|
Post by innocent on May 17, 2013 5:21:44 GMT
Pray that that Devastator squad is not on the first floor of a ruin though, at which stage you can't charge them with MCs. Brilliant rules design that is ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) But I agree, this is probably the best use for a Mawloc; target vehicles or shooty squads on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by infornography on May 17, 2013 7:15:09 GMT
I'm pretty sure there are rules allowing an MC to charge units on different levels of a ruin if it would have enough movement to get to them. Something like that. I know there was in 5th edition and I'm pretty sure it's still there in 6th.
|
|
|
Post by kippawah on May 22, 2013 2:13:28 GMT
Mawloc is better for breaking up heavy weapons squads, command squads or just trying to disrupt a bottleneck on the map. The Trygon is a beast that can handle just about anything.
As far as modeling goes, I went with the Trygon body with the pincer tail and the Mawloc head.
Bad. Ass.
|
|
|
Post by Squire on May 22, 2013 10:53:32 GMT
I've posted a few times to explain why I think the trygon is more or less always a better option than a mawloc, but I've ordered the kit and I intend to use it as a mawloc in my own army. I finally decided not to bother with the vanilla fex I was going to march up the board. Pretty annoying because it's already bought and painted, but it doesn't excite me at all. I toyed with the idea of a trygon but decided on the mawloc instead. I still want to keep my army within friendly limits and I think a trygon may have risked boosting my 1500 list from a reasonable semi competitive list up to a bad competitive one. The big appeal to me with the mawloc is the fun I imagine it could be. I kind of like the unreliability of the TFTD attack, since it could swing a game if it hits but usually won't. Also, as long as it doesn't get a nasty mishap, it will always provide backfield disruption. If the large blast hits nothing it will still be a unit that needs to be taken care of quickly. Basically the mawloc at worst does more for my army than the carnifex would do, and at best could wreak havoc in the opponent's deployment zone. I'm pretty excited about it since it should be a fun gamble where the fex is, sadly, a boring point sink Mawloc is better for breaking up heavy weapons squads, command squads or just trying to disrupt a bottleneck on the map. The Trygon is a beast that can handle just about anything. As far as modeling goes, I went with the Trygon body with the pincer tail and the Mawloc head. Bad. Ass. I kind of disagree about it being better at the roles you mentioned. I think the 1 in 3 chance of getting a hit with a scatter dice is just a bit too low compared with the reliable S6 AP2 hits a trygon is going to dish out in combat. On the other hand I'm definitely not saying the mawloc is a bad option. Even if TFTD didn't exist the CC ability and toughness of a mawloc is more than enough to write off a long fangs unit or the equivalent units other armies have.
|
|
|
Post by chuckles on May 22, 2013 11:31:46 GMT
Between them, Mawlocs and Trygons more or less eliminate any reason to take a Carnifex (apart, obviously, from reasons like "they look awesome" or "I've got billions of them since I played nids in 4th Ed). The only Fex builds you could even partially justify would be bio-plasma spam, since massed AP2 fire is something we otherwise simply cannot do with any reliability, and twin brainleech devourers on a budget. But the former I don't think is a worthwhile investment, since for the same points you could take a lot of biovores and substitute sheer volume of wounds inflicted for strength and AP. I do think a Carnifex with twin brainleech devourers is a worthwhile investment since they get a lot of benefits over Containment spines (better strength, twin-linked, morale penalties for panic checks)- but if I want volume of fire there are other, more cost-effective, less fragile and/or more flexible ways to get it.
Cruddace has very effectively taken the Carnifex from 4th ed's "Amazing, fill my FOC with them!" to "why would I bother" in one go. Shocking stuff.
