Tyranid Musings

[Hobbitron]

Since we were derailing the C:SM thread... here is the question I would like to pose for you Paxmiles.

 

What options from the Tyranid dex do you feel haven't been given a fair chance?

 

I'll even save you some trouble: Flyrants, Venomthropes, Malanthropes, Mucoloid Spores, Ripper Swarms, Mawlocs, Lictors can all be considered "fieldable". They have been fairly distinctive units in 7th, and can be considered viable units.

 

Flyrants are obvious in value.

 

Mucoloid Spores, and Ripper Swarms are good for cheap troops if you are deciding to go the cheapest troop tax possible.

 

Mawlocs and Lictors have plenty of synergy (though really work best together, not independently, so they're almost more like one unit).

 

Venomthropes and Malanthropes are very effective in any nid list. Granting shrouded helps many units in an army plagued with inadequate armor saves.

 

There are others missing I'm sure.

 

Suggesting that you don't believe Tyranid players have given all of their units a fair chance, which do you feel are underrepresented?

[galahad911]

Since we were derailing the C:SM thread... here is the question I would like to pose for you Paxmiles.

 

What options from the Tyranid dex do you feel haven't been given a fair chance?

 

I'll even save you some trouble: Flyrants, Venomthropes, Malanthropes, Mucoloid Spores, Ripper Swarms, Mawlocs, Lictors can all be considered "fieldable". They have been fairly distinctive units in 7th, and can be considered viable units.

 

Flyrants are obvious in value.

 

Mucoloid Spores, and Ripper Swarms are good for cheap troops if you are deciding to go the cheapest troop tax possible.

 

Mawlocs and Lictors have plenty of synergy (though really work best together, not independently, so they're almost more like one unit).

 

Venomthropes and Malanthropes are very effective in any nid list. Granting shrouded helps many units in an army plagued with inadequate armor saves.

 

There are others missing I'm sure.

 

Suggesting that you don't believe Tyranid players have given all of their units a fair chance, which do you feel are underrepresented?

 

To add to this list, things that have been functional for me are carnifex with devourers, and Dimachaerons to a lesser extent. Dimas are a CC bug that is actually good at CC, but still only moves 6" a turn, so difficult to get to CC. All of the other CC specialized bugs also have the slow problem, but also have huge problems. Haruspex doesn't seem to have a role, with WS3, only 3 attacks, no option to get a second CC weapon, it has crushing claws, which would seem to point it towards vehicle hunting, but moving so slowly means you'll never catch a vehicle that doesn't want you to. Toxicrene has a nice number of attack, and a very good I, but no grenades, WS3 again, and with AS4+ just gets ruined by crack grenades. A largish tactical squad in cover will hand this thing it's ass before it even gets to attack.

[huggies01]

I think that the Old One Eye is often one of the most overlooked models in the codex. Arguably one of the best as well. For what he gives you for the price, it's hard not to bring him along. 4W is solidly decent for an HQ. Yeah so he doesn't have any shooting but is moderately semi-solid in CC. Not to mention the Alpha Warrior rule. How can you beat using LD8 for units within 12" rather than their LD6?

[pretre]

I'm thinking synapse beats that. ;)

[galahad911]

I think that the Old One Eye is often one of the most overlooked models in the codex. Arguably one of the best as well. For what he gives you for the price, it's hard not to bring him along. 4W is solidly decent for an HQ. Yeah so he doesn't have any shooting but is moderately semi-solid in CC. Not to mention the Alpha Warrior rule. How can you beat using LD8 for units within 12" rather than their LD6?

 

While 5 attacks is nice, WS3 is not. He's not any harder to kill than a standard carnifex, and not having synapse in an HQ slot is a deal breaker. If he was an upgrade for a fex squad like the Red Terror for raveners, then he'd see the table. As currently constituted, he's a no go in any but the softest armies for me.

[Guest]

It isn't the units, it's the builds. It's a vague concept, certainly. You have to scour the dataslates and books to see what can be done, then see if other options can allow you to further maximize that effect or concept, then try to build a list that overly specializes in that one thing.

