Tyranid Wishlisting

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.

**Spoletta**

Actually the warriors are not that squishy, having 3 wounds in 8th is a serious boon, since most weapons are damage 1,2 or d3. Weapons that inflict 3 damage are quite rare, the only problem right now is that 2 of those sources (helverins and reapers) are too much common.

Without damage 3 weapons, you need 2 wound at damage 2 and 1,77 wounds of damage d3 to take one down.

You say leman russes, but if a leman russ shoots at the warriors for 4 turns straight at full power and with the warriors unbuffed and out of cover, it doesn't make its points back.

Problem is that helverins and dark reapers instead make theyr points back in 3 turns, which is apt for a unit shooting at its perfect target.

It's not a problem of warriors being too frail, it's a problem of theyr counters being too popular right now.

And then there are dissie cannons which should be bad weapons against them (high AP vs mid armor and D2 against W3), but for some reason make back theyr points in less than 3 turns... but let's put dissie cannons apart for now, they are good against everything and clearly undercosted. Really, in what world dissies cost less than plasma cannons...

**tneva82**

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

So you use example from ONE tournament that's the exception and use it to claim all europe is like that?

THAT is rude.

For counterpoint look at the pic I showed. That's ITC tournament. Bare foams. MINIATURE BOX. And super parse. Is that then all ITC?

Counter points about European terrain:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wm5Kb3RkNlI/WhJ0R0spI_I/AAAAAAAAucI/WDYPZYxO_2gm5nKJU7tzSWxXu6zFf0uuACEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0418.JPG

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fIMnhcGj2N4/WhJz-y5F3oI/AAAAAAAAub4/BLu6lOkBLWEN22PY2zUfPvlk2Ij3A1YOwCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0402.JPG

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yx7JEXY-5ho/WhJzx61ILPI/AAAAAAAAub4/nst1JQWMU4M5_wWXcxwrMUVCh4CEl64iwCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0389.JPG

That's the european terrain I'm used to.

**Xenomancers**

Spoletta wrote:
Actually the warriors are not that squishy, having 3 wounds in 8th is a serious boon, since most weapons are damage 1,2 or d3. Weapons that inflict 3 damage are quite rare, the only problem right now is that 2 of those sources (helverins and reapers) are too much common.

Without damage 3 weapons, you need 2 wound at damage 2 and 1,77 wounds of damage d3 to take one down.

You say leman russes, but if a leman russ shoots at the warriors for 4 turns straight at full power and with the warriors unbuffed and out of cover, it doesn't make its points back.

Problem is that helverins and dark reapers instead make theyr points back in 3 turns, which is apt for a unit shooting at its perfect target.

It's not a problem of warriors being too frail, it's a problem of theyr counters being too popular right now.

And then there are dissie cannons which should be bad weapons against them (high AP vs mid armor and D2 against W3), but for some reason make back theyr points in less than 3 turns... but let's put dissie cannons apart for now, they are good against everything and clearly undercosted. Really, in what world dissies cost less than plasma cannons...

If a list as access to flat 3 damage - I spam the heck out of it.
Nids - 4 HVC Carnifex and 1 on a FHT
Tau - Spam Ion Heads
Knights - Always bring relic plasma cannon. Hevlrines.
Lots of characters do flat 3 in CC.
Plus desientgrators are going to rek warriors to - because they get no save.

Warriors are not durable.

Plus D3 and flat 2 damage are everywhere. 3 wounds is obviously better than 2 wounds here because you can potentially survive a d3 damage weapon easier. With split first being a thing though - I am almost never wasting firing efficiency to kill things. Using a chaff weapon to pluck the 1 remaining wound warrior before shooting more d2 and d3 weapons into them is very effective.

This is a core flaw in the game right now. It affects lots of armies. Primaris marines aren't worth their points because to many weapons ignore they have 2 W. Warriors are not effective because too many weapons ignore their 3 wounds. How many weapons can ignore the IG squads 10 individual trash wounds? NONE.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
It's not rude at ALL unless facts can be rude: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ky83IPBBGRo/hqdefault.jpg

So you use example from ONE tournament that's the exception and use it to claim all europe is like that?

THAT is rude.

For counterpoint look at the pic I showed. That's ITC tournament. Bare foams. MINIATURE BOX. And super parse. Is that then all ITC?

