Hi guys,
Take a look over at the Fly Wire section to check out Mkerr's 2 latest posts on his newest Tyranid list.
Tyranid List
After Action Report
He's convinced that Nids are the new tournament "killer list" of 5th editon and I'm sure would love to hear some feedback regarding his list and your own Tyranid experiences in 5th.
~He's apparently working through some teething problems (such as Bulwark's army), but I know you guys have a lot of good advice to give :)
46 comments:
Nidz and Orks. I think orks will be stronger, simply because those nids use the same strategy as the green tide, but the green tide is better at massed shooting.
They are probably the two strongest armies, but the Orks beat the Nidz, in 5th edition experience.
I'm still trying to understand why you took a CC fex and lictors... Those things are terrible, especially the melee fex. The ubiquitous power fist even in 5th is just death for anything like that, especially with the new killzone rules.
Gaunts are cool, with prefered enemy, and I like the warrior plan. Broodlords are poop in 4th, and will be in 5th. Fleet is CRUCIAL for nids, it looks like. I'm also kind of curious about the effectiveness of the venomcannon barbstrangler build now? Does the scatter make it useless? Would it be better to put in a TL VC or a pair of devourers in stead of the BS?
Also, I wonder if Zoanthropes will be better in 5th?
i actually think the strangler will be better in fifth
it has a one third chance of sticking which is slightly worse than third but now it has NO partials which will be awesome
@Jhagadurn: The Lictors were probably my most effective unit in the game.
1) Feeding Tendrils give any brood within 3" the Preferred Enemy ability (allowing them to re-roll misses in close combat). This was incredibly effective with my Genestealers.
2. Pheromone Trails allowed me to re-roll one reserve roll per turn. This allows me to get my outflanking Genestealers on the board when I needed them.
They are pricey for 80 points, but well worth it. Had I got them on earlier, I think my Gaunts would've been able to hold their own in close combat against the Orks.
The goal of the close combat Carnifex was to force my opponent to direct shooting at it and to keep away pesky tanks (ramming and tankshock is going to be a lot more common in 5E). With a Lictor nearby this monstrocity was re-rolling misses and wounding on 2s.
But it looks like the close combat Fex was a bit of overkill -- with close combat attacks being resolved on the rear armor of vehicles, even a Gunfex was able to pop them easily.
(Also keep in mind that the ubiquitous powerfist is only getting 3 attacks on the charge and should only cause 1 wound on the average -- hits on 4s, wounds on 3s. That's not too bad when the fex is dishing back 3+ wounds per phase).
Broodlords are poop in 4th, and will be in 5th.
For 3 pts, the Broodlord (and his Genestealer brood) gets re-roll misses in close combat. This makes him a MONSTER!
I'm also kind of curious about the effectiveness of the venomcannon barbstrangler build now? Does the scatter make it useless? Would it be better to put in a TL VC or a pair of devourers in stead of the BS?
In the game I played, the Barbed Stranglers did great on the BS3 Carnifexes. They were fantastic against Orks and the pinning was handy.
I'm going to try a more traditional build in a couple of weeks to see how it works.
Also, I wonder if Zoanthropes will be better in 5th?
I think the Psychic Choir build is going to be amazing. I was already able to force my opponent to make Leadership tests at -4 or -5; if I had 5 Psychic Screams nearby that would have been practicaly auto-breaks!
TMC?
Turner Movie Channel?
Tackling Man-Chimp?
Taco Manana Chico?
Twofisted Margarita Champion?
@Anonymous: The Barbed Strangler's larger blast is nice.
@Anonymous: Tyranid Monstrous Creature
Mkerr,
I saw this posted...'4. The new morale rules favor Synapse over the Mob Rule! (I was able to get his Leadership down to 2 or 3 several times by causing more wounds — but he was unable to do the same to me, thanks to Synapse).'
I thought mob rule (as long as there are more than 11 orks in the mob) and synapse worked the same i.e. both conveyed fearless status. How did you get the orc leadership down to 2 or 3 aside from just killing all those models?
I ask because I got my butt kicked on in a 5th edition preview game on Saturday night (6/28/08) with Orks versus Tyranids game (I was the Nid player). Help appreciated...am I not reading the rules right?
Thanks.
