Tyranid Rumours Round up. (edit Update on Nov 8)

[nameless]

Oct 31, 2013 13:20:57 GMT infornography said:

I have always played with plenty of terrain, where I game the house rule is you completely fill 1/6th of the play area with terrain, then you disperse that terrain across the entire field and get both players to agree that it is a fair distribution before rolling for mission or sides or anything.

It works well this way and always has sufficient coverage.

Only 1/6? That's actually low, you should increase that by 50% (to 1/4).

We've taken a slightly different approach. Each 2x2 square gets 5 points of terrain (we write the point value on the bottom of each piece). Very large pieces get 5 points and small rubble gets as low as 0.5.

[dakkathrope]

When I play with my friends in their homes we usually use the rule in the book of d3 pieces of terrain per 2 ft sq. sections. But we also count some pieces we use as 1/2 - 1/4 of a piece since they are small. By the time we are done placing terrain, there are a few safe routes for landraiders, more routes for rhino-sized tanks, and a ton of blocking and area terrain that pretty much garantees a cover save of some type until within 12 inches of enemy models. Compared to most tourney terrain set-ups we play a crazy amount of terrain, but it's really more fun when you can reasonably get a unit of anything into your opponent's line without them being able to shoot you unless they intentionally move to target that one unit.

[Davor]

*edit* didn't realise there was another page. It was mentioned alread. OOPS.

Oct 31, 2013 13:20:57 GMT infornography said:

I have always played with plenty of terrain, where I game the house rule is you completely fill 1/6th of the play area with terrain, then you disperse that terrain across the entire field and get both players to agree that it is a fair distribution before rolling for mission or sides or anything.

It works well this way and always has sufficient coverage.

1/6th? Isn't that less terrian. I thought the book said 1/4 of table should be terrain. Then again haven't played in over a year so not sure if that rule has changed.

[coredump]

Oct 31, 2013 16:58:30 GMT tylertt said:

I honestly can't wait for the dex to come out just for these "this is what the tyrnaids need to be!!!" debates to end.

I'm with ya brother...

(but to be fair... if I don't want to read them, I don't have to read them...)

[coredump]

Oct 31, 2013 13:20:57 GMT infornography said:

I have always played with plenty of terrain, where I game the house rule is you completely fill 1/6th of the play area with terrain, then you disperse that terrain across the entire field and get both players to agree that it is a fair distribution before rolling for mission or sides or anything.

It works well this way and always has sufficient coverage.

\

Hey, if it works for you, cool. But that is significantly *less* terrain than the rulebook suggests.

Last edition it suggested 1/4 coverage (which, as mentioned, is 50% more),
In this edition, it suggests 6-18 "Substantial" pieces of terrain. (where you can sub 3 small pieces for one substantial piece).
There is some ambiguity as to what constitutres 'substantial'....

[dakkathrope]

I use their forest piece as my basis for substantial. 3 of those in any particular section is pretty covered, whereas 1 feels sparse.

[infornography]

I'm sorry, I meant 1/4, but yeah, if you actually fill that 1/4 of the board with terrain, it provides quite a substantial amount of coverage, but you do need to make sure most of it has a respectable height component. If you fill 1/4 of the map with forests, swamps, and craters, it is not going to be sufficient.

I personally have 3 ruins, several tall walls that even a tervigon could hide behind and maybe a trygon, a forest, lots of short walls and rubble, and some 3" tall rocks.

I guess variety is the important aspect. Swamps, forests, and craters are the easiest terrain to build, but they are woefully inadequate if they make up the majority that you use.

[coredump]

Yeah 1/4 is pretty decent.

With 6E calling for 6-18, with an average of 12....

If those twelve are all 8.5" x 8.5", then you get the 1/4 coverage from 5E.

Based on the small/medium/large building sizes they provide, and the sizes of the 4 fortifications that take up 1 terrain 'slot', I would think that 8x8 is about as small as I would consider to still be 'substantial' (*maybe* a small bit less...) So in my estimation, the 6E terrain is meant to average more than the 25% of 5E. (This is not a judgement on Info's system, just doing some math 'out loud')

[brassangel]

I'm glad to see some people on board with that here, but I never see it at tournaments or local/regional playing. In some basements people don't use enough simply because they don't want to build any for themselves.

The size of the terrain is important too. Again, spend any time reading a White Dwarf battle (even if they are silly), or go to a Battle Bunker. There's a lot more room to move around than one would think, even when the entire table is a cityscape.

3 ruins and a few kidneys have been the standard for far too long at many tables. Again, I still see it at tournaments, and video battle reports.

When one army can literally stay put and shoot the entire game, they aren't using enough terrain.

[olivier]

I recently acquired multiple GW ruins from second hand resale, on top of the GW and Pegasus Hobby ruins I already have. I even had the time to drybrush two of the three ruins yesterday; and was able to use them for today's game.

It's really cool when you get 3 large ruins and 3 small ones, plus some walls, a bunker entrance, multiple barricades and industrial reservoirs. Lucky for him, my necron adversary rolled the warlord trait which gives stealth and Move Through Cover (Ruins). It was very useful for him, dictating where I spent the few shots I had because of this stealth aspect.

