Welcome to Librarium Online!
I've been debating the use of using no CC warriors, instead giving them TL Devs. It seems, from posts I've read, a gruesome tactic to employ. I have a few questions about it that don't seem to be addressed.
1) The CC power you lose by not taking CC warriors is acceptable? Why is this so?
2) At 18" range, by the time warriors are able to use their guns, gaunts should be in melee... reducing the targets you can choose?
3 (and this one requires math)) I see everyone taking Toxin Sacs (and consequently, the more expensive TL Dev), but I don't understand why. I did some calculations for similar-point squads of warriors and find the # of wounds dealt is actually better if you take the cheaper warriors.
I'll explain what I mean:
A full squad (9) of warriors with ES, EC and TL-Dev runs 261 points (EC was added to illustrate a point at the end).
For 266 (negligibly more), you receive 7 warriors with the above configuration plus toxin sacs.
((For those that think EC should not be used, the ratio becomes 234 (no TS) to 245 (TS) and the following statistics should still apply))
Please remember these are averages.
The group without TS perform against T4 as follows:
9 warriors x 4 shots apiece = 36 shots
27 hits (18 initial hits, 9 more on the reroll)
15 wounds (9 initial, 6 more on the reroll)
The group with TS perform against T4 as follows:
7 warriors x 4 shots apiece = 28 shots
21 hits (14 initial hits, 7 more on the reroll)
15 wounds (10.5 initial wounds, 5.25 on the reroll, rounded down)
As the above shows, performance is equal for roughly equal-points squads (and I'd add the squad without toxin sacs saves you points!). However, the brood without toxin sacs is more resilient to losses, retaining more firepower per wound suffered. More than that, they simply have *more* wounds, meaning their ability to maintain synapse is much stronger.
On the downside, larger squads draw more fire, but consider that these 9 could be split up into three of three or one of four and one of five. These troops can also not harm AV 10 vehicles nor T7 units.
All that being said, I find myself reluctant to use TS-configured warriors like these. What do you all think?
Yeah, no, not at all. 18" range lets you move 6 and start shooting frontline units on turn 1, and you aren't engaged in melee with anything by that point in the game (even if you are pulling off a first turn charge, b/c it isn't in the assault phase yet). You don't WANT to tie up all units if you are using warriors like this ... you want to tie up some, and focus fire on others, eliminating them with torrents of armor saves. I guess it's a strawman #2 or something; it's never true that an intelligent player or even really any player would have an entire army tied up, and you'll have plenty of targets to choose from 99% of the time. You should be piling ALL your gaunts into one squad, ALL your devourer shots into another, etc.2) At 18" range, by the time warriors are able to use their guns, gaunts should be in melee... reducing the targets you can choose?3 (and this one requires math)) I see everyone taking Toxin Sacs (and consequently, the more expensive TL Dev), but I don't understand why. I did some calculations for similar-point squads of warriors and find the # of wounds dealt is actually better if you take the cheaper warriors.
This is actually not math-hammerable as you would think. You're using large squad sizes that are entire impractical in the scope of a full army build. If you are going warrior-centric, you may have a point, though they are completely worthless against vehicles if you don't use toxin sacs, and the ability to kill any AV10 vehicle with high reliability is something not to be scoffed at, as it saves your fexes the task and lets them focus on larger vehicles or tight-packed infantry squads (depending on the priority / need).
If you are using a balanced list, as is the case with myself, you don't have room to put so many warriors to begin with, and are already min-maxing them into 3 warrior squads to fill the force chart. Since 3 warriors with TS are obviously better than 3 warriors w/out TS, the choice is pretty obvious for me.
The other issue arises with things like cover for warriors. A squad of 4 warriors must fit 3 into cover to gain a cover save. A squad of 3 must fit only 2 in. I don't use extended carapace, as it is really a waste of points in my book.