Regards,
Losing Nid Player :(
I am not so sure that they are the new killer list. I think alot of armies got boosts, perhaps the biggest is guard and tau. Since they are no longer done for once they get assaulted. Even if you have several units of stealers once they wipe out the guard squads they can not consolidate into the next unit. Thats when the guard flamers open up and roast some bugs.
He's convinced that Nids are the new tournament "killer list" of 5th editon...
Wait, didn't they already have this distinction (along with Eldar) in 4th Edition? :P
@Losing Nid Player: Only an Ork mob with 11 or more models gains the Fearless rule. This is determined at the time of the Morale test.
What I was able to do was cause enough casualties to bring the mob below 11. In one instance, I caused 8 casualties to a Ork mob of 18. This brought them to a LD10. I won the combat by 5 wounds, forcing them to check at -5. This often led to wiped out Ork mobs.
If I managed to assault a small unit (say 10 or 12 models in strength, like Lootas), then this was even more effective.
When the Orks won (and I was in Synapse range), I didn't suffer any negatives at all.
Secondly, Synapse doesn't make broods Fearless, it allows them to automatically pass Morale tests. The difference is subtle, but important.
@Anonymous: All armies got boosts and negatives, but in my opinon Tyranids got the most boosts with the least negatives.
My initial impression was that shooting armies had an advantage over assault armies (with the removal of consolidation into new units), but I've found that my new found mobility makes it very easy to assault multiple units.
As a Guard player, I've found it very hard to control close combats and prevent my opponent from engaging multiple units. (Note: clumping up is not the answer!)
Any chance we can take a look at the Ork list?
I'm still wondering if my Genestealer shock list will work in 5th. i have 54 genestealers at 2000 points. all with scuttling and carapace. 6 units of 8 each and a brood lord with 6 of his own. I have the 2 gunfexes and a 2 lictors and 1 dakka fex. and nine warriors. I hope that will be enough to put the victory solidly in my favor.
Orks have more advantages than the nids. One of which is Mad Doc Grotsnik. There has been a lot of discussion on Mad Doc's cost, but I think the ability of having 30 orks that are fearless and have FNP is very powerful against any army.
cant...resist...want to start 'Nid army... must resist temp...tation...divorce immininet....must resist.... AAAAAARGH....... when will enough be enough!?!?!?!? I wonsder if I'll be able to pick up a 4th ed box cheaper after 5th is released... ive always wanted that crashed aquilla, and more spacemarines are always handy, that agent mini might come in handy for Dark Heresy, and.... the Nids would be a suitable start to a new Nib force... it seems such a reasonable and justified purchase to me and yet I cant help but wince when i anticipate Mrs Dibleys reaction to this latest flagrant disregard of my financial responsibilities....
Hi mkerr,
Regarding Synapse Creatures not taking extra wounds based on losing CC.
Quote BRB page 44 under "No Retreat"
"It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the "fearless" special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule). When such units lose close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on."
Tyranid Codex page 28 paragraph two
"Any Tyranid broods with a model within 12" of a Synapse Creature (including the Synapse Creature itself) never fall back and are assumed to automatically pass any Leadership-based test they are called on to make, other than psychic tests and those called upon for target selection."
I think its pretty clear that Tyranid Broods affected by Synapse are "Immune to morale checks of any kind" since Fall Back is based on a Morale Check which is based on a Leadership Test. The wording does not by verbatim match up between the two books but I don't think there can be much doubt that the BRB is not just saying "Fearless" unit are subject to this rule but everything that is Immune -or- Automatically Pass all Leadership based tests is what this rule is intended to cover.
Gregg
@Lord_Infestus:
"Regarding Synapse Creatures not taking extra wounds based on losing CC."
I very carefully avoided making a stand on Synapse and No Retreat.
I only said that Synapse was not the same as Fearless, but since you called me out on it...
Am I convinced that models in Synapse control suffer No Retreat wounds? Not completely.
First of all, No Retreat is a dumb rule.
It was poorly thought out and badly written. Worse, it doesn't make any sense and seems to be applied inconsistently. Consider the following example:
A unit loses a round of close combat while badly outnumbered:
a. If led by a Fearless character, the unit is swarmed by the enemy and suffers extra wounds.
b. If led by no one, but the unit passes a Leadership test to stay in the fight, the unit is not swarmed by the enemy.
