Warhammer 40K Tabletop X: "Everybody Expects The Inquisition!"

[Wraith]

We really ought to put something about Tailoring into the OP. I'm all for friendly discussion, but we keep coming back to it so often that we could really save ourselves a lot of repetition lot of repetition of repetition...

How about this - am I close to summing up the general attitude towards the subject?

Spoiler

Show

Tailoring Your Army - A Newbie's Guide to Avoid Being Punched In The Face

'Tailoring' is the practice of attempting to guess what your opponent will use in the next game that he plays, and then deliberately fashioning your army so as to specifically exploit their weaknesses and blunt their strengths.

There are different degrees of Tailoring, from the very vague ("my opponent is playing Tyranids, which are traditionally famous for including lots of fast moving close combat specialists; it would be a good idea for me to take some units that can shoot them before they get too close") to being deliberately specific ("Tomorrow I am playing James, he always uses 3 squads of Green-Horde Orks led by Ghazghull Thraka all riding Trukks, and backed up by 2 Dreadnoughts, I will pick units V, W, X, Y and Z for the specific purpose of destroying those enemies respectively and at allocated times and places").

According to the Rules of the game as they are written, it is not illegal to tailor your list to your opponents'.
It is, however, somewhat against the spirit of the game to do it without your opponent's consent. It's no fun being steamrollered off the table in 1 turn by someone who turns up and surprises you with the express intention of destroying your army as quickly as possible, but at least if you both agree to do it to the the same degree, then you both has as good-a chance as each other as your double-bluffs and double-guessing begin to balance out.

In short, there is nothing inherently wrong with tailoring your lists to be more successful against a given opponent. Be aware, however, that the more specific your tailored lists are then the more likely you are to be called a poor sportsman or even a cheater (particularly in competitive play, where tailoring might require knowledge that can only be attained through underhanded means), either of which will ultimately end with people refusing to play against you.
And where's the fun in owning $500+ worth of toy soldiers that you can't use, for the sake of taking a few risks and trying out things that only might work in your army, and thus make it a competitive game rather than a foregone conclusion?

[Winterwind]

We really ought to put something about Tailoring into the OP. I'm all for friendly discussion, but we keep coming back to it so often that we could really save ourselves a lot of repetition lot of repetition of repetition...

How about this - am I close to summing up the general attitude towards the subject?

Spoiler

Show

Tailoring Your Army - A Newbie's Guide to Avoid Being Punched In The Face

'Tailoring' is the practice of attempting to guess what your opponent will use in the next game that he plays, and then deliberately fashioning your army so as to specifically exploit their weaknesses and blunt their strengths.

There are different degrees of Tailoring, from the very vague ("my opponent is playing Tyranids, which are traditionally famous for including lots of fast moving close combat specialists; it would be a good idea for me to take some units that can shoot them before they get too close") to being deliberately specific ("Tomorrow I am playing James, he always uses 3 squads of Green-Horde Orks led by Ghazghull Thraka all riding Trukks, and backed up by 2 Dreadnoughts, I will pick units V, W, X, Y and Z for the specific purpose of destroying those enemies respectively and at allocated times and places").

According to the Rules of the game as they are written, it is not illegal to tailor your list to your opponents'.
It is, however, somewhat against the spirit of the game to do it without your opponent's consent. It's no fun being steamrollered off the table in 1 turn by someone who turns up and surprises you with the express intention of destroying your army as quickly as possible, but at least if you both agree to do it to the the same degree, then you both has as good-a chance as each other as your double-bluffs and double-guessing begin to balance out.

In short, there is nothing inherently wrong with tailoring your lists to be more successful against a given opponent. Be aware, however, that the more specific your tailored lists are then the more likely you are to be called a poor sportsman or even a cheater (particularly in competitive play, where tailoring might require knowledge that can only be attained through underhanded means), either of which will ultimately end with people refusing to play against you.
And where's the fun in owning $500+ worth of toy soldiers that you can't use, for the sake of taking a few risks and trying out things that only might work in your army, and thus make it a competitive game rather than a foregone conclusion?

Yeah, more or less. I'm not sure it doesn't give the impression that tailoring even without the consent of the opponent is fine as long as it's not totally excessive - which I'd strongly disagree with - and it doesn't quite capture just how very, very, very unsportsmanlike it is, but overall, I can agree with it.

