Updated Malanthrope VS Venomthropes?

[TheDeepestShadow]

Just wanted to get some opinions from the Hive about how these two compare after the recent FW update, as I believe the -1 to hit bubble is still important despite not being as strong as in the majority of 8th (especially when bringing the unobscruable FW big bugs).

Historically I've always gone for the Malanthrope mostly due to being a protected Character with Synapse, and it's now easier to position with the larger bubble (other buffs are nice but relatively unimportant). However, it's also now 51p more than a minimum squad of Venomthropes (a whole Termagant squad) that perform the same function and are not terribly hard to hide behind obscuring terrain, and the effective bubble is larger due to the unit being able to spread out. The Malanthrope also takes up an HQ slot which is more limited with 9th edition detachment rules.

Overall I guess I'm trying to justify keeping the Malanthrope in over Venomthropes, but after my initial excitement at the aura buffs I am not sure it was worth the price increase. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[Hive Bahamut]

I love Malany. She is my favourite Nid. Is she useful with updated rules? Of course. Is -to hit at all relevant in your area? Remember any of the twinlinked armies (chapter master, Cawl etc) essentially negate -1. Dense terrain also does it.

It is my guess going forward Malanthropes will keep Gunline Monsters safer. Venomthropes cover gribblies better.

-to hit is useless in my meta. It really should have capped -1 from each player. Dumb how running after aircraft is just as accurate as stationary.

[kazetanade]

Are you planning to run a Maleceptor? If so, Venomthropes.

If not, Malanthrope.

The Venomthrope is a trap unit that actually wants people to shoot at it in order to draw fire, but isn't actually tanky enough to absorb much of any fire. Likewise, someone who has done maths on it before knows that you will get more leverage out of concentrating the fire on the unit you want dead, rather than on the Venomthrope, meaning that the Venomthrope has to reduce enough damage to justify their cost, and sadly the fact is that they do not generally mitigate enough points of dead models to ever justify their points. (new edition math MIGHT show otherwise. No One is my math guy, I suck at churning numbers)

The Malanthrope is even more expensive so theoretically it falls into the same trap, but it's also synapse meaning you can free up space to do other stuff elsewhere than to invest in additional synapse coverage. It also has pretty cool rules attached to it that can happen once in awhile, is a character so can't be removed, and does mortal wounds.

Maleceptor likewise changes the math since its a buff machine - giving all creatures within 6" -1S from incoming fire means that certain T classes get massively huge benefits from stacking hit modifier, S modifier, cover modifier, FNPs - more than their supposed points efficiency can reflect.

On a T4 Zoanthrope line, the combination of -1 to hit and -1 to S means their worse nemesis, Bolters, barely harm them, thereby increasing their durability by 2 or 3 fold (6 man can tank old style double shooting Aggressors with buffs and not get wiped). On a T8 line, you auto remove S5, S8, and S9 weapons as a potential threat since they're usually low volume, meaning wounding on 4s and 5s, you don't do enough damage to take out these shooting threats. That extra 1 to 2 turns of shooting per shooty monster gives you more value than the standard calculation of "why don't I just bring more of x instead of investing in defensive support).

[kurtangle2]

The math for best toughness profiles with Maleceptor was like T4 > T8 > T7 > T3 but things can change a bit if you're considering T7 4++ instead of a T8 3+ (which also shakes things up again if you give a T8 3+ a 5++) or they can even become extreme like Zoanthropes which are the best beneficiaries of a Maleceptor (S3, S4, S5 AND S8 are affected by -1S aura which also goes on a 3++ guy)

[kazetanade]

^ this, in a nutshell, ref Maleceptor.

Only issue is that this creates a really restricted movement ability to benefit, since its a 6" radius on a T7 4++ MC that will be first priority vs things like Eradicators (ie you might not want it out in the open)

[hivefleetkerrigan]

I'm on the side of the malanthrope, mostly due to getting character protection. If you're struggling points wise or have too many HQ and need the -1 to hit, then go venomthropes.

It's sad as I just got my venomthropes painted earlier this year and love the way they look. Guess I'm going to have to paint a malanthrope at some point.

[zimko]

I guess I'm in the minority here but I prefer Venomthropes right now. The Malanthrope pays a high price for filling an HQ slot and NOT having psychic powers. 9th edition encourages using as few HQ slots as possible in order to take more valueable unit choices, so I can't afford to waste HQ slots on a model that can't provide psychic power support.