Huh? What is it about Fearlessness that makes them more susceptible to being overwhelmed? Lame.
Why does a unit that can choose to pass or fail a morale test (e.g., Inquisitor's Iron Will ability) ingore No Retreat? What about Summary Execution?
The rule should apply to any unit vastly outnumbered in close combat - not just units that have some ability to pass morale tests automatically.
Let's consider some situations:
1. Fearless: Not much wiggle room here.
2. Synapse: "never fall back and are assumed to automatically pass any Leadership-based test" Well they are "assumed" to automatically pass. Does that mean they automatically pass or does that mean that they don't have to take the test? Personally, I'm not sure. Not it doesn't say that No Retreat applies to units that "can choose to automatically pass". Ugh.
3. Iron Will: "may choose whether to pass or fail any Morale check". I think this gives them a free pass on No Retreat.
4. Summary Execution: "assumed to have passed the Morale test after all". Is "assumed to have passed" the same as "automatically pass"? Maybe. It seems like it changes the result of the failed test to a passed test. Is that automatic?
I think that the No Retreat rule is possibly the worst rule in the book. It's confusing and illogical and it doesn't make close combat more fun. I'm saddened to see that it found it's way into 5E.
I'm not all that impressed with lictors in 5ed, at least in theory. They have to take dangerous terrain test when they ambush/deepsrtike (hopefully this will be FAQd in July). Genestealers with feeder tendrils are better at providing the re-roll to other units, do it cheaper then lictors for the most part and can score.
That reroll to reserves is the only reason to take them and that is a pretty expensive reroll.
I agree though the broodlord is looking really good. You didn't mention one really nice boost he gets in 5ed. He is treated as an upgrade character in the unit and not as a seperate unit in assault. With wound allocation it isn't game breaking but it sure keeps him around longer and lets him attack more often.
I'm sorry mkerr, but I'd have to disagree with you on your view of 'No Retreat".
5th Ed. tries to make melee deadlier and more decisive, and this particular rule aims to cut down on tarpitting tactics. Big loss, I know. Those fights were always SO EXCITING right?
Look, if your unit was getting wiped out in 4th, it still will in 5th. You're just unhappy because it now takes 2 turns instead of 5.
Units that fail in CC should suffer consequences, that's what you get for throwing them against a superior unit. Would you rather take a Ld. 3 test and get Sweeping Advance'd when you run after the FIRST round of combat like everyone else?
And as for your comment about the rules' clarity, come on :) Your "conflicting" rules all come from 3rd Ed. codices!
Don't feel like I'm coming out of the blue to insult you, I love this site and your work. It's just that a friend of mine plays 'Nids and this is just what I've said to his similar concerns!
...oh, and Fearless squads give ICs Fearless, but not the other way around...so another moot point :)
@Caligula:
5th Ed. tries to make melee deadlier and more decisive
Then make it apply to any unit that loses close combat and is vastly outnumbered; not just to units that are not allowed to take a Morale test.
There have been many instances where my Fearless IC would've preferred to take the Ld10 Morale test than to be forced to make the saves.
Why is a hardened battle commander unable to protect himself than the men that depend on his leadership to survive in a similar situation(e.g., Rites of Battle)?
Units that fail in CC should suffer consequences, that's what you get for throwing them against a superior unit.
Why is a unit that loses a close combat but holds less vulnerable to being overwhelmed than a Fearless unit that loses a close combat? They held too.
Your "conflicting" rules all come from 3rd Ed. codices!
And?
There have been at least two erratas and FAQs for each of those codices. When the rule was written is irrelevant.
Is "assumed to automatically pass" the same thing as "automatically pass"? I don't know, but probably.
Is "assumed to have passed" the same thing as "automatically passed"? I don't know, but probably not.
Is "may choose whether to pass" the same as "automatically pass"? I don't think so, but I'm not certain.
Is there any difference in the mechanic of these three rules? No. Is there anything that would make a unit with one of these three rules more difficult to overrun? No.
Am I convinced that Synapse is the same as Fearless or "automatically passing"? Not completely. Am I willing to argue about it in a tournament or a friendly game? No. Am I willing to argue about it online? Yes. Endlessly.
But, as written, No Retreat is a dumb rule. It doesn't make the game more fun and killing it should be the first house rule of any gaming group.
