tyranid warrior biomorphes

[coredump]

May 25, 2012 18:13:15 GMT nurglitch said:

Try starting by considering the wound allocation rules for complex units, multiple wound models, and invulnerable saving throws.

Wow, what a great idea. All this time it never occurred to me to actually 'consider the rules'....

Don't get me wrong, I understand why you might think that complex units are better in almost all cases, it's just that your beautiful and perfectly valid opinion is unsupported by the rules of the game.

I am glad you deign to understand why I might think something.... of course, you have given not support for why you think wound allocation would *not* be a benefit.

And since the Net is overflowing with people talking about how powerful it is to have complex units and how overpowered it is to have multi-wound models with each model unique.... it seems logical that you would need to support your lone assertion that you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

[coredump]

May 25, 2012 18:55:41 GMT nurglitch said:

Okay, so suppose we have a complex unit of Tyranid Warriors. Three of them, all unique. One has two wounds left, the others have full wounds. They're wounded by a bolter. Where does that bolt wound go? It goes on the Warrior with two wounds left.

Likewise they're hit by a Krak Missile. Where does that krak wound go? It goes to a Warrior with three wounds left.

Oh, now it makes sense. You don't know the rules.

You assign wounds to each 'unique group' of models,
then you roll saves,
*then* you assign those unsaved wounds to specific models.

It is the third step that contains the restriction that wounded models take wounds first, and unwounded models take ID wounds first. But by then you are already past the first two steps, so....

In your example, the bolter shot would be assigned to a 'group' containing a healthy warrior, and if unsaved, would give it one wound.
The Krak shot would be assigned to a 'group' of a wounded warrior, and if unsaved, the unsaved wound would cause ID on the wounded warrior.


*THAT* is why Nob bikers were so powerful, and why Paladins are so powerful, etc etc.

[DarkGuard]

coredump has it right nurglitch, you assign the wounds to identical models first as you would with any wound allocation, at this stage the rules for removing whole models etc don't apply. So for example you can happily allocate a krak missile to a wounded deathspitter Warrior instead of the unwounded barbed strangler Warrior, who gets a bolt round. After allocation you then roll as you normally do for saves, and then remove models, removing whole models in such a way to remove as many wounds as possible. That's the last step in the chain, not the first.

I'd suggest giving page 26 of the rulebook a good read through again, especially the example given in italics half way down the second column and at the bottom of that column, which explains it quite clearly.

[nurglitch]

DarkGuard:

I suppose I should have cited page 26 first when trying to explain to coredump why he's misunderstands the rules.

The example given on page 26 is a unit of Nobz including one group of three identical Nobs and one unique Nob. The first time the unit is fired on, it is wounded nine times, allocating two wounds on each Nob, and the remaining wound on the group of identical Nobs. Saving throws result in four wounds, three on the identical Nobs and one on the unique Nob. One identical Nob is removed and another is assigned one wound. Likewise, the unique Nob has one wound. So the remaining unit is composed of two identical Nobs, one of which has a wound, and one unique Nob with a wound.

The second time the unit is fired upon, the Ork player assigns the wound to the remaining identical models, and the wounded model needs to be removed in preference to the un-wounded model. Likewise, if the wound would have caused Instant Death, then the un-wounded model would have been removed for preference.

After all, as the rules say: "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Now, the notion is that Ork Nob Bikers benefitted from being about to spread wounds around the unit to avoid removing models. The reasoning is that while the wounds may not be spread around models in unique groups, they can be spread around unique groups. In practice this means that a unit of 10 unique Nobz can lose ten wounds and still have ten models, rather than lose five models like a unit of 10 identical Nobz. Of course you still have to assign wounds to models, saves are taken by identical groups, so that Instant Death can be minimized in attacks that include non-Instant Death wounds and so on.

So a common practice despite the rules, and alright since people give consent for this 'advantage'. Of course, even by this exploitation of Units of Multiple Wound Models rules, you still run into the problem in complex units of choosing between losing more effective models, and models that will maintain unit coherency. Or you're clumping up to make yourself vulnerable to Instant Death blasts.

By the rules you shouldn't be spreading wounds through the unit to avoid removing models. But hey, the rules are secondary to play. So it's a moot point, having been mooted, and found mute in practice.

In play we have to worry about maintaining things like unit coherency and Synapse distances and so on. Maintaining these things is much easier in homogeneous units because you can pick models from identical groups, any models, rather than the unique models that failed their saving throws, and putting units out of coherency, and other units out of range of synergistic effects like Synapse.