 

The FMC approach is one such build. It focuses on the average opponent's inability to cope with flyers and MCs, then it just spams those units. It works in 7th for numerous reasons, the forefront being the dramatic nerf to skyfire+interceptor weapons in the edition change, which made them less viable in most armies, and subsequently, less common. This is aided by a sheer lack of interceptor weapons in most armies and very few weapons that can force FMCs to be grounded with any reliability (Ork Traktor beam may be the only one).

 

That said, each book that comes out has been bringing some rather nifty skyfire options, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the FMC army is obsolete within the next 6 months.

 

As for overlooked builds, I'm mostly skimming the tyranids, as they have a freakish amount of units, dataslates, expansion rules and so forth.

 

I see a potential building/ruin focused tyranid list. You'd have tyranids with a fortification, but most of the list would actually be geared towards stealing the enemy's fortifications. On this end, A Broodlord's Hunting pack dataslate or Manufactorum Genestealers dataslate. The Phodian Anhilation Swarm (or it's components) also have potential. You'd want an actual building in the army, as when destroyed by the enemy, it would grant you a free ruin (which works well with the listed dataslates). Getting tyranids with template weapons would also allow you to cleanse out the interior of enemy buildings (and open topped vehicles, for that matter). List would want to be infantry focused, as most buildings can only be occupied via buildings.

 

I see potential for an Invulnerable save themed tryanid army. Invulnerable saves aren't normally a theme, but for tyranids it would be. That Neural Node dataslate and a CAD should allow you to have enough invulnerable units to make a theme out of it. A skyshield landing pad would fit the theme quite well. List would probably gain a secondary role of psyker heavy, even if you weren't trying.

 

The mentioned list (Lictorshame) which spams spore mines and the bigger spore mines could be done without flyrants and possibly even made more suicidal. The Vortex Aquilla would really fit with such a list, though I don't know if those are ITC legal.

 

In all cases, a tyranid player would be extremely smart to start bringing "tank traps" which are impassible terrain to vehicles, confer a 4+ cover and clear terrain to anything else, at a meager 15pts per 6" section bought as an accessory for a fortification. Easily one of the most tyranid friendly fortification options without any downsides to speak of.

 

Although iffy regarding a less mobile tyranid army, the promethium pipes are a pretty sweet option for bugs too.

[pretre]

Man, pax, you're back to this weird archetype of list theory...

[Guest]

Man, pax, you're back to this weird archetype of list theory...

Is it just a theory? Don't you do this when making lists too?

[pretre]

I think the archetypes I worry about and conceptualize exist or have meaning as archetypes. Invulnerable save spam?

[galahad911]

It isn't the units, it's the builds. It's a vague concept, certainly. You have to scour the dataslates and books to see what can be done, then see if other options can allow you to further maximize that effect or concept, then try to build a list that overly specializes in that one thing.

 

The FMC approach is one such build. It focuses on the average opponent's inability to cope with flyers and MCs, then it just spams those units. It works in 7th for numerous reasons, the forefront being the dramatic nerf to skyfire+interceptor weapons in the edition change, which made them less viable in most armies, and subsequently, less common. This is aided by a sheer lack of interceptor weapons in most armies and very few weapons that can force FMCs to be grounded with any reliability (Ork Traktor beam may be the only one).

 

That said, each book that comes out has been bringing some rather nifty skyfire options, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the FMC army is obsolete within the next 6 months.

 

As for overlooked builds, I'm mostly skimming the tyranids, as they have a freakish amount of units, dataslates, expansion rules and so forth.

 

I see a potential building/ruin focused tyranid list. You'd have tyranids with a fortification, but most of the list would actually be geared towards stealing the enemy's fortifications. On this end, A Broodlord's Hunting pack dataslate or Manufactorum Genestealers dataslate. The Phodian Anhilation Swarm (or it's components) also have potential. You'd want an actual building in the army, as when destroyed by the enemy, it would grant you a free ruin (which works well with the listed dataslates). Getting tyranids with template weapons would also allow you to cleanse out the interior of enemy buildings (and open topped vehicles, for that matter). List would want to be infantry focused, as most buildings can only be occupied via buildings.