@ anonymous. considering it's not deep strike for coming in but a modified version there of that does not state they are taking a wound unpon entry, lictors are still quite viable.
yer still thinking lictors deepstrike. they don't.
Someone pass the popcorn...this is getting good...
Is anybody else depressed about Tyranids in 5th? Genestealers with all their uber bio-morphs and rending as a troop choice. If anything 'nids got even better in 5th beyond orks.
At Baltimore Games Day all the top armies at the top tables were all tyranids, even Eldar skimmer spam couldn't compete and there was plenty of that.
While I am ranting a bit, I do understand that no army plays itself but it just seems like to even stand a chance to compete at a GT or other GW-like event one needs to be playing Tyranids.
I've always found "No retreat" to be stupid as well. The rules should be the same for all squads that pass or fail their morale checks. Elite, fearless troops should not be more vulnerable than some henchmen who almost run off but decide to stick around and keep fighting. As mkerr has demonstrated, due to different wording in the codexes it can also be confusing when it applies.
Would it be worth putting out a BOLS house rules compilation? Off-hand, the No Retreat rule and STR4 defensive weapons are the only truly non-sensical rules I can think of... except maybe kill points:
Sergeant: "Sir, we just wiped out two groups of 10 gretchin."
Officer: "Excellent, that makes up for the landraider and terminator squad that the enemy killed."
Before I start :
Am I willing to argue about it in a tournament or a friendly game? No. Am I willing to argue about it online? Yes. Endlessly.
Ahhh...that's what I like to hear. 5th ed. 40k and 4th ed. D&D whining is ALL I HEAR ABOUT at my gaming store. Nerds just need somewhere to vent their Rage. Sportsmanship FTW.
Now, for my own Nerd Rage :)
There have been many instances where my Fearless IC would've preferred to take the Ld10 Morale test than to be forced to make the saves.
Why is he alone? ICs take Ld stuff with the unit they've joined, hence my point that they lose Fearless when joined to a non-Fearless unit. Also, Ld9 will usually be the best case for a defeated unit anyway, since they lost by at least one point, right?
I guess it's just too bad we can't have all the positives but none of the negatives, huh? Yeah, sometimes taking a reduced Ld test would be better -BUT- sometimes being Fearless is better. Hey wait...isn't that how it SHOULD be?
Why is a unit that loses a close combat but holds less vulnerable to being overwhelmed than a Fearless unit that loses a close combat? They held too.
All people need to understand is that Fearless isn't the uber-ability that it originally was. It simply represents different reactions to losing combats. Some units sacrifice models in order to never worry about Ld tests. There you go. And non-Fearless units are NOT less vulnerable! A unit that gets caught in a Sweeping Advance is auto-killed regardless. Do you know what this does to my inexplicably Fearless-less, Initiative 2, otherwise MEQ Necrons?! Yeah, you got it REAL bad, man!
There have been at least two erratas and FAQs for each of those codices. When the rule was written is irrelevant.
This is an interesting standpoint to take. Are you suggesting that GW hold back on their vision of 40k because of some badly thought-out special rules written 3+ years ago? Yeah, change can be painful, but it's for the better. This is especially silly since neither 'Nid, Inq., or IG FAQs have been released (maybe 'cause 5th isn't actually out yet!).
Look, I'll probably never change your mind about the revised No Retreat rule. But I might get you and people that share your opinion to understand that this all comes down to play style. So mobs of Fearless units aren't your cup o' tea...that's ok! That's why you have more than one army choice. This is how 'Nids operate, and it's just not your way of playing. I can GUARANTEE that 'Nids (and Orks, and Daemons, and other Fearless horde armies) will prosper in 5th ed., they just might have to change some of their tactics...but we already knew that, didn't we? :-)
@Caligula:
Why is he alone? ICs take Ld stuff with the unit they've joined, hence my point that they lose Fearless when joined to a non-Fearless unit.
Does it matter why he was alone? The point was that a lone Fearless IC is more vulnerable to being overwhemled in close combat than a lone infantry model.
Whether Fearless is retained or not is irrelevant to the example. Note that there are numerous cases where a "Fearless" IC gives makes his squad the Fearless rule(Chaplains are the most common example, but there are also Ethereals, Commissars, Broodlords, et al).