With homogenous units of multi-wound models, we can dump wounds on expendable models, whereas with complex units of multi-wound models we're required to assign wounds to specific, perhaps necessary models. Waving that requirement means we have an advantage where our opponents are too clueless to allocate fire properly, and a liability where we want to maintain Synapse against a non-stupid opponent.

[DarkGuard]

nurglitch, you have missed one key sentence in your reasoning of the rules:

If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal (this is done for each group of identical multiple-wound models).

Emphasis mine. This part only applies to groups of identical multiple-wound models. This part is only performed after saving throws, which are only performed after allocating wounds, at this point you don't need to allocate wounds to remove whole models, that part comes later, you just allocate wounds and that's it. The rule only say you can't spread wounds to avoid removing groups of identical models, not models in general, here's the full quote of the line you quoted, still page 26:

Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.

Emphasis mine. Your quote refers to groups of identical models, not the model as whole, and this is reflected further down the page.

It really is that cut and dry, the common notion here, is surprisingly enough, the correct one.

[Jabberwocky]

May 26, 2012 18:18:04 GMT nurglitch said:

DarkGuard:

I suppose I should have cited page 26 first when trying to explain to coredump why he's misunderstands the rules.

The example given on page 26 is a unit of Nobz including one group of three identical Nobs and one unique Nob. The first time the unit is fired on, it is wounded nine times, allocating two wounds on each Nob, and the remaining wound on the group of identical Nobs. Saving throws result in four wounds, three on the identical Nobs and one on the unique Nob. One identical Nob is removed and another is assigned one wound. Likewise, the unique Nob has one wound. So the remaining unit is composed of two identical Nobs, one of which has a wound, and one unique Nob with a wound.

The second time the unit is fired upon, the Ork player assigns the wound to the remaining identical models, and the wounded model needs to be removed in preference to the un-wounded model. Likewise, if the wound would have caused Instant Death, then the un-wounded model would have been removed for preference.

After all, as the rules say: "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Now, the notion is that Ork Nob Bikers benefitted from being about to spread wounds around the unit to avoid removing models. The reasoning is that while the wounds may not be spread around models in unique groups, they can be spread around unique groups. In practice this means that a unit of 10 unique Nobz can lose ten wounds and still have ten models, rather than lose five models like a unit of 10 identical Nobz. Of course you still have to assign wounds to models, saves are taken by identical groups, so that Instant Death can be minimized in attacks that include non-Instant Death wounds and so on.

So a common practice despite the rules, and alright since people give consent for this 'advantage'. Of course, even by this exploitation of Units of Multiple Wound Models rules, you still run into the problem in complex units of choosing between losing more effective models, and models that will maintain unit coherency. Or you're clumping up to make yourself vulnerable to Instant Death blasts.

By the rules you shouldn't be spreading wounds through the unit to avoid removing models. But hey, the rules are secondary to play. So it's a moot point, having been mooted, and found mute in practice.

In play we have to worry about maintaining things like unit coherency and Synapse distances and so on. Maintaining these things is much easier in homogeneous units because you can pick models from identical groups, any models, rather than the unique models that failed their saving throws, and putting units out of coherency, and other units out of range of synergistic effects like Synapse.

With homogenous units of multi-wound models, we can dump wounds on expendable models, whereas with complex units of multi-wound models we're required to assign wounds to specific, perhaps necessary models. Waving that requirement means we have an advantage where our opponents are too clueless to allocate fire properly, and a liability where we want to maintain Synapse against a non-stupid opponent.

Once again nurglitch you've managed to start an arguement AND write an essay; the only actual point of which I already made in 2 sentences. Wound allocation has advantages as does uniformity. Multiwound models tend to be expensive enough you need every model alive as long as possible though, which wound allocation helps with.

[coredump]

Nurgltch, I hope you realize you don't get bonus points for verbosity. Just because you take 5 times as many words to say anything, doesn't make it correct.

So, please, point out exactly what I said that is wrong, and what rule, exactly, I 'misunderstood'. And try and be concise.

(I tried to do this for you above, but you seem to have ignored it...)



Also, lets try some examples....

A brood of 6 Shrikes is fired upon by 10 marines within 12". On average, 13 hit, and 6 wound.

