and just very fun to use. BEWARE PODDING HIM. Not recommended, as a failed charge is a dead OOE. One of the best AT melee units in the dex

Rippers: Best troop in the dex for objectives, annoying at times not being infantry, but mitigated with cheap cost and deep strike

Hive guard: Excellent unit, a bit expensive but very good nonetheless. Impalers are GENERALLY better than shock cannons, but multiple units of shock cannons, running around with a malanthrope is good fun, and cannot be ignored, especially against a list with a lot of armor.

Zoanthropes: JUST too expensive, hilariously difficult to dispatch, and a real focal point of frustration for your opponent. Inconsistent damage for, in my opinion, 200 points min (4 with neurothrope) I still use them, more to be a thorn than worrying about their total damage.

Mawlocks: Cheap, great utility MCs, mortal wounds are always valuable, the greatest learning curve for them is knowing when NOT to commit them turn 1. Another hard case unit for your opponent.

Biovores: Just so good, decent damage, but the utility and board control pays for itself. When coupled with things like deep strike units, mawlocks, slingshot OOE, starts to force your opponent between a rock and a hard place.

Raveners: With Red Terror, one of the best meat grinder units in the index. I run them fists and double scy tal and send them at screens and laugh. Fists I think are the only guns you should give them, because if they get charged, these are the only weapons they can utilize when they are in combat, and you always want them in combat.

Red terror: Hilarious, not great but can cause some very amusing moments (swallowed a starweaver transport full of dudes once,caused an interesting discussion hahaha)

Deathleaper: too expensive, not very effective in combat (for what it should be), sadly only good as a "threat" unit for small objective holders

Stealers(cult or fleet): Incredible, a little flimsy, but just absolute meat grinders

Patriarch/broodlord: Dont know why their stats are different, but one of the best characters in the book, and terrifying in combat

Pyrovores: MAN these units need to be available in units of 6, too expensive, but absorbs quite a bit of firepower

Always take at least a supreme command with 2 cult psykers, hypnosis is always valuable, and having the ability to take mind control when needed is very valuable.

More to come later...

 gameandwatch wrote:
Trying to absorb everything that is being discussed here but Ill try to tip my hat to the arguments present:

Warriors: A hot topic and one not easily solved by any means, I think the reason warriors cause such controversy is that they are not a "point-and-click" unit, in that they are so middle of the road in potential function, they end up being difficult to deploy properly. What I mean by this is that hive guard are very clearly shooty, stealers are very clearly stabby, both are delete units in their respective roles,

 gameandwatch wrote:
but warriors are a high learning curve unit, that is both shooty and stabby and because of this, will rarely just delete a unit as with the 2 examples. Technically speaking, the warriors are better than either in a respective fight because they have advantages on both (can blast stealers and keep them at arms length, before getting a charge, run at and catch hive guard in combat and render them innefective), but are respectively worse at both in their specific roles. Worse, at straight shooting, worse at straight combat.

But this gives them an interesting distinction and one that is not unique to them in this army. Having units that are both reasonably jack of all trades are hard to utilize because the decisions always boil down to commitment. When do you commit them into combat, or just keep them shooting? In the end this decision paralysis is part of the reason they will never perform as well as many hope, because to use them well is extremely difficult.

 gameandwatch wrote:

Where warriors sit with me is this: They are a mid level effective offensive unit, best utilized as objective holders with multiple wounds and native fearless. They are a counter unit. Where as stealers, guard, etc are obvious offensive units, warriors sit as a counter unit where instead of commiting them early, it is better to use them as a "wait and see" type of unit. They are odd, but in no way bad, but the curve to learn to use them is very high.

 SHUPPET wrote:
If your Warriors haven't done anything until turn 4, the fault is not on the unit. They do not take that many turns to get started. Turn 1 or 2 they are threat, 9 times out of ten, and they carry 3 long range guns per squad. They are actually putting the hurt on quicker than Exocrines are.