[PanNarrans]

I do think that tailoring in campaign games is just fine, as then it's your HQ characters taking these decisions. The double bluffing then starts to be great fun.

In normal games, I do agree that list tailoring is the devil. And I have to work hard to avoid doing it sometimes, playing Eldar.

[Wraith]

Yeah, more or less. I'm not sure it doesn't give the impression that tailoring even without the consent of the opponent is fine as long as it's not totally excessive - which I'd strongly disagree with - and it doesn't quite capture just how very, very, very unsportsmanlike it is, but overall, I can agree with it.

Oh? I thought I was doing quite well to convey that it is legal, but certainly not moral or 'fun' unless you agree with your opponent that it is to be part of your game - as BoSheck suggested, playing the metagame can be as important/engrossing as the game itself, if done in a way respectful of your opponent's wishes for the game.

What would you suggest, in order that I make this more clear?

In normal games, I do agree that list tailoring is the devil. And I have to work hard to avoid doing it sometimes, playing Eldar.

There's something I should have added - certain races are more predisposed towards tailoring than others, and some even require it in certain ways.
Eldar are the best example; each and every one of their units is tailored to perform in a certain role, and the only way to play Eldar Competitively (note the 'Big C' for 'Tournament Games'! ) is to pick and choose the ones that you think will perform in specific roles against other specific unit types.

That sort of play, is just advanced mathhammer. Does that really compare to the single-minded selfishness that is required to tailor in the direst sense?

[Winterwind]

Oh? I thought I was doing quite well to convey that it is legal, but certainly not moral or 'fun' unless you agree with your opponent that it is to be part of your game - as BoSheck suggested, playing the metagame can be as important/engrossing as the game itself, if done in a way respectful of your opponent's wishes for the game.

What would you suggest, in order that I make this more clear?

Mmmm... upon re-reading it and trying to come up with better formulations, I have to admit I find myself liking it better every time, and failing to come up with a formulation I'd consider superior.

I would suggest though to include a short paragraph sketching the opposite of tailoring, something like "The fair approach that is likely to lead to more fun had by all (not to mention, less frustration and anger amongst your fellow players) would be to, rather than tailoring, create an all-corners list that you don't have to modify depending on whether it's Orks, Space Marines or Dark Eldar you are facing, as it will be able to deal with either of them, while at the same time giving the opponent a chance to win (and, far more importantly, have fun him or herself, too). After all, if the game's outcome is a foregone conclusion before the first turn has even begun, your victory is not a particularly glorious feat, now, is it? ".

There's something I should have added - certain races are more predisposed towards tailoring than others, and some even require it in certain ways.
Eldar are the best example; each and every one of their units is tailored to perform in a certain role, and the only way to play Eldar Competitively (note the 'Big C' for 'Tournament Games'! ) is to pick and choose the ones that you think will perform in specific roles against other specific unit types.

That sort of play, is just advanced mathhammer. Does that really compare to the single-minded selfishness that is required to tailor in the direst sense?

For clarification, I wouldn't consider something like "many, many tanks are being used around here by many different factions; I should better take more anti-tank weaponry" or even "two out of three players around here are Tyranids! Maybe I should equip at least one of my squads with flamers..." as tailoring. Tailoring begins when one starts to change one's list after hearing whom one will be playing against; creating an army that can deal well with the local metagame (which includes all players, mind, not just the ones one most often plays against) is just common sense.

[Borgh]

played a 2k game today, not going to write a battle report as it was a horrible cluster forumrulebreaking.

one thing came up though: my opponenet was convinced that if a independent character joins a unit when that unit gets wiped out and he has to run the IC can't rally as the unit he never left (they just died) is now under half strenght. I though he was being silly as I'm sure lone IC just revert to the "independent" part of their name and rally the normal way. I coudn't find a page where it expressly says it is this way but I didn't feel like argueing though so I hope my archon had fun.

Was fun though even though all my anti-tank stuff failed horribly, luckily I was able to murder his troops the old fashioned way. Leaving me with the only claimed objective of the game \o/ best bit was how over four game turns neither a Talos nor venerable dreadnought was able to wound the other in close combat (make go boom in the dreads case)

[ShadowFighter15]

He's in a tournament. While you should still be friendly, a tournament isn't a 'friendly game' for the most part.

Except he's not in a tournament, he's in a campaign.

We're in a planetary empires campaign and know who we're attacking...

