Are Hierophants the Best Unit in 40k?

In my last Apoc gameHierophant (Medium), the suggestion that Hierophants were the “best unit in the game” had come up and I immediately poo-poo’d it.  In order to determine what the best unit is, we really would need to define what it means to be the best unit.  I’m guessing it would have to be some combination of:

  1. Abilty to Move
  2. Psychic Abilities
  3. Effectiveness in Assault
  4. Effectiveness in Shooting
  5. Durability
  6. Force Multipliers
  7. Points cost effectiveness

Essentially, how well does it do in each of the four phases of the game, plus how well it stands up to damage, enhances the rest of your army and is cost effective from a points perspective.  I don’t really want to break down each of the categories in detail, but let me try and we’ll see how I do.  I’ll try to break them down on a 10 point scale for each.

1. Ability to Move:

Movement takes various forms throughout the game.  Most units move 6″ per turn and can run another d6″, so that’s really the baseline.  I can’t really think of too many units that move less than that, but there are a few that are immobile (obviously those will be the 1 on my scale) and others that move as if they’re in difficult terrain at all times.  So maybe our 1-10 chart looks a litle like this:

  1. Immobile
  2. Random uncmovement
  3. Half move (like spore mines)
  4. Slow and purposeful
  5. Normal 6″ move
  6. Slightly faster units like Hormagaunts who get an extra 3″ run
  7. Units with a 12″ move like tanks or bikes
  8. Jetbikes or jump infantry
  9. Fast Flyers or flying monstrous creatures
  10. Teleporters (units that can deep strike anywhere on the table as a move)

With this scale, Hierophants rate fairly well in movement, being faster than a 7, but not quite as fast as the nonsense that is jetbikes.  We’ll give them a 7.2.  Clearly the units that do really well in this area are things like flyers and jetbikes.

2. Psychic Abilities:

This is going to be a hard area to really rate a unit as psychic abilities are all over the map: some are attacks, some are force multipliers, and so on.  How can you create an objective scale that compares warp blast versus invisibility?  That would be truly difficult to achieve.  Lucky for us, the Hierophant has no psychic abilities and no psychic defenses, so we don’t really need to worry too much about this.  We’ll give him a “1” here and move on.

3. Effectiveness in Assault:

Assault effectiveness is really a combination of base stats (WS, Attacks, & Initiative) plus damage output, plus special rules.  I’m going to try to come up with an arbitrary formula to quantify these.  I’m going to work under the assumption that the stats and damage output make up the majority of this, plus special rules (like stomp) may provide the icing on the cake.  let’s use the following as a baseline:  Stats = 40%, Damage Output = 40%, Special Rules = 20%

The formula for that looks something like this: ((WS%+I%+A*10*2+S*10*2)/6)*.4+(100*7/6-(100/6)*AP)*.4+((SR-1)*25)*.2

The numbers are derived as follows:

  • WS – Weapon skill matters a bit, but it’s not a huge deal (ultimately for our purposes it only means do you hit things on a 3+ or a 4+.  The defensive property of WS is not considered as that will fall under durability).  That’s a relatively minor change so we’ll decrease it’s total impact on the stat total.  Since the value of WS isn’t linear, I’m using the below chart to assign a value to each stat.
WS/Initiative % Effective
1 2
2 10
3 35
4 50
5 60
6 70
7 90
8 95
9 99
10 100
  • TermsThunderHammers (2) (Large)I – Initiative is another semi-important stat as it helps you strike first.  This factors into durability somewhat, but isn’t a huge deal into damage output otherwise.  We’ll also decrease it’s impact on the stat total and use the same chart as WS for overall effectiveness.
  • A & S – Between attacks and strength, these are the biggest deciders.  We’ll use multiply each of these stats by 10 to determine their value in the equation.
  • AP – AP value formula = 100*7/6-(100/6)*AP value of attacks.  NOTE: AP – counts as AP 7.
  • SRV – Special Rules formula = (Special rule chart result-1)*25
    • 1 – Special rules are a hindrance
    • 2 – No special rules
    • 3 – Special rule provides minor benefit
    • 4 – Special rule provides major benefit (or multiple minor benefits)
    • 5 – Special rules provide multiple major benefits

