PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid Monsterous Creatures and Cover Saves



TheOneWithNoName
23-02-2010, 21:37
Was talking to an opponent of mine who recently picked up Tyranids. He bemoaned the relative weakness the MCs had to AP2/3 weaponry. His nasties would walk across the field or emerge from the ground only to get cut down by Executioners or veterans armed to the teeth with plasma (I play IG).

We tried a game with a large amount of forests that blocked los and gave cover to MCs, but I believed that just swung the game around to their benefit. I don't think Tyranid MCs should have the benefit of cover all over the board, makes them far too hard to kill.

So what's your take? I'm particularly interested in what Tyranid players have to say. Do you play with any terrain that can give MCs a cover save? Do you think it's a weakness of a list that relies too much on MCs?

WinglessVT2
23-02-2010, 21:47
We have cities of death, a few mountains, forests, and that's about it.
Some blocks enough to give monsters cover saves, other pieces don't.

People just need to suck it up, or field gargoyles for mobile screens.

MystheDevourer
23-02-2010, 21:59
Was talking to an opponent of mine who recently picked up Tyranids. He bemoaned the relative weakness the MCs had to AP2/3 weaponry. His nasties would walk across the field or emerge from the ground only to get cut down by Executioners or veterans armed to the teeth with plasma (I play IG).

We tried a game with a large amount of forests that blocked los and gave cover to MCs, but I believed that just swung the game around to their benefit. I don't think Tyranid MCs should have the benefit of cover all over the board, makes them far too hard to kill.

So what's your take? I'm particularly interested in what Tyranid players have to say. Do you play with any terrain that can give MCs a cover save? Do you think it's a weakness of a list that relies too much on MCs?
So wait you are telling me because he killed your already ANTI NID IG ARMY because of COVER you do not think they deserve a cover save? I play Tyranids and cover is ESSENTIAL to our army, we do not have IG fire power in terms of ap (i complain about this ALL the time) so you want to take away our only saving grace?

I have played Cities of Death, Forests (best place for nids), Desert, and a mix and match or terrain. MCs need cover to survive if they do NOT get it they die fast!.

WinglessVT2
23-02-2010, 22:01
I find that about half the armies out there need cover to survive, and fields with lots of it look more impressive, anyway, so we tend to load our boards down.

TheOneWithNoName
23-02-2010, 22:16
So wait you are telling me because he killed your already ANTI NID IG ARMY because of COVER you do not think they deserve a cover save? I play Tyranids and cover is ESSENTIAL to our army, we do not have IG fire power in terms of ap (i complain about this ALL the time) so you want to take away our only saving grace?

I have played Cities of Death, Forests (best place for nids), Desert, and a mix and match or terrain. MCs need cover to survive if they do NOT get it they die fast!.

I agree, I had a game with no cover for MCs and they died fast and there's little point in playing like that.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't advocate no cover for Nid MCs. I'm just trying to find that perfect balance.

I play CSMs so I know what it's like trying to keep the big nasties alive. I'm more interested in what Tyranid players have to say about this issue. It's a tough one to try and balance I think.

I think the question can be phrased "Should Monsterous Creatures have an abundance of cover saves?"

senorcardgage
23-02-2010, 22:34
I think that it should be pretty difficult for big things to get cover saves. And no, I'm not picking on Tyranids, as many armies are in the same boat. The same thing goes for vehicles.

If you want to get a big thing a cover save you should have to really work at it and try hard. I mean, just set up a board that looks reasonable for any two generic armies to square off on; if the guy takes too many big things then too bad.

TheShadowCow
23-02-2010, 23:18
I think that it should be pretty difficult for big things to get cover saves. And no, I'm not picking on Tyranids, as many armies are in the same boat. The same thing goes for vehicles.

If you want to get a big thing a cover save you should have to really work at it and try hard. I mean, just set up a board that looks reasonable for any two generic armies to square off on; if the guy takes too many big things then too bad.

How do you rationalise this beyond the "well that cover is large enough to obscure half of the model, so it grants a cover save" principle that governs everything else? Large monsters *are* harder to hide than the standard infantry unit.

