Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I find that upgrade not worth it, least of all for that kind of kost. I play agains eldar, space marine and orc, and if they shoot at MC's it's usually str9-10 ap 1-2. Except for the orcs, but then the Sv 3+ is good enough.
Anyone agree, or disagree? Let me know please
I tend to agree. The only time I'd use it is if I have a tyrant on foot and alone. Usually I give them guard for protection.
It is an overpriced option.
Better to have a tyrant guard than the 2+ save. Most weapons that would be directed at MCs would be anti-armour weapons that would deny the save anyway. Better to have the additional ablative wounds for just 20 pts more.
If the save only cost like 20 pts ... well, then it might be worth considering.
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014
I figure it will be a decent upgrade, granted it is in the range of double the amount of points it should cost. It's effectiveness will really rely on what your opponent uses to kill tanks, if they like Krak missiles and such, it will be great, however if they are a lascannon/melta/plasma junkie you'll run into issues. I plan on running a lone tyrant with Armored Shell and seeing how it works out. I do foresee a move to tyrant guard though, 50% point increase to get more wounds and attacks instead of a better save....
It does also provide protection from a few other things - sternguard for instance (not the AP3 shots, but rather the massed 2+ wounding shots).
It also allows you to put wounding hits from battle cannons, missile launchers, etc onto your Tyrant which can significantly extend the lifespan of his guard. Depends what you face though.
If I was stuck for points I'd choose a guard over armor. The fun thing about guards is that it lets you claim a cover save much easier than say without. Since the guard is not monstrous but part of the unit you can keep the tyrant in cover from those nasty AP 2 weapons. That in itself makes a guard much more valuable than armor since the armor can't mitigate anti tank weapons anyway.
In bigger games I'd get armor too since my goal is to have him kick ass in close combat. Keep him stuck in melee as much as possible.
For added survivability, have Tervigons use catalyst on the tyrant! FnP makes small arms fire pretty much a non issue.
id only take it for apocalypse games cause then points dont matter
According to the logic posted here; if facing massed small arms fire (IG Infantry) would the upgrade then be worth it, or would the Tryant Guard still be an overall better option?
It seems to me it would still be "worth it" since depending on the number of guard, you still have every 2nd, 3rd, or 4th shot landing on the tryant. Any moderate sized Infantry platoon with FRFSRF order, is going to pile on the wounds.
I think the majority of folks here are missing the point of the extra armor.. It's not to protect you from 'elite' troops (shooting OR hth). It's to protect you from being swarmed to death. With the difference being 1/3 failed saves -vs- 1/6 failed saves that 150 attacks or shots is going to hurt a LOT less.
Tyrand guard protect you better from the big guns.. but extended carapace beats the small arms fire or 'regular' hth attacks in large numbers.
Last edited by Dragons; February 16th, 2010 at 19:04. Reason: spelling