In my mind, those are two different things. In a tournament, you don't know what armies you'll be going up against (even if you know what most people in the area play, you don't know who you'll actually be facing on the day), while in a campaign you'll probably know which armies you'll be facing.

[Renegade Paladin]

Except he's not in a tournament, he's in a campaign.

And when I was in a tournament I still took an Executioner, and despite not seeing a single Terminator, I still killed many Tyranids with it. Tailoring my rear end...

[Ninja Chocobo]

I observed a planetary empires-type campaign going on at my local store at the end of last year. Same sort of deal, player A attacks player B, player D attacks player C, points values increase over time, et cetera.
The difference?
At each points value you only had one list to attack and defend against the other sixteen or so players.
That is how you run a campaign.

e: You're right. It is common sense to design your army to be optimal against someone you're going to play. That's why you design your army before you find out who you're going to play.

[Klose_the_Sith]

I observed a planetary empires-type campaign going on at my local store at the end of last year. Same sort of deal, player A attacks player B, player D attacks player C, points values increase over time, et cetera.
The difference?
At each points value you only had one list to attack and defend against the other sixteen or so players.
That is how you run a campaign.

That does not sound like the sort of campaign for me. Why would my chapter/regiment/warband/craftworld/barbershop quartet use the exact same approach every time, even after losing umpteen battles? And why should someone get to sit around losing territory after territory and then get booted out of the campaign because their opening list(s) wasn't/weren't strong?

As far as I can see, the idea of a competitive/tournament campaign is ... not so great in general but they're awesome in terms of playing games with more background and meaning to them.

[Arcanoi]

That does not sound like the sort of campaign for me. Why would my chapter/regiment/warband/craftworld/barbershop quartet use the exact same approach every time, even after losing umpteen battles?

Because they are 1/100 scale models made out of plastic or metal.

And why should someone get to sit around losing territory after territory and then get booted out of the campaign because their opening list(s) wasn't/weren't strong?

Why should someone lose a tournament because their list wasn't strong?

[crazedloon]

because tournaments are not meant to be fun. They can be fun do not get me wrong but the are the extreme end of competitiveness in this game. Therefor in order to maintain a balance of books you keep 1 list so that you must build one which can deal with all comers. It is a self sustaining balance (it doesn't always work particularly when a meta is particularly slanted to 1 style of play) which is not suited for more free form and fun games.

A campaign on the other hand is a means to organize a series of less formal games in order to have themes, story or army development (I loved the old exp rules) happen naturally between games. Indeed it may simply be a way to connect your normal casual games in a fun new way. It does not need the more formal structure to maintain a balance of "power" and can even benefit a lack of power. Indeed tailoring in the more conventional sense may add to the campaign instead of detracting from it by allowing the generals to play mind games with their army lists as it progresses

[Ninja Chocobo]

That does not sound like the sort of campaign for me. Why would my chapter/regiment/warband/craftworld/barbershop quartet use the exact same approach every time, even after losing umpteen battles?

Why wouldn't my Waaagh! descend into infighting after the second round? Why wouldn't the Guard army bomb whoever they're fighting into submission before they turned up?

because it is a game

And why should someone get to sit around losing territory after territory and then get booted out of the campaign because their opening list(s) wasn't/weren't strong?

Y'get a new list every...fortnight I think it was?
And the idea is that you don't lose.

Also right up until the last week they were accepting new players. So there's that.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Because they are 1/100 scale models made out of plastic or metal.

So now it's not cool to be involved from a background perspective?

Why should someone lose a tournament because their list wasn't strong?

Are you telling me that you've honestly never seen this happen?

Why wouldn't my Waaagh! descend into infighting after the second round? Why wouldn't the Guard army bomb whoever they're fighting into submission before they turned up?

Because the Orks are able to stay focussed on the task at hand when there's still 'umies tah kill? Because the Imperial Navy wouldn't have control of space in an obviously contested system?

because it is a game

40k is more hobby than game and the fluff-monkey in me rebels at your decrees.

Y'get a new list every...fortnight I think it was?

Which is alright depending on the rate at which games are played, but the more rigid approach would turn mindgames into seriously brutal affairs that can doom someone out of the game when they turn up either overspecialised or overgeneralised.

And the idea is that you don't lose.

Really? And there I was thinking the point of the game was to beat yourself over the head with a shoe.

Also right up until the last week they were accepting new players. So there's that.