Large monsters require large objects to obscure them - what more can you ask for? Some bizzare rule which demands that, in addition to being at least half-obscured from view the monster in question must also be the same colour as the terrain in question?

Charistoph
23-02-2010, 23:22
Cover in a forest, sure.

Cover in a field of grass, that's a different kettle of fish.

You should work out before hand what constitutes as cover for the big beasties, but there is no official rule for them to have reduced cover saves, yet.

Draconian77
23-02-2010, 23:26
It's definately a tricky issue.

Back in 4th edition, with the Area Terrain rules, there where plenty of places for MC's to get cover saves. 90% of the terrain on the average in most cases. That always seemed like a bit too much to me. (Myself a Tyranid player.)

Now, with 5th edition and "True Line of Sight" (bleh...), a lot of the terrain that I built for 4th edition seems "OOS" (Out of Scale). I built bigger buildings, found 6 inch tall trees to place in my forests, etc. However, I don't just throw these pieces all over the board. There should still be lots of terrain that doesn't provide cover saves for MC's too. (This is obviously for game balance.)

Personally, we try to use this template for most of our pick up games:

30% of the board should be covered in terrain.

About half of that terrain should provide cover saves for MC's or Vehicles.

Generally speaking, these include forests, intact buildings, large hills, wrecked vehicles, etc

Terrain that generally cannot grant an MC a cover save includes hedges, walls, craters, smaller buildings (like bunkers), ruins, etc

Hope that helps a little. I have to say though, the amount of Las, Plas and Melta makes MC's truly vulrenable these days. They are still decent units, but the really nasty armies can manage to bring down 2-3x T6 W6 monsters caught out in the open (generally after an assault), which has never sat right with me.

Lord Cook
23-02-2010, 23:27
I don't see any problem with giving monstrous creatures plenty of cover saves as they cross the board. Monstrous creatures are most easily destroyed at close range with special weapons, not from a long distance. At that ideal close range, cover will not be effective because it is so easy to get a clear shot. By all means give the monstrous creatures enough cover to get across the board first.


So wait you are telling me because he killed your already ANTI NID IG ARMY...

That's hardly an anti-Tyranid army. Executioners and Veterans are both normal units that would be taken against all manner of opponents.


...we do not have IG fire power in terms of ap (i complain about this ALL the time)

You complain that Tyranids lack the firepower of Imperial Guard? :eyebrows:

senorcardgage
23-02-2010, 23:58
How do you rationalise this beyond the "well that cover is large enough to obscure half of the model, so it grants a cover save" principle that governs everything else? Large monsters *are* harder to hide than the standard infantry unit.

Large monsters require large objects to obscure them - what more can you ask for? Some bizzare rule which demands that, in addition to being at least half-obscured from view the monster in question must also be the same colour as the terrain in question?

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're getting at. I'm saying that it would be irrational for people to think that large things should be easy to conceal. So, there should be shouldn't be much that should be able to obscure them on a regular battlefield. What is your issue with that?

Vepr
24-02-2010, 00:03
You complain that Tyranids lack the firepower of Imperial Guard? :eyebrows:

Heck, from the sounds of your battle report nids lack the CC of Imperial Guard. :cries: :p

Morgrad
24-02-2010, 00:18
I think it's fine as-is. They should be able to get cover in limited locations, but not be able to run across the board with 4+ cover saves non-stop.

I also disagree with the notion that they're "vulnerable" to high str low AP weapons. That's not vulnerable, that's reasonable. The weaker ones get to eat 4 successful wounding hits before dying - so not so "vulnerable".

Vaden
24-02-2010, 00:44
The way we play is that area terrain, such as forests, would block LOS if we had actual tree models placed. So if 50% of the MC/vehicle is behind cover from the point of view of the firer, then they get a cover save. It works pretty well for us.

EffigyoftheSwarm
24-02-2010, 00:49
Use Warriors for cover if necessary.

ehlijen
24-02-2010, 00:56
Stick your Tyrant in a Tyrant guard unit so that it can mooch off their cover for a save.

Jackmojo
24-02-2010, 07:43
Good thing they can always just buy the right support units to get them a cover save as they run across the table then huh?

Jack