Counter points about European terrain:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wm5Kb3RkNlI/WhJ0R0spI_I/AAAAAAAAucI/WDYPZYxO_2gm5nKJU7tzSWxXu6zFf0uuACEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0418.JPG

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fIMnhcGj2N4/WhJz-y5F3oI/AAAAAAAAub4/BLu6lOkBLWEN22PY2zUfPvlk2Ij3A1YOwCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0402.JPG

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yx7JEXY-5ho/WhJzx61ILPI/AAAAAAAAub4/nst1JQWMU4M5_wWXcxwrMUVCh4CEl64iwCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_0389.JPG

That's the european terrain I'm used to.

Is it usually space marines vs space marines too?

**Spoletta**

Judging by the book on the table i guess that it is 30K, so yes.

In any case, yes, there a few ways to do 3 damage flat (mostly melee though), but it is much harder to ignore than it is for 2W. 2W really is ignored by a lot of things, which then are not optimal to kill 3W stuff. I did forget HVC in my list though you are right.

**Xenomancers**

Spoletta wrote:
Judging by the book on the table i guess that it is 30K, so yes.

In any case, yes, there a few ways to do 3 damage flat (mostly melee though), but it is much harder to ignore than it is for 2W. 2W really is ignored by a lot of things, which then are not optimal to kill 3W stuff. I did forget HVC in my list though you are right.

3 W is a big improvement from 2. It's much better than from 1-2.

**tneva82**

Spoletta wrote:
Judging by the book on the table i guess that it is 30K, so yes.

In any case, yes, there a few ways to do 3 damage flat (mostly melee though), but it is much harder to ignore than it is for 2W. 2W really is ignored by a lot of things, which then are not optimal to kill 3W stuff. I did forget HVC in my list though you are right.

Well yes but same store does 40k tournaments with same terrain. Didn't have easy access to 40k pictures but not big difference.

Beats model boxes as terrain any day over itc style eh?

**blackmage**

the main problem with multi model wounds like warriors are the tons of multi damage weapons around, do you know what a single Ik with double gatling and 2-3 helverins do to that list? every save you fail you lost or nearly lost a model, that is the main problem. Actual 40k wont reward lot of multiwound models unless they have some sort of inv, save or high T and high armor save (example custodes jet bikes)

**Insectum7**

Yeah, well... remember when it just took S 8 to kill Warriors because of Instant Death and you daw them on the table even less? 3 wounds is pretty solid this edition, esp on a 25 point model (Warrior w/Deathspitter). Sooo many weapons do 2W. Not many do 3.

**Tyran**

blackmage wrote:
the main problem with multi model wounds like warriors are the tons of multi damage weapons around, do you know what a single Ik with double gatling and 2-3 helverins do to that list? every save you fail you lost or nearly lost a model, that is the main problem. Actual 40k wont reward lot of multiwound models unless they have some sort of inv, save or high T and high armor save (example custodes jet bikes)

The Helverins are the scary part, because of how cheap and Damage 3 weapons.

But the IK? Almost 500 points to kill 4-5 warriors on average is not optimal.

**Xenomancers**

Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
the main problem with multi model wounds like warriors are the tons of multi damage weapons around, do you know what a single Ik with double gatling and 2-3 helverins do to that list? every save you fail you lost or nearly lost a model, that is the main problem. Actual 40k wont reward lot of multiwound models unless they have some sort of inv, save or high T and high armor save (example custodes jet bikes)

The Helverins are the scary part, because of how cheap and Damage 3 weapons.

But the IK? Almost 500 points to kill 4-5 warriors on average is not optimal.

A high roll on 2d6 shots with the castellans relic plasma will wipe a whole 9 man unit. Wounds on 2's with flat 3 damage no save....yeah. This is a pretty popular choice right now. Not to mention it also has 4 other weapon systems!

**blackmage**

it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns. Right now IK's are hard to counter with nids, if you play multi wound models they remove whole models pretty easy, hordes are handled with avengers/flamers and stomps in melee.

**Tyran**

blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

**Amishprn86**

Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

Hive Guard, Zoans, HVC's, Fex's, etc.. they can deal with Tanks, but you are correct, Warriors vs vehicles is a bad match up b.c they are not made to kill vehicles.

If we are comparing Warriors to Knights, then lets compare Primaris marines vs Knights.....

**Marmatag**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

Hive Guard, Zoans, HVC's, Fex's, etc.. they can deal with Tanks, but you are correct, Warriors vs vehicles is a bad match up b.c they are not made to kill vehicles.

If we are comparing Warriors to Knights, then lets compare Primaris marines vs Knights.....

There are claims in this thread that you can build a list around warriors.