... just sounds ludicrously unbalanced

[Cheesegear]

We really ought to put something about Tailoring into the OP. I'm all for friendly discussion, but we keep coming back to it so often that we could really save ourselves a lot of repetition lot of repetition of repetition...

...Done.

Anyway, I'm reading the discussion right now and...I don't really want to get into it. If I've learned anything from Zorg (aside from the fact that ForgeWorld is awesome and I should buy more), it's that I'm pretty sick of...Stuff...And I'm going to endeavor to stay out of it unless something that comes up that is totally wrong.

Competitive vs. Non-Competitive
Comp Scores
Statistics Aren't Real
Fun vs. Winning
Tailoring is Not Cool

I don't like these discussions. They happen far too frequently for my liking. It's the tenth thread, I thought we were better than this...

The problem with Campaigns - rather than individual casual games, or 'unknown' tournaments - is that you usually have to sign up for them, and, in doing so, you usually see who else is signing up. If you're even halfway involved in your meta-game, you know those people, and you know what they'll be playing. It's really hard not to tailor your list.

There's a massive difference in tailoring your list to a specific - casual/friendly - match (which gets you punched in the face), and tailoring to your meta-game.

Not tailoring to your meta-game is really hard. Someone else already said this, but, I guess you guys kind of ignored him. The problem is that Renegade Paladin specifically said he wanted to deal with Terminators. Hence, plasma. Now, the problem with this, is that yes, the sentence reeks of...Wrongitude. But, plasma weapons work against everything.

I firmly believe that if RP had just posted his list, and didn't mention Terminators at all, I don't think any of you would've complained, at all. I probably wouldn'tve noticed.

Though, personally, an IG Command Squad is way too valuable to put Plasma Weapons in it to run the risk of killing itself. Since their in a Chimera, Meltaguns work just as well, for cheaper, and don't kill themselves.

[Razaele]

More Grey Knight Rumors

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292329

Assuming that the rumors here are true, what problems do you think the Grey Knights will have? From what I'm looking at, it feels like they're going to have a bit of a tough time dealing with fully mechanized armies. Psycannons are nice, but relying on Rending doesn't seem like a safe bet.

The Nemesis Dreadknight seems like it'll be fun, specially considering the Personal Teleporter upgrade. Being T7 with a 2+ Armor Save and a 4+ Invulnerable Save makes for a very survivable unit. The fact that it can be all up in your face on turn one just makes it feel like it's borderline broken.

The Paladins are SCARY, and that's without upgrades. With upgrades such as Feel No Pain, 2+ Invulnerable Saves, and the like, these guys look like they're going to be damned near unstoppable. Oh, and did I mention that one of the HQ choices can turn them into troops?

The Grey Knights version of the Librarian could potentially be awesome, as many of his powers revolver around buffs for a unit.

I'm not sure I completely like what they did with the Assassins. On one hand, the Vindicare looks like it'll finally be finally useful for something. The Eversor seems like it was buffed, but there was no mention if it still explodes upon death. The Callidus and the Culexus Assassins do not seem like good choices at all. Then again, their rules could still be incomplete.

I don't know about the rest of the Playground, but I can't wait to try out an all Paladin army, complete with Lord Draigo.

[Ninja Chocobo]

I firmly believe that if RP had just posted his list, and didn't mention Terminators at all, I don't think any of you would've complained, at all. I probably wouldn'tve noticed.

Hey, even if he wanted to deal with Terminators, I wouldn't have complained; they can be difficult to deal with.
But his exact words were:

I'm fighting a Terminator-happy Templar player.

so yah

Though, personally, an IG Command Squad is way too valuable to put Plasma Weapons in it to run the risk of killing itself. Since their in a Chimera, Meltaguns work just as well, for cheaper, and don't kill themselves.

I dunno about this. He's got Feel no Pain on the squad, so even Rapid Firing there's a fairly small chance of killing any of them.

Assuming that the rumours here are true

Hahaha.
With the Dark Eldar, all we knew about the codex until like a week before the black box copies arrived was the Melta Lance. Also, we were reasonably sure Wytches would be troops.

[Razaele]

Hahaha.
With the Dark Eldar, all we knew about the codex until like a week before the black box copies arrived was the Melta Lance. Also, we were reasonably sure Wytches would be troops.

Which is why I said "assuming". I know that there really isn't much proof out there that these rumors are true, but I just want to start a discussion based on what rumors I've seen.

[Cheesegear]

But his exact words were...