Also, Ld9 will usually be the best case for a defeated unit anyway, since they lost by at least one point, right?
Again, largely irrelevant but Books of St Lucius, Die-Hards, Chem-Inhalers, Space Wolves, etc. don't suffer the negatives. Chaos Daemon Instruments also impact this.
But my point stands, sometimes I'd rather attempt a Morale test than suffer the No Retreat wounds. There's no reason not to allow Fearless units this option.
Yeah, sometimes taking a reduced Ld test would be better -BUT- sometimes being Fearless is better. Hey wait...isn't that how it SHOULD be?
Giving the Fearless unit the choice would make that an interesting trade-off (i.e., a more fun game). Why not allow a Fearless unit to pass a Leadership test to avoid No Retreat?
All people need to understand is that Fearless isn't the uber-ability that it originally was.
All people really need to understand is that No Retreat is a dumb rule. Does it make sense for Monstrous Creatures (Wraithlord, Carnifex, Avatar) to get overwhelmed by models that couldn't ordinarily hurt them?
Why should 2 Conscripts automatically cause an automatic wound an Avatar or Wraithlord just because they outnumber it?
And non-Fearless units are NOT less vulnerable!
Models pay for Fearless. Fearless should be better in every case -- with regards to Morale -- than non-Fearless.
Do you know what this does to my inexplicably Fearless-less, Initiative 2, otherwise MEQ Necrons?! Yeah, you got it REAL bad, man!
How does this relate to the discussion. We're talking about No Retreat.
This is an interesting standpoint to take. Are you suggesting that GW hold back on their vision of 40k because of some badly thought-out special rules written 3+ years ago?
Synapse was a badly thought out special rule? Synapse was written after No Retreat. Synapse is just as (if not more) confusing with No Retreat as Iron Will (which was the last codex released before 4E).
And "hold back on their vision"? Puh-lease. No Retreat isn't part of their "vision" for the game. It's a dumb rule that someone stuck in and no one had the sense to remove. It's certainly not a critical part of the game.
The only badly written rule here is No Retreat!
This is especially silly since neither 'Nid, Inq., or IG FAQs have been released (maybe 'cause 5th isn't actually out yet!).
Umm, the No Retreat rule isn't actually any different in 5E. They didn't FAQ it in 4E, so I doubt they will FAQ it in 5E.
Is "assumed to automatically pass" the same thing as "automatically pass"?
I don't know, but since Synapse was written after Fearless and after the No Retreat rule then why didn't they just use Fearless? Maybe they wanted it to be different. Maybe they forgot that No Retreat even existed.
Why didn't they say "automatically pass" instead of "assumed to automatically pass"? No clue, but perhaps they intended for it to be treated differently. Or perhaps they don't consider existing rules when they new ones.
Look, I'll probably never change your mind about the revised No Retreat rule.
Are you really making the case that No Retreat is a well thought out, well written rule that makes the game more fun for either player??? Really??? If that's what you are trying to sell, then I'm definitely not buying.
I think all this handwringing about whether or not Tyranids are subject to No Retreat is just wishful thinking on your part mkerr. You can call it a bad rule, and try to debate it to your advantage, but the rule is still there.
Seems odd to tout a tournament list while claiming some rules don't have to be followed.
I've played a solid 15 games of 5e with my Tyranids, and the bottom line is WIN the combats you send your gaunts into, or else make sure they are out of synapse and hope you can get away without being wiped out by pursuers.
Just to contribute positively to this thread my Tyranids have destroyed both shooty and horde Orks (three times) and crisis and warrior-heavy Tau (twice).
I'm about done playing them and looking to move onto my Tau for a few games.
One more thing, you keep refering to outnumbering in some of your examples...you are aware that there is no 5e game mechanic that has anything to do with unit size, right?
Its base Ld minus wounds you lost the combat by. Period. No -1 or -x for below half or or outnumbering. If Fearless or Synapse, you pass this automatically and now take a number of armor saves equal to the negative Ld modifier that assault phase.
You wrote "All people really need to understand is that No Retreat is a dumb rule. Does it make sense for Monstrous Creatures (Wraithlord, Carnifex, Avatar) to get overwhelmed by models that couldn't ordinarily hurt them?