Also, Knights illustrate the point that you can do a lot of points removal on the board shooting at warriors. If you build a list around warriors (with the prime like people are mentioning) and relying on them for synapse (like others have mentioned) they're not a bad target for removal, and this is just one example where a model is rather efficient at doing so.

If you bring 10 warriors + a prime that's almost 400 points. Being able to delete a 5th of your opponent's list in one round of shooting isn't exactly bad. This is the point with warriors. They die easily and cost too much for how they die.

**Tyran**

The Prime is overcosted, 100 points that do nothing beyond giving Warriors +1 to hit.

Even if what you want is character synapse, the Neurothrope does that better.

But the warriors themselves, 10 are 300 points at most.

I believe we need to first make their options balanced (so make the barebone warriors cheaper), and see if by mixing models helps improve their durability enough.

**Marmatag**

Tyran wrote:
The Prime is overcosted, 100 points that do nothing beyond giving Warriors +1 to hit.

Even if what you want is character synapse, the Neurothrope does that better.

But the warriors themselves, 10 are 300 points at most.

I believe we need to first make their options balanced (so make the barebone warriors cheaper), and see if by mixing units helps improve their durability enough.

I think a 3+ save is all they need. A fourth wound is also an intriguing option because it gives them an added layer of resilience against flat 3 and D3 damage.

**Tyran**

Marmatag wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The Prime is overcosted, 100 points that do nothing beyond giving Warriors +1 to hit.

Even if what you want is character synapse, the Neurothrope does that better.

But the warriors themselves, 10 are 300 points at most.

I believe we need to first make their options balanced (so make the barebone warriors cheaper), and see if by mixing units helps improve their durability enough.

I think a 3+ save is all they need. A fourth wound is also an intriguing option because it gives them an added layer of resilience against flat 3 and D3 damage.

Even with a 3+ save or 4 wounds, their options still need to be rebalanced. There is no point in taking rending claws or devourers.

**Marmatag**

Tyran wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The Prime is overcosted, 100 points that do nothing beyond giving Warriors +1 to hit.

Even if what you want is character synapse, the Neurothrope does that better.

But the warriors themselves, 10 are 300 points at most.

I believe we need to first make their options balanced (so make the barebone warriors cheaper), and see if by mixing units helps improve their durability enough.

I think a 3+ save is all they need. A fourth wound is also an intriguing option because it gives them an added layer of resilience against flat 3 and D3 damage.

Even with a 3+ save or 4 wounds, their options still need to be rebalanced. There is no point in taking rending claws or devourers.

A change in durability might make these options more attractive.

**Tyran**

Marmatag wrote:
Tyran wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Tyran wrote:
The Prime is overcosted, 100 points that do nothing beyond giving Warriors +1 to hit.

Even if what you want is character synapse, the Neurothrope does that better.

But the warriors themselves, 10 are 300 points at most.

I believe we need to first make their options balanced (so make the barebone warriors cheaper), and see if by mixing units helps improve their durability enough.

I think a 3+ save is all they need. A fourth wound is also an intriguing option because it gives them an added layer of resilience against flat 3 and D3 damage.

Even with a 3+ save or 4 wounds, their options still need to be rebalanced. There is no point in taking rending claws or devourers.

A change in durability might make these options more attractive.

No change in durability is going to make rending claws look better than boneswords or lashwhip and bonesword. And the same applies to devourers compared to Deathspitters.

**blackmage**

Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

stratagem which let you re roll any to hit roll, and re roll all in shooting and then again in melee you understand what happens to poor warriors

**Marmatag**

blackmage wrote:
Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

stratagem which let you re roll any to hit roll, and re roll all in shooting and then again in melee you understand what happens to poor warriors

Don't forget the one that lets you reroll all 1s---

That includes number of shots, hits, wounds, and damage - ALL 1s.

And not even a knight, if you run into a list with a Shadowsword it's going to vape warriors hardcore. Hitting on 2s rerolling... Before you even start with the Volcano Cannon its killed about 8 warriors.

It would be neat if the Tervigon could spawn a unit of 3 warriors. Of course, that'll never happen, but it would still be neat.

**Spoletta**

Obviously there are efficient ways to kill warriors, that is normal. I could tell you that to kill hammerheads or ravagers there are even more efficient weapons, but last time i checked those units were profusely played. The fact that a unit can be efficiently removed is not a reason not to play it, what matters is how easy it is to do that.