I firmly believe that if RP had just posted his list, and didn't mention Terminators at all, I don't think any of you would've complained, at all. I probably wouldn'tve noticed.

So, yeah. If he hadnt've said that, nobody would care. Like I said, Plasma is good against everything.

Assuming that the rumors here are true

I'm not saying anything until I have a physical copy of the Codex in my hands.

[Renegade Paladin]

Because they are 1/100 scale models made out of plastic or metal.

Har-de-har-har-har. Let's try this again. What could possibly internally justify, from an in-universe perspective, repeated decisions by an officer/chapter master/warboss/autarch with alternatives available to him to continually send poorly equipped forces into battle doomed to failure? Nothing? That's what I thought. So why would we portray that?

Out of universe, the campaign is a strategic game, in addition to the tactical game of the individual battles. Completely removing the ability to make a viable strategy ruins the entire point; we might as well play a bunch of unconnected pick-up games for all the strategic depth it would have with permanently fixed forces. In addition, I have absolutely no knowledge of the list my opponents will run beyond "possibly anything on their army lists." I have a pretty good idea of models owned for the Black Templar player (but not his Tau partner), but that does me pretty much no good whatsoever, as that's such a large selection that it doesn't really narrow it down any. I'm making an educated guess, nothing more. And even then, the list didn't fall outside the realm of my standard all-comers builds (which, yes, included that Executioner, which went to a random draw tournament simply because I had no plasma infantry modeled at the time). In short, you're making a whole lot of completely nonsensical noise over essentially nothing at all.

Especially as the designers of the game see nothing wrong with it; indeed, the first sentence of the sample campaign report in the 5th edition rulebook (page 260) reads "Andy's Imperial Guard collection is large and varied enough for him to field many different types of army, so for this campaign, he put together a force tailored for fighting against Orks." Game, set, and match.

[Voidhawk]

I think we can all agree that the problem with talioring is the information gap: one person knowing more than the other at army creation. I think we can also agree that in a tournament setting a degree of tailoiring to the metagame is not just expected, but required in order to compete properly.

The arguement appears to center around what is an appropriate amount of knowledge for both sides to have, and how seriously do you try to win.

If both have no info at all, then you have your typical in-store bring-an-army pick up game, where you might face anything. I find this is most useful when you are playing people you don't know very well, and can't trust explictly to be honest or use the same amount of knowledge as you will.

With an unlimited model selection (theoreticaly not a problem with the judicious use of proxies) any of these situations (no knowledge, little, some) will be as fair as the codexes allow, bearing in mind the fundamentally unbalanced-ness of the codex system (codex creep, etc).

However, the way this discussion on "talioring" is progressing seems to be highlighting a discrepancy: how serious is a campaign? Is it tournament style, where you are expected to use every snippet of information, but generally have no previous explict knowledge of who you're going to be fighting next? Or is it more casual, with bring-a-list, fight anyone being the watchwords? Or more likely, something inbetween or completely different?

Broadly I think this can boil down to one simple question: in a campaign, to what extent is the metagame of the campaign, part of the game? To what level should people who play the meta well be rewarded with victory?

TL;DR: How much of the game in a campaign is the map and metagame, and should people who play it well win the campaign?

[Lycan 01]

Oooooh, interesting list of Grey Knights rumors. I've got my doubts to the validity of it all, but even legends have their basis in fact, so there's a chance that at least some of it could be true. Even so, I'll wait until GW officially comments on what models and abilities the army will boast before I get too excited.

I really hope the Inquisitor stuff is true, though. I'd love to have an Inquisition-themed GK army. But even if they don't have Inquisitor stuff, I'll probably still play Grey Knights once the army comes out, Flavor of the Month or not.



By the way, anybody want to weigh in on Deff Dreads, with or without Big Meks?

[Tarinaky]

Is it tailoring to build an all-comers list with the flavour of the month in mind? Or is it just being mindful of the metagame?

ie: Knowing that Grey Knights are coming out next month, is it morally reprehensible to aquire more Plasmaguns and the like.

[Winterwind]

Broadly I think this can boil down to one simple question: in a campaign, to what extent is the metagame of the campaign, part of the game? To what level should people who play the meta well be rewarded with victory?

I'd say, the answer in such a situation should be, whatever the people participating in the campaign agree upon. If it's known in advance who will be playing against whom, and all players agree that it's fine to change one's list in accordance to that, it's perfectly fair game and might indeed be foolish and counter-fluff-y to not do so. If, on the other hand, the players decide that one should not tailor one's list, well, then obviously one shouldn't.

