Had my first game tonight.

[AnImA8]

@Number6: As far as the "facts" go neither you nor Gentlemanloser are right. What you have are your own personal anecdotes which do not represent "facts," and can't be used to represent anything outside of your own experiences. As I've said: in my local area Tyranids have gotten a fair handle on playing against GK's and the same is true elsewhere (like here: http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index....mp;thread=36520 )

 

If what you guys were saying was true globally--that GK's were just simply overpowered versus Tyranids--then the discussion I just listed would not be possible. Instead it would be replaced by a whinefest of Tyranid players complaining about how bad the matchup is, as opposed to the constructive, advice-driven conversation we all can see there.

 

I hope I'm not coming off as rude or overtly disagreeable, but I think any conversation about one army being a "hopeless" matchup against another army is bad for the dialogue here since it doesn't provide creative insight, and might give new players false impressions of their opponents. The last thing we want is a scrub leaving this board, going to their local gaming group, and getting their butt handed to them by a far more competent player because they believed that they could win solely off of the inherent advantages of their army over another. Or worse yet that either of a husband or wife would shelve their respective army due to a mistaken belief that the game is inherently broken in favor of one. As competent "generals" we should never promote the underestimation of opponents...

 

Tyranids do fine against Grey Knights; they must simply reconsider certain parts of their army design and overall playstyle (as is true for literally every new release.)

[Commander Sasha]

That being said, however, if MY wife were playing 'Nids, I'd probably not field GK against her unless she asked me too, for the same reason that I never ask her for a game of Monopoly any more. I married a lovely woman, who turns into a slavering capitalist beast when she picks up a top hat, and marriages have ended over smaller things!

 

My main opponent has GK Paladins, and a largely proxy/unbuilt DE force, and usually asks me what I want to fight, as the GK are a bitter slog if I'm only in the mood for a friendly day.

[Gentlemanloser]

AnImA8, take players, skill levels and the random element of dice out of it.

 

Look at codex to codex.

 

What is there in the 'nids army that could actually scare any GK list?

 

As Number6 has already mentioned;

 

We beat tham at mobility.

We beat them at armour.

We beat them at shooting.

We beat them at CC.

We beat them at Psychics.

 

What do the 'nids have left?

 

The lack of any sort of transport (the spore doesn't count, it's a deployment option) is a massive weight around thier necks they just *cannot* overcome. As it the inability to tank shock.

 

I've never said 'nids *can't ever* win a game versus the GK. But it's down to inbalances of player skill/focus/attention and RNG.

[RedemptionNL]

As someone who plays both GK and 'Nids, I agree that all things being equal, 'Nids have an uphill battle against GK, but it's not completely hopeless. And as 'Nids have an uphill battle against most codexxes currently, I don't really see that as an issue with the GK codex, even if the GK codex does highlight the issues with the current 'Nid codex better.

 

Speaking of Synapse, guess how survivable any Tervigon, Hive Tyrant, Prime, or Trygon Prime is against mindstrike missiles from stormravens. (Hint: they aren't.)

 

Note that Tyranid Primes and Trygon Primes aren't Psykers, so mindstrike missiles can't use the psyk-out rule against them.

[Commander Sasha]

AnImA8, take players, skill levels and the random element of dice out of it.

That's just it: you can't! This isn't a game of limited, and thus logically ideal choices, it has literally infinite variables from movement that you simply can NOT remove the player from the game; that's why mathhammer is so limited a measuring tool, and netlists have less use the better you get at list writing.

 

We beat tham at mobility.

We beat them at armour.

We beat them at shooting.

We beat them at CC.

We beat them at Psychics.

But our fliers can beat your walkers, our MC's can beat your armour, our CC'ers can beat your shooters, our Psychic powers can beat your CC'ers, our shooters can beat your Psykers...

 

What do the 'nids have left?

Hope! And Hunger!

 

The lack of any sort of transport (the spore doesn't count, it's a deployment option) is a massive weight around thier necks they just *cannot* overcome. As it the inability to tank shock.

 

I've never said 'nids *can't ever* win a game versus the GK. But it's down to inbalances of player skill/focus/attention and RNG.

I see what you're saying, and on paper there is a definite advantage, but it all comes down to the Tyranid player; GK, like most marine armies, are much easier to get competent with; the progression from new/poor player to competent takes a handful of games and a bit of Internet Tactica reading.

(Obviously to become a GOOD player still takes years, I'm not saying ANY army is auto-win)

 

For the Tyranid player to achieve the same level of competitiveness, they have to learn a whole new raft of ideas, tactica and synergies. We DON'T need transport, because we can layer,wave and swamp you. We don't need armour, because we have so much more meat than you.

What we DO need is to learn how to layer and present that meat. Like a good sandwich.

 

Personally, I went from being a low-average Marine player to starting Tyranids, lost a LOT of games, but am now doing very well against most armies. Draigowing still nails me, but that's a tough nut for anyone who isn't building against it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Oh indeed, give a 12 year old who's never played 40k before a GK army, and match him up agianst a 30 year old 'nid vet, and I'm sure the GKs will lose.

 

Probably. ;)

 

But that's a *really* biased match up.

 

Which is why I ask to remove player skill from any sort of comparison.

 

If you want to compare like for like, then you need to compare like for like. Same skill, same random luck. So you can remove it from the equation.

 

Otherwise, it's vets clubbing baby seals! ;)

 

because we can layer,wave and swamp you. We don't need armour, because we have so much more meat than you.

