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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Your argument is utter nonsense.

You have no evidence to suggest ITC games are the minority. If you do, prove it. In fact, there are a lot of ITC tournament format games being played every week in the USA. Even if you look only at tournaments, when that doesn't factor in competitive league play, tournament practice games, and people generally playing under the standard because it's widely accepted.

Further, even if you could prove your baseless claim, it's *still irrelevant* because the balance issues that exist with Tyranids are not ITC specific. You don't have a hope and prayer to counter Knights, proper Eldar Soup, Tau, Guard Gunline, etc, whether or not they get 20 models = 1 point reaper or not. They will still keep you off of objectives, they will still out-kill you from range.

Your entire post history in this thread is to announce that:

(a) metas are different and therefore we can conclude nothing
and then
(b) because we can conclude nothing, we therefore MUST CONCLUDE that everything is fine because Insectum7 doesn't see a problem and his local meta is indicative of the average player.

This thread has been derailed enough by you. Can you just bounce out, and let those of us interested in balance have a discussion on the topic?

Apparently evidence has already been gathered, as mentioned in a prior post in the thread.:


We've polled the forum already, and you'd be in the minority according to it.
Plus:

Spoletta wrote:

In any case, why do you assume that ITC is the "tournament format? It definitely is not, at least not in Italy and i think that in general in Europe ITC doesn't get a lot of followers.

So you're ignoring the evidence given to you in your own thread.

On the flipside, if you can't see that progressive scoring, time limits, and generally less-than-ideal terrain can make some builds more viable than others, I'd question your ability to balance things.

I can believe that some of those armies you listed give nids a hard time. Any TAC list will tend to have issues against a hard skew list, like Knights. But I don't believe it's all of those armies, and I don't believe it's an impossible task. It might be hard to build a TAC army that can fight each of those, I believe that.

I'm in agreement with other posters though, in saying that the issue may not be with nids, but with the other armies.

The time to put Insectum7 on ignore has finally arrived. You're not contributing to this discussion at all.

1. Europe has its own competitive meta and it favors heavy gunline. Nids struggle against gunline more than in ITC, where you can win by playing the board.

2. Polling dakka dakka doesn't mean gak. This forum draws casual players far more than competitive ones - that's what your poll proves.

3. Unless you establish a baseline for what acceptable terrain is, you have no right to comment on it. ITC doesn't pull standards out of their butt, they go by what is most balanced. ITC has more terrain than the average casual joe table. Europe is different. They have chunks of foam as their terrain. Look up the London GT.

4. Time limits don't matter, I can get to 5-6 turns in 2.5-3 hours without fail. They come up when people are slowplaying, but that's being phased out.

Anyway, ignored.

I'm a bit hesitant to make Warriors 3+, but I would be "OK" testing adding a Wound. So Warriors with 4 Wounds just might be a "sweet spot" of durability. I do agree that Hormies, and Termies should both be the same cost 4 points, maybe both 5 IF 5+ saves are added. That might be too much on a 4 point model.

I’d like to see Venom and Heavy Venom cannons move to assault 3 or 4. Strangelthorn Cannons and Barbed Stranglers to either 2d3 or 2d6. Advance and Charge for Hormagaunts and Ravenors. Double the shots for Trygon and Trygon Prime’s Bio-electric Pulse. 2+ Save returned to Tyrannofexes. Warriors able to be taken as elites and hq’s again, while also taken as troops. Gargoyles moved to the Troops slot. Points drop or additional wounds for Tyrant Guard; perhaps a flat -1 to wound rolls against them instead would be an interesting rule.

pinecone77 wrote:
I'm a bit hesitant to make Warriors 3+, but I would be "OK" testing adding a Wound. So Warriors with 4 Wounds just might be a "sweet spot" of durability. I do agree that Hormies, and Termies should both be the same cost 4 points, maybe both 5 IF 5+ saves are added. That might be too much on a 4 point model.

I agree that 5 points each and 5+ saves would be fine.

Warriors with 4 wounds is an interesting thought. Let's math it out (dealing with expected value):

Against AP0, 1 damage.
4 wound, 4+: 8 forced saves to kill.
3 wound, 3+: 9 forced saves to kill.
3 wound, 4+: 6 forced saves to kill.
So in essence it is a 33% improvement instead of a 50% improvement.