Anyway, Mawlocs. They're as hard to kill as a Trygon (harder, since you can, if you really need to, stick them back in reserve, making them impossible to shoot half the game) but a lot cheaper. The reason they're a lot cheaper is that they're a lot less powerful, TFTD included. But you still get sufficient bang for your buck that they're a reasonable purchase, and they demonstrate very effectively the insanity of the Carnifex's points cost
|
|
|
Post by Squire on May 22, 2013 12:10:52 GMT
Between them, Mawlocs and Trygons more or less eliminate any reason to take a Carnifex (apart, obviously, from reasons like "they look awesome" or "I've got billions of them since I played nids in 4th Ed). The only Fex builds you could even partially justify would be bio-plasma spam, since massed AP2 fire is something we otherwise simply cannot do with any reliability, and twin brainleech devourers on a budget. But the former I don't think is a worthwhile investment, since for the same points you could take a lot of biovores and substitute sheer volume of wounds inflicted for strength and AP. I do think a Carnifex with twin brainleech devourers is a worthwhile investment since they get a lot of benefits over Containment spines (better strength, twin-linked, morale penalties for panic checks)- but if I want volume of fire there are other, more cost-effective, less fragile and/or more flexible ways to get it. Cruddace has very effectively taken the Carnifex from 4th ed's "Amazing, fill my FOC with them!" to "why would I bother" in one go. Shocking stuff. Anyway, Mawlocs. They're as hard to kill as a Trygon (harder, since you can, if you really need to, stick them back in reserve, making them impossible to shoot half the game) but a lot cheaper. The reason they're a lot cheaper is that they're a lot less powerful, TFTD included. But you still get sufficient bang for your buck that they're a reasonable purchase, and they demonstrate very effectively the insanity of the Carnifex's points cost I agree with the general gist of your post, but not some of the details. Screamer killer spam implies more than one, and more than one podded screamer killer is very expensive for a couple of AP2 blasts. You could achieve the same thing with zoanthropes (three in a pod for the same price as one screamer killer) or if you were podding two screamer killers you could just use two mawlocs and suddenly have a decent chance of one of those large blasts hitting. Two AP2 small blasts or one AP2 large blast. There isn't much in it, but the mawlocs would be a lot cheaper For shootiness and likelihood of taking out vehicles the podded dakkafex comes out a level above the trygon prime for me, but of course that's offset by close combat ability. Still, a podded dakkafex fills a niche that only the dakka flyrant can contest so it's definitely a decent unit in my opinion I wouldn't say the mawloc is a LOT cheaper than the trygon but I suppose that's subjective. It's certainly a significant points difference, but I think they'd be better balanced if the trygon's base cost was, say, 40 or 50 points more than the mawloc. 160 for a mawloc and 210 for a trygon would make the trygon vs mawloc a more interesting debate for me
|
|
|
Post by chuckles on May 22, 2013 13:12:35 GMT
I never said "Screamer Killer" spam- the only halfway sensible means of using fex for bio-plasma spam is footslogging to keep the points down. But that means they're going to take longer to get into range, which continues to indicate that podded Zoanthropes or lots of biovores are a better investment. I agree, mawlocs are a cheaper, better means of getting those blasts.
The dakkafex is definitely the most appealing carnifex option by quite some distance. If you're dropping them in a spore though you might as well take a Trygon, frankly.
Potayto potahto. I don't disagree that the points costs are wacked, but Mawlocs definitely represent a saving
|
|
|
Post by gman25639 on May 22, 2013 21:12:45 GMT
I've seen some interesting games involving 2 Mawlocs and Trygon Prime all deep striking. Tyrgon keeps the Mawlocs in line and all 3 do a (please do not swear) load of damage.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on May 22, 2013 22:02:03 GMT
that's like 560 points, you'd expect it to do some damage. except for when the mawlocks scatter 2/3 of the time.