The Venomthropes aren't optimal, but they're often not targeted (because most people have mathed that it's better to just shoot the thing you want to kill) and being Infantry, they can perform some actions. They are usually my turn 1 scrambler pick, allowing my other infantry units to advance to different positions. So they're providing at least some utility other than the -1 to hit aura. A Malanthrope doesn't do anything extra for you except provide synapse. But all our HQ choices (except OOE) provide Synapse, so IMO it's better to just fill the HQ slot with a more useful choice, and keep the cheaper more specialized Venomthropes for providing the aura.

[beetlejuice]

Nov 13, 2020 15:14:09 GMT zimko said:

I guess I'm in the minority here but I prefer Venomthropes right now. The Malanthrope pays a high price for filling an HQ slot and NOT having psychic powers. 9th edition encourages using as few HQ slots as possible in order to take more valueable unit choices, so I can't afford to waste HQ slots on a model that can't provide psychic power support.

The Venomthropes aren't optimal, but they're often not targeted (because most people have mathed that it's better to just shoot the thing you want to kill) and being Infantry, they can perform some actions. They are usually my turn 1 scrambler pick, allowing my other infantry units to advance to different positions. So they're providing at least some utility other than the -1 to hit aura. A Malanthrope doesn't do anything extra for you except provide synapse. But all our HQ choices (except OOE) provide Synapse, so IMO it's better to just fill the HQ slot with a more useful choice, and keep the cheaper more specialized Venomthropes for providing the aura.

I was gonna say you lose auras when performing actions, but double checked BRB and actually only characters lose auras so that’s really a nice strategy with venomthropes.

[TheDeepestShadow]

Thanks for all the input folks! For some more context on my list, I do bring the Maleceptor since I am also bringing 2 Dimachaerons and a Barbed Hierodule, all of which can't benefit from obscuring. The idea is to have all the defensive buffs available since I don't want to assume I can get first turn. Also, despite many of my usual opponents playing some flavor of Space Marines, nobody really brings Chapter Masters since they feel like they get more use out of other options (ie. my White Scars buddy always takes Korsarro instead), which means the Shrouding Spores get much more value.

Good points on both side even though the skew seems to be towards the Malanthrope, I also did not consider that Venomthropes could fulfill the deployment zone scrambling role as zimko mentioned. I guess the Malanthrope is better if it's actually moving up with the other monsters due to LoS, and the Venomthropes are better if they're just sitting behind obscuring terrain with stationary stuff like Exocrines in the backfield?

[zimko]

Neither is really going to be good for pushing forward. They both prefer to sit back and provide an aura. But the Malanthrope may get targeted if it's not within 3" of something simply because it is a Monster. If you're running that many monsters, then your opponent will almost certainly take the 'kill monsters' secondary, which makes the Malanthrope a worthwhile target if you don't keep it protected. Venomthropes however will be safely ignored and don't need to stay within 3" of something.

[TheDeepestShadow]

Nov 13, 2020 16:35:31 GMT zimko said:

Neither is really going to be good for pushing forward. They both prefer to sit back and provide an aura. But the Malanthrope may get targeted if it's not within 3" of something simply because it is a Monster. If you're running that many monsters, then your opponent will almost certainly take the 'kill monsters' secondary, which makes the Malanthrope a worthwhile target if you don't keep it protected. Venomthropes however will be safely ignored and don't need to stay within 3" of something.

Good points, though in the past when I've used Venomthropes they have definitely been targeted first by most of my opponents once they know the mediocre defensive profile. My thoughts on moving up the Malanthrope would be that it would be hugging the Maleceptor and/or the Hierodule since it can more realistically keep up with them than Swarmy or the Dimas. I figure by the time the Malanthrope is targetable The opponent would have Bring It Down maxed already xD.


I've gotten some reps in with the Malanthrope, so I'll try out the Venoms (once I build some) to compare and see which feels best. I'm just glad both sources of the aura still feel worth it, at least against my opponents that I can safely play. Now if only the Toxicrene could get the aura as well .

[kazetanade]

In your list which makes use of double Dima and a Scythed, you don't really want the Malanthrope due to the stacking synapse and the need for the monsters to split up after initial setup. Maximum would be 2 turns of protection.