 

I see potential for an Invulnerable save themed tryanid army. Invulnerable saves aren't normally a theme, but for tyranids it would be. That Neural Node dataslate and a CAD should allow you to have enough invulnerable units to make a theme out of it. A skyshield landing pad would fit the theme quite well. List would probably gain a secondary role of psyker heavy, even if you weren't trying.

 

The mentioned list (Lictorshame) which spams spore mines and the bigger spore mines could be done without flyrants and possibly even made more suicidal. The Vortex Aquilla would really fit with such a list, though I don't know if those are ITC legal.

 

In all cases, a tyranid player would be extremely smart to start bringing "tank traps" which are impassible terrain to vehicles, confer a 4+ cover and clear terrain to anything else, at a meager 15pts per 6" section bought as an accessory for a fortification. Easily one of the most tyranid friendly fortification options without any downsides to speak of.

 

Although iffy regarding a less mobile tyranid army, the promethium pipes are a pretty sweet option for bugs too.

 

 

Pax, don't take this as a personal attack, you know I don't have an issue with you personally. You simply have no idea what you're talking about here.

[pretre]

I think the issue is that youre making these very extreme, non TAC lists that no one would take if they weren't tailoring against an opponent.

 

How many people had buildings at the tournament? Me? So your building list, if it works, really only works on one guy out of 12?

[pretre]

Here's what this sounds like:

 

There isn't enough variety in GK lists. I'd like to see more variants with maxed psilencers, ward staves and all the anti-daemon relics. That'd be a unique archetype and I have no idea why more GK players don't use it all the time.

[pretre]

You know what? I think Sisters players focus too much on melta and flamer weapons. I would like to see a 'Bolter Spam' themed sister army.

 

Canoness with Dual Combi-Bolters.

4 x 20 SIsters with 2 Storm Bolters

3 x 10 Dominions with 4 Storm Bolters

 

It really focuses on the other part of the holy trinity and I think it would do really well against green tide orks. Punisher Vengeance Batteries might fit the theme really well. List would probably gain a secondary role of horde army even though you're not really trying.

[pretre]

Have you thought about a fortification based Guard army? You could take the wall of martyrs network, pretty much all of it, vengeance batteries, bunkers, firestorm redoubts, trenches. Put a CCS, a platoon or two and a couple veteran squads with infiltrate to take over other players fort networks. If they didn't deploy in their own forts, those infiltrators would give you a free fort. I could see it doing really well from a deployment zone control standpoint.

[pretre]

I mean, I realize that I'm being extreme here, but this is what it sounds like to us. Yes, these can be cool ideas or cool themes. No, they are no way effective or something that someone takes to win games. Cool for a themed match or a scenario game? Sure. Good to bring to a competitive event? Not at all. And make no mistake, when people talk about what they would take for Tyranids or whatever, they are talking about competitively. People don't often debate fluffy, scenario lists because that is entirely subjective. Whereas when we talk about competitive things we are being entirely objective: i.e. what is going to work against the most opponents for the least opportunity cost.

[AgentP]

[indytims]

 

Hey... is that the Fonz?

[pretre]

 

I could totally make a jumping the shark list given enough time. :)

[Guest]

You simply have no idea what you're talking about here.

What? You mean, after skimming the large amount of tyranid information in a short period I don't have a perfectly informed understanding of all possible lists? Shocking. 

 

That said, given that you didn't seem to consider any of the suggestions with any level of seriousness, my earlier comment about tyranid players refusing to see options seems perfectly valid based on this response. It also begs the question that if the thread asks a question and I get a response like this, was anyone actually asking the question, or was it just bait to so you could attack me like this.

 

And despite your comment about this not being a personal attack, what else is it? It isn't constructive criticism. It isn't you explaining what you disagree about my post. It is just an unclear disprovable of my personal opinion without any useful contributions.

How many people had buildings at the tournament? Me? So your building list, if it works, really only works on one guy out of 12?