 

I disagree. CF, Incinerators and just simply beating you in CC means that swamping isn't a valid tactic (That's if the swarm isn't just Tank Shocked off the board! :D). And you need armour. You do. Sadly. I'd prefer a 40k where you don't need armour, as I'm not a fan of it. But that's 5th for you. :P

[number6]

Note that Tyranid Primes and Trygon Primes aren't Psykers, so mindstrike missiles can't use the psyk-out rule against them.

True 'dat! Every time I put my 'nids on the table I make this same mistake time and again. Mostly because I rarely field Synapse creatures that aren't also Psykers. The occasional Prime is about it.

 

But we should add the Broodlord to the list, because he IS a psyker, and he's practically a necessity for 'stealer units, IMHO.

[RedemptionNL]

Note that Tyranid Primes and Trygon Primes aren't Psykers, so mindstrike missiles can't use the psyk-out rule against them.

True 'dat! Every time I put my 'nids on the table I make this same mistake time and again. Mostly because I rarely field Synapse creatures that aren't also Psykers. The occasional Prime is about it.

 

But we should add the Broodlord to the list, because he IS a psyker, and he's practically a necessity for 'stealer units, IMHO.

 

And for completion's sake, the Synapse Creatures that aren't Psykers also include Warriors, Shrikes and The Parasite of Mortrex. Especially the first one is included in a lot of 'Nid army lists.

[AnImA8]

AnImA8, take players, skill levels and the random element of dice out of it.

 

Why would we ever do this? Again, why would we ever even allow for our newer players to think that they got an easy matchup against a vet just because we did a simplistic (and not even really true) "codex to codex" comparison?

 

Look at codex to codex.

 

What is there in the 'nids army that could actually scare any GK list?

 

As Number6 has already mentioned;

 

We beat them at mobility.

We beat them at armour.

We beat them at shooting.

We beat them at CC.

We beat them at Psychics.

 

Again, I think it's pretty implicit in my response (and the responses of those tyranid players I posted) that this comparison isn't even a true one, but let me respond to it now. First, I'd say that there's a level of burden of proof on whoever's part it is to justify these statements since they're not quite as incontrovertible as they're being held to be. Secondly, what exactly is "we beat them at" supposed to mean? Let me try and run through these to the best of my ability:

 

Mobility: We have, Stormraven's which can deploy our troops reliably over 12" or not so reliably moving Flat Out, and we have Interceptors and Dreadknights which can be Jump Infantry and can Shunt once per game. All of these units are good albeit, but they're all also VERY expensive (to the point where I can typically only field about one unit of Interceptors and one Dreadknight in my 1750 pts lists,) AND they have their own hosts of weaknesses as well. What do Tyranids have? Gargoyles, Harpies, Shrikes, and Flyrants. Do any of these have the sheer 30" movement of the (once per game) Shunt? No. But are these all fast as hell and undeniably dangerous? Of course. If that wasn't enough then lets not forget that Hormagaunts have super fleet, and most of their stuff can either Outflank or Deepstrike into position. Unsuspecting players can very easily get entrapped by a clever Tyranid player, and the game is over before they even know it.

 

Armor: Is this to mean that we actually have vehicles with an Armor Value rating? If so that's not something I consider hugely impressive. Like other armies, they definitely have the weapons to damage our vehicles, and the case has been made time and time again that Monstrous Creatures have SERIOUS advantages over vehicles. If it's to mean literal armor value of infantry, I wouldn't put to much credit here either: we're only normal space marines in terms of toughness but have almost twice the premium. They have the numbers and the special rules/abilities to make it to our lines.

 

Shooting: Grey Knights undeniably have an assemblage of the most elite shooting in the game, no one is denying that. But can we honestly say that we JUST beat them at shooting? Is this statement in any rigorous sense true? In terms of strength they can bring a fearsome amount of strength 5 weaponry to bear with Deathspitters and the like. Nevermind the sporadic str 6+ large blasts that can be thrown in their from time to time. Let's not forget about their famed Hive Guard (who have the same effective threat radii we prefer to operate in,) Zoanthropes, Tyranofexes, or even the bio-plasma their Carnifexes can bring to bear. This all only being to list a few.

 

Close Combat: Our most clear advantage here is against their monstrous creatures (which again, here and elsewhere it's been said that they should be avoiding our troops to a great degree for this reason,) but unless literally ALL of your strikes and GK's are toting around expensive Halberds, it's unlikely Genestealers aren't going to do some serious damage. Nevermind when their Warrior variants hit our lines with Lash Whips and Boneswords so that even with Halberds we'll be striking at a far more modest I3. Even with halberds I wouldn't suggest taking the full brunt of a Hormagaunt charge with their Toxin Sacs and Adrenal Glands...

 

Psychics: Our best psychic defense honestly comes in the form of our dreadnoughts and requires us to be within 12" of them. The same is true for their SitW and their Synapse creatures, but for obvious reasons they have far more of them than we do dreadnoughts. In terms of actual psychic powers I personally don't consider any of their Zoanthropes powers, Paroxysm, Psychic Scream, or Catalyst to be minor threats to our army.

 

What do the 'nids have left?

 

The lack of any sort of transport (the spore doesn't count, it's a deployment option) is a massive weight around thier necks they just *cannot* overcome. As it the inability to tank shock.

 

This to me makes absolutely no sense. Why does the Mycetic Spore not count? The Mycetic Spore is probably my favorite tyranid unit since it handily guarantee's that they (safely) reach our lines. I don't think transportation is nearly as "massive a weight around their neck" as you like to make it out to be, and I think this partly has to do with players' general use of mech play as a crutch now-a-days. Even their inability to tank shock, while surely aggravating to them, is still manageable given their other particular methods of killing your units or pull you off of objectives.