By the way, anybody want to weigh in on Deff Dreads, with or without Big Meks?

Sorry - I wished I could, but I have never faced any. None of the Ork players here field them, or at least, haven't had them in their lists in any games I participated in.

Is it tailoring to build an all-comers list with the flavour of the month in mind? Or is it just being mindful of the metagame?

ie: Knowing that Grey Knights are coming out next month, is it morally reprehensible to aquire more Plasmaguns and the like.

Not in the slightest, in my personal opinion, as long as you are ready to take that exact same list and use it without modification even when you find you happen to be up against Orks instead of Grey Knights.

[Lycan 01]

Wait, next month? I thought they came out in April?

[Winterwind]

Wait, next month? I thought they came out in April?

Yeah, they do. Next month is Orcs&Goblins for Fantasy.

[Borgh]

By the way, anybody want to weigh in on Deff Dreads, with or without Big Meks?

Deff Dreads are pretty nice, but after all is said and done they are just Walkers with slighly more Choppa and less Dakka then SM dreads. Don't know if they are worth their points cost but getting in combat with them is no fun for those involved. Except the ork in the machine.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The problem with death dreds is simply "why have a BS 2 robot that might never get into CC when you can have 3 BS3 robots"?

The usual answer is because you already have 9 BS3 robots and only the BS2 robot can be made troops.

I actually have a list to tailor. I know more or less what army my opponent is going to be using (lash ) but I actually have to tailor a "what can tyranids do?" army because the guy is trying out his tournament list and hasn't played the new tyranid codex. Its not really in my best interest to help a better player than me do better in a tournie I'm also going to but whatever.

So, tyranids.

The two lists I came up with

Spoiler

Show

Hive Tyrant
Heavy Venom cannon, paroxysm, leech essense, old adversary, hive commander
245 points

Tyrant Guard
60 points

Elites
2 zoanthropes
120 points

8 Ymgarl Genestealers
176 points

Troops
3 Tyranid Warriors
lash whip and boneswords, barbed strangler
145 points

16 Genestealers
Broodlord with scything talons
272 points

16 Genestealers
Broodlord
270 points

15 Genestealers
210 points

1498 points

Basically a genestealer list with some reserve options.

or

Hive Tyrant
Heavy Venom cannon, paroxysm, leech essense, old adversary,
220 points

2 Tyrant Guard
boneswords
150 points

Elites
2 Zoanthropes
120 points

2 Zoanthropes
120 points

Venomthrope
55 points

Troops
3 Tyranid Warriors
lash whip and boneswords, barbed strangler
145 points

4 Tyranid Warriors
Rending claws, devourers, venom cannon
155 points

22 Termagants
110 points

22 Termagants
110 points

Fast Attack
3 Raveners
90 points

Heavy Support
Trygon
Regeneration
225 points

More of a warrior genus/normal list. Basically something I've never tried before.

[Winterwind]

The thing with Lash-lists is that it's not the Lash itself that is the biggest problem, but whatever the Lash sets you up to be killed by. Obliterators, Vindicators or Defilers, usually.

So, what you want to do is to kill these quickly. Hence, I'd suggest Mycetic Spores to get your Zoanthropes straight to where these Obliterators/Vindicators/Defilers are. If it's Obliterators in particular, the Doom of Malan'tai can help here, too.

Also, you may want to make sure you can deal with Plague Marines. Which means either Genestealers, or Toxin Sacs on your 'Gaunts.

Of the two lists you proposed I like the first one better, but would definitely try to somehow find place for the second Zoanthrope unit. If your opponent uses Havocs/Noise Marines/Obliterators, definitely keep the Ymgarls - those will be perfect then - otherwise though, I think you might be better off turning these into regular Genestealers and using the freed up Elite slot for the Venomthrope (or maybe more Zoanthropes).

[Closet_Skeleton]

He'll be using obliterators, but I'm not tailoring my list against lash, I'm tailoring it to show what Tyranids can do.

i was going to use the venomthope in the first list but realised it would never catch up to the genestealers.

Better thing to do would replace the warriors in the genestealer list with more zoanthropes, but then I'd have nothing to outflank with hive commander.

Don't have any mycetic spore models. Dont' have tyrant guard either but they're more proxy-able.