Given that formula, the Hierophant provides a whopping 89.3% effectiveness, translating to a 8.9/10 for the combat phase.  See below for a comparison chart vs. other units in the game using the same formulas:

Unit Value
Guardsman 14.33333
Space Marine 18
Heavy Weapon w/ Lascannon 19.66667
Marine Sarge w/ Psword 23.33333
warhound 40
Flyrant 40.33333
Thunderhammer 42.33333
Swarmlord 66.6
Transcendant C’tan 78.86667
Bloodthirster 86
Hiero 89.33333

Undoubtedly, the Hierophant is high up on the list–and I can’t think of a unit that might be better (though I’m guessing there is one or two). Maybe An’graath?

4. Effectiveness in Shooting:

Like assault, this is going to have to be a fairly complicated formula to determine.  It’s going to be a combination of BS, Number of Shots, Strength of Weapons, AP of Weapon, Ability to hit multiple targets (ie. blast/template), and special rules.  Realistically, I’m not sure any one of these is more important than others, so I’ll weigh them all equally in the formula.  That gives me an average of the following:

  • BS formula =IF(BS<6,BS*1/6,((BS-6)*1/36+5/6))*100
  • Shot Formula = Shots*5 (This based upon the average shot being 1 and the most shots I could think of on a single weapon is the Punisher cannon at 20)
  • Strength Formula = Strength*10
  • AP – AP value formula = 100*7/6-(100/6)*AP value of attacks.  NOTE: AP – counts as AP 7.
  • Multiple Targets formula = TargetChart-1*1/7
    • Wh39kApoc2014 (19)1- single target only
    • 2- equivalent of 3″ template
    • 3- equivalent of flamer template
    • 4- equivalent of 5″ template
    • 5- equivalent of 7″ template
    • 6- equivalent of Apoc flamer template
    • 7- equivalent of 10″ template
    • 8- more than above
  • SRV – Special Rules formula = (Special rule chart result-1)*25
    • 1 – Special rules are a hindrance
    • 2 – No special rules
    • 3 – Special rule provides minor benefit
    • 4 – Special rule provides major benefit (or multiple minor benefits)
    • 5 – Special rules provide multiple major benefits

Based upon those numbers, the damage output for a given unit is as follows:

Unit Value
Guardsman 21.94444
Marine 29.16667
Flyrant 40.83333
Heavy Weapon w/ Lascannon 42.22222
Leman Russ 43.68254
Hiero 47.5
Vendetta 48.05556
Basilisk 50.62698
Warhound w/ Turblasers 63.40476
Transcendant Ctan – Seismic Assault 81.66667

The numbers on this chart are skewed higher than the numbers on the chart before. I’m ok with this because you can generally shoot more than you can assault in the current edition of 40k. Likewise, I should also mention that I used 2 shots for the marine’s bolter and an average 21 shots for the C’tan’s attacks. Likewise, I only used the battlecannon from the Russ for comparison, though it can also shoot a lascannon and sponsons as well.

This really puts the Hierophant in the middle of the pack.