 

I've never said 'nids *can't ever* win a game versus the GK. But it's down to inbalances of player skill/focus/attention and RNG.

 

But the claims that ARE being made are that games between players of even skill are hopeless for Tyranid players (how else should this be interpreted?) And the suggestion that if the GK player loses it must either be due to bad luck or due to his lesser skill than his opponent is simply false.

[Gentlemanloser]

Helping the wife cook, so only time for a quick reply;

 

This to me makes absolutely no sense. Why does the Mycetic Spore not count?

 

Becuase it's not a transort. As I said, it's a deployment option, nothing more (I feel the same about Drop Pods as well). The spore can't 'transport' units across the field. It provides no on board mobility. It can't Tank Shock. It can't protect units.

 

It's not a Transport.

 

Why would we ever do this?

 

Well, we could always give biased comparisons.

 

'Nid's are great!!!! (Caveat: IF you've been playing 40k since RT, and you face a 12 year old who's never played the game before).

 

Or we can try to provide unbaised comparisons of the armies. Which *have* to ignore Generals skills/experience and RNG.

 

Mobility: We have

 

You missed Rhinos, 'Backs and Chimeras. Mobility for the slow heavy troops. Oh and Raiders.

 

Armor:

 

Nothing with an AV. Save values are also a good point, but that wasn't what I was mentioning there.

[AnImA8]

Helping the wife cook, so only time for a quick reply;

 

Haha, understandable man, take your time :blink:

 

This to me makes absolutely no sense. Why does the Mycetic Spore not count?

 

Becuase it's not a transort. As I said, it's a deployment option, nothing more (I feel the same about Drop Pods as well). The spore can't 'transport' units across the field. It provides no on board mobility. It can't Tank Shock. It can't protect units.

 

It's not a Transport.

 

But you missed my point. Just because it's not a "transport" does not mean that it isn't an extremely successful method of approach, which is EXTREMELY important. The fact that their units can stay in reserves for a couple of turns without taking fire, and then drop with extreme precision to within their threat range is critical to Tyranid tactics. Saying that it provides no "on board" mobility is moot, because it can be dropped anywhere. And as I've said prior, it does protect units via reserves, AND even after being deployed can be used to block LoS. Ignoring it because it's "not a transport" is very short-sighted.

 

Why would we ever do this?

 

Well, we could always give biased comparisons.

 

'Nid's are great!!!! (Caveat: IF you've been playing 40k since RT, and you face a 12 year old who's never played the game before).

 

Or we can try to provide unbaised comparisons of the armies. Which *have* to ignore Generals skills/experience and RNG.

 

For starters there's nothing unbiased about your comparisons. As I've already pointed out there's nothing substantive to the claims that you've made other than that "theoretically" there are units that we have that can do significant damage to their units. This claim is worthless in a vacuum, because as I've pointed out THEY also have units that "theoretically" can do significant damage to our units. This is why I say player skill IS important, because skill is measurable in a number of different ways aside from just "is person A better than person B?" While you may believe that transports are a necessity for protecting your troops and bringing them up to combat range, an adept Tyranid player should know that transports are not a necessity for him. This is a difference in your skills as generals, and it's not to say that you're worse than such a person, it is only to say that your play style is quantifiably/quantitatively different.

 

What's more is if we truly "have" to ignore Generals skills/Experience, then I'd have to call out that we must ignore your and Number6's "experiences" playing as both GK's and Tyranids, which you both have given as evidence to support your claims. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too. Either remove your own experience from the analysis as well as the experiences/skills of others and admit that the fact that you play GK's and Tyranids is meaningless to the discussion, OR continue citing your experiences as evidence and admit my argument about variances in peoples play style. Either way, I've already provided sufficient "codex-only" evidence to disprove your argument, AND have provided ample anecdotal evidence from the Tyranidhive to suggest that your claims aren't universal.

 

Mobility: We have

 

You missed Rhinos, 'Backs and Chimeras. Mobility for the slow heavy troops. Oh and Raiders.

 

But none of these provide so much more movement on a consistent basis than ordinary troops now that "run" exists. Especially not Tyranids who have fleet. I don't consider this a significant point to our mobility OVER AND ABOVE the enormous amounts of Fleeting, Scouting, Infiltrating, Deepstriking, and Outflanking that I've already cited for Tyranids.

 

Armor:

 

Nothing with an AV. Save values are also a good point, but that wasn't what I was mentioning there.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I've already pointed out, however, how Monstrous Creatures are significantly better than Vehicles with Armor Values due to being able to fire without stun/shaken, loss of weapons or mobility, or finally even dying to just one lucky shot. The evidence still stands that AV isn't all that impressive to the comparison here...

[number6]

Mobility: We have, Stormraven's which can deploy our troops reliably over 12" or not so reliably moving Flat Out, and we have Interceptors and Dreadknights which can be Jump Infantry and can Shunt once per game. All of these units are good albeit, but they're all also VERY expensive (to the point where I can typically only field about one unit of Interceptors and one Dreadknight in my 1750 pts lists,) AND they have their own hosts of weaknesses as well. What do Tyranids have? Gargoyles, Harpies, Shrikes, and Flyrants. Do any of these have the sheer 30" movement of the (once per game) Shunt? No. But are these all fast as hell and undeniably dangerous? Of course. If that wasn't enough then lets not forget that Hormagaunts have super fleet, and most of their stuff can either Outflank or Deepstrike into position. Unsuspecting players can very easily get entrapped by a clever Tyranid player, and the game is over before they even know it.