In this particular case, I would suggest bringing the venomthrope for 2 reasons:


1. Like what others have said, in a MC saturated list the number of anti-tank that people will have is pretty limited. Then spending a units shooting to destroy the venomthrope unit works out net benefit to you since the points used to kill the venomthrope would be higher than what would be saved via damage mitigation. If they choose to ignore them, they will be scramblers while providing their aura continuously.

2. Having both Maleceptor and Venomthrope to shoot at creates targeting issues, whereas having Malanthrope makes targeting straight forward. The venomthrope actually do want to be shot at (just wish they survived better).

The only list I would say Malanthrope is mandatory in is Gaunt Carpet, for extremely obvious reasons (and math reasons).

[hiveoverall]

If you bring a unit of only 3 venomthropes in a MC list, that means your opponent just needs to kill one single venomthrope to stop the aura from affecting your MCs. I would bring at least a brood of 4 venoms, otherwise you are exposed to indirect fire, and any other shenanigans your opponent can pull.
Although indirect fire has decreased lately from what I see, I think a brood of 4 is safer. The problem is that 4 venoms start costing a lot like a malanthrope.
Deploy scramblers can be done by gaunts, but the HS slot is indeed a solid case for the venoms

[TheDeepestShadow]

Thanks for the additional insights, I've been swayed to try the Venoms. Going to be playing against White Scars in a little bit, here's the list I'm bringing:


++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Tyranids) [24 PL, 424pts] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment CP

Hive Fleet: Kronos

+ HQ +

Neurothrope [5 PL, 95pts]: Power: Smite, Power: Symbiostorm, Warlord

+ Troops +

Termagants [6 PL, 85pts]
. 17x Termagant (Fleshborer): 17x Fleshborer

+ Elites +

Lictor [2 PL, 37pts]: Flesh Hooks, Rending Claws

Lictor [2 PL, 37pts]: Flesh Hooks, Rending Claws

+ Heavy Support +

Exocrine [9 PL, 170pts]

++ Patrol Detachment -2CP (Tyranids) [82 PL, 9CP, 1,576pts] ++

+ Configuration +

Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)

Detachment CP [-2CP]

Hive Fleet
. Other: Metamorphic Regrowth, Prey-sight

+ Stratagems +

Progeny of the Hive [-1CP]

+ HQ +

Hive Tyrant [12 PL, 230pts]: 2x Monstrous Scything Talons, Adrenal Glands, Power: Catalyst, Power: Psychic Scream, Power: Smite, Resonance Barb, Toxin Sacs, Wings
. Adaptive Physiology: Murderous Size

The Swarmlord [14 PL, 270pts]: Power: Catalyst, Power: Onslaught, Power: Smite

+ Troops +

Ripper Swarms [2 PL, 36pts]
. 3x Ripper Swarm: 3x Claws and Teeth

Ripper Swarms [2 PL, 36pts]
. 3x Ripper Swarm: 3x Claws and Teeth

+ Elites +

Maleceptor [9 PL, 170pts]: Massive Scything Talons, Power: Onslaught, Power: Smite

Venomthropes [5 PL, 99pts]
. 3x Venomthrope: 3x Toxic Lashes

+ Fast Attack +

Dimachaeron [12 PL, 230pts]

Dimachaeron [12 PL, 230pts]

+ Heavy Support +

Barbed Hierodule [14 PL, 275pts]
. Adaptive Physiology: Dermic Symbiosis

++ Total: [106 PL, 9CP, 2,000pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

hiveoverall, I was definitely considering plugging in a 4th Venom yesterday, but ended up deciding against it for more Termagants for a bigger ObSec blob, mainly since the Venoms will get their biggest use on T1, and by T2 I've either already engaged with the Dimas who need the aura most or they're already dead

[purestrain]

Nov 14, 2020 20:04:43 GMT TheDeepestShadow said:

snip

I think you should put resonance on the kronos neuro, all but guaranteeing you get off simbiostorm for that exocrine.

Maybe give your flyrant MRC and a heavy venom cannon or devs, 1 less attack and no rr1s but you get reroll wounds and add okay anti armor/infantry respectively.

Or just pay 1 CP and give the (if desired) flyrant pathogenisis and the neuro reso with bounty. Gives the flyrant grand threat ranges.