If the brood has your 'advantage' of being all the same, you will lose 2 shrikes.
If they have my advantage of all being unique, they will not lose any. In fact, none will even come close.


Can you give an actual example of when it would be an advantage for the warriors to all be the same?

[Jabberwocky]

He thinks it's better because if say only 1 shrike was within 6" of some assault marines and that shrike was carrying a special weapon, you wouldn't want to remove him to stop them being assaulted. Likewise he mighthave to choose between keeping another brood in synapse and keeping a target in range for next turn. You remove the difficult decisions but in doing so you give up all the benefits.

It's like saying. " I wont buy any more hats in case I can't decide which hat to wear". Even if a woolen hat is not much good in the summer.

[coredump]

Thanks, but I want to hear from him, what he thinks is a valid example. If I rebut what you say, he will just ignore it and pretend there are other examples.

Besides, the example needs more detail, like why that one warrior is the one you have to remove....


So far, the only examples he has given were both vague, and demonstrably false. (as I showed, and he conveniently ignored...)

[gigasnail]

you're clearly a lunatic?

[nurglitch]

Jabberwocky:

I believe that post was addressed to DarkGuard.

coredump:

Discussion is not about scoring points. Discussion is about identifying and resolving disagreements. If I feel the need to explain myself thoroughly, then I'll post accordingly.

Likewise it's not about "my advantage" and "your advantage" since the differences we're discussing would occur to Tyranid armies in general. But since you took the constructive step of asking for an example in which homogeneity would benefit a unit of Warriors, I would like to reply in kind. Perhaps, by reasoning together we can figure out where our disagreement lies. Or you can continue to pick a fight, which is pretty fun to read too. Anyhoo...

Take a brood of Warriors, one unique group of three identical models. Place them in a line and do enough wounds to remove one model. Which one should removed? Not the middle one, because that would put the brood out of unit coherency. It has to be one of the ones at the end of the line. If one gives Synapse to another Tyranid brood, and the other Warrior does not, and you want that Synapse, then the solution is to remove the one that does not give Synapse. Furthermore only three wounds need to be applied to the unit to create the risk of losing one model. Of course, if those three wounds cause Instant Death, then the brood could be wiped out.

In a similar case there is a complex Warrior brood of three, with one group of two identically-equipped (Deathspittes) models and one model with a Barbed Stranger or Venom Cannon. If they take three wounds, then they can apply two to the Deathspitters, and one to the Venom Cannon. Unless they all cause Instant Death, the models may all survive. Ditto for four wounds. At 5 wounds you can to apply two wounds to the Venom Cannon and three wounds to the Deathspitters. One Deathspitter might die. So you'd have to apply 9 wouns to the unit to create the risk of losing the Venom Cannon model to a single unit's shooting, with 5 being the minimum of losing any model. And three Instant Death wounds would again wipe out the unit. However...

Where those Instant Death wounds hit is slightly more important. If the Venom Cannon model is in the middle, then the brood must be put out of unit coherency. Likewise if it's on the Synapse edge, it's going to lose Synapse. So what's the advantage, beyond fielding a Venom Cannon or Barbed Strangler? The advantage is resisting anti-infantry weapons like Bolters that can't cause Instant Death, but can be soaked by the unit's saving throws, multiple wounds, and wound allocation.

Taking a step away from what's possible in the game and into wishlist territory, having a fully individualized unit must be better, right? After all, it would take a full nine wounds to risk losing any member of the three-strong Warrior brood to a single unit's shooting. Which is even better than five, and a full power better than three. At least against Bolters, and where model position doesn't matter. So long as our opponents refuse to bring large blast weapons like Demolisher Cannons, and Battle Cannons, or copious amounts of Melta weapons and Krak missiles it's cool.

In the case that our opponents don't give us the courtesy of leaving the most popular and effective anti-vehicle weapons at home, what happens? All three configurations are equally vulnerable to Instant Death, having no Invulnerable saving throws, and the most highly diversified configuration, the fantasy one, leads to hard decisions about whether to lose members or position to the inevitable fusilade of S8 shots.

So, are the benefits of being able to resist anti-infantry weapons worth the cost of position against anti-tank weapons? Jabberwocky suggests that it's like refusing to buy a hat (the hat being the advantage, as I understand it) because we can't decide which hat to wear.

But I don't think it's like that. I think it's like buying a material advantage but losing a positional advantage, and in Warhammer the positional advantage nearly always trumps the material advantage. All the diversified unit in the world is worthless if you can't get them into position.