Until now in this thread have been nominated the following:

1) Helverins: Fair and square that's a true counter.
2) Dark Reapers: Another counter
3) HVC: Works too, but is not really efficient point wise.
4) Dissie cannons: Doesn't count, they are effective against any target due to being too cheap.
5) Castellan: Surely hurts, but those too right now are a bit out of wack with the infinite CP thing (and the fact that IMHO castellans need a point hike).

I still stand by my opinion that warriors do not have a problem right now. Among the elite troops in the game they are probably the best ones, and probably the only generalist unit which is good at what it does.

They have a problem in the fact that:

1) The current meta strongly discourages elite infantry.
2) The models that counter the warriors are currently a common choice.

Both of those though are meta problems, not problems with the model.

Changing a model due to an issue with the meta is beyond bad design. You should try to narrow down what is currently skewing the meta in a certain direction and solve that.

If you do that, you not only solve the warrior's problem, but also the primaris marine's problem, the terminator's problem, infantry custodes problem and so on.

Personally i think that the design mistake is that anti elite weapons are too good at taking down vehicles. This way there is an excessive amount of anti elite weapons in the lists(High AP D2/D3) , because they double as anti vehicle.

The idea to give a lot of wounds to vehicles was a good one, but they needed to go further. 25 wounds on average on vehicles and lascannons (and the like) with 2d6 damage, so that anti vehicle weapons would still bust vehicles, but trying to do that with anti elite fire would be doable but hard.
No wonder that right now light infantry is considered good, because to kill them you need weapons that are not good against the other targets, while the same weapon can be used to kill both elite models and vehicles alike, so there are more counters than normal for both of these categories. No wonder that the meta right now refuses elite models and vehicles (except the ones with invul saves, which are another category). The only ones taken are those that provide the precious anti elite/anti vehicle fire, like ionheads.

But again, in this cases, you don't act on the model, you act on the meta.

**Insectum7**

Spoiler:

Spoletta wrote:
Obviously there are efficient ways to kill warriors, that is normal. I could tell you that to kill hammerheads or ravagers there are even more efficient weapons, but last time i checked those units were profusely played. The fact that a unit can be efficiently removed is not a reason not to play it, what matters is how easy it is to do that.

Until now in this thread have been nominated the following:

1) Helverins: Fair and square that's a true counter.
2) Dark Reapers: Another counter
3) HVC: Works too, but is not really efficient point wise.
4) Dissie cannons: Doesn't count, they are effective against any target due to being too cheap.
5) Castellan: Surely hurts, but those too right now are a bit out of wack with the infinite CP thing (and the fact that IMHO castellans need a point hike).

I still stand by my opinion that warriors do not have a problem right now. Among the elite troops in the game they are probably the best ones, and probably the only generalist unit which is good at what it does.

They have a problem in the fact that:

1) The current meta strongly discourages elite infantry.
2) The models that counter the warriors are currently a common choice.

Both of those though are meta problems, not problems with the model.

Changing a model due to an issue with the meta is beyond bad design. You should try to narrow down what is currently skewing the meta in a certain direction and solve that.

If you do that, you not only solve the warrior's problem, but also the primaris marine's problem, the terminator's problem, infantry custodes problem and so on.

Personally i think that the design mistake is that anti elite weapons are too good at taking down vehicles. This way there is an excessive amount of anti elite weapons in the lists(High AP D2/D3) , because they double as anti vehicle.

The idea to give a lot of wounds to vehicles was a good one, but they needed to go further. 25 wounds on average on vehicles and lascannons (and the like) with 2d6 damage, so that anti vehicle weapons would still bust vehicles, but trying to do that with anti elite fire would be doable but hard.
No wonder that right now light infantry is considered good, because to kill them you need weapons that are not good against the other targets, while the same weapon can be used to kill both elite models and vehicles alike, so there are more counters than normal for both of these categories. No wonder that the meta right now refuses elite models and vehicles (except the ones with invul saves, which are another category). The only ones taken are those that provide the precious anti elite/anti vehicle fire, like ionheads.

But again, in this cases, you don't act on the model, you act on the meta.

I like this post a lot. I'm not even sure how much I agree with where you take it, but I'll be thinking about that breakdown for a while.

**barboggo**

Spoletta wrote:

The idea to give a lot of wounds to vehicles was a good one, but they needed to go further. 25 wounds on average on vehicles and lascannons (and the like) with 2d6 damage, so that anti vehicle weapons would still bust vehicles, but trying to do that with anti elite fire would be doable but hard.
No wonder that right now light infantry is considered good, because to kill them you need weapons that are not good against the other targets, while the same weapon can be used to kill both elite models and vehicles alike, so there are more counters than normal for both of these categories. No wonder that the meta right now refuses elite models and vehicles (except the ones with invul saves, which are another category). The only ones taken are those that provide the precious anti elite/anti vehicle fire, like ionheads.