Against AP-3, 2 damage:
4 wound, 4+: 2 forced saves (7+) to kill.
3 wound, 3+: 2.4 forced saves (6+) to kill.
3 wound, 4+: 2 forced saves (7+) to kill.
An extra wound offers no durability improvement to overcharged plasma.

Where this would really shine is against guns that deal D3 damage rather than a flat value, or guns that deal a flat 3.

All in all, I would say that it's not a bad alternative. It's got a compromise in that small arms are still fairly effective against them, but that big damage weapons don't cut them to ribbons as easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I’d like to see Venom and Heavy Venom cannons move to assault 3 or 4. Strangelthorn Cannons and Barbed Stranglers to either 2d3 or 2d6. Advance and Charge for Hormagaunts and Ravenors. Double the shots for Trygon and Trygon Prime’s Bio-electric Pulse. 2+ Save returned to Tyrannofexes. Warriors able to be taken as elites and hq’s again, while also taken as troops. Gargoyles moved to the Troops slot. Points drop or additional wounds for Tyrant Guard; perhaps a flat -1 to wound rolls against them instead would be an interesting rule.

I like all of this, but there's no way we get 3 shot venom cannons. We'd need to be Eldar to get that.

i agree nids needs some improvement, after DE and IK release mixed with big FAQ rule of 3 (which hit nids hard) they should need something but same time also vanilla marines or Gk needs, so what we can do?

About meta in europe... im an ETC player and there the meta is not strong estabilished, gunlines are strong but you can pull a win without a single gun in list ( i regularly play Ts+demons and i have very few or no firepower but seldom i place below 3rd place), terrain also is very various, London is an exception, usually terrain is not so dense of BLos, btw GW hitted hard nids that for sure, they lived on flyrant spam now they cant and they have few choices to be competitive, they almost disappeared in competitive games in Europe since FAQ release and as i said De and IK was the last nails in the coffin.
Actually the game is unbalanced toward firepower, they best way to close the gap melee-gunlines perhaps would be get back to old DS rule, nids needs something to replace the sheer power of multiple flyrants, they cant have models like aruspex (total crap) or very few ways to survive heavy gunlines.

I agree that it would be unfitting to give warriors a 3+.
Armour saves that good on non-leader infantry models are not really the domain of tyranids.
High wound counts are more their thing.

Warriors were one of the few multi-wound models that did not gain any extra wounds in the transition from 7th to 8th.
They were 3 wound models back in 7th too.


Personally I'd rather their price went back up, but their stats were improved too. They were originally a big nasty HQ/Elite choice, which has over time migrated its way to being a troop choice, while becoming weaker. I preferred warriors being expensive but powerful, over this slow creep downwards.

Arson Fire wrote:
I agree that it would be unfitting to give warriors a 3+.
Armour saves that good on non-leader infantry models are not really the domain of tyranids.
High wound counts are more their thing.

Warriors were one of the few multi-wound models that did not gain any extra wounds in the transition from 7th to 8th.
They were 3 wound models back in 7th too.

warrior with 3 wound and 4+ save are unplayable, you meet couple of helverins (just an example) and they will delete whole units in a moment, you save at 5+ and every failed save you lost 1 whole model and 2 helverins shoots average 14-15 shots... i played lately 3 helverins+IK with 2 gatling+3 PBC against a tyr and i tabled him, it just cant stand all that firepower.

In case it wasn't clear, I was in favour of increasing their wounds.
Just not increasing their saves.

 Marmatag wrote:


Assault marines are 11 melee attacks with a 3+ save.

3 scything talon, devourer warriors have 12 attacks, with a 4+ save.

The warriors cost more...

The Warriors are more durable,with 9 wounds that even with the 4+ save is usually better than 5 wounds with the 3+ save.

In addition the Warriors have better shooting

And for 5 more ppm you can give each warrior ap -2 attacks and a 24" range assault bolter.

Weapon choices for Warriors are unbalanced, and bare bone warriors are unplayable, but upgraded warriors are fine.

Investing almost 30 points per model in troops? without an invulnerable save, and a 4+? That is suicide in 8th edition. I do not agree they are fine...

 Marmatag wrote:

2. Polling dakka dakka doesn't mean gak. This forum draws casual players far more than competitive ones - that's what your poll proves.

Or that competive ones are minority period.

3. Unless you establish a baseline for what acceptable terrain is, you have no right to comment on it. ITC doesn't pull standards out of their butt, they go by what is most balanced. ITC has more terrain than the average casual joe table. Europe is different. They have chunks of foam as their terrain. Look up the London GT.