Where to take the discussion from here? I suppose it might be something to consider configurations, both possible and wishlist, and how they might best fit into Tyranid strategies. Or internet Gentleman Parts-waving. Like I said, I'm good with either.

[Jabberwocky]

Nurglitch, you do realise you are allowed to lose coherency through casualties as long as you move to restore it in your own turn, right?

Because you just proved coredumps point in your example. It takes more wounds to lose a model, that is the advantage. The disadvantage is that the model you might want to lose might have wargear you need. This is only a disadvantage so far as having the wargear in the first place was an advantage.

Better to have loved and lost than never have loved at all.

Better to have had a special weapon (or more, all with greater potential) and lost it than never have it at all (other than saving points). Especially if you are big on potential and flexibility, as you suggest you are.

[nurglitch]

Jabberwocky:

Yes, the problem being that we have to move the unit back into unit coherency, which means an additional constraint on movement. Every inch counts, and losing it because were have to move an indirect route means the difference between getting into range, into combat, and being able to control position on the board.

I think my point was that the advantage was that it takes more wounds to lose a model against the sort of weapons that Warriors aren't bothered by in the first place. It's a marginal advantage, since there's no such advantage against Instant Death weapons. The disadvantage remains losing control over which casualties are removed (coherency, etc).

I'm not saying that having a special weapon in a brood is bad. It's clearly an excellent compromise between a fully homogenous unit and a fully complex unit. I'm just pointing out that Tyranids benefit from the positional advantages of homogenous units. And that these advantages outweigh the material advantage of complex units, particularly where Warriors and Instant Death are concerned.

Besides, our individual preferences are irrelevant to what actually works best in the game. It's not about whether I'm big on potential and flexibility; these things are simply elements of the game that Tyranid players must exploit to their advantage. Likewise, instead of pining for Nob Bikers, Tyranid players should learn to enjoy the advantages we have.

[vecuu]

The thing is, complex get progressively less useful the larger a squad gets, the worse their armor save gets, and the fewer wounds they have. In order for WATs to be useful, you need a smallish unit, a good save, and several wounds.

30 individually equipped Termagants will die as fast as 30 identical termagants, as you'll rarely take enough wounds to go around spreading saves, and if you do, you still need to pass you're 6+ save, which you'll probably get denied anyway. At this point, paying for the upgrades is inane.

However, if you have 5 Paladins, and take 20 wounds, it's fairly likely that you won't lose a single model, as you would have to roll two 1's out of four tosses a piece. It might happen, but is unlikely. If the same 5 Paladins took 20 wounds but were all equipped the same, you would be essentially be guaranteed a casualty and would lose two Pallies every other volley.

Additionally, you can essentially "gain wounds" by tossing ID weapons such as a Krak Missle onto a unique Paladin who has already lost a wound.

[Jabberwocky]

May 28, 2012 14:48:34 GMT nurglitch said:

Jabberwocky:

Yes, the problem being that we have to move the unit back into unit coherency, which means an additional constraint on movement. Every inch counts, and losing it because were have to move an indirect route means the difference between getting into range, into combat, and being able to control position on the board.

I think my point was that the advantage was that it takes more wounds to lose a model against the sort of weapons that Warriors aren't bothered by in the first place. It's a marginal advantage, since there's no such advantage against Instant Death weapons. The disadvantage remains losing control over which casualties are removed (coherency, etc).

I'm not saying that having a special weapon in a brood is bad. It's clearly an excellent compromise between a fully homogenous unit and a fully complex unit. I'm just pointing out that Tyranids benefit from the positional advantages of homogenous units. And that these advantages outweigh the material advantage of complex units, particularly where Warriors and Instant Death are concerned.

Besides, our individual preferences are irrelevant to what actually works best in the game. It's not about whether I'm big on potential and flexibility; these things are simply elements of the game that Tyranid players must exploit to their advantage. Likewise, instead of pining for Nob Bikers, Tyranid players should learn to enjoy the advantages we have.

Complexity does help against ID though. I can put that ID wound on a model with only 1 wound left if he is unique rather than another different one with full wounds. Likewise if I take 3 IDing rends and 3 bog standard wounds, I can put all 3 nasty wounds on a unique model and the other 3 on someone else, assuming I only had 2 models left.

In fact if anything ID vulnerability makes complexity MORE important, which is why the Tyranid Prime is so popular in warrior and Thrope units.