Gargoyles cannot hurt vehicles. Tank shock, incinerate, dead.

 

Hormagaunts cannot hurt vehicles. Tank shock, incinerate, dead.

 

Harpies are never fielded because they're both too fragile and too expensive for what is effectively equivalent to a single BS 3 lascannon that is more likely to glance than do actual damage. AP- is a real problem.

 

Shrikes are never fielded because they're both too fragile (stormbolters and incinerators deny them armour saves entirely so they just die) and too expensive. Like warriors, krak missiles kill them outright. GKs don't have krak missiles, but they do have psyflemen, which are just as bad. Worse, even, because of their accuracy. Since 50% or more of players play Marines (including GKs), you won't see many Warriors and Shrikes on the field unless you're list tailoring against your opponent, because they can't be justified in an all-comer's list when half or more of all comers will just kill them outright. And the final nail in the coffin: they can't hurt vehicles.

 

Flyrants can possibly hurt vehicles, but they're also prohibitively expensive. If you buy guns for them -- and I grant that devourers on a flyrant can get side armour shots -- it's both yet MORE expensive (even without any upgrades a flyrant is A LOT more pricy than a stormraven) AND it's still not enough to do anything against AV 12, AND it's still difficult to actually damage vehicles because of AP -. And like I pointed out earlier, a single salvo of mindstrikes will just kill it outright anyway, so I have no idea how one can expect a flyant to assault a stormraven.

 

Armor: Is this to mean that we actually have vehicles with an Armor Value rating? If so that's not something I consider hugely impressive. Like other armies, they definitely have the weapons to damage our vehicles, and the case has been made time and time again that Monstrous Creatures have SERIOUS advantages over vehicles. If it's to mean literal armor value of infantry, I wouldn't put to much credit here either: we're only normal space marines in terms of toughness but have almost twice the premium. They have the numbers and the special rules/abilities to make it to our lines.

See what I said above already. Tyranids have a terrible time punching armour. There are only so many hive guard units they can take. Zoanthropes are regularly stuffed by psychic hoods (and they suffer from extremely short range anyway). Tyrannofexes are very good, but also prohibitively expensive.

 

So 'nids can either be as shooty as possible, which means pouring points into MCs and hive guard so they can have a slight chance of damaging mech armies, OR they can build for assault. They can't do both. If they build for assault -- be it swarmy or monstrous -- the mech army just tank shocks, flames, and puts up roadblock after roadblock to slow the advance down until the army is shot and assaulted dead. If they build for shooty, they simply can't match the points efficiency of any imperial army, GKs included. So GKs simply outshoot them through weight of dice.

 

As for infantry survivability, GKs only ever have to be in combat when they can dictate the terms. They can throw Rhinos and Razorbacks in the way and force 'nids to assault the vehicles, all the while flaming them to death while doing so. Games only last 5 to 7 turns, and 'nids can't get very far when they aren't allowed to move far and are forced to assault their way out of trouble.

 

Shooting: Grey Knights undeniably have an assemblage of the most elite shooting in the game, no one is denying that. But can we honestly say that we JUST beat them at shooting? Is this statement in any rigorous sense true? In terms of strength they can bring a fearsome amount of strength 5 weaponry to bear with Deathspitters and the like. Nevermind the sporadic str 6+ large blasts that can be thrown in their from time to time. Let's not forget about their famed Hive Guard (who have the same effective threat radii we prefer to operate in,) Zoanthropes, Tyranofexes, or even the bio-plasma their Carnifexes can bring to bear. This all only being to list a few.

Deathspitters are prohibitively expensive. And where would you put them? On Warriors? Like I noted above, who is foolish enough to field Warriors? Let alone in any quantity to cause problems for any Marines army, GKs included?

 

I already covered the limitations and extreme expense of Tyranid shooting. Some of the "solutions" posted on the hive mind website included using Venomthropes to provide cover. That's fine -- I use them myself sometimes -- but every Vthrope unit is one less unit of Hive Guard or Zoanthropes, too.

 

You make it sound like 'nids have options, when they actually have restrictive choices. Unlike Imperial armies, they can't have their cake and eat it, too. In Imperial armies, offensive and defensive capabilities are available in every force org slot. GKs can field mobility and/or assault and/or shooting (including anti-armour shooting) in every force org slot of the codex. Not so Tyranids! Anti-armour shooting is restricted to 3 Elite slots and a monstrous creature more expensive than a land raider. In general, if they choose increased protection in the form of Vthropes, their offense suffers. If they focus solely on offense, their defense suffers. If they want a horde, they can't shoot well. And so on and so forth. Imperial armies -- GKs included -- never have to make these kind of design tradeoffs.

 

Close Combat: Our most clear advantage here is against their monstrous creatures (which again, here and elsewhere it's been said that they should be avoiding our troops to a great degree for this reason,) but unless literally ALL of your strikes and GK's are toting around expensive Halberds, it's unlikely Genestealers aren't going to do some serious damage. Nevermind when their Warrior variants hit our lines with Lash Whips and Boneswords so that even with Halberds we'll be striking at a far more modest I3. Even with halberds I wouldn't suggest taking the full brunt of a Hormagaunt charge with their Toxin Sacs and Adrenal Glands...

The reality is that GKs are in control of when and where assaults will happen. Strikes and interceptors prevent advantageous deep strikes. GK mechanization tank shock and burn hordes off the table. GK mech also dictates where 'nids can move freely. Stormbolters thin anything not an MC down to manageable size very quickly. Psycannons (and other vehicular weaponry) rip monsters to shreds. Things like stormravens and land raiders deliver assault units reliably on target wherever the GK player wants them because the 'nid opponent is all but helpless to stop that, so how can they avoid being assaulted by init 6 force weapon death?

