Post by scootare on Aug 16, 2012 3:54:12 GMT
I play regular apoc games with a marine/guard player that whines like a stuck pig about my Hierophants. I been playing them with a 5+ invuln. Keep in mind in the 5 games we have played he ALWAYS goes first and we play nothing is in reserve.
So he pounds the heck out of my titans and if any of them manage to kill his reavers and warhounds he acts like his first born child was slain. Its pretty funny. (He isnt that big of a tool...but the only guy I know that will throw down 30K+ points and spend a entire day and night.
This was a post from Caleb at White Metal. Should the dang thing be 3+,4+, 5+ or 6+ Invuln. Cases can be made for all of them! I settled on 5+ but after reading this thing I should just say sorry 3+ next game. What do you peeps think?
Hierophant, 3+ invul or 6+ invulnerable? The case for the hierophant
Well, I'm finally doing it. I hate to . . . but I see no other choice. I'm selling my Hierophant.
This big fella, who I nick named Bridgette, has been sitting on my shelf, idling, waiting for Forgeworld to republish it's rules for let me count now . . .about 8 years (well, to be fair I've only been hoping for an update for the last 4 or so). This book was first published by GW back in 2004. Since then there have been at least three official supplements to the game including Apocalypse Reload, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Apocalypse I and II (including the second edition of IAAI, published earlier this year).
Many of the Tyranid units presented in earlier versions of the rules, including trygons, malanthropes, the scythed hierodule, and the meotic spore have been rewritten in the most recent versions of the rules to better incorporate them into the current edition. (Remember when Apoc first came out, it was still 4th edition!) However, not the Hierophant (not the barbed hierodule either, but that's another blog post).
When the hierophant first came out, its warp field was considered to be a 6+ invulnerable save. In the newer editions of the rules, the warp field is a 3+ invulnerable save (yes, yes, for zoanthropes only you oh so clever rules lawyers), making it better even that eldar titan holofields! In addition, unlike a void field the warp field save never goes away, not even in close combat, making it arguably superior to a void field.
However, there is a great rift between players regarding the hierophant and whether to count it's save as a 3+ or 6+. Clearly it has a 2+ armor save . . . no one is debating that. Veterans argue to stick to the rules as they were written when the model was released . . . while newer players that enter the game have no reason to know that the hierophant originally had a 6+ Inv. How could they? There is no current rule that states this. If a player picked up a copy of apoc and the new nid dex, I think it's a fair assumption they would say 'Hey, the hierphant has a 3+ invul! Sick!' I've been playing since 1996 and even I had to go back pull out the old 4th edition codex to remember if it was a 5+ or 6+ . . and newer players don't have access to the older codex)
Here are a few decent threads covering this very topic for your reading pleasure or displeasure as the case may be. There are arguments for both sides of the rule. We are simply choosing to present ours.
Link 1
Link 2
Let me be clear I was never that impressed with the hierophant. For 1250 points I was expecting a real wrecking ball. But it's sixteen S8 shots miss half the time (BS 3)! What's that you say, so does a stompa? Sure, but how many point is stompa, I ask you?
Yes, it had agile, which was kind of like run, except back then it also counted for fleet, allowing you to assault. Back in 5th, you could assault after a run, unlike now. Basically in the old rules, the hierophant could sacrifice it's shooting for an extra d6” of movement per gun sacrificed, ie +d6” for each gun sacrified in this way. So it could move between 12-24” in a turn before it's 6” charge. That's right, back then they still only charged 6”. Making the threat range an average of 18” if you shoot, or between 21-25” if you didn't shoot.
Now, when you got there, it WAS pretty good. Eight WS 6 Str 10 (ordinance) I3 attacks with lash whips (that reduced enemies attack by -1 back then, and then later reduced their initiative to 1 in the current edition) and spore clouds (which was basically a free poison weapon attack against every model in 'base' contact). It ignored (and still ignores) many psychic attacks such as lash of submission (but not pavene). Even (please do not swear) like Jaws of the World wolf doesn't affect it! Poison weapons and the like only wound on 6's, which is great. However, force weapons (and other instant death effects) deal d3 wounds instead of a single wound (unlike most figures with eternal warrior who only suffer a single wound).
This last bit is particularly irksome. This means that figures can kill a hierophant with instant death weapons much faster than say a very powerful character with eternal warrior, or one of the greater daemon princes like An'ggrath.