London GT is hardly standard in EU...Then we have US tournaments with stuff like this:



Note foam terrain. Note miniature box(chaos space marines) being used as terrain just like that! What an awesome terrain eh? Doesn't even look that thick. ITC sure is terrain heavy eh?

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ok, so let's rewind.

Warriors have a 4+ save. I proposed they get a 3+ save. Thoughts on this one? Currently these clawbois don't get any play. This would really help their durability in a big way, with how common -3 weapons are, a 6+ save against them would actually be nice.

Ok, i agree, let's restart the discussion we are not going anywhere.

Frankly i do not believe that at the present point cost warriors should have a 3+, they are too cheap, with the difference that contrarily to marines they also hurt quite a lot.
Would they be better with a base cost of 24 and a 3+? Maybe, but i would need to test it to be sure.

So, they're not good now, and they can have a 3+ with Jormungandr for no extra points. Remember, one reaper launcher kills an entire warrior. They don't get a save against Hellblasters, they don't get a save against Hemlocks, ravagers have a field day with them, etc.

Warriors are really, really in a bad spot right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth pointing out that the warriors best way to be kitted is generally with a deathspitter and boneswords, which puts them at 27ppm.

You absolutely need to upgrade out of scything talons at least into rending claws or boneswords or their melee is really awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to point it out.

Assault marines are 11 melee attacks with a 3+ save.

3 scything talon, devourer warriors have 12 attacks, with a 4+ save.

The warriors cost more...

Unless we're prepared to argue that assault marines are in a good spot we shouldn't argue that Tyranid Warriors are, either. Moving them to a 3+ save would be the right call. Or, I would be fine with increasing the cost of assault marines to be 72 points per 5.

You are not really being honest here.

Those 3 warriors also have 9 bolter attacks at range 18" which those marines don't have.
Those 12 melee attacks reroll ones.
You choose the worst possible equip for the warriors. (devourers are a trap choice)
The warriors have an incredibly useful -1 to cast aura.
The warriors provide synapse.
The warriors are troops.

A 20 point model with T4 and 3W 3+ would be too much of a power creep i feel. Now i would be 100% in favor of a cost increase and a 4th wound. Warriors are not cheap troops, they are an even match for a terminator according to the fluff, and they keep fighting even with the heads severed off, so 4 wounds are not that far fetched.

I'd say that 23 base points and a 4th wound would be a good place to start.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The time to put Insectum7 on ignore has finally arrived. You're not contributing to this discussion at all.

1. Europe has its own competitive meta and it favors heavy gunline. Nids struggle against gunline more than in ITC, where you can win by playing the board.

2. Polling dakka dakka doesn't mean gak. This forum draws casual players far more than competitive ones - that's what your poll proves.

3. Unless you establish a baseline for what acceptable terrain is, you have no right to comment on it. ITC doesn't pull standards out of their butt, they go by what is most balanced. ITC has more terrain than the average casual joe table. Europe is different. They have chunks of foam as their terrain. Look up the London GT.

4. Time limits don't matter, I can get to 5-6 turns in 2.5-3 hours without fail. They come up when people are slowplaying, but that's being phased out.

Anyway, ignored.

The only meter for the European high meta lists is the London GT, and the lists you find there are exactly the same ones you find in ITC events.
Also, i find your comment about terrain in Europe a bit rude. In Europe everything goes by the sacred and uncontaminated GW books, so we have about 12 scenary elements per table. No, they are not all ruins, because stuff like craters and woods exist in the game.

It's not rude at ALL unless facts can be rude: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ky83IPBBGRo/hqdefault.jpg

That is London GT terrain. Which foam block is a forest?

ITC has 2-4 ruins, 2 major line of sight blockers in the middle of table, crates, craters/forests, and hills. My experience is that ITC has more terrain than Europe. Part of the reason your meta favors gunline. Although it may be unfair to lump Italy in with England.

And stop with the warriors.

Assault marines have better synergy.
1. They can receive reroll buffs
2. They can deep strike
3. They can ride in transports
4. They can more easily get cover/hide out of los
5. They are more numerous and can more easily wrap around a vehicle.
6. Warriors need a gun, without it they're junk. A gun is not a trap choice, just stop.
7. Assault marines have pistols.
8. Synapse is there so they don't fall to pieces when they are out of range of an HQ. No one uses warriors as a synapse lynchpin because they're *targetable*, without Synapse they would fall on IB and be total trash.
9. Assault marines are more resilient to multi-damage weapons, which are literally everywhere.