 

Psychics: Our best psychic defense honestly comes in the form of our dreadnoughts and requires us to be within 12" of them. The same is true for their SitW and their Synapse creatures, but for obvious reasons they have far more of them than we do dreadnoughts. In terms of actual psychic powers I personally don't consider any of their Zoanthropes powers, Paroxysm, Psychic Scream, or Catalyst to be minor threats to our army.

Making normal psychic tests on an effective LD of 6 is harder than passing psychic tests on 3 dice with LD of 9 or 10. That's just basic statistics. Zoanthropes don't have a far enough range to be a threat: it's not hard for GKs to shoot down (or even assault) 6 MEQ wounds. (And that's kindly assuming zoeys don't fail an important save when hit by a psybolted autocannon shell. If GKs can spam psyflemen shots on zoeys, they won't even last as long as 6 normal Marines would against that.)

 

Paroxysm is, I admit, truly awesome. WHEN you can get it off, and IF your tyrant lives long enough to get the shot off. A Flyrant has no protection, and so usually is dead before Paroxysm is in range. A walking Tyrant is too slow, usually, to survive to get within range, even with a full complement of tyrant guard. Again, still assuming the power will go off on a LD 6 test. And if you bought all those Tyrant Guard, what was sacrificed to pay all those points for them?

 

Not sure why Psychic Scream is considered valuable when one slot is ALWAYS going to go to Paroxysm and the other slot will pretty much ALWAYS go for leech essense, because you need the ability to get wounds back to have any chance of surviving long enough to do anything.

 

Catalyst can't help against any close combat attacks by GKs. It's only good against shooting, where it does help. But you're not gonna have more than 2 or 3 units with FNP at any one time -- and that's only if you buried a lot points into Tervigons. Tradeoffs, remember? If you built a hordey, tervigon-heavy army, you have no credible shooting phase. Suddenly the GKs can just destroy one tervigon per turn and blow the army up. If you only have 1 tervgon, well, who cares if one unit has FNP? I agree: it's a terrific power. But it's no panacea. It is one of the few things that makes 'nids even halfway playable these days. Take away Catalyst and I wouldn't ever play the army again because it'd be all but pointless.

[Gentlemanloser]

But you missed my point. Just because it's not a "transport" does not mean that it isn't an extremely successful method of approach, which is EXTREMELY important. The fact that their units can stay in reserves for a couple of turns without taking fire, and then drop with extreme precision to within their threat range is critical to Tyranid tactics. Saying that it provides no "on board" mobility is moot, because it can be dropped anywhere. And as I've said prior, it does protect units via reserves, AND even after being deployed can be used to block LoS. Ignoring it because it's "not a transport" is very short-sighted.

 

I'm ignoring it as a transport. It is a useful method of deployment, but it's no transport. :) GKs can also hold units in reverse, DS off of Homers, Mystics and Skulls, and double up PC for reserve manipulation. Both ways.

 

So I'd say that if you're talking Reserve fun, GK > 'nids there as well. :P

 

It's still not a transport.

 

For starters there's nothing unbiased about your comparisons. As I've already pointed out there's nothing substantive to the claims that you've made other than that "theoretically" there are units that we have that can do significant damage to their units. This claim is worthless in a vacuum, because as I've pointed out THEY also have units that "theoretically" can do significant damage to our units. This is why I say player skill IS important, because skill is measurable in a number of different ways aside from just "is person A better than person B?" While you may believe that transports are a necessity for protecting your troops and bringing them up to combat range, an adept Tyranid player should know that transports are not a necessity for him. This is a difference in your skills as generals, and it's not to say that you're worse than such a person, it is only to say that your play style is quantifiably/quantitatively different.

 

How do you measure 40k skill?

 

What's more is if we truly "have" to ignore Generals skills/Experience, then I'd have to call out that we must ignore your and Number6's "experiences" playing as both GK's and Tyranids, which you both have given as evidence to support your claims. You guys can't have your cake and eat it too. Either remove your own experience from the analysis as well as the experiences/skills of others and admit that the fact that you play GK's and Tyranids is meaningless to the discussion, OR continue citing your experiences as evidence and admit my argument about variances in peoples play style. Either way, I've already provided sufficient "codex-only" evidence to disprove your argument, AND have provided ample anecdotal evidence from the Tyranidhive to suggest that your claims aren't universal.

 

Deal!

 

I've never played 'nids. No one I know plays them. But it's not hard to look at the dex (and we have it) and see there's nothing in there that remotely worries me.

 

But none of these provide so much more movement on a consistent basis than ordinary troops now that "run" exists.

 

12" versus 1d6?

 

I've already pointed out, however, how Monstrous Creatures are significantly better than Vehicles with Armor Values due to being able to fire without stun/shaken, loss of weapons or mobility, or finally even dying to just one lucky shot. The evidence still stands that AV isn't all that impressive to the comparison here...

 

First lets ignore that GK vehicles can also routinely ingnore shaken/stun (awesome!), while your right that a lucky roll can one shot a tank, they are so cheap compared to any MC, and immune to as much, if not *more* small arms fire, that a wall of Rhinos > 'nid MCs for durability.

 

It's also far easier to get a cover save on a Rhino than it is a large 'nid MC...

 

an adept Tyranid player should know that transports are not a necessity for him.

 

Actually, any 'nid general should know transports aren't even an *option* for him...

[Commander Sasha]

To precis what I said in my earlier post: Tyranid success comes from understanding and using synergy.