There was a sort of confusing rule in the Imperial Armour 4 book about the hierophant (this was even before the apoc rules came out, back when gargantuan creatures had 'mass' points), where it stated that to figure out where the models 'base' was for sake of close combat, basically draw an imaginary line between it's four taloned feet (like how we imagine a footprint of a ruined building). However, this became a problem when trying move the model without moving within 1” of an enemy model. When charging you had to move closest to closest to make contact with the enemy . . so you could never really take advantage of this. You're only real way to do this would have been to move the model over the enemy without getting within an inch of them and then charging by effectively moving your toe to touch a model in the unit. Bascially tiptoeing through the tulips, so to speak. Sigh, what a headache.
The point of all this is that I was dissatisfied with the playability of the model. It was amazing to look at, but on the table . .. meh. It was often confusing to use. As time went on, I watched it fall to salvo after salvo from heavy weapons squads. It's meager 6+ regeneration roll just wasn't enough to keep it kicking!
For the first few years I'd field it every game, just because I needed the points, but as time went by and I acquired a larger collection, I found myself leaving the figure at home. I felt it's 10 wounds was restrictive, esp. since so many large beasts as tervigons have 6 wounds! This thing is 4 times their size . . shouldn't it have 4 times the wounds?
And now under 6th edition, structure points count for 3 hull points each. So it seems like in some ways titans are even harder to destroy than before! A reaver (with 6 structure points) has 18 hull points! I think that's actually fair . . but what about the poor hierophant sitting back there with 10 wounds?
I asked my brother to help me do a little mathhammer 101. Consider class in session:
The point of my analysis was not to figure out which titan was better between a reaver or a hierophant. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, one is better at shooting, one hand to hand, etc. No, the only thing I wanted to figure out was what did the community feel was a fair invulnerable save for a hierophant to have.
Since both titans are rated at 1250 points, I felt this was a fair comparison. For the sake of argument, we created a scenario where 30 devastators with lascannons (ie, BS 4, S9 Ap 2 weapons) fire on either titan; how long would either titan survive? We didn't get into variables like cover, size, hand to hand, or the like. Again, this isn't a 'which one would win in a fight between a reaver and hierophant' article, but more of a 'is it time to update the hierophant' article.
Alright, so 30 devastators, each a marine with BS 4 shooting lascannons. With a BS of 4 you hit two-thirds of the time (3+) so it is safe to say that out of 30 shots 20 will hit. So for the point of this article you can depend on 20 hits each round.
Okay for those players out there without the stats on a reaver titan, they are AV 14 (on the front and side), with 6 structure points (18 hull points) and 4 void shields. For those unfamiliar with the new rules updates to the apocalypse rules (to understand about void shields, repair rolls, and the like) see here
Thus, using the above parameters, assuming the lascannons are in range (and stay in range) to bring down a Reaver Titan (this is all settled against front or side armour), it takes about four turns. Here's the breakdown:
Turn 1: Reaver
The titan starts 6 structure points and 4 void shields.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored (hitting on 3+, 2/3 of all shots hit , so 20/30)
The first 6 hits (rolling against AV 12) would drop the void shields*
(*It would take 6 hits because with a Strength 9 weapon versus armour 12 you need a 3+ to score a glancing or penetrating hit. So, by the numbers, out of 6 shots 4 of those would be a 3 or higher and the other two would be a 1 or 2 which would have no effect.)
4 or 5 hits from the remaining 14 hits will either glance or penetrate. We’ll go low this turn and say 4 hit which would be divided equally between glances and penetrating hits.
The 2 glances bring it down to 5 structure points and 1 hull point.
Let’s then say that neither of the penetrating hits resulted in “Explodes!”since it was only 2, however this still results in the loss of 2 more hull points.
So, at the end of turn 1 the titan would have 4 structure points, 2 hull points, and 0 void shields up.
Turn 2: Reaver
By the numbers 1, maybe 2, void shield would come back up. We’ll say on this turn only 1.
The titan starts with 4 structure points, 2 hull points, and 1 void shield.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
Most likely the first or second hit would drop the final void shield. We’ll say 2 to be on the safe side.
6 hits from the remaining 18 hits would either glance or penetrate. When we divide this evenly that means 3 glances and 3 penetrating hits.
The 3 glancing hits would remove 3 more hull points which would bring it down to 3 structure points and 2 hull points.
Let’s then say that one of those penetrating hits resulted in “Explodes!”. The second roll on the vehicle damage table resulted in “Weapon Destroyed.” So it would lose 3 more hull points as a result of the 3 penetrating hits and then a whole structure point because of the “Explodes!” result.