If you wish to get into the calculations only about it, you can prove *a* point, but it is one that rings hollow in the sphere of actual play on the field, where you have a full list to put together. S3 devourers perform statistically similar for your points against infantry targets with a toughness up to 6. Similar, but not superior, mind you. The only edge you gain is number of wounds before taken out, but that is mitigated by other survivability options if you want to really nitpick the details. 3 warriors are easier to cover up / hide than 4, etc. etc.
Having used both set-ups before in the planning / learning processes of my army, I've seen the Toxin Sac approach as noticeably superior in the scheme of an entire army. If you are going very warrior-centric, I suppose there could be an argument in the other direction. But I don't know anyone who goes "warrior centric."
Nids & Guard
GMail = MVBrandt
I have a question on this subject that is about the modeling of warriors with twin linked devourers. The warrior weapon box only comes with one devuorer per warrior, and to model twin linked on nids there needs to be two weapons correct? Also, warriors are modeled to hold the devuorer with two hands, so it holding two devuorers with all hands would look very odd. So...yeah...how do you model it? Just put one and say it is twin linked and have the sything talons as ccws? I play mostly WYSIWYG games and like to be WYSISYG.
I would take a left handed Spinefist, cut it off at the wrist, and stick a Devourer to it.
Another strategy would be to add in a second feeder tube of sorts, get an arm and green stuff a pipe going into the weapon.
I was personally going to take my Devourer warriors with Leaping, TS, RC, Dev, and ES.
Is that a good build? (one of the three will have a Barbed Strangler)
The focus is to get them in close, shoot up some infantry, and possibly charge into a light vehicle or a small squad of marines.
I kit my warriors out with RC instead of the standard ST that is more commonly seen. (I imagine that this build, ST, is more common out of convenience more then anything else.)One more attack per turn versus the ability to rend is pretty easy for me to decide. The less the dice have to be involved, the better! LOL If I can get away from having to roll to see if I wound AND the save roll, I am pretty happy, even if it is a 1 in 6 chance.
I don't run any pure CC warriors. Instead I will run squads that have either devourers and a BS or groups with Deathspitters and a BS. (I am not completely sold on the VC on a warrior. I leave the anti-tanking to the fex. I enjoy the the large pie plate of the BS. Since our shooting is horrid at best, template love has seemed to be a better way for me in my experience.) The ability to have a large template weapon that is an assault weapon is pretty priceless IMO. I love the look on somebody's face when I tell them that the blast is a large template.
Hive, most shooty warrior fans utilize twin-linked devourers, instead of single devourers + RC or ST. No purpose for getting them into combat, they're inferior at it compared to other Tyranid options.
As for the barbed strangler in squad, yes it has its psychological values I suppose. I used to run an all-stranglers-possible + psychic choir list.
Nids & Guard
GMail = MVBrandt
Good point on twin-linking them. I have not yet overcome that mental hurdle yet. I still like to have a jack-of-all-trades unit or two at my disposal. I know it is not necessarily the most cost-efficient, but it does provide my frail psyche some security that I have a unit that can shoot and countercharge if needed. Perhaps I will grow in time to really embrace the TL-D. I find myself wanting to charge in when I get close enough. I guess the 'stealer mentality consumes me.
Buy 3 squads of 2 raveners, keep them hidden behind things, use them to countercharge, keep shooting with warriors. Win.
Nids & Guard
GMail = MVBrandt
Personally I find pinning not worth it. You have to hit, wound and then they have to fail their morale test. Too many rolls for my tastes.
With the huge amount of "effectively" fearless armies out there, what's left to pin is not worth the effort.
Most armies have a quite high leadership, or are fearless or can use some ability that allows them to ignore pinning in the relevant units, so even if there are units that can be pinned you should focus on other units if you want to win the game. (e.g. carnifices shooting at vehicles).
That said, I never really tried to fully exploit it with a large number of BS warrior broods, so I may be wrong. Someone with more experience/insight?