Warriors are awful right now. Just awful. A minor buff with a points increase isn't doing anything for them. There is a thread talking about doubling assault marine's attacks, and wounds, with no price increase. In fact, a price decrease.

 Marmatag wrote:
Investing almost 30 points per model in troops? without an invulnerable save, and a 4+? That is suicide in 8th edition. I do not agree they are fine...

And which is the unit you are using for that comparison?

We have the Primaris marines, except that they are only 2 wounds, and either have worse weapons or are much more expensive.

 Marmatag wrote:


And stop with the warriors.

You wanted a discussion about warriors, we are not stopping with the warriors.

Assault marines have better synergy.
1. They can receive reroll buffs

And warriors can receive FNP and +1 to hit buffs

2. They can deep strike

And for that they need jump packs, which increase their cost.

3. They can ride in transports

And so can Warriors, although our transports do need some work.

4. They can more easily get cover/hide out of los
5. They are more numerous and can more easily wrap around a vehicle.

Ok, you have a point there.

6. Warriors need a gun, without it they're junk. A gun is not a trap choice, just stop.

The Devourer is a trap choice, because the Deathspitter exist.

7. Assault marines have pistols.

And Warriors have a better gun. And a better CCW.

8. Synapse is there so they don't fall to pieces when they are out of range of an HQ. No one uses warriors as a synapse lynchpin because they're *targetable*, without Synapse they would fall on IB and be total trash.

And your point? without Synapse they would be trash, but they have synapse.

9. Assault marines are more resilient to multi-damage weapons, which are literally everywhere.

And warriors are more resistant against single damage weapons, which are also literally everywhere.

Warriors are awful right now. Just awful. A minor buff with a points increase isn't doing anything for them. There is a thread talking about doubling assault marine's attacks, and wounds, with no price increase. In fact, a price decrease.

And unless those changes are implemented into their codex, irrelevant.

Why is he comparing Warriors to Assault marines anyways? They are in no way alike at all.....

Tyran wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Investing almost 30 points per model in troops? without an invulnerable save, and a 4+? That is suicide in 8th edition. I do not agree they are fine...

And which is the unit you are using for that comparison?

We have the Primaris marines, except that they are only 2 wounds, and either have worse weapons or are much more expensive.

Primaris Troops are cheaper than 27 points per model.

Tyran wrote:
And stop with the warriors.
You wanted a discussion about warriors, we are not stopping with the warriors.

Fine, but only if you know what you're talking about. I don't need people telling me they're 20 points per model, because that just isn't how it shakes out.

Tyran wrote:

And warriors can receive FNP and +1 to hit buffs

Space marines can have -1 to hit, FNP, and a bunch of other things. Fact is you are definitely bringing something with the synergy i mentioned in a space marines list. You won't necessarily have the things you're mentioning in a tyranids list. Just like how you guys are talking about a cover save always on, and now a FNP. Those are mutually exclusive... we're dealing with schroedingers warriors here.

Tyran wrote:

The Devourer is a trap choice, because the Deathspitter exist.

This also further increases their cost. My point is that you're paying a cost for a gun. Saying they're 20ppm isn't really fair. Not saying you said this, but you're replying to me, replying to people who were.

Tyran wrote:

And Warriors have a better gun. And a better CCW.

Which they pay for, and their BS is still 4+.

Tyran wrote:

And warriors are more resistant against single damage weapons, which are also literally everywhere.

Yes, they are slightly more resilient to boltguns. I'm more concerned with 2,3, D3, D6, etc damage weapons, which are literally everywhere.

Warriors to Assault Marines was a comparison because assault marines are widely regarded as one of the worst units in the game. Being barely better than one of the worst, if not the worst, units in the game suggests they're hurting. I wanted to find an example that didn't rely on use cases. Because in the current competitive meta warriors don't have a use case, period.

Let's change the comparison, i'll use a model which is considered broken good and is really similar to one warrior build; Grotesques

A quad saber warrior compared to a Grotesque (not considering factions traits) has:

Cons:

One less M
One less T
One less S
One less W
No PFP
5++

Pros:

Immune to morale
Shadow in the warp
Synapse
11 points cheaper per model
4+ save
Troop

From this comparison we can see that the warrior is surely a lesser version of a grotesque, both in offense and in defense, but at the same time it costs a whole third less. Also, the warriors have the shadow in the warp which is a really powerful ability and is a troop which is another big factor to consider.