At the end of turn 2 the titan would have 1 structure point and 2 hull points.
Turn 3: Reaver
By the numbers one, maybe 2, void shields would come back up. We’ll say on this turn the player rolled better and got 2 up.
The titan starts with 1 structure point, 2 hull points, and 2 void shields.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored.
The first 3 shots would bring down the 2 void shields.
5 or 6 shots from the remaining 17 hits would result in a glance or a penetrate. We’ll shoot low and say 5, 3 being glances and 2 being penetrating hits.
The 3 glancing hits would remove 2 more hull points which would bring it down to 0 structure points and two hull points.
The two remaining penetrating hits would finish off the titan and cleanly reduce the last two hull points.
Of course, this is all statistical going with a good mix of highs and lows when we can’t divide it up evenly, but we can say for certain that this guy is probably going down in turn 3, and without a doubt will be wrecked in turn 4.
To bring down the hierophant under the old rules (6+ invul):
It would take 2 rounds of shooting from the devastators. Here is how it breaks down:
Turn 1: Hierophant (6+ invul)
The creature starts with 10 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
1 wound saved
He is down to 1 wound
Turn 2: Hierophant (6+ invul)
1 wound regenerated.
The creature starts with 2 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
1 wound saved . . . . dead.
Basically this guy is down in 2 rounds of shooting with about 7-8 wounds to spare. Easy.
To bring down the hierophant under the new rules (3+ invul):
It would take 3-4 rounds of shooting from the devastators. Here is how it breaks down:
Turn 1: Hierophant (3+invul)
The creature starts with 10 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
About 6-7 wounds saved. For this exercise let’s say it was a bad roll and only 6 saved.
The creature is down to 6 wounds.
Turn 2: Hierophant (3+ invul)
Most likely didn’t regenerate.
The creature starts with 6 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
About 6-7 wounds saved. We’ll say this time he had a better roll and saved 7.
The creature is down to 3 wounds.
Turn 3: Hierophant (3+ invul)
1 wound regenerated.
The creature starts with 4 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted, 6-7 wounds saved.
The creature is either dead or down to 1 wound.
At this point we can say that under the new rules (i.e. 3+ invul) he has a 50/50 shot of making it to turn 4.
So he pounds the heck out of my titans and if any of them manage to kill his reavers and warhounds he acts like his first born child was slain. Its pretty funny. (He isnt that big of a tool...but the only guy I know that will throw down 30K+ points and spend a entire day and night.
This was a post from Caleb at White Metal. Should the dang thing be 3+,4+, 5+ or 6+ Invuln. Cases can be made for all of them! I settled on 5+ but after reading this thing I should just say sorry 3+ next game. What do you peeps think?
Hierophant, 3+ invul or 6+ invulnerable? The case for the hierophant
Well, I'm finally doing it. I hate to . . . but I see no other choice. I'm selling my Hierophant.
This big fella, who I nick named Bridgette, has been sitting on my shelf, idling, waiting for Forgeworld to republish it's rules for let me count now . . .about 8 years (well, to be fair I've only been hoping for an update for the last 4 or so). This book was first published by GW back in 2004. Since then there have been at least three official supplements to the game including Apocalypse Reload, Forgeworld's Imperial Armour Apocalypse I and II (including the second edition of IAAI, published earlier this year).
Many of the Tyranid units presented in earlier versions of the rules, including trygons, malanthropes, the scythed hierodule, and the meotic spore have been rewritten in the most recent versions of the rules to better incorporate them into the current edition. (Remember when Apoc first came out, it was still 4th edition!) However, not the Hierophant (not the barbed hierodule either, but that's another blog post).
When the hierophant first came out, its warp field was considered to be a 6+ invulnerable save. In the newer editions of the rules, the warp field is a 3+ invulnerable save (yes, yes, for zoanthropes only you oh so clever rules lawyers), making it better even that eldar titan holofields! In addition, unlike a void field the warp field save never goes away, not even in close combat, making it arguably superior to a void field.