Why should 2 Conscripts automatically cause an automatic wound an Avatar or Wraithlord just because they outnumber it?"
Uh..they don't automatically cause wounds:
If a fearless big guy is in a fight with 1 million models that can't hurt it, the fearless big guy will never lose that combat, worst case would be a draw if the big guy fails to wound.
Your point has nothing to do with the No Retreat rule as it is written in the 5e book, other than show an example where it does not come into play.
@ four foot fang: " yer still thinking lictors deepstrike. they don't."
Funny then that the Lictor rules state point blank they use the Deepstrike rules. Yes, there's differences (must be placed in terrain, isn't destroyed if scattering into impassible and cannot scatter out of it) but there's nothing to save the Lictor from having to make a dangerous terrain test. You'll have to wait for an FAQ or play against a sympathetic opponnent.
Re: No Retreat in 5ed is the great balancer of the hordes. Ork mobs can no longer lose combats and shrug it off due to numbers. Same goes for gaunts. If they lose then there's a penalty. That is the cost for not ever losing the entire unit to sweeping advance, which I think is worth it for both units.
If synapse is the same as fearless, why then would creatures have synapse and fearless (Tyrant) ...or why would any Tyranid have fearless in their profile (Carnifex). I would say synapse is not the same as fearless.
@ fabricator-general
what kind of list have you been running with those results?
I just can not see how you can make a case that synapse models are not subject to No Retreat given the wording of the rule:
"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason. When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on."
That seems pretty clear to me. Either you take a morale test or you are subject to No Retreat.
No retreat is a good rule. Assaults need to be decided quickly to balance the game and No Retreat helps in that regard. Yes, there are times when it makes very little sense from a real world perspective, but not to the extreme as some people are saying. The vast majority of the time units will benefit from being fearles.
Also remember that being fearless isn't always the best thing to be. Fear is good; it is not a flaw. Fear keeps you alive on a day to day basis. Without it you would be prone to doing very dangerous and outright stupid things, such as not running from a swarm of gigantic killer space bugs that just killed your entire platoon.
"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason. When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on."
That seems pretty clear to me. Either you take a morale test or you are subject to No Retreat.
Where it's not clear is when a unit is assumed to have passed the test. The unit is not immune to a moral test. It's assumed to have taken it and passed.
I, for one, consider the rule extremely badly written. I also consider the lack of a universal rule for this kind of ability (auto-passing) pretty sloppy as it leads to different formulations all over the codexes.
As to actual playing, we will probably house-rule this as (you roll->ld modifier) or (you don't roll for any reason->wounds). I doesn't make sense in some situation, but hey, many rules don't.
Phil
@khornatedaemon
Since I am not the tourney type I have no problem telling you my list, but I will hate myself in the morning if this build becomes a cookie-cutter tourney list for 5th.
Its really all in how its played with the units supporting each other and not so much the options taken.
My list varies from 1500pts to 2000 or more pts but in general goes something like this:
Hive Tyrant with TL Devourers and Venom cannon, The Horror, and anywhere from 0-3 Tyrant Guard...typically two.
4-9 Warriors with Scything Talons, Deathspittters, one Barbed Strangler or Venom Cannon, Bio-plasma, Leaping, Adrenal Glands, Enhanced Senses, Toxin Sacs, Extended Carapace
1-2 Carnifex with TL Devourers and Enhanced Senses
8 Termagaunts with Flesh Hooks and Without Number
12-16 Hormaguants with Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, Flesh hooks
2-3 units of Genestealers 8 or 12 strong, with Flesh Hooks, Feeder Tendrils, Scuttlers, Extended Carapace...usually two larger units.
1 Carnifex with Enhanced Senses, Barbed Strangler and Venom Canon, Bonded Exoskeleton, Reinforced Chitin.
@ fabricator-general
I actually am toying with a list very similar.
for 1850 i had the same walking tyrant as you as well as a CC flyrant
2 squads of 5 warriors with DS/BS
a twin dev fex
3x 20 spinegaunts
2x 8 stealers w tendrils
and 3x fex with stranglers
do you find the CC upgrades and leaping on the warriors useful?
I see you use a lot less gaunts that i'm planning on. I'm guessing the without number termies are for objectives?
Where it's not clear is when a unit is assumed to have passed the test. The unit is not immune to a moral test. It's assumed to have taken it and passed.