But again, in this cases, you don't act on the model, you act on the meta.

Seeing as how there is no practical way for GW to rewrite the wounds stat on all vehicles, how would you suggest fixing the current meta issues of only light infantry + super heavily armored stuff w/ invulns (-3 to hit things also included)? I fully agree with your analysis by the way. Sadly this doesn't seem like problem that can be easily solved in 8th edition.

**Spoletta**

barboggo wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

The idea to give a lot of wounds to vehicles was a good one, but they needed to go further. 25 wounds on average on vehicles and lascannons (and the like) with 2d6 damage, so that anti vehicle weapons would still bust vehicles, but trying to do that with anti elite fire would be doable but hard.
No wonder that right now light infantry is considered good, because to kill them you need weapons that are not good against the other targets, while the same weapon can be used to kill both elite models and vehicles alike, so there are more counters than normal for both of these categories. No wonder that the meta right now refuses elite models and vehicles (except the ones with invul saves, which are another category). The only ones taken are those that provide the precious anti elite/anti vehicle fire, like ionheads.

But again, in this cases, you don't act on the model, you act on the meta.

Seeing as how there is no practical way for GW to rewrite the wounds stat on all vehicles, how would you suggest fixing the current meta issues of only light infantry + super heavily armored stuff w/ invulns (-3 to hit things also included)? I fully agree with your analysis by the way. Sadly this doesn't seem like problem that can be easily solved in 8th edition.

You need to reduce the effectiveness of anti elite fire against vehicles without an invul save, the effects of this would ripple down to the light infantry and super heavy invul stuff.

The easiest way i see to solve this is for example by adding the following generic stratagem:

Reinforced Armor (2CP): You can use this stratagem when a vehicle or a monster becomes the target of a shooting attack. For the rest of the phase this model cannot make use of its invulnerable save (if it had one) but when inflicting damage upon it reduce the damage by 1 to a minimum of 1.

The effect of a strategem like this would be to strengthen the role of high AP high damage weapons as the anti vehicle weapons, making plasma/dissie/ion/burst and similar high ROF weapons much more of a risk to bring on the battlefield. They don't become useless in the anti vehicle roll, because since this is a stratagem, it bring with itself a lot of limitations (CP cost, once per phase, can be baited), but it surely introduces an element of uncertainty that discourages those weapons on the field, making the life easier for elite infantry. By the way this would also solve the fact that the vanilla leman russ is better than it's AT version, and the ionhead is better than the railhead. Low ROF high damage high AP weapons become more interesting choices.

Why no invul saves? Because high damage is something that almost always comes with high AP. The intended counter for vehicles with invul saves is the autocannon class of weapons, which would be crippled by this stratagem making things like knights and vaults simply unstoppable (and it's called Renforced Armor, so you need to take stuff on the chin to benefit from it

).

This would rebalance the game between vehicles/monsters with and without an invul save, with the former having to give up a substantial part of what makes them durable (and usually costly) to gain the benefits of this stratagem.

Melee damage is purposefully not affected for obvious reasons, melee specialists do not have the luxury to choose between high ROF low damage or low ROF high damage, they have a fixed number of attacks.

Negative modifiers are a whole another problem that requires a separate fix.

This is just the first idea that i had on this matter, but in general you have to make anti elite fire less reliable against vehicles.

**tneva82**

blackmage wrote:
Tyran wrote:
blackmage wrote:
it kills more than 4-5 warriors 24 rerollable hits d6 extra shots 2 damage apieces then 2 heavy flamers, last but not least 12 melee hits d3 damage each, pretty more than 4-5 warriors. Then pretty hard nut to crack for warriors, i played lately with IK+3 helverins and tabled a tyr in 4 turns.

I'm not sure where you are getting the rerolleable hits, I guess a relic or some trait.

But yes Warriors are not designed to take on enemy vehicles, the large majority of their weapons is for anti-infantry purposes.

And it is true that Tyranid anti-vehicle units and options need some extra work. But no amount of changes is ever going to make Warriors viable against that list.

stratagem which let you re roll any to hit roll, and re roll all in shooting and then again in melee you understand what happens to poor warriors

What strategem that is? Raven one does that for shooting but not in melee so with warden/crusader he would get rerolls for that gatling gun(and rapid fire battlecannon(which sucks) or thermal cannon in case of crusader) but not for stomps. For that he needs something else and I'm pretty sure raven don't have reroll strategem for melee.