 

This is so much more important on Tyranids than on any other army that I have played or seen played.

 

It is also not something that will be apparent if you have read the codex, but not encountered or played Tyranids.

 

When I first started 'Nids, and was losing every game, I posted on thetyranidhive, and the gist of most of the replies was "you have to understand how units work together". Coming from a marine background, I was sceptical: "OK, you add a Chaplain for the re-rolls, and hide behind a Rhino? Same thing?" ;)

 

No, that barely scratches the surface. The inter-relation of multiple buff auras, balancing weight of numbers against No Retreat wounds, prioritising FNP application, throwing speed bumps, calculating suicide squads; with meat instead of armour, and bodies instead of skill, Tyranids play in a much more chaotic and organic manner. ;)

We don't need transports, because that would ruin the fluff; we manage without them by throwing a bunch of Gargoyles at you, and whilst you're dealing with that we run up behind them.

 

(BTW, Hormagants and Gargoyles can make a mess of transports: both units can take Adrenal Glands, giving Furious Charge: Dozens of attacks glancing rear armour, plus surrounding the exits, and both units doing it from 18" away due to wings or fleet!)

 

I say again, GK are an uphill battle for us, but it is only that: a hill, not a cliff!

[Thymebandit]

This got a lot bigger than I thought it would >;)

Normally I play Black Templars <3, the wife and friend teamed up against me to just try out the new list. 2000k points per side. They got 2500 points to split between themselves. It was GK versus Imperial Fists/ Tyranids. I wanted to practice, and they are creating lists specifically to beat me, so this is all helpful advice.

As an epilogue to the night however, we all agreed we would not play friendly, non-test matches using the GK again. Even as friends, its really depressing to watch your favorite and time-tested models get eaten alive D:

 

My face when wife watched her brood of Carnifexes evaporate. D:

Her face was ;_;, then open mouth to speak, then it shut. And she removed them from the table. I wanted to buy her a puppy or something D:

[Commander Sasha]

You have a wife that plays 40K. That is golden. Buy her the puppy! (and the new Terv/T-fex kit!)

[Gentlemanloser]

Indeed!

 

My wife won't touch either 40k, or WoW with a barge pole!

 

My daughters just turned 5, but I have high hopes for her! ;) She likes playing with my 'men', and has painted a few in glorious multicolour splodges, and has a level 10 Hunter so she can have a cat pet!

 

:)

[nurglez]

A big part of 40k, to me at least, is knowing what the enemy can do. And applying my forces where they can do what they do best. If I'm playing vs an army with long range fire power, I deepstrike. Vs an assault heavy force I try and keep my distance etc.

 

There should be nothing like losing badly to something to teach you not to do that (my theory on life heh).

[Thymebandit]

You have a wife that plays 40K. That is golden. Buy her the puppy! (and the new Terv/T-fex kit!)

 

 

And shes cute to boot. I got her both a puppy and a Terv kit yesterday ;). Puppy was a present in the works anyways actually.

I think she needs to branch out her troop choices, you guys actual helped her look at her codex a bit differently. She hadn't thought about using her swarms the ways that were brought up and she doesn't have any fliers at the moment. Or bone sword/lashwhips on her warriors!

 

Looks likeI'll be back to painting Tyranids for another month or so >:) Thanks again for all the comments!

[Commander Sasha]

May I invite her to The Tyranid Hive, an excellent forum, and in particular to the best unit breakdown I have seen in 40K, Loate's unit tactica

 

There is also a thriving "vs GK" thread, which should help.

 

What's the puppy called, and will the Tervigon be named accordingly? I suggest Tristan and Isolde!

 

Avoid using the puppy in game, however; both my corn snake and a friend's giant African snail have been used on my gaming table as mobile terrain pieces, but even the best invulnerable save might not help much against an enthusiastic puppy...

[Skiman94]

I normaly don't respond to comparsion threads like this becasue people always use phrases like "But you need sixes to hit beacause a GOOD player will do this to cause that" or "in an all comers list" or" rinse repeat etc etc" or this unt can't do this or that. Number 6 no offense but you exemplify this line of thinking in this thread and I expect better from a fellow"water warrior". Some of your statments are incorrect as well.

First off Gargoyles and hormagaunts can damage vehicles (not destroy but damage) vehicles if given the adrenal glands upgrade( and this is why you would do this, some chance is better than no chance). I always like how every army with strength eight weaponary can magically draw line of sight with no cover to warriors and shrieks who will then allways fail Their cover save (we do play in the vaccum that the tyranids are in the open because remember the tyranids players are all BAD). Hive Guard are also the only guns that can blow up vehicles (because again remeber all vehicles will always move 12 inches to magically require us to roll sixes to hit them). I say all of these things this way because all of these statments arte made in a vaccum of worst case scenario versus best case scenario. What I mean is people always tend to set up an argument made by playing out what can happen that is bad proving their point without thinking A: we play a game of dice and B: we play a game of tactics. I think Hive guard are the worst anti armor in the book. Why? I know on paper they are great no line of sight effective 30" inch range and Strength 8 2 shots at bs 4 equals several dead rhinos a turn right? I think they suck because in all of the games i have used them ( well over 20) i can count on one hand the number of vehicles I have blown up. That does not mean they suck just that again A: we play a game of dice and B: we play a game of tactics. Both players can have good lists and good tactics and yes even the mighty hormagaunt can do the impossibile and blow up that immobilized and weaponless razor back pinning your last grey hunter squad. My point is don't listen to what others tell you about an army or a list. Play what you think works and let them keep their blinders on. And to add some out of the box thinking I find that deep striking trygons primes behind most everyones tanks and Ymgarls genestealers to be the better anti armor units against the grey knights. Shadows of the warp keeps most fortitude checks from being automatic and 12 strength five shots into armor ten usually opens up the tin cans for the ymagrals to do their work. Just my Opinion which everyone and anyone can now say is wrong.