Which of the two is better? On paper the grotesques are better, but not by such a margin that the fact that they are troop makes warriors obsolete, and even then we are now making a comparison with one of the best models in the game according to some.

Spoletta wrote:
Let's change the comparison, i'll use a model which is considered broken good and is really similar to one warrior build; Grotesques

A quad saber warrior compared to a Grotesque (not considering factions traits) has:

Cons:

One less M
One less T
One less S
One less W
No PFP
5++

Pros:

Immune to morale
Shadow in the warp
Synapse
11 points cheaper per model
4+ save
Troop

From this comparison we can see that the warrior is surely a lesser version of a grotesque, both in offense and in defense, but at the same time it costs a whole third less. Also, the warriors have the shadow in the warp which is a really powerful ability and is a troop which is another big factor to consider.

Which of the two is better? On paper the grotesques are better, but not by such a margin that the fact that they are troop makes warriors obsolete, and even then we are now making a comparison with one of the best models in the game according to some.

Hum but really the grots are going to be +2T with a 4++. Which makes them extremely OP.

 Marmatag wrote:
Primaris Troops are cheaper than 27 points per model.

Ok lets compare them.

2 27pts Tyranid Warriors vs 3 18pts Intercessors (54 pt total).

Both are T4, 6 4+ wounds vs 6 3+ wounds, the Intercessors are more durable.

Shooting:
2 BS4+ Assault 3 24" S5 ap-1 vs 3 BS3+ Rapid Fire 30" S4 ap-1, While the intercessors have a 6" range advantage, the Warriors have a considerable damage advantage at 24" with an average of 3 S5 hits vs 2 S4 hits. At 15" The thing is somewhat even with an average of 4 S4 hits (depends on the target Toughness). So at 30"-24.1" Intercessors are better. 24"-15.1" Warriors are better and at 15" depends on the target. So somewhat equal.

Melee:

Warriors have 8 attacks, WS3+, S4, ap-2. Intercessors have 6 attacks, WS3+, S4, no ap.

Eve considering the pistols, Warriors have a massive advantage in melee.

So durability: Intercessor advantage; shooting: even; melee: Warrior advantage.

If we bring the Warriors to 3+ save, they would be even in durability, but Warriors would still be better in melee, so they would be better in average better than Primaris.

Space marines can have -1 to hit, FNP, and a bunch of other things. Fact is you are definitely bringing something with the synergy i mentioned in a space marines list. You won't necessarily have the things you're mentioning in a tyranids list. Just like how you guys are talking about a cover save always on, and now a FNP. Those are mutually exclusive... we're dealing with schroedingers warriors here.

You can have Jormungand + Catalyst, that's cover+FNP and no mutually exclusive.
In addition, if you are playing warriors you are bringing their synergy elements, like Primes.

This also further increases their cost. My point is that you're paying a cost for a gun. Saying they're 20ppm isn't really fair. Not saying you said this, but you're replying to me, replying to people who were.

By 1 point, you get like twice the firepower against most things + 6". That's why the Devourer is a trap choice.

Which they pay for, and their BS is still 4+.

Which makes it somewhat even depending on the target and range.

Yes, they are slightly more resilient to boltguns. I'm more concerned with 2,3, D3, D6, etc damage weapons, which are literally everywhere.

Even then, the only one that is inherently better against warriors is D3 and DD6. D2 and DD3 damage will (usually) need more than one wound to kill, meaning the Warriors could be considered wound 2 against those weapons. As for D6, those are anti-tank weaponry that are quite expensive.
Also if your meta has so many multi D weapons, why not play horde? multi D weapons suck against hordes.

Warriors to Assault Marines was a comparison because assault marines are widely regarded as one of the worst units in the game. Being barely better than one of the worst, if not the worst, units in the game suggests they're hurting. I wanted to find an example that didn't rely on use cases. Because in the current competitive meta warriors don't have a use case, period.

Because current competitive is full of units that inherently counter warriors, because the most common targets are heavy multi-wound infantry or vehicles.