Also with your 24 are you counting in both gatling in shooting AND stomp in melee? As assuming everything always works at maximum when that requires say h2h(ripper swarm as a screen btw stops knight from charging warriors) isn't all that honest.

**Marmatag**

You're conflating a specific meta with the general norms in 8th edition. You have to consider units in the context of the full game. Otherwise you're playing the Insectum game, where everything is viable if you just play in some convoluted scenario that doesn't exist except in "this one specific instance that one time."

**Spoletta**

Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating a specific meta with the general norms in 8th edition. You have to consider units in the context of the full game. Otherwise you're playing the Insectum game, where everything is viable if you just play in some convoluted scenario that doesn't exist except in "this one specific instance that one time."

Sure, one has to consider the meta when list building, but not when thinking about changes to units.
If you give 3+ to warriors now, you make an overpowered unit that doesn't perform like one due to the present meta. That means that you worsened the game balance, which is not a good thing. You have just created one more issue, which will explode as soon as the present ones are fixed (and they will be fixed, there is no reason at this point to doubt this). Suppose than in the next FAQ dissie cannons are nerfed into oblivion, dark reapers and shining spears limited to units of 3, iontides increased and plasma in general increased in cost, CP sharing eliminated. In that situation, you would truly see warrior spam and it would be brutally effective, because (with 3+) they are overpowered models. Take Jorm and you have a 2+ 3W model with an heavy bolter and highly dangerous melee stats for peanuts. Such a unit in the present meta would be fine only because the meta is literally tailored against such a unit, as soon as the meta changes, an event that in 8th happens with a certan regularity, the warriors would be unchecked.

So in conclusion, warriors are perfectly fine models, currently handicapped by a meta that is extra specialized against them. Buffing that model would only put a bandaid on it while creating more problems in the future.

**Amishprn86**

I agree with Spoletta

The bad thing about Dissie are, they SHOULD be 20pts, but GW wont make them 20, they will over nerf them to 25.... I play Nids and DE as my main armies and i hope gw does right and makes them 20pts.

Im ok with warriors have a point option for carapce, but they are fine, just the meta "right now" makes them hard to play, before DE, Custodes and Knights, Warriors full lists were doing well in tournaments, and they still are doing well in local games without soup abuse.

The problems with the nids codex is there are 8ish units that are overcosted and thats about it, those units do the jobs they are suppose to, just not at the points cost they are currently at.

For me it is;

1) Gargoyles (1pt less)
2) Hive Crone/Harpy (20pts less)
3) Tyrannocyte (25-30pts less)
4) Tervigon (30pts less)
5) Maleceptor (20pts less)
6) Tyrant Guard (20pts each, thats 17pts less per, yes they need to go down that many points)
7) Haruspex (20-30pts) or hits on 2/3+

Small points change i would like would be (10pts ish)
1) Broodlord
2) Red Terror (maybe make this a HQ if kept at same points)
3) Prime Warrior

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like the add that the Toxicrene is almost perfect IMO, its 157pts. Making it cheaper sadly still wont see much play due to meta. It is basically a melee carnifex with MW's and little shooting, IMO 140pts is about right. And i think the major problem is most Nids units is that the multi damage weapons just hurts them to much.

IMo The Tocixcrene is the perfect example of why you dont see the large MC's in tyranids lists other than Carnifex's and Hive Tyrants, they need to be good enough for the points or cheap enough to spam lots of and dont care if they die b.c you have 2 others.

If you want to see a real Nidzilia lists or at least 5-6 MCs with Hordes that are NOT Tyrants and Fex's then all MC's needs to be, T6 80-90pts base, T7, 90-100pts base, T8 100-120pts base.

At those point levels you will see more and different MC's and then the meta will shift to all multi D weapons and Hordes will be popular again, but at least they will have a chance.

I would rather lower the points a bit to make them more popular in semi-comp and not balance around tournaments.

**Marmatag**

Spoletta wrote:
Sure, one has to consider the meta when list building, but not when thinking about changes to units.

Spoletta wrote:
If you give 3+ to warriors now, you make an overpowered unit that doesn't perform like one due to the present meta.

So you can't make changes to units based on the meta, but you also can't change units because it affects the meta.

If you aren't going to take into account the full breadth of the game when balancing units, that is exactly how you end up with undercosted/overcosted models. Because that is *always* a relative comparison.