It's a building/ruin themed army. Almost every table we played on had ruins of some sort. Plus the bought building for the bugs becomes a ruin when destroyed (not exactly likely to last given it would be the only AV target in the tyranid army). It works because tyranids have several dataslates which specifically benefit or bolster ruins terrain. Anyway, just because it's themed around them, doesn't mean that it's a one-trick pony.

 

Does calling it a Cityfight Tyranid army (or Cities of Death) make it sound any better? It's not exactly a new list idea...just one I really haven't seen in 7th.

 

And I really don't understand your point about TAC lists and themed lists. Almost every tourney list is very focused on a theme. It's like a magic the gathering deck. They take one or two key ideas and expand upon that.

 

Look at those two LVO lists: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/02/40k-unbeatable-lists-lvo-edition.html

 

You'd really consider those lists not built around a theme? They find a few elements of their codex/army that can be utilized in combination to some degree, then they figure out how best to utilize the concept. This is not really any different from a MTG deck building theme.

 

As for themes that I suggested. All I said was that after skimming the tyranid rules, I saw some potential for two list themes that were not the spore or the FMC themes. I'm not really sure why you object so strongly to those ideas. That was the question asked by the OP, right? "What list/unit ideas can we try?"

[AbusePuppy]

I see a potential building/ruin focused tyranid list. You'd have tyranids with a fortification, but most of the list would actually be geared towards stealing the enemy's fortifications.

 

Except that most players don't take fortifications, and if they do they typically occupy them so that you will be unable to do so. And if there are no ruins or buildings on the table, all you have is a sh*tty melee army with tricks that don't work. I mean, Scat Bikes love it when you deploy a bunch of T4/5+ guys sittin' around and hope you can chase down units faster than you. God forbid the other guy has Ignores Cover weapons, because then all of your shenanigans are pretty much for naught.

 

 

I see potential for an Invulnerable save themed tryanid army. Invulnerable saves aren't normally a theme, but for tyranids it would be. That Neural Node dataslate and a CAD should allow you to have enough invulnerable units to make a theme out of it. A skyshield landing pad would fit the theme quite well. List would probably gain a secondary role of psyker heavy, even if you weren't trying.

 

A theme is not a plan. "All of my models have invulnerable saves" is a theme, but it does not give you any kind of meaningful path to victory.

 

 

The mentioned list (Lictorshame) which spams spore mines and the bigger spore mines could be done without flyrants and possibly even made more suicidal. The Vortex Aquilla would really fit with such a list, though I don't know if those are ITC legal.

 

Lictorshame mainly uses Mucolids/Spore Mines as a way to hold its Comms Relay and avoid being table on T1 against enemy shooting armies that go first. The explosive guys are not a major part of how the list functions- and removing the Flyrants means that you don't have a way to make your Lictors selectively Fearless anymore, so no more Gone to Ground shenanigans.

 

 

In all cases, a tyranid player would be extremely smart to start bringing "tank traps" which are impassible terrain to vehicles, confer a 4+ cover and clear terrain to anything else, at a meager 15pts per 6" section bought as an accessory for a fortification. Easily one of the most tyranid friendly fortification options without any downsides to speak of.

 

Does the enemy player often drive their tanks into your deployment zone as a Tyranid player? Is this a big problem for you? Because I don't think it has ever come up a single time for me when I was playing 'Nids.

[Guest]

Have you thought about a fortification based Guard army? You could take the wall of martyrs network, pretty much all of it, vengeance batteries, bunkers, firestorm redoubts, trenches. Put a CCS, a platoon or two and a couple veteran squads with infiltrate to take over other players fort networks. If they didn't deploy in their own forts, those infiltrators would give you a free fort. I could see it doing really well from a deployment zone control standpoint.

Not ITC legal, but yes, totally have. ITC, and most events, don't like fortification networks. The AM heavy weapon team bases also, really don't like fortifications due to space constraints ('cause two humans require a 60mm base...).

 

That GI joe playset doesn't really work in normal 40k because it is inflexible in the deployment zones (since 7th changed fortification deployment to being inside the rest of the army's zone, rather than the entire table half).

 

I have done some testing on these, though I admit to not owning enough of the fortifications to test a full network.