 Marmatag wrote:


Warriors to Assault Marines was a comparison because assault marines are widely regarded as one of the worst units in the game. Being barely better than one of the worst, if not the worst, units in the game suggests they're hurting. I wanted to find an example that didn't rely on use cases. Because in the current competitive meta warriors don't have a use case, period.

There is so much wrong with this idk where to start...

Attack Bikers, Hybrid Metamorphs, vindicators, Centurion's, Penitent engine, GK [Insert unit], etc... Just in the Tyranids codex, by far what are worst than warriors, Haruspex, Gargoyles, Red Terror Hive Crone.

You need to compare equal units, a Jump Pack Marine is nothing even close to a Warrior, Primaris marines are slightly closer and a better example, Intercessors a good compassion also, assault marines? no lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let's change the comparison, i'll use a model which is considered broken good and is really similar to one warrior build; Grotesques

A quad saber warrior compared to a Grotesque (not considering factions traits) has:

Cons:

One less M
One less T
One less S
One less W
No PFP
5++

Pros:

Immune to morale
Shadow in the warp
Synapse
11 points cheaper per model
4+ save
Troop

From this comparison we can see that the warrior is surely a lesser version of a grotesque, both in offense and in defense, but at the same time it costs a whole third less. Also, the warriors have the shadow in the warp which is a really powerful ability and is a troop which is another big factor to consider.

Which of the two is better? On paper the grotesques are better, but not by such a margin that the fact that they are troop makes warriors obsolete, and even then we are now making a comparison with one of the best models in the game according to some.

Hum but really the grots are going to be +2T with a 4++. Which makes them extremely OP.

Indeed, i was just comparing the datasheets for now to show that mathematically warriors are not that bad.
Groteseques can deathstar, sure, but then we would have to consider traits and supporting elements and we are again comparing apples to oranges.

Spoletta wrote:
A quad saber warrior...

I just feel compelled to mention that a quad sword warrior isn't a thing.
The tyranid FAQ says that while you 'can' equip a warrior with two pairs of boneswords, the second pair doesn't grant a bonus attack, or do anything really except cost you points.

I have an army of almost 100% Warriors and I gotta say, it's pretty effective. Not Tournament winning or anything, but 189 3+ sv. (Jorm) wounds with 200+ (one squad gets to shoot twice) Heavy Bolter shots is not something to sneeze at.

Struggles vs. Tanks, since I don't bring any Venom Cannons because I'm using the ooo00old models. But I'm really just shooting myself in the foot there.

Tyran wrote:
Because current competitive is full of units that inherently counter warriors, because the most common targets are heavy multi-wound infantry or vehicles.

We'll go back and forth on the other stuff, so i'm not really going to discuss it. Like in practice no one puts catalyst on warriors, they put it on Tyrants, and for good reason. But that's neither here nor there.

The fact of the matter is that the current state of things has a pretty significant bearing on what's good and what isn't. If anything beyond AP0 was rare, and everything did 1 damage, warriors would be solid as hell. That isn't the reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let's change the comparison, i'll use a model which is considered broken good and is really similar to one warrior build; Grotesques

A quad saber warrior compared to a Grotesque (not considering factions traits) has:

Cons:

One less M
One less T
One less S
One less W
No PFP
5++

Pros:

Immune to morale
Shadow in the warp
Synapse
11 points cheaper per model
4+ save
Troop

From this comparison we can see that the warrior is surely a lesser version of a grotesque, both in offense and in defense, but at the same time it costs a whole third less. Also, the warriors have the shadow in the warp which is a really powerful ability and is a troop which is another big factor to consider.

Which of the two is better? On paper the grotesques are better, but not by such a margin that the fact that they are troop makes warriors obsolete, and even then we are now making a comparison with one of the best models in the game according to some.

Hum but really the grots are going to be +2T with a 4++. Which makes them extremely OP.

Indeed, i was just comparing the datasheets for now to show that mathematically warriors are not that bad.
Groteseques can deathstar, sure, but then we would have to consider traits and supporting elements and we are again comparing apples to oranges.

But you've essentially already assumed all of these extra traits for warriors lol. Beyond the Tyranid Prime and the Hive Fleet choice they have no synergy in the army. If you're counting on them for synapse you're in big, big trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A quad saber warrior...

I just feel compelled to mention that a quad sword warrior isn't a thing.
The tyranid FAQ says that while you 'can' equip a warrior with two pairs of boneswords, the second pair doesn't grant a bonus attack, or do anything really except cost you points.

