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!
was wondering if anyone was tempted to take gaunts with toxin sacs and devourers. 2x shots and re-rolling wounds seems like a viable option, especially with the extended range. A nasty surprise for eldar, perhaps.
At 10 pts a model for what you suggest I personally would prefer to get twice as many Spinegaunts for the same cost.
I wouldn't bother with toxin sacs in this case, just use 40% more normal devourergaunts then.
Keep in mind that they wound eldar on 5+ then, and with living ammo that means a +66% to wound chance. At S3 you need 4+ but gain only +50% from the living ammo.
10 S3 (S2 shots) devourergauns will cause 5.56 wounds (pre-save) on T3, whereas 7 S4 (S3 shots) devourergaunts will cause only 5.25 wounds...and even have less own wounds on the table.
Well, 55% chance per shot against Eldar, actually.
I actually calculated the statistics for Devourers, Fleshborers, and Spinefists against Marines, taking into account their point costs. Gaunts with Toxin Sacs and Devourers were actually the most efficient per point. Second best was Fleshborers, then basic Devourers, and Spinefists were last. Interestingly enough, their point costs (from highest to lowest) are in the same order. Of course, the problem is that the high priced loadouts also means that casualties will lower combat effectiveness much faster.
Of course, against Guardians, most Dark Eldar, and other units with similar saves the Spinefist is hands down the best choice over any other.
I was also wondering about devourer gaunts. So with tox sacs they should do well against SM (altho they will probably be shot to pieces befor they get that far.....) and spinefists, especially with the ew twin linking, should slaughter guardians?
I'd prefer a hormagaunt over a toxin sacced devourergaunt any day.
I was thinking of having a small brood of them and leaving them in terrain lurking. This would add +1 to cover saves. The new range and living ammunition rule of devourers would make them a cheap nuisance for lightly armoured troops.
I think the maths is a little hard to follow. From memory - regular devogaunts cost 7, toxic devogaunts cost 10.
Comparing 10 str 2 vs 7 str3 devogaunts shooting at toughnes 3
20 str 2 shots fired = 10 hit, 3.3 wound, rerolls wound 2.2 more. total 5.5 saves needed
14 str 3 shots fired = 7 hit, 3.5 wound, rerolls wound 1.75 more total 5.25 saves needed
The results are very close. I would prefer the extra numbers, it makes it harder to wipe out the brood.
Comparing 10 str 2 vs 7 str3 devogaunts shooting at toughnes 4
20 str 2 shots fired = 10 hit, 1.6 wound, rerolls wound 1.38 more. total 2.98 saves needed
14 str 3 shots fired = 7 hit, 2.3 wound, rerolls wound 1.56 more. total 3.86 saves needed
In this case the extra strength doubled the chance to wound.
Compared to 6 bolters
6 str 4 shots fired = 4 hit = 2.6 dead gaunts or .86 if you are lurking in heavy cover.
Keep in mind the squad can advance 6' & rapid fire. Do you really want to get into a shooting duel?
Last edited by Zerling; June 7th, 2005 at 03:43.
A good choice if you use the defensively or if you deepstrike them. With without number they could be a force to be reckoned with!
ehhh... pardon me if my info is outdated, but according to the 3rd ed Nid-dex bioweapon strength is calculated BEFORE biomorphs... I may very well be wrong, what with this 4th ed crap, but if now having pods of acid on your arms makes the worms you shoot from the massive nest growing on you, that's just wrong.
Think about it.
dont kill me if i'm wrong....
A man's at odds to know his mind, for his mind is aught he has to know it with.
Bioweapons in both 3rd & 4th ed have always worked off the modified strength of the brood. There are different weapons costs according to the strength of the 'nid. The only change is that some weapons have a max str now.