[AnImA8]

I think you're right in pointing these lines of thinking out Skiman because they do seem rife throughout 40k forums across the internet. In particular are lines of reasoning regarding universal statements: anecdotes and examples are not enough to prove "for all" statements; they require more rigorous proofs. Yet, it seems like a constant phenomena where people make claims about the "way things are" solely based off of their own personal experience. Anecdotes are enough to prove "there exist" cases but that's too weak for this discussion and too weak for Number6's claims.

 

That's why as I said from the beginning, even a single report of a Tyranid victory against GK's is enough to refute the "hopeless matchup" claim (and many have been provided.)

 

This is the difficulty of 40k discussions in general: between the random elements of board design, dice rolls, and player choices, it's hard to ever actually make any claims about the game. The only claims I ever accept and like seeing are things that have numerical backing to them, and even then people can make faulty comparisons, or analyses (i.e. codex to codex comparisons are NOT mathematically sound comparisons because the aforementioned random elements play too critical a role to do a truly rigorous analysis.) Realistically the only discussions that can be had codex to codex are discussions of which of our units are best at targeting which of their units. But this says nothing about whether one codex is "better" than another in any substantive way.

[the jeske]

Realistically the only discussions that can be had codex to codex are discussions of which of our units are best at targeting which of their units. But this says nothing about whether one codex is "better" than another in any substantive way.

0_o what ? trust me when you look at the DA pre FAQ dex and then look lets say the IG dex you do see the difference . the very fact that one army has more then 1 unit per slot which is good [as in priced well or under priced , something that doesnt relay on luck to work etc] and another codex doesnt is a clear proof that one dex is better then other .

what happens if a tournament has composition ? an sm player takes 2 land speeders , 2 MM attack bikes and a rifle dread and all is good , at the same time a nid player has to option to take hive guard ... well there it goes as good choices go . Nid armies are bad because they require a higher skill to play and are still luck based , when good armies are able to generate the number of shots or units in hth/attacks in hth to make the random effect of a roll not an actual problem for a list efficiency.

example? the tau can take 9 rail guns by taking broadsides [they will probably take 6 or 5 depanding on points played and how many hammerheads they take] . str 10 low ap . good weapons . doesnt make the tau an army of doom [actualy they have their own problems as game play goes] . the nids have str10 too. only max they can take is 3 . 3 with bs 3 is not good enough[specialy when you cost like a LR and a single jaws can one shot you] . one could say that this is a bad example because nids have crappy shoting on purpose , because they dominate hth or short range shoting . thing is , they dont . guants shoting doesnt matter when the edition is mecha and without frags nid armies struggle to deal with all meq armies . they dont have to slam in to 1000+pts deathstarts a 10 man GH unit is a huge problem for a same costed unit of stealers if there is cover. The other thing bad about nids is that they are a unit combination army . that is not always bad , as long as the combo is simple [TH/SS termis +land raider or a GK/henchman unit +a psyback] . when the combo of units starts at 3 or 4 units the list becomes very bad . any form of delay , death makes the combo either stop working or makes the formation work much less efficient .

the third thing about nids is that they have build in handicaps which hurt in 5th ed. suck against tanks in a mecha edition ? not good . no frags when GW tells everyone to use more terrain in all games . sucks hard. GW decides that auras work different . rise of points and nerfs to old dex units [normal happens all the time] the "buffed" [warriors] stuff highly vunerable to stuff which is spamed in 5th ed [melta, RL spam] . and fourth for no explainable reason crudd decided to give IG undercosted stuff and nid only overcosted stuff. there is no unit [which is good] in the nid dex which one could say that it costs 20-30pts less then it should be . that is why GW people so offten said that the new nid dex is balanced. They said the same thing about DA when JJ made them too.

 

 

 

A GK player can take a starting army of 3-4 razors some units with psycannons an HQ or two maybe some elite and have fun . At the same time his friend who picks up nids has to be a top general , minimax and have luck to have a fighting chance. But the worse thing is something which is more clearly seen on main land europe . when people play 1850-2000k pts nids can try to play , but when someone plays 1500[most euro plays that] or it is a starter game of 1kpts , it gets a lot worse . suddenly nids cant even try to play horde [cant realy out horde the GK dex where you can get 24i6 str4 power weapons attacks and a blessed ammor razor for less then 200pts] . I read a lot of reports about those so called "awesome" nid armies who deal with all the tier armies and they all had one thing in common the opponents of those nid armies had no idea what nids can do and they played way below normal player level . I mean I went 3 with a nid army in a 83[<=important] tournament . won against a noob high , got buy then played against a dude who didnt know that stealers with infiltrate can outflank and last game I slamed my whole army in to a 10man draigo+librarian list and rolled very high on rending on left over units . But that doesnt mean that nids are a viable codex to build good armies , if good is GK/IG/SW level codex.

 

 

 

I always like how every army with strength eight weaponary can magically draw line of sight with no cover to warriors and shrieks who will then allways fail Their cover save (we do play in the vaccum that the tyranids are in the open because remember the tyranids players are all BAD).

SW at 1750 run what either 15 RL or 9 RL+6las or a fewer RL on long fangs but more las plas razors , possible tempets LS .

