Best option for the Point Cost.

[zephoid]

"units cant stand alone" mentality is pretty much (please do not swear). The "synergy" with the nid codex is pretty much one unit taking fire for another. Most support abilities (spore cloud, cat, OA) are short range on slow models. If you play onions you are asking for your opponent to exploit your positioning and drawbacks of your units. Average opponents may have trouble, but if a player understand how nids work, they can target prioritize your "synergy" before it has much of any influence in the battle. Nids, both in fluff and in game, excel in hitting hard and fast where they are not expected. Doom, zoans in pods, trygons, and genestealers. Tervigons can work as autonomous objective holders with mid range support ability, but relying on them to do any sort of considerable damage by spamming them out is asking for the enemy to use your own tervigons as his own force multiplier when killing one, opening screens and exposing tervigons to assault.

Saying a trygon cant take on a dedicated assault unit is silly. Of the dedicated assault heavy assault units, only TH/SS termies beat trygons point for point. Sure, you cant charge a trygon into a 400+ point unit and expect it to come out on the other side, but if that 600 point nob biker/TW cav squad is hit by 3 trygons it implodes.

I play eldar now, which is a true support codex. Embedding ICs in a unit is far stronger than trying to block los, get cover, or turtle a deathstar up the board and hope it doesnt get killed. I can depend on my farseers surviving most of the battle, especially when its eldrad. Sure, i lose the support of vehicles pretty early, but i count on that.

Units should be analyzed based on their role sure, genestealers dont do well against vehicles, but that is not a problem with them. That is simply not what they are meant to be doing. That they do as well as they do is a testament to their versatility rather than their primary role, and should be a mark for them, rather than against.

coredump i can agree with that. However, certain units can provide a degree of cost efficiency for just about any list which is what this thread is asking.

@rakgual Nid vs Nid is a pretty silly thing in general. However, im confused as to how a nid player was so careless to let his trygons be charged. Instead, he should have sat his trygons back, waited for you to come, then charge both trygons into your gaunts with possibly another unit of gaunts to lock multiple units together, killing all of the gaunts and possibly the tervigon if he can lock that and kill it with fearless wounds. Also, trygon primes are generally a waste of points as a trygon is inherently a huge target already and should be viewed as an expendable fire magnet not a core unit of the army. BTW, 30 gaunts with AT/TS charging 2 trygons do 5 unsaved wounds divided between the two trygons. the trygons then eat gaunts happily for a turn or two before breaking combat with half woulds or so. When talking about the value of units, dont bring specific instances into the conversation. If a gaunt kills a TH/SS termi, the gaunt isnt better in assault than the termi, you just got lucky.

[TheContortionist]

nurglitch and greatscape

I think we can all agree, (Except maybe a couple.) There sure are a big pile of "bad" units. And there sure are one or two "good units" that you should always take, (if you want to be competitive.) But that is another topic.

[apaosa]

I'm guessing the Trygon charged and the termagants counter-attacked. Forcing 10-15 armor saves on a Trygon with a throw-away unit is pretty nice.

I don't think Nid vs Nid is the best comparison though...

[nurglitch]

TheContortionist:

No, the best option for the points cost is a general enough topic to apply to competitive players and beginners alike. There are no "good" units, or units you should always take, unless you're talking about something as non-specific as Tyranid units rather than specific unit options.

It's like suggesting that players should always play Rock in Rock-Scissors-Paper, a useful strategy if you're playing in a Rock and Scissors environment, but not actually good advice from the standpoint of being competitive when people understand how the game works, which is to out-strategize your opponent rather than just break their scissors with your rock (or stop their rock from breaking your scissors...).

Tyranid players need to be able to implement what are called "mixed strategies" in game theory. As I understand the term, mixed strategies involve players being able to switch between pure strategic options as the situation demands.

In Rock-Scissors-Paper the strategies are unitary, in that they require no special tactical mixture of time, space, or material to pull off. Warhammer 40,000 has time in the form of turns and phases, space in the form of the board and terrain, and material in the form of armies. However, armies can be more or less flexible, some better adapting to changes in opposing conditions, and some better at carrying out particular strategies.