5. Durability

This one is going to be hard to compare as we’re going to have to come up with a way to systematically compare vehicles vs. creatures.  It’s going to include some combination of toughness/AV/, wounds/hull points, ability to get cover, armor save, invulnerable save and special rules.  To try to make this easier, I’m going to just straight compare hull points to wounds–I don’t think there will be many arguments against that reasoning.  For toughness vs. armor, that is a stickier subject.  I’m going to use each face of a vehicle separately and compare them directly using the following scale:

  • AV 10 = Toughness 6
  • AV 11 = Toughness 7
  • AV 12 = Toughness 8
  • AV 13 = Toughness 9
  • AV 14 = Toughness 10

Hierophant1 (7) (Medium)They’re not direct comparisons, but that’s fairly accurate.  A STR6 weapon will need a 4+ to wound toughness 6 and can’t hurt something that is toughness 10.  It would likewise need a 4+ to glance an AV10 vehicle and can’t hurt an AV13 vehicle, so it’s relatively similar.   The only real problem is that, due to the way the “to wound” chart works, creatures with a comparable toughness are immune to one strength lower than a comparable vehicle would be.  For instance: a toughness 6 creature can be wounded by weapons that are at least strength 3, but an AV 10 vehicle (str 4 is required to glance such a vehicle).  Furthermore, vehicles have a chance (with low-AP weaponry) to be killed in a single shot, and there is no equivalent for models with toughness.   Since I don’t know how to adequately model these in a quick fashion, I’ll ignore the differences and recognize a flaw in my system.

EDIT: I’ve gone back and given each vehicle the equivalent of a 4+ save in my calculations because without that the numbers were showing that a landspeeder was somehow less durable than a marine.

To come up with a formula for durability, the highest priority should be weather or not you can even be wounded, then some level of protection/ignoring the wound/then how many times they can be wounded before being destroyed.  As such, my proposed formula for durability is something like:

Toughness / AV = 35%, Wounds = 30%, Saves = 25%, Special Rules = 10%

To get to this, I’ll use these numbers:

  • Toughness = T*10
  • Saves = SV*Likelihood+InvSV*(1-likelihood)
  • SRV – Special Rules formula = (Special rule chart result-1)*25
    • 1 – Special rules are a hindrance
    • 2 – No special rules
    • 3 – Special rule provides minor benefit
    • 4 – Special rule provides major benefit (or multiple minor benefits)
    • 5 – Special rules provide multiple major benefits
save Raw likelihood of save chance
7+ 0 0
6+ 1.666667 16
5+ 3.333333 32
4+ 5 48
3+ 6.666667 64
2+ 8.333333 80
1+ 10 100

With those numbers I’ve come up with the following results:

Toughness Factor Wounds Factor Save Factor Special Factor Overall Score
Hierophant 31.5 30 17.5 8 87
Marine 14 3 10.66666667 4 31.66666667
Thunderhammer Term 14 3 20 4 41
Guardsman 10.5 3 2.666666667 4 20.16666667
Land Raider (AV14) 35 9 6 2 52
Leman Russ (AV13) 31.5 9 6 2 48.5
Drop Pod (AV12) 28 9 6 2 45
Land Speeder (AV10) 21 6 6 2 35
Heavy Weapon Team w/ Lascannon 10.5 6 2.666666667 4 23.16666667
Bloodthirster 21 18 13.66666667 6 58.66666667
Ctan 31.5 18 15.16666667 4 68.66666667
Valkyrie 28 9 6 8 51
Warhound 35 27 6 5 73
Flyrant 21 12 10.66666667 8 51.66666667

7. Force Multipliers

Unfortunately, like psychic abilities, this is going to be a hard one to keep track of. Just by having some units, you get a bonus to the rest of your force. For example, some HQ units allow you use their leadership or confer special rules to your army just by being in the list. Fortunately for us, the Hierophant doesn’t have any such special rules to compare against, so we’ll omit this from our calculations.

8. Points cost effectiveness

This can be determined by seeing the average scores granted per point cost. If you assume all scores are relatively equal (dangerous, I know) you can get the following chart (compared against some of the baseline units and some of what I’d consider to be the best units in the game).