However, there is a great rift between players regarding the hierophant and whether to count it's save as a 3+ or 6+. Clearly it has a 2+ armor save . . . no one is debating that. Veterans argue to stick to the rules as they were written when the model was released . . . while newer players that enter the game have no reason to know that the hierophant originally had a 6+ Inv. How could they? There is no current rule that states this. If a player picked up a copy of apoc and the new nid dex, I think it's a fair assumption they would say 'Hey, the hierphant has a 3+ invul! Sick!' I've been playing since 1996 and even I had to go back pull out the old 4th edition codex to remember if it was a 5+ or 6+ . . and newer players don't have access to the older codex)
Here are a few decent threads covering this very topic for your reading pleasure or displeasure as the case may be. There are arguments for both sides of the rule. We are simply choosing to present ours.
Link 1
Link 2
Let me be clear I was never that impressed with the hierophant. For 1250 points I was expecting a real wrecking ball. But it's sixteen S8 shots miss half the time (BS 3)! What's that you say, so does a stompa? Sure, but how many point is stompa, I ask you?
Yes, it had agile, which was kind of like run, except back then it also counted for fleet, allowing you to assault. Back in 5th, you could assault after a run, unlike now. Basically in the old rules, the hierophant could sacrifice it's shooting for an extra d6” of movement per gun sacrificed, ie +d6” for each gun sacrified in this way. So it could move between 12-24” in a turn before it's 6” charge. That's right, back then they still only charged 6”. Making the threat range an average of 18” if you shoot, or between 21-25” if you didn't shoot.
Now, when you got there, it WAS pretty good. Eight WS 6 Str 10 (ordinance) I3 attacks with lash whips (that reduced enemies attack by -1 back then, and then later reduced their initiative to 1 in the current edition) and spore clouds (which was basically a free poison weapon attack against every model in 'base' contact). It ignored (and still ignores) many psychic attacks such as lash of submission (but not pavene). Even (please do not swear) like Jaws of the World wolf doesn't affect it! Poison weapons and the like only wound on 6's, which is great. However, force weapons (and other instant death effects) deal d3 wounds instead of a single wound (unlike most figures with eternal warrior who only suffer a single wound).
This last bit is particularly irksome. This means that figures can kill a hierophant with instant death weapons much faster than say a very powerful character with eternal warrior, or one of the greater daemon princes like An'ggrath.
There was a sort of confusing rule in the Imperial Armour 4 book about the hierophant (this was even before the apoc rules came out, back when gargantuan creatures had 'mass' points), where it stated that to figure out where the models 'base' was for sake of close combat, basically draw an imaginary line between it's four taloned feet (like how we imagine a footprint of a ruined building). However, this became a problem when trying move the model without moving within 1” of an enemy model. When charging you had to move closest to closest to make contact with the enemy . . so you could never really take advantage of this. You're only real way to do this would have been to move the model over the enemy without getting within an inch of them and then charging by effectively moving your toe to touch a model in the unit. Bascially tiptoeing through the tulips, so to speak. Sigh, what a headache.
The point of all this is that I was dissatisfied with the playability of the model. It was amazing to look at, but on the table . .. meh. It was often confusing to use. As time went on, I watched it fall to salvo after salvo from heavy weapons squads. It's meager 6+ regeneration roll just wasn't enough to keep it kicking!
For the first few years I'd field it every game, just because I needed the points, but as time went by and I acquired a larger collection, I found myself leaving the figure at home. I felt it's 10 wounds was restrictive, esp. since so many large beasts as tervigons have 6 wounds! This thing is 4 times their size . . shouldn't it have 4 times the wounds?
And now under 6th edition, structure points count for 3 hull points each. So it seems like in some ways titans are even harder to destroy than before! A reaver (with 6 structure points) has 18 hull points! I think that's actually fair . . but what about the poor hierophant sitting back there with 10 wounds?
I asked my brother to help me do a little mathhammer 101. Consider class in session:
The point of my analysis was not to figure out which titan was better between a reaver or a hierophant. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, one is better at shooting, one hand to hand, etc. No, the only thing I wanted to figure out was what did the community feel was a fair invulnerable save for a hierophant to have.
Since both titans are rated at 1250 points, I felt this was a fair comparison. For the sake of argument, we created a scenario where 30 devastators with lascannons (ie, BS 4, S9 Ap 2 weapons) fire on either titan; how long would either titan survive? We didn't get into variables like cover, size, hand to hand, or the like. Again, this isn't a 'which one would win in a fight between a reaver and hierophant' article, but more of a 'is it time to update the hierophant' article.
Alright, so 30 devastators, each a marine with BS 4 shooting lascannons. With a BS of 4 you hit two-thirds of the time (3+) so it is safe to say that out of 30 shots 20 will hit. So for the point of this article you can depend on 20 hits each round.