Same is true of the various scything talons. One of my proposed changes was that this would grant extra attacks.

Wait, where did i consider traits and similar in the stats for warriors? I used them 100% vanilla.
I don't see 2+ to hit, FNP, 3+ save, reroll to wound or anything like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
A quad saber warrior...

I just feel compelled to mention that a quad sword warrior isn't a thing.
The tyranid FAQ says that while you 'can' equip a warrior with two pairs of boneswords, the second pair doesn't grant a bonus attack, or do anything really except cost you points.

And there goes my comparison... looks like that warriors are necessarily compared to a melee/ranged hybrid, any good ideas? SoT maybe?

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have an army of almost 100% Warriors and I gotta say, it's pretty effective. Not Tournament winning or anything, but 189 3+ sv. (Jorm) wounds with 200+ (one squad gets to shoot twice) Heavy Bolter shots is not something to sneeze at.

Struggles vs. Tanks, since I don't bring any Venom Cannons because I'm using the ooo00old models. But I'm really just shooting myself in the foot there.

would be nice to see, pity for all those IK's rampaging around

 blackmage wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have an army of almost 100% Warriors and I gotta say, it's pretty effective. Not Tournament winning or anything, but 189 3+ sv. (Jorm) wounds with 200+ (one squad gets to shoot twice) Heavy Bolter shots is not something to sneeze at.

Struggles vs. Tanks, since I don't bring any Venom Cannons because I'm using the ooo00old models. But I'm really just shooting myself in the foot there.

would be nice to see, pity for all those IK's rampaging around

Just so happens I did a paint log for it, (link in sig), and I have some pics from an early outing with the army:

thx the army looks cool

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let's change the comparison, i'll use a model which is considered broken good and is really similar to one warrior build; Grotesques

A quad saber warrior compared to a Grotesque (not considering factions traits) has:

Cons:

One less M
One less T
One less S
One less W
No PFP
5++

Pros:

Immune to morale
Shadow in the warp
Synapse
11 points cheaper per model
4+ save
Troop

From this comparison we can see that the warrior is surely a lesser version of a grotesque, both in offense and in defense, but at the same time it costs a whole third less. Also, the warriors have the shadow in the warp which is a really powerful ability and is a troop which is another big factor to consider.

Which of the two is better? On paper the grotesques are better, but not by such a margin that the fact that they are troop makes warriors obsolete, and even then we are now making a comparison with one of the best models in the game according to some.

Hum but really the grots are going to be +2T with a 4++. Which makes them extremely OP.

Indeed, i was just comparing the datasheets for now to show that mathematically warriors are not that bad.
Groteseques can deathstar, sure, but then we would have to consider traits and supporting elements and we are again comparing apples to oranges.

Well you gave me an idea. What if primes buffed warriors a lot more than they do - and could take a heavy gun and had an invo save? I wonder if that would make warriors better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I have an army of almost 100% Warriors and I gotta say, it's pretty effective. Not Tournament winning or anything, but 189 3+ sv. (Jorm) wounds with 200+ (one squad gets to shoot twice) Heavy Bolter shots is not something to sneeze at.

Struggles vs. Tanks, since I don't bring any Venom Cannons because I'm using the ooo00old models. But I'm really just shooting myself in the foot there.

would be nice to see, pity for all those IK's rampaging around

Just so happens I did a paint log for it, (link in sig), and I have some pics from an early outing with the army:

Have to give credit where credit is due - your beast mode tyrant guard/ prime conversions inspired me to convert my prime. He's got warrior legs and a tyrant guard top with obscenely large bone swords. and a dev....I really just wish he could take a venom cannon and drop in price a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IMO warriors are a bang of bust unit currently. If I manage to go first and sit them in cover with 3 VC - and manage to get catalyst on them. Most people prefer not to shoot at that. Ap-2 gives me a 5+5+++ It's not incredible but you gotta do something like 40 wounds to take out those VC with ap-2 guns. Make no mistake - this unit is expensive and not competitive. However - sometimes I bust the shoot twice stratagem on them and they murder things with 6d3 shots str 8 ap-2 d3 damage and 36 str 5 ap-1 shots. Plus their close combat potential. There are far to many things that flat out greese this unit (hevlerines) (Dark reapers)(any IK)(lemonruss)(ion heads) (destroyers)the list goes on. If only they had a 3+ base save and this unit could actually dish it and give it.