Move Assault Shoot Save Points Average Stat Per Point
Hierophant 72 89.33333333 47.5 87 1000 0.073958333
Warhound Titan – Turbolasers 72 40 63.4047619 73 720 0.086251653
Transcendant Ctan – Seismic Assault 90 78.86666667 81.66666667 68.66666667 700 0.114
Bloodthirster 90 86 0 58.66666667 250 0.234666667
Flyrant 90 40.33333333 40.83333333 51.66666667 230 0.242210145
Leman Russ (B.Cannon only) 70 0 43.68253968 52 150 0.276137566
Valkyrie 90 0 48.05555556 51 170 0.278022876
Basilisk 70 0 50.62698413 48.5 125 0.338253968
ThunderHammer Terminator 50 42.33333333 0 41 45 0.740740741
Heavy Weapon Team w/ Lascannon 50 19.66666667 42.22222222 20.16666667 35 0.943253968
Marine 50 18 29.16666667 31.66666667 15 2.147222222
Guardsman 50 14.33333333 21.94444444 20.16666667 5 5.322222222

Of course, there is a lot of room for error given all of the assumptions I’ve made to this point, but this should serve as a reasonable starting point for a quantitative argument about which units are the best. This chart really skews towards cheap units, demonstrating that a guardsman is a great buy at 5 points per model–but we all know they can’t take out most anything on the list (a lasgun isn’t enough to hurt most things on the list).  Since the Hierophant is so expensive, this chart skews him towards the bottom of the list in terms of value.

HeavyWeaponsBulkSo yeah, the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, but even if you debate numbers here and there it does illustrate a point: A Hierophant doesn’t have the same damage output as a comparable points value in most any of these units. I maintain that an army full of IG lascannon heavy weapon teams is about as unstoppable as it gets. The only units in this chart that rate higher are the base marine/guardsman, who really can’t hurt anything over toughness 7/AV 10.

Of course, you could go about this a completely different way and pit these forces against each other. I really don’t like this method as some units are simply not designed to take each other out. For instance, a standard space marine can’t hurt a hierophant (well, maybe with a krak grenade), so there’s not much point to pitting the two against each other). Likewise, a basilisk could kill a hierophant, but it’s simply not designed to do so–he kills infantry or vehicles far better than monstrous creatures. Though if you did put the lascannon teams against the Hierophant, you’d get 9 squads of them, each firing 3 shots per turn, they should kill him in four turns, assuming no cover, a completely average amount of hits/wounds/saves and that the Hierophant is killing two squads of them per turn. Of course, he won’t average that many kills anyway (only 2.5 kills per turn–assuming the guard aren’t in cover).

If the Hierophant goes first and can maintain killing two squad per turn, he should come out barely ahead of the IG weapon teams–but since they can spread out and take advantage of cover, it just isn’t realistic for him to do so. Also consider that the guard can fit into more places and can split fire to up to 9 different targets, and that makes them a clearly superior solution to me.

That’s not to say that the guard are the best unit in the game (that’s probably a distinction owned by one of the Necron forces), but that they’re just better than a Hierophant.

You could math it out with the other units as well:

  • 22 thunder hammer terminators kill the beast in a single round of combat (losing only 1.6 in retaliation–before he stomps).
  • He actually wins against four flyrants by a hair.
  • Against 5 Valkyries, the math is close but the Hierophant wins. Against six Valkyries (1020 points), the Valkyries eek out a win.
  • Against a warhound (72% of the cost of the Hiero) in a shooting battle, the Warhound does 3.2 wounds per turn; the Hiero does 4 hull points of damage in return. The warhound kills the hiero in just over three turns, while the Hiero kills the Warhound in the same amount of time (two voidshield and 9 hull points).

Again, I don’t like these comparisons because they’re unrealistic and don’t (necessarily) allow a unit to do what it’s designed to do (the Hiero would presumably run away from the thunderhammers and charge the Warhound–if it got a chance. But hopefully that helps to justify why I think there are a multitude of better units than the Hierophant. It all basically comes down to the cost of the big guy. Frankly, he’s too expensive to be the best. Sure, he’s a solid unit, but in the grand scheme of things, an army would likely be better off with most anything else on the list than him (excepting the base marines/guard).