In Rock-Scissors-Paper terms it would be like each throw of hands was accompanied by the other hand throwing out a number of fingers to value the pure strategy thrown by the first hand, and drawn from a finite pool of fingers (up to a maximum of five per throw). Which, incidentally is why the usual comparison of Warhammer 40,000 to Rock-Scissors-Paper often fails because the analogy fails to account for the scarcity of resources represented in both list-building and board-control. So I've extended the model to help the analogy hold up, and hopefully emphasize my point by drawing attention to the structures at work instead of what people might imagine them to represent.

My point? Yes, a 5-Rock is pretty hardcore, but you can get much more mileage out of 1-Scissors if you can mix it with synergistic elements that also maximize the flexibility of your options to address throws ranging from 5-Rocks to 1-Papers, and the redundancy sufficient to see you through to the end of the game (here assuming that the game lasts until each player has exhausted their supply of fingers, with the number of fingers thrown deciding ties in favour of the player with the most fingers, zero being the minimum).

Does this sound like an over-complicated version of Rock-Scissors-Paper? Yes, it is. Warhammer 40,000 is more complicated, and the question of the best unit for the points cost is commensurately less relevant.

[coredump]

There is no 'best' unit. But there are 'better' units and 'worse' units, and even 'bad' units.

Moreover, having no 'best' unit is one version of a decent codex, but is not the definition. You still need to have enough quality units that can cover all of the opponent options. The Tau codex is extremely balanced, lots and lots of options for building a list. Except none of them are 'good' lists.

[nurglitch]

The assignment of vague comparative adjectives is just as pointless as the assignment of vague superlatives. That's the point. There's no 'better' or 'worse', 'good' or 'bad' without specifying that to which they apply. Better at what? Bad for whom? Good when? At what? Where? In the context of which goals? Without an objective metric you're simply expressing a personal preference, which is beautiful and valid, and worthless to anyone who isn't you.

[coredump]

yes, there are 'better' and 'worse'; it is pretty easy for most folks to see the difference. There is no 'best' because many of the 'better' are pretty close, so other variables (list, meta, etc) will help determine which is 'best'.

Now, you can try playing word games, like saying "Hive guard are not 'better' because they suck at CC". But that really isn't the point.

[nurglitch]

Yes, it's pretty easy for most folks to 'see' the Emperor's clothes.

[TheContortionist]

Well, let's start making a list in here. First thing we need to add is hive guard because let's face it, you should always take them. So 2 squads of 3 seems good. Zonathrope are pretty good too.
The "bad" units we're not going to play are the parasite of mortrex, Lictor, Deathleaper. Venomthrope, Pyrovore, ripper swarm, Harpy, Shrike, mawloc, carnifex, onld one eye, tyrannofex. That's a pretty big pile i'd say.

so far we have:
3 Hive Guard
3 Hive Guard
3 Zoanthrope

The Prime, genestealers and tervigon scored high on the value scale. I like a Prime with 2 sets of talons and adrenal glands, toxin sacs as the HQ. So we have:

1 Tryanid Prime: doble talons, sacs, glands.-100
3 Hive Guard-150
3 Hive Guard-150
3 Zoanthrope-180

lets try to make this 2000 points. The next posts should be adding or taking away from the list. I'd like people to only be able to change up to 300 points at a time from the following list. if you agree with that. this should be fun.

[nurglitch]

Is there a metric we can use to check your conclusions for soundness?

[zephoid]

Nurglitch... i dont understand how you can be so ignorant an at the same time seem intelligent. This is a qualitative assessment of the value of units with quantitative trials. There is no metric for it because it cannot logically exist.