GK have 3-4 rifle man thats 12-16 re rolled shots hiting on+3 wounding on +2 and then killing . and that is just those long range support unit , it doesnt count the normal psycannon and/or razors. And as LoS blocking goes . if an army is hth and/or has shorter range then it will try to draw LoS to opposing armies[that is what nids have to do] this means that unless they anihilate everything with their shoting on their opponent turn there is incoming fire and all good armies are outshoting the nids right now . the problem is that the same armies offten out assault nids too .

[Gentlemanloser]

I think you're right in pointing these lines of thinking out Skiman because they do seem rife throughout 40k forums across the internet. In particular are lines of reasoning regarding universal statements: anecdotes and examples are not enough to prove "for all" statements; they require more rigorous proofs. Yet, it seems like a constant phenomena where people make claims about the "way things are" solely based off of their own personal experience. Anecdotes are enough to prove "there exist" cases but that's too weak for this discussion and too weak for Number6's claims.

 

That's why as I said from the beginning, even a single report of a Tyranid victory against GK's is enough to refute the "hopeless matchup" claim (and many have been provided.)

 

This is the difficulty of 40k discussions in general: between the random elements of board design, dice rolls, and player choices, it's hard to ever actually make any claims about the game. The only claims I ever accept and like seeing are things that have numerical backing to them, and even then people can make faulty comparisons, or analyses (i.e. codex to codex comparisons are NOT mathematically sound comparisons because the aforementioned random elements play too critical a role to do a truly rigorous analysis.) Realistically the only discussions that can be had codex to codex are discussions of which of our units are best at targeting which of their units. But this says nothing about whether one codex is "better" than another in any substantive way.

 

Not at all. Random is random. You can lose a game by never rolling anytihng other than a 1. You can win a game by never rolling anything but a 6. That has *nothing* to do with generalmanship, army composition, or 40k.

 

But, as a numbers game, 40k is actually quite easy to break down mathematically, and look at dex and units *objectively* and see easily what units are good or bad. Or how army structure will impact games.

 

You can take a unit of Tac Marines and an equal points of Strikes and 'math' out the effectiveness of each unit (A very basic example). And a large sample size of games is enough to start to skew the random element.

 

A *single* nid versus GK win means *nothing*. It doesn't proove or disproove anything. Other than random is random. Which should be no surprise to anyone.

 

When you can make 'best of' or 'litmus test' types of lists, and try to build an army from another codex to face them, you can start to see the failings in your own codex. And you can do this without even playing a single.

 

40k is rather a simple game to be honest. Made interesting by the random element. Which is something that can and should be discounted, becuase you have no control over the random.

 

Here's a quick 'litmus test' for a nid army. How would you build a list to tackle something like this;

 

HQ: OM Inq, TDA, Psy (80)

HQ: OM Inq, TDA, Psy (80)

 

Elite: WA x5, SB x5, Razor, Psybolt (85)

Elite: WA x5, SB x5, Razor, Psybolt (85)

Elite: Puri x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (180)

Elite: Puri x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (180)

Elite: Puri x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (180)

 

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

Troop: Strike x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (160)

 

Heavy: Purg x5, Psy, Razor, Psybolt (170)

 

Total: 2,000

 

(and this isn't optimised, just thrown up in like 30 seconds of building)

 

12 S6 H Bolter 'backs, 50 marines, 12 Psycannons and loads of SB shots. With literally no target priorities as they all function the same, with the same threat.

 

In all reality, what sort of 'nid list could face something like this?

[number6]

I don't subscribe to the idea that mathhammer is the final solution. (Rather, it is merely the beginning of proper tactical analysis.) Nevertheless, I obviously agree with the overall points made by Gentlemanloser and the jeske.

 

The issue that I tried to raise in my last post on this subject was the extreme inbalance in codex construction inherent between the 'nids and GK codexes.

 

As GL has shown, the GKs can spam mobility, combat prowess, and "big time shooting" in every single force org slot of the codex.

 

The Tyranids simply cannot do this. And thus, the few units that 'nids have that CAN make an attempt to break up armies like the one GL has proposed will always be easily itendified as a small subset of the total army and thus targeted for efficient elimination. When 2000 pts of your army can focus on 500 pts of yours -- because your army only has 500 pts of threat level to it -- well, you're going to lose.

 

It's not that the Tyranids do things differently from the GKs. It's rather that there are just things that they cannot do at all ... outside of a limited number of units in an even more limited number of force org slots.

 

Compare the 'nid codex to the Dark Eldar or Necrons. They actually do things differently from Imperials, yet aren't limited by their force org chart in capabilities, either. They can get combat units in any force org slot. They can get mobility in any force org slot. They can get anti-armour capability in any force org slot.

 

Until the 'nids can pick and choose the force org slots in which they can be mobile AND fighty AND shooty, they will continue to be a subpar army and continue to be at a severe disadvantage against armies that CAN do all of those things whenever and wherever they choose. This imbalance is especially noticeable against the GKs (and DE, as it turns out as well) because the GKs are inarguably stronger in every phase of the game. They really can be more mobile than the 'nids, because vehicles are cheap and plentiful (and thus, by spamming them, their fragility is not an issue). They are inarguably more shooty than the 'nids. They can also, inarguably, kick the snot out of them in close combat. Run the numbers: SitW is only 50% effective, and even without force weapons outright killing off the necessary 'nid MCs (all of whom are overcosted), power weapons deny armour saves entirely and the 'nids have no defense against that, neither invul saves nor FNP.

 

Then play games to prove it. All else being as equal as it can be -- including skill of army generals -- I guarantee that GKs will beat the 'nids far more often than not. So much so that it can't simply be a matter of luck.