Advertisements

20 comments on “Are Hierophants the Best Unit in 40k?

  1. Why isn’t the WraithKnight included? Seems to me like that would be the most obvious easily comparable competitor.

    Yeah, the comparison between AV and T gets really weird. The differences in how the two pick up Cover Saves, the fact that Vehicles generally don’t have Armour Saves, the combination of HP and the Damage Table, it’s a mess to try to work out.

    I would note, tho, that there are some situations where a Land Speeder actually is less durable than a Tactical Marine, specifically against firepower of S7 or greater, and AP4 or worse. The Power Armour ends up coming to dominate at that point over the difference in “Toughness”.

  2. I didn’t include the Wraighknight simply as an oversight: people I know don’t play them, so I didn’t think to include him, but you’re right in that it’s a great comparison.

    It really started out as me trying to debunk the “best unit” comment, and then evolved into me trying to come up with some way to quantify things objectively. I don’t think this was wildly successful, but it was good for a first attempt. I’ve remade the spreadsheet to try to compare 1000 points of each vs each other and I think it’s better, but still not there.

    That all aside, what do you think the best unit in 40k is, and why?

    • The WraithKnight would probably be my choice. I can’t think of anything else that comes close to it in capability that doesn’t cost substantially more. The best example is probably the Barbed Hierodule. Other than raw number of shots, the WraithKnight is as good or better in every regard, and the Hierodule costs like 60% more. The WraithKnight is up there with the FW Daemon Lords that cost 2-3 times as much.

      • I haven’t faced one in combat (at least I don’t think I have… maybe I did, and he just didn’t use it all that effectively?), but I’ve heard so many good things about them. The hierodule, on the other hand doesnt’ seem remotely overpowered, so I was kind of shocked that you compared them–until you said he was 60% more and was outclassed in most regards.

        Yeah, GW definitely has power issues….

        On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

        >

      • Yeah, that was back when it was just an MC, not a GC. It was already a good Unit then. Now it’s got built in FNP, near immunity to Poison, resistance to Instant Death effects, 12″ basic Move, so it can usually use its Jump movement to get a re-roll on its Charges, and Stomp. And I think it only went up up by like 20 Points or something.

  3. Best Unit award goes to:
    Rogue Trader-era Jokero with the ability to turn any battlefield junk into something else, i.e. Oli’s smartypants play of turning my destroyed Land Raider into a flying Defense Laser.

    • I’ve heard those tales so many times, but never bothered to look up the rules. I really should sometime to determine how it really was supposed to work.

      On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

      >

  4. Hmm… I have nothing to say on whether the hierophant is good or not, relative to other units or combinations of units of comparable points costs, but I’m afraid I have to be pretty critical of your methodology, which I don’t think proves anything.

    You’d have been much better using narrower and perhaps slightly more arbitrary grades because ironically I think they’d have been more accurate. e.g. Instead of rating ‘survivability’ on a 1-10 scale based on save, wounds, etc. you’d have been better off rating it as ‘easy to kill, not very good, average, hard to kill, almost never dies’. I know you were trying to create something objective and quantifiable, but I think your systems builds in so many assumptions that it’s no better than just making a judgement based on experience.

    Here’s why:

    1. Ability to move. I don’t think it’s a simple gradient. Teleporting isn’t 10x as good as being immobile. It’s infinitely better. Depending on the role of the unit, movement may not be important for it to do it’s job, so speed may mean nothing. for many units, and in large games, there’s almost no difference between half move, slow and purposeful and 6″. All of those moves are too slow to allow you to get around the table. All of them imply you’re stuck within a fairly short distance of where you deploy.

    2. Psychic Abilities. I don’t think you should include or value this category at all. Not just because powers are so varied that they’re hard to compare, but because powers only matter to the extent that they allow units to compete in other categories. A ‘kill everyting instantly in close combat’ power ought to give the unit a high rating in close combat. If you don’t need psychic powers to be killy in combat, then you shouldn’t receive a low score for psychich powers. If a unit uses powers to influence the entire battlefield, then that should be taken into account in the 7. Force Multipliers section.