Yes, there ARE bad units. By saying good/better/best/bad ect we are comparing it against a generally viewed average. This may change depending on person, but it is still a part of how we analyze how well units do. Lets have an example. I say the parasite is bad. He has poor stats, only rending, high cost, has the codexe's T4 problem, and generates KP non-scoring units that are themselves poor to bad. You say hes not bad because he may have a possible use that puts him ahead of another unit. But that is not how you analyze. You take the average scenario where he is going to be faced with, say charging a group of marines with a fist, and analyze how well he performs. Then you analyze how he works in and against shooting. then you analyze how we works against dedicated combat squads, T3, hordes, against vehicles, and any other situation. Then you have a lot of data on how well he will perform on average which you compare to his point cost and what you can get for that cost in the codex in the same slot. Then you CAN conclude if he is good or not based on the average power level you expect at that cost. In this case, he dies to the fist, cant shoot, dies to missle fire if his unit gets picked away, dies to dedicated melee with very little effort, doesnt have the quantity of attacks to kill hordes, and is not very effective against vehicles that move due to not being a MC and low number of attacks. The rippers that he generates are also pretty poor in their own analysis due to lack of TS upgrades needed if you run them normally. His ability to discourage outflank is also not very strong as outflank is not normally very effective versus nids and the effect is not very strong even if it goes off. HT is also in the same slot, and HT do almost all those things better. Therefore, the unit can be considered bad. Perform a similar analysis on any other unit you want and you can see a large number of the units in this codex are bad.
At the same time, units can be considered good if they perform an in-demand role for the codex better then what other codexes can provide. Hive guard provide 2 S8 BS4 shots with T6 2W. This is much greater than the potential in most other codexes for 50 points and destroying tanks is essential for nids. The rest of its stat line is not stellar, but mostly average across the board. Meaning it has few detractors. Its ability to ignore LOS helps offset its medium range and adds versatility in how you can tactically apply the unit. Because of these reasons it is considered a good unit.


You can make a claim x is better than y in a general sense. It is a compilation of all the other assessments of the unit in situations on what could happen in the game. Rippers could be better than hive guard in melee, but that is not a situation that is normally common and therefore is valued highly in the assessment of the unit. Each unit is valued on its role in the codex, its strength in that roll, and the lack of weaknesses to other problems that it may face. By using this, you can evaluate that a hive guard is better than a ripper because it provides a more essential role, is better in the role, and has far fewer detractors to its performance.

"best" is making an assessment on what roles are needed for the codex, how point efficient the unit is, and how versatile it is. Many of these criteria are opinion, but they are also backed with statistical evidence. This is a thread about what people THINK is the most cost efficient unit.

Your (please do not swear) about being unable to evaluate units is both illogical and counter productive to this thread. If you insist on maintaining that argument, please do it in your own thread where it is relevant. You post the same argument in every thread and it is still almost nonsensical. I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff to you, this is covered under the heading of "common sense everyone should have". You simply don't understand how arguments work. You would say a knife is not worse than a gun in a war because it has situations that it can be better, but for some reason guns are the main form of combat for the last 400 or so years.

[starwoof]

I think that I need to chip in that there is a Best Unit, and it's hive guard. In terms of units that achieve their goal the most efficiently and effectively, hive guard win. For all armies. Ever.

Hive Guard are the best unit in 40k. Period.

[TheContortionist]

I don't know man, Mephiston is one mean machine and landraiders are pretty menacing too. But i certainly am glad we have our hive guard. My life would be worse without them. Zoanthrope are almost as good though. The only thing i'd say makes em just strait worse is the psychic test and the 4 toughness. The two weapons are amazing, the 3 up invo. is super good, and synapse.

Off topic: lol starwoof you're gonna make nurglitch's head explode.

[zephoid]

Hive guard are probably the best shooting we have, but the 4+ save, shorter range, and lack of speed mean that they are a tough choice for best in 40k. In 40k, im still going with fire dragons. 16 points for a bs4 melta gun on every guy. In any other codex, they would be incredibly OP but the huge cost of eldar transports makes them balanced.

[starwoof]

May 23, 2012 5:27:26 GMT TheContortionist said:

Off topic: lol starwoof you're gonna make nurglitch's head explode.

It's just my opinion! My entirely correct opinion. Hive guard are BAD ASS and make a mockery of transports and light vehicles. They look at eldar skimmers and go 'lol no'. The degree to which they beat the pants off of dark eldar is astounding, just keep them hidden.

Basically I fight a lot of skimmers, so I may have a slightly overblown opinion of these guys.