So anyways, I just set up the board in a mutually-agreeable setup while trying to respect some semblance of aesthetic/logic in the placement. You can't always get a visually pleasing/logical placement if we place alternating terrain using I-go-you-go.

[j0rdan]

Oct 31, 2013 13:41:49 GMT infornography said:

Swarmy doesn't have just one weakness, he is slow, weak to krak missiles and other ranged shooting, and has no ranged capabilities himself to speak of aside from psyker powers. He is really REALLY good at wiping out deathstars in melee, but he is terrible at actually managing to engage deathstars in melee.

I do like him, a lot, but to claim he has only one weakness is just blind to his issues. He does need either better survivability (ideally a 2+ armor and an always on invuln of probably 4 or 5+) or better mobility to deliver on his promise. He either needs to be that immense melee threat coming up the board and buffing/tossing around psyker powers as he approaches while shrugging off enough incoming firepower to warrant his cost, or he needs to be able to reliably and quickly close with his preferred target and mulch them while remaining fairly fragile otherwise.

Forgive me for paraphrasing here, but:

"he is slow" = Is too slow. (obviously)
"weak to krak missiles and other ranged shooting" = Is too slow.
"has no ranged capabilities himself to speak of aside from psyker powers" = Is too slow.
"terrible at actually managing to engage deathstars in melle" = Is too slow.

I mean, you're certainly not wrong, but from where I'm standing that all looks like one weakness. And whether you group those all together or not, would you really want to "fix" that? Swarmy is one of those "highly-specialized" units. He is a melee monster. If he didn't go down to shooting, why would anyone not run him, ever? It sucks that our big bad general can be shot to pieces, but I'd prefer that to "Super Draigo Tyrant".

Sidenote: If you have a problem with his cost, I can get behind that, but it is a separate issue. There is no point cost at which your unit should be nigh-invincible. Keep Swarmlord's other rules the same but make him appreciably faster and/or give him a 2+/?+(always on), and he would be.

[infornography]

I entirely disagree. My swarmlord generally gets shot off the table in one or two rounds. Even with a significant speed boost he would be shot off the table in one or two rounds, the main difference being he would have a CHANCE at getting into melee on round two before being removed.

The biggest difference between our tyrants and most other melee specialist HQs is that ours cannot hide in a large unit and if that unit gets wiped out, change to a different one. Our tyrants (swarmlord included) get at most 3 guys to hide in. Also most melee specialist HQs have an armor 2+ and an invuln save. Usually 4++ or 3++. They also frequently have nearly as many wounds as Swarmy. Our big guy is a 3+ armor save and no invuln outside of CC where he least needs it. Most of his survivability comes from high toughness which is meaningless against grav and poisoned weaponry. Also of little importance against most weaponry that ignores his rather pathetic armor save.

So he gets to hide behind fewer relatively cheap wounds(which in his case are still rather costly), has a worse armor save, and a CC only invuln.

Meanwhile my space marine chapter master on a bike costs 50 points less, has only one lower toughness, only one fewer wounds, one more attacks, hits with S7 AP2 master crafted at initiative and causes blinding, can reduce an enemy's cover save by 1, can fire an orbital bombardment while moving, Moves significantly faster, can hide in any unit he pleases, has a better armor save, an always on 4+ invuln which for 15 points can make a 3+, grenades, and a ranged attack. Plus he unlocks a unit of friggin honor guard which are amazing now.

Swarmy just isn't anywhere near as good as that. Yeah he gets psyker powers and those are a huge boon don't get me wrong, but the mobility of a bike for your melee powerhouse is a HUGE advantage. HUGE! Swarmy could easily stand to be either faster or harder to kill and not be unbalanced, especially for his cost.

[glassiya]

well, swarmy is the Commander first, and Facebreaker second. No?

But your point is clearly seen.

[j0rdan]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not opposed to buffing him if that's the difference between him being usable or being a shelf-warmer (which is what you're saying here). I don't see it as that bad but will bow to your greater experience in that regard, so I'm okay with that.
What I'm saying is that he should not get such a buff that he ALWAYS gets into combat, because he would almost NEVER die. That's what your captain sounds like, and that doesn't sound particularly fun to play, let alone play against. Certainly competitive though. You got me there.

And the original point I made, that his only weakness is speed, I still stand by. Everything that has been listed by you and others as weaknesses can be derived from the fact that he often doesn't reach combat before being shot down. The difference here is that you think he NEVER reaches combat, and again, if that's the case, I'm certainly on board with buffing him.

[infornography]

My experience with the swarmlord is that the first two to three times you use him against a given opponent, he will find his way to melee. The first time against his preferred target of a deathstar unit, afterward against probably a tarpit unit, then never again. He becomes public enemy number one and burned down with extreme prejudice. This has it's uses, but he is rather expensive as a distraction unit and not quite durable enough for the role.

If he were faster he could get into combat at least half the time despite being such a priority target. If he were more durable he probably still wouldn't see combat very often, but when he did we would be a force to be reckoned with so he would be an effective distraction unit.

Right now, he is a non-cost effective distraction unit against an experienced opponent or an EXTREMELY non-cost effective backline synapse/buffer/defender role.