Latest posts for the thread "Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)"

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

der Wiskinator — GMT

So, I know that most artillery gets counted out as being competitive, but I think that Biovores need to get reconsidered.

(Please disabuse me of this notion)

What are th big problems that everyone has when fielding a 'nid list? Range and AP3 right? What do Biovores have?

48" range, indirect fire and the ability to drop AP3 blasts down.

They do use up a force org slot, but as with the Eldar Vipers in that other thread, with their long range they are either going to force the opponent forward to deal with them or fore the opponent to shoot heavy weapons at them.

Also, the models are itty-bitty, and hide really well behind normal troop sized cover.

As for gargoyles, fast is good right? Can you not pick up a min sized squad for less than a 100 points and have it contest objectives late in the game?

Re:Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

Ragewind — GMT

Biovores also cause pinning due to being a barrage weapon, not to mention the templates never scatter away from the first one.

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

AdeptSister — GMT

Biovores are expensive and outside of Synapse they will break easily. Plus the Acid spore is only Str 3.

In third edition codex, they were one of they best things there since they were placed seperately and used the large blast template. The new codex hit them really hard with the nerf bat.

Gargoyles are not bad; its just that the models are so dang expensive for the price.

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

Lukus83 — GMT

I agree with adeptSister. Biovores need to be improved to be worthwhile and the gargoyles need plastic figures!

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

captain.gordino — GMT

In addition to these things, they're probably the ugliest two models in the whole tyranids range.

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

RogueMarket — GMT

Do you guys think Lictor and Ravener fall under the 'lesser' used tyranid units?

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

Lukus83 — GMT

Definately, although in the case of the lictor its probably due to people not knowing how to use them. Charging them into even a 10 man IG squad is near suicidal. They are supposed to be support units...which they happen to be great at.

Raveners are just too expensive in pts...40 points for a hyped up stealer...no thanks

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

LunaHound — GMT

Raveners are nice with massive amounts of fire power.

but expensive in both points and $$$

that and metal minis are a pain to glue >.>

sort of ugly too...

ugh xD

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

enmitee — GMT

stick with raveners in DoW 2.

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

LunaHound — GMT

My computer cant play it :<

bawwwwwww T-T

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

OddJob. — GMT

Two main reasons why biovores are sucky in a competative environment:

1. In a KP mission (1/3 of them), if the biovore misses the place a spore mine on he table. This is a new unit and therefore worth 1kp. Ridiculous, yes, but definately RAW.
2. Opportunity cost- Biovores are up against fex's and zoans for heavy support slots, both of which are much better.

Lictors are both terrain and reserve roll dependant, making them pretty difficult to rely on. Also they are about twice the points their abilities justify.

--edit--
I don't find any of these units to be underappreciated- general consensus is pretty much spot on.

Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

Foda_Bett — GMT

Lictors rely on terrain to deploy... units rely on terrain for cover saves... but if a lictor scatters into a unit in terrain it dies.

Wait somehow those don't add up.

Re:Thoughts on Gargoyls and BioVores (and any other underapreciated units)

animehedgeh0g — GMT

Biovores with acid mines are cool, but just not as effective as a zoanthrope with warp blast. Zoanthrope has strength 5 instead of 3, and has the ability to do a strength 10 single shot. Also Zoanthrope has 3 more initiative, 1 more attack, 5 more leadership, and a 2+ save with 6+ invulnerable save instead of biovore 6+ save. Also zoanthrope are deployed separately and therefore must be targeted by at least 3 units to be destroyed where as biovores can be targeted once and be destroyed. Also biovores are easily killed by deep strike or outflank. Zoanthropes also can be further upgraded like adding synapse. Yes biovore has longer range and pinning, but at both units having equal cost of 55 points the advantages of the zoanthrope outweigh those of the biovore. If they would go back to the biovore having a large blast or more strength and armor piercing then I will run them again. Until then biovores are for fun games only.

Gargoyles are great for their point cost, but I cannot afford the real life price tag. I would recommend them for the rich

I also like lictor as a support unit, especially when using a lot of genestealers with scuttlers for outflank. The reserves re rolls and the ability to assist the genestealers with the feeder tendril rerolls makes it worth taking one or two. With proper placement you can assault with the lictor then use hit and run to leave combat and move 2d6 towards another unit and let them use the with in 2' re roll feeder tendrils.

Ravangers are overpriced both in game and in real world. I would not use them.