I can see the point you make, but I think it is stretching it to attempt to make a difference between "automatically passing" and "assuming to have passed." Certainly it should be worded more concisely, but there are a great number of items that come up where one has to look at the intention of the rule and not the RAW. This is a case where I feel that they intend for units to either physically make a roll or they are subject to No Retreat. I can't know that however and concede that it is debatable. Though it seems to me that debating it is a bit like trying to win a court case on a technicality when the defendant is clearly guilty.
khornatedaemon wrote, "do you find the CC upgrades and leaping on the warriors useful?"
Yes, because they are around to keep pace with the Hormagaunts, while my other synapse is escorting the carnies and termagants.
khornatedaemon wrote, "I see you use a lot less gaunts that i'm planning on. I'm guessing the without number termies are for objectives?"
Exactly, they contribute some nuisance shooting and they are small enough to hide in those KP missions where objectives do not come into play.
6@Fabricator-General:
"I think all this handwringing about whether or not Tyranids are subject to No Retreat is just wishful thinking on your part mkerr. You can call it a bad rule, and try to debate it to your advantage, but the rule is still there.
Seems odd to tout a tournament list while claiming some rules don't have to be followed.
"
If you read my comments, you'll see that I'm not building a case that Tyranids aren't subject to No Retreat. Only that I think No Retreat is a bad rule.
The truth is that I'm not 100% convinced that they are subject (same goes for Iron Will and other Fearless-esque abilities), but I'm not willing to have that fight until the FAQ comes out.
So read my posts before tossing out accusations.
"One more thing, you keep refering to outnumbering in some of your examples...you are aware that there is no 5e game mechanic that has anything to do with unit size, right?"
You are right about that one, I misremembered the 5E No Retreat rule and thought that there was a factor determined by outnumbering. But it's still possible to get into a No Retreat situation with a unit that can't hurt you...
"If a fearless big guy is in a fight with 1 million models that can't hurt it, the fearless big guy will never lose that combat, worst case would be a draw if the big guy fails to wound."
Chaos Daemon Instruments, Sacred Banners, Regimental Standards, etc. can allow you to "generate wounds" against a unit that you can't hurt. That can lead to ridiculous situations.
@JohnPublic:
"I just can not see how you can make a case that synapse models are not subject to No Retreat given the wording of the rule"
JohnPublic, you are drinking the Kool-Aid. All I said is that I'm not convinced (I've even said several times that the most reasonable interpretation is that they are affected by it).
My concern is that "assumed to automatically pass" may not be the same as "automatically pass". I'm curious if they are going to address it in the FAQ.
"No retreat is a good rule. Assaults need to be decided quickly to balance the game and No Retreat helps in that regard. Yes, there are times when it makes very little sense from a real world perspective, but not to the extreme as some people are saying. The vast majority of the time units will benefit from being fearles."
No Retreat is a terrible rule. It is a rule of attrition which isn't fun for either player.
@boreas:
"It’s not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason. When such units lose a close combat, they are in danger of being dragged down by the victorious enemy despite their determination to hang on."
That seems pretty clear to me. Either you take a morale test or you are subject to No Retreat.
What about Iron Will? They don't automatically pass Morale tests, they CHOOSE to pass or fail. So passing clearly isn't automatic.
@JohnPublic:
"I can see the point you make, but I think it is stretching it to attempt to make a difference between "automatically passing" and "assuming to have passed." Certainly it should be worded more concisely, but there are a great number of items that come up where one has to look at the intention of the rule and not the RAW."
It's even less clear when you look at the Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability. If you fail a test, then you kill a guy and then you treat the original Morale test as a success. So do you "automatically pass" the test or are you "assumed to have passed the original test"? Since you have automatically execute a model, is that the same as automatically passing?
What about Iron Will?
All I'm saying is that it's not simply cut and dry. The rule is poorly written. Even if it was well-written, it doesn't make the game more fun. In a nutshell, No Retreat sucks.
@mkerr "But it's still possible to get into a No Retreat situation with a unit that can't hurt you..."
Not sure if you meant that literally or figuratively but No Retreat is not invoked if there's no way to hurt the unit. So Wraithlords would be immune if swampped by a unit without a S5 or greater weapon.