Okay for those players out there without the stats on a reaver titan, they are AV 14 (on the front and side), with 6 structure points (18 hull points) and 4 void shields. For those unfamiliar with the new rules updates to the apocalypse rules (to understand about void shields, repair rolls, and the like) see here
Thus, using the above parameters, assuming the lascannons are in range (and stay in range) to bring down a Reaver Titan (this is all settled against front or side armour), it takes about four turns. Here's the breakdown:
Turn 1: Reaver
The titan starts 6 structure points and 4 void shields.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored (hitting on 3+, 2/3 of all shots hit , so 20/30)
The first 6 hits (rolling against AV 12) would drop the void shields*
(*It would take 6 hits because with a Strength 9 weapon versus armour 12 you need a 3+ to score a glancing or penetrating hit. So, by the numbers, out of 6 shots 4 of those would be a 3 or higher and the other two would be a 1 or 2 which would have no effect.)
4 or 5 hits from the remaining 14 hits will either glance or penetrate. We’ll go low this turn and say 4 hit which would be divided equally between glances and penetrating hits.
The 2 glances bring it down to 5 structure points and 1 hull point.
Let’s then say that neither of the penetrating hits resulted in “Explodes!”since it was only 2, however this still results in the loss of 2 more hull points.
So, at the end of turn 1 the titan would have 4 structure points, 2 hull points, and 0 void shields up.
Turn 2: Reaver
By the numbers 1, maybe 2, void shield would come back up. We’ll say on this turn only 1.
The titan starts with 4 structure points, 2 hull points, and 1 void shield.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
Most likely the first or second hit would drop the final void shield. We’ll say 2 to be on the safe side.
6 hits from the remaining 18 hits would either glance or penetrate. When we divide this evenly that means 3 glances and 3 penetrating hits.
The 3 glancing hits would remove 3 more hull points which would bring it down to 3 structure points and 2 hull points.
Let’s then say that one of those penetrating hits resulted in “Explodes!”. The second roll on the vehicle damage table resulted in “Weapon Destroyed.” So it would lose 3 more hull points as a result of the 3 penetrating hits and then a whole structure point because of the “Explodes!” result.
At the end of turn 2 the titan would have 1 structure point and 2 hull points.
Turn 3: Reaver
By the numbers one, maybe 2, void shields would come back up. We’ll say on this turn the player rolled better and got 2 up.
The titan starts with 1 structure point, 2 hull points, and 2 void shields.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored.
The first 3 shots would bring down the 2 void shields.
5 or 6 shots from the remaining 17 hits would result in a glance or a penetrate. We’ll shoot low and say 5, 3 being glances and 2 being penetrating hits.
The 3 glancing hits would remove 2 more hull points which would bring it down to 0 structure points and two hull points.
The two remaining penetrating hits would finish off the titan and cleanly reduce the last two hull points.
Of course, this is all statistical going with a good mix of highs and lows when we can’t divide it up evenly, but we can say for certain that this guy is probably going down in turn 3, and without a doubt will be wrecked in turn 4.
To bring down the hierophant under the old rules (6+ invul):
It would take 2 rounds of shooting from the devastators. Here is how it breaks down:
Turn 1: Hierophant (6+ invul)
The creature starts with 10 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
1 wound saved
He is down to 1 wound
Turn 2: Hierophant (6+ invul)
1 wound regenerated.
The creature starts with 2 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
1 wound saved . . . . dead.
Basically this guy is down in 2 rounds of shooting with about 7-8 wounds to spare. Easy.
To bring down the hierophant under the new rules (3+ invul):
It would take 3-4 rounds of shooting from the devastators. Here is how it breaks down:
Turn 1: Hierophant (3+invul)
The creature starts with 10 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
About 6-7 wounds saved. For this exercise let’s say it was a bad roll and only 6 saved.
The creature is down to 6 wounds.
Turn 2: Hierophant (3+ invul)
Most likely didn’t regenerate.
The creature starts with 6 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted
About 6-7 wounds saved. We’ll say this time he had a better roll and saved 7.
The creature is down to 3 wounds.
Turn 3: Hierophant (3+ invul)
1 wound regenerated.
The creature starts with 4 wounds.
30 shots fired, 20 hits scored
10 wounds inflicted, 6-7 wounds saved.
The creature is either dead or down to 1 wound.
At this point we can say that under the new rules (i.e. 3+ invul) he has a 50/50 shot of making it to turn 4.