|
|
|
Post by kurbutti on May 22, 2013 22:11:22 GMT
I played against a Dark Angel alpha strike list once. Lots of deep striking Terminators. Good thing I had Mawlocs around and a grain of fortune when it came down to scatter dice. I've been doing rather well with this list lately. You'll notice that it has some decent Alpha Strike potential (Hormagaunts, Mawlocs, Doom and Ymgarls) all appearing (hopefully) at turn 2. While the enemy has to deal with the Mawlocs and other nasty guys I get to run accross the field with my Tervigons and Hive Tyrant. I think Mawlocs are good for this list because they can usually knock out some backfield armor / small support units. Thanks to Hit and Run they are extremely manouverable. 10-16" + 6" + 2D6" in assault can carry you far. Besides, very few armies have enough Anti-Tank firepower to take out both Mawlocs in one turn. I don't really rely upon Mawlocs' ability to blast out of the ground. Sometimes I get lucky and eat a squad of Terminators or push a Land Raider off the board, but this stuff happens once in a year and should NOT be the point when considering them. Take Mawlocs if you want a nice blend of speed, manouverability, average tank killing power and fun. If not, consider Trygons.. or Stone Crusher Carnifexen... Which are pretty OP. *Edit: Forgot to comment on this... I've seen some interesting games involving 2 Mawlocs and Trygon Prime all deep striking. Tyrgon keeps the Mawlocs in line and all 3 do a (please do not swear) load of damage. It's not always possible if you're deep striking Synapse Creatures (like I am), but I try to keep Mawlocs out of Synapse as much as possible. Instinctive Behaviour: Rage can only benefit you now; Mawlocs aren't too eager to go ballistic with Ld 8, but chance > no chance. They're not likely to run off the board either since they are Fearless.
|
|
|
Post by gman25639 on May 29, 2013 16:11:49 GMT
again i say it, LICTORS. They will prevent the Mawlocs from scattering.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on May 29, 2013 18:13:42 GMT
And again, we will explain that they must come down the turn before, and survive for a turn within 6" of the enemy, and hope the enemy stays put and doesn't move.
One lictor is pretty easy to kill.... 3 lictors means you are paying more for your 'targetting' than you are for the Mawloc
|
|
|
Post by Squire on May 30, 2013 1:58:39 GMT
One little benefit to a mawloc is placing it in front of a flyrant when you deploy. It doesn't matter where the mawloc starts since it'll burrow anyway, and it's big enough to give cover to the HT. If you get first turn the mawloc burrows, the flyrant swoops. If you go second, the hive tyrant has cover during the opponent's first round of shooting again i say it, LICTORS. They will prevent the Mawlocs from scattering. Better just to field two mawlocs if you want a better chance of a direct hit
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on May 30, 2013 5:35:05 GMT
WS4 and crushing claws as a purchasable biomorph for mawlocks would help mawlocks tremendously. start on the board, burrow, TFTD turn 2, then have at least decent(ish) assault capability with HoW and 3+d3 S10 AP2 attacks (3 attacks base, halved for smash = 2 +1 charge then CC d3). at the very least, X2 sets ST as base biomorphs. WS3 and naked with 3 attacks is pathetic. Squire reference flyrant cover: you'd have to use 2 to try to block LOS; using one to give a flyrant cover isn't particularly useful as they can just keep a toenail in area terrain and get the same benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Squire on May 30, 2013 9:01:08 GMT
WS4 and crushing claws as a purchasable biomorph for mawlocks would help mawlocks tremendously. start on the board, burrow, TFTD turn 2, then have at least decent(ish) assault capability with HoW and 3+d3 S10 AP2 attacks (3 attacks base, halved for smash = 2 +1 charge then CC d3). at the very least, X2 sets ST as base biomorphs. WS3 and naked with 3 attacks is pathetic. Squire reference flyrant cover: you'd have to use 2 to try to block LOS; using one to give a flyrant cover isn't particularly useful as they can just keep a toenail in area terrain and get the same benefit. But doesn't boosting the mawlocs CC potential just create the problem of the mawloc and trygon being too similar? I quite like the mawloc at present since it's enough to deal with vehicles or backfield shooting units, but will be in trouble if it gets charged by any combat specialists. Thankfully it has hit and run to deal with that possibility. I definitely see the trygon as the superior unit, but for me the mawloc is a far more interesting unit that requires a bit more thought to use effectively. It has flaws but I like the rule design for it. I'd like to see it have the ability to burrow every turn and not mishap from impassable terrain, but otherwise I think its stat line should be left alone. As the mawloc and trygon are now I think ten less points for the mawloc and ten more for the trygon would balance them out quite nicely. I didn't mean blocking line of sight completely, just providing a cover save wherever you want to deploy the flyrant. I'm not suggesting it as a valid reason to use a mawloc, just something it can do if the situation warrants it.
|
|