    You say that you can’t test Guardsman against a hierophant because they don’t have the weapons to hurt it, but that’s kind of the point. Value in 40K is determined to quite a great extent by the effort to create uneven match ups. You maximise the value of your units not by aiming to concentrate force (points) against an inferior number of points (although that my be what happens). You aim to concentrate force by using the tools you have to make the most of them and deny your opponent the opportunity to take effective action against you.

    I think the only way you can really judge these things is by playing and experience.

    Penultimate point. In a game of Apocalypse I think you can get more value out of a single unit that you can concentrate on and focus on getting the most out of than you can hordes of infantry, who mostly mill around dying and who are too insignificant to spend time properly positioning, choosing targets for, etc. By thinking about your hierophant and then moving it, you’re focussed on getting 1000 pioints worth of army moved in the optimum way. If you were commanding 1000 points worth of guardsman I think it’s likely you’d shovel them in great swathes in roughly the right direction, without much thought as to what they’re trying to achieve because they’re too slow, cant’ hurt the war machines you’re facing, and are being taken out in droves my super-barages.

    Final point. Wow, that’s quite a rant… Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be mean. It was certainly a thought-provoking post! 🙂

    • Ok, that’s a fantastic response. I don’t know how I can do it credit without turning it into a wall of text.

      I think that you calling into question my formulas is fine–I mean I was just spitballing to come up with the numbers. I don’t think it’s right to attack the premise entirely, as you have to certainly come up with some means of measurement to compare units. I fail to see how your “hard to kill” scale is more objective than my “survivability” scale. Sure, you can call into doubt my value system, but making some attempt to quantify things seems to make in inherently superior to a single arbitrary value (if only because you can tweak my math to come up with better numbers, where your method seems completely subjective).

      That aside, I was just looking for a way to quantifiably prove that a hierophant isn’t the best unit in the game. I’m guessing I didn’t do that (maybe it’s not even possible to do so), but maybe I put a shred of doubt into your mind (or at least Kurt’s). That’s really the point, but it spidered off in an attempt to compare things objectively–which seems like a pretty noble goal.

      Other points you made have natural counterpoints. Not all psychics make you more durable or increase damage output (though I’m guessing they could be lumped into force multipliers–but I wanted to break them out because psychics are inherently less reliable than innate rules). Sure, the Hierophant can hurt the guard, but the guard can’t do anything in return–other than tying it up for rounds of combat.

      Personally, some of the most effective units I’ve ever seen are just IG weapon teams with lascannons. They’re small, have multiple wounds, get to use cover, can hurt literally everything in the game (wounding Hierophants (doing half a wound of damage to him per squad per turn), they get to spread out, have long range, and frankly aren’t worth firing at (do you know how bad a Hierophant feels firing at a squad of three guardsman in cover?). They don’t require movement, they fold when it comes to assault, but they’re quick and easy to handle, plus they support each other fantastically well (while the hierophant kills two squads per turn (at best), the rest of them keep plugging away at him from afar.

      Though you and I may not agree, I really appreciate you taking the time to flesh out such a thorough response. I appreciate the discourse and will go back to the drawing board to see if I can come up with a better style of objective measurement. 🙂

      On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

      >

  5. Re: IG Heavy Weapons Squads. Personally I’ve found them pretty underwhelming because of their poor Ld (both for Orders and Morale Tests), vulnerability to S6+ firepower (which is pretty common in MSU packages around here), and price (They’re actually almost as expensive per Heavy Weapon as SM Dev Squads, and significantly more expensive per Expected Hit).

    A Hierophant may not want to shoot at them, but there are plenty of other things tossing out the kind of firepower that really scares them cheaply enough that it’s not a waste at all to go after a 3-Base Squad with them.