From the rulebook
"If none of the enemies involved in the combat against a fearless unit can actually hurt it, the unit does not suffer any wounds if its side is defeated in combat, and
simply continues to fight."
@Mkerr
Iron Will seems pretty clear to me: the Inquisitor chooses to automatically pass or chooses to automatically fail the test. In circumstance where he chooses to automatically pass, he's subject to Iron Will.
BTW, for clarity's sake, all the italic in my previous post should have been between quote marks.
Phil
@MKERR
I read your posts. Particularly the one that had this conclusion about No Retreat: "killing it should be the first house rule of any gaming group."
Does this sound to you like you are undecided about anything?
It prompted me to leave my comments.
Recall this on a topic where you were supposedly talking about effective tournament armies.
In tournaments you have to follow all the rules as written, right?
Not sound the clarion call to abort or rewrite one you do not like.
Enough of this discussion for me. Hope everyone enjoys 5e as much as I do.
@Anon:
I was embelishing for dramatic purposes, but the quote you found certainly makes No Retreat a bit easier to swallow in those match-ups. I still think that awkward situations will happen, but with a lot less regularity.
Regardless, I still don't like the rule and would recommend that it's killed for friendly games. To be clear, I'm talking about the entire No Retreat rule -- not just as it's applied to Synapse.
@fabricator-general:
"I read your posts. Particularly the one that had this conclusion about No Retreat: "killing it should be the first house rule of any gaming group."
Does this sound to you like you are undecided about anything?"
I rarely sound undecided about anything, but in that very post I gave the rhetorical question/answer: "Is assumed to pass the same thing as automatically pass? I don't know, but probably."
The reasonable assumption to make from that statement is that although I'm not 100% convinced, I am leaning toward Synapse = Fearless for No Retreat. Assuming that I'll disregard the rule for tournaments is unreasonable.
To be clear: I do not like the rule. I think it's a dumb rule but unless my opponent agrees to waive it, I would err on the side of caution and use No Retreat for units covered by Synapse. As stated in MKERR'S TOURNAMENT RULE #18: "When the rules are unclear, always err in your opponent's favor".
"Recall this on a topic where you were supposedly talking about effective tournament armies.
In tournaments you have to follow all the rules as written, right?"
Again, you must have misread my posts (which sort of explains your fervor). This post had nothing to do with building an effective tournament army. I built it for my weekly FLGS game -- this list stinks for touranments. But at the end of my second post, I mentioned parenthetically that with some changes the list could be an RTT winner.
But I wouldn't recommend that anyone play this beast in a tournament. It's just too large to get six turns done with a new set of rules (and it still needs lots of tuning).
@mkerr
How would you feel if No Retreat applied to all units that did not fall back? Meaning that no matter how you pass the test if you do not fall back then you are subject to additional wounds.
It seems to me that this is a more appropriate way to go than throwing No Retreat out completely if you are just insisting to change the rule. Combats will be sped up (as they need to be) and there is no penalty for auto passing as the effect is the same as those who manage to pass via rolling.
@JohnPublic:
If you can't manage to kill the rule in your local play group, then yes, it would be better to apply the rule to every unit that loses close combat without falling back.
I agree with Mkerr on the No Retreat rule. In 4th with Fearless troops it was great in the Shooting phase to ignore losses. It was great up until the point CC happened. Then you were stuck fighting AND taking wounds.
No Retreat sucks, maybe the new versions of codexs with make subtle Synapse like changes to get around it (though why it was in 5th in the first place....?).
I too have referenced the Synapse rule as it is written. It's right there in all its (cheap) glory that in range they pass leadership tests.
Maybe Vindicares will become more popular in 5th?
@Anon the Bus
"Maybe Vindicares will become more popular in 5th?"
I've only had one game with the Vindicare and he worked pretty good. The 5+ cover save was a bit annoying, but I managed to take out 2 Dire Avenger Exarchs and brought down an Avatar with his shiny Exitus Rifle.
Not too shabby for 6 shots.
@Mkerr
Mine tends to be a fire magnets but that too has it's uses!
I should have completed my thought on my previous statement, I wonder if Vindicares will be more popular in 5th since they could take out the Synapse generating models and at least make Nids clump up more for blasts if not make them more vulnerable to morale
Post a Comment