 

That Wall of Martyrs Imperial Defense Emplacement, in particular, is a neat option, but I have yet to find a viable unit to occupy it (allows heavy weapons to re-roll overwatch). It also grants stubborn to models within, which isn't very useful for me, as my DA grant than anyway, so it becomes redundant.

 

What I really want, fortifications-wise, is the ability to purchase the buildings without the weapons. Like that FSR without the turrets. Main reason is just for the extra space to put models on top. Secondary reason would be a decrease in cost. Tyranids in particular, would really benefit from having more buildings that weren't paying for emplaced weapons in addition to their cost.

 

I'd also like the ability to purchase more normal terrain features, like a forest or hill for my deployment zone. Doesn't exactly seem unreasonable, assuming I can buy other terrain anyway.

[Guest]

 

A theme is not a plan. "All of my models have invulnerable saves" is a theme, but it does not give you any kind of meaningful path to victory..

 

So I say, "I see potential," and you conclude I've got a fully fleshed out army in mind? Sorry to burst your bubble, it isn't anywhere near a plan or a path to victory. It is just a theme that I said had some potential.

[Guest]

Does the enemy player often drive their tanks into your deployment zone as a Tyranid player? Is this a big problem for you? Because I don't think it has ever come up a single time for me when I was playing 'Nids.

 

That would be another one of those tyranid playstyles that is rather repetitive amounst the tyranid players. Bugs come to you, every time. I'd love to see a change in the tyranid list on that front, but I'm really not sure how you'd get armies like AM or TAU to come to bugs...

 

That said, the advantages of tank traps I thought were pretty self explanatory:

 

-4+ cover for being behind. 2+ cover with a venomthrope. A meager 15pts for 6 inches of 4+ cover.

-Clear terrain for non-vehicles. This means that tyranids are completely unempaired, so they don't slow intiative when charging through, don't slow down, and don't take dangerous terrain for jumpers or deep strikers.

-Impassible terrain for vehicles. This means that they can't land a drop pod in that area, occupied or not. They can't tank shock bugs behind and their transports can be held back, should they actually come to you.

 

Given that bugs lack assault grenades on almost everything, while also having pretty high initiative on most infantry units, the clear terrain aspect of the cover save is appealing for bugs over the aegis line. Especially as they can't go to ground while in synapse range...

[Guest]

 

God forbid the other guy has Ignores Cover weapons, because then all of your shenanigans are pretty much for naught..

 

Right, how silly of me. Every other tyranid list would be really strong against ignores cover weapons, but that one would uniquely suffer.

 

On a more serious note, ignores cover has always been strong against bugs. Aside from that invulnerable bug army idea, there really aren't a lot buggy solutions for armies which have lots of ignores cover weapons.

[WestRider]

What? You mean, after skimming the large amount of tyranid information in a short period I don't have a perfectly informed understanding of all possible lists? Shocking.

 And you are simultaneously refusing to acknowledge or listen to the experiences of people who do have extensive experience with Nids, while condescendingly telling us we don't understand our own Faction.

 

It is just an unclear disprovable of my personal opinion without any useful contributions.

Well, you haven't really made any statements to refute, other than that Nids are, in some vague unspecified way, more flexible than any of the people who actually play them have managed to find workable if they actually want to win Games.

 

And I really don't understand your point about TAC lists and themed lists. Almost every tourney list is very focused on a theme. It's like a magic the gathering deck. They take one or two key ideas and expand upon that.

 I asked this in another thread, and you never responded, but what, exactly, do you think a TAC list is? A theme is in no way contradictory with the ability to Take All Comers.

 

That would be another one of those tyranid playstyles that is rather repetitive amounst the tyranid players. Bugs come to you, every time. I'd love to see a change in the tyranid list on that front, but I'm really not sure how you'd get armies like AM or TAU to come to bugs...

Have you even read the Nid Dex? The reason Nids always go to their Opponent is that they don't have any other options if they actually want to win the Game. Barring a couple of overpriced GMCs, they have no meaningful firepower at greater than 24" Range, and most of what's actually good is only 18". If they stay back, they're not claiming Objectives, and they're not damaging the Opponent's Army, so how are they supposed to actually win Games?