    • I never use orders and figure that if they take casualties, they’re pretty much dead anyway. They’re 35 points each (105 for a full squad of 3), whereas marine devs are 70 points base and add an extra 60 points for three lascannons (practically speaking, you’d go to 4 because of the base cost tax). That’s 4 Lascannons for 150 points (37.5 points per lascannon vs. 35 points per IG lascannon). I was going to extrapolate more, but you’re probably right across the board, marines are certainly worth an extra 2.5 points per gun. The saving grace of IG teams is that you’re firing at a 100 point unit, so they’re insulting for most units to waste shots on, whereas marines in any quantity never seem like a waste of shots (especially if they have 4 lascannons with them). You mention that the Hierophant doesn’t want to shoot at them, but practically nobody wants to waste shots on them, except for they know they have to because they have so many ST9 AP2 shots coming at them.

      I also own a bunch of painted IG teams and only two lascannon devs. >.<

      From a practical standpoint though, I think you're spot on.

      On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

      >

      • The thing about “only firing on a 100 Point Unit” doesn’t really hold up if you’re playing against someone else who’s running MSU as well. An 81-Point ScatBike Squad will waste one of those, even in good Cover, and who’s going to feel like they’re wasting Points shooting a 105 Point Unit with an 81 Point Unit? Or a 110 Point Sternguard Combat Squad with their Ignores Cover Ammo, or a 65 Point Wyvern or Whirlwind, or a 100 Point TFC, or any number of cheap Unit that will utterly wreck them.

        105 Points isn’t really a cheap Unit these days. It’s not worth shooting Hierophant at, sure, but there are plenty of other things out there that won’t be wasting their firepower at all.

        It’s frustrating. I’ve got a bunch of HWSs for my own Guard, but I just can’t justify putting them on the table because there’s so much out there that just utterly destroys them, so cheaply. It would really help if they had Eternal Warrior to represent the fact that it’s actually two dudes, because a lot of the problem stuff is S6+.

      • I agree that in a standard game of 40k, 100 points isn’t really that cheap. One caveat that I reserve in my mind that isn’t universally true is that Hierophants are for use in APoc games, so I’m thinking of big battles where people bring their huge toys and such to bear. In those games 100 points isn’t worth swatting at (unless it’s also swatting at you). I forget Hierophants are also usable in standard games now though.

        You’re absolutely right though. Spot on analysis…

        On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

        >

      • That is true that Apoc leans away from MSU. But in my experience, it tends to leave little room for things to spread out, and to have a lot of very large Blasts getting flung around, which makes things pretty unhealthy for HWSs as well.

        From the discussion here, tho, I’m also pretty sure that even my “casual” meta is somewhat more hardcore than yours. We’ve got some pretty seriously competitive Players around here, which drastically affects the usability of a lot of stuff.

      • Oh, definitely on the meta thing. The local area is more competitive, but I’m a garage-hammer player through and through, and I don’t generally invite super competitive lists into my house. I’m old and slow, so I tend to invite similar minded folks.

        On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

        >

  6. The wraithknight is the best unit in the game for it’s points. I can get three WK for less than 1k, and they would stomp out of Heirophant no problem.

    They’re severely undercosted.

    • Do you think that’s definitive? Like not even worth arguing?

      Obviously, I haven’t faced one since it became a Gargantuan creature, so I can’t speak to it, but it does sound like a popular choice.

      On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Warhammer 39,9999 wrote:

      >

      • It’s T8, 6 Wounds, with a 3+ and probably a 5++.

        I’d always rock the Glaive, though in regular, non-ITC games they Heavy Wraithcannons give you two ranged D single shots for the same price, which is worth considering. The Glaive gives it S:D close combat attacks; all for the amazing price of 295 pts.

        It has 5 I5 WS4 attacks on the charge, and S:D will just wreck basically any single target; especially since most things aren’t going to get a save against it.

Have something to add?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s