Shredders

Has anyone tried running shredders since the new codex? I think they look good on paper.

bveazey wrote:

Has anyone tried running shredders since the new codex?  I think they look good on paper.

Still no good in my opinion. Too short a range and still a small blast. Shred was a step in the right direction but they either needed to be template or have longer range and/or large blast.

Template was a huge missed opportunity for them in my mind. Shred is ok, but at S6 they shouldn't struggle to wound most things anyway so hitting more stuff was the obvious alternative in my mind.

they look great on paper... and the model is nice and reminiscent of the warp spider weapons... but that's the best look they have... pass on them in every instance

Shredders aren't bad ifyou find yourself running up against a heavy infantry list; however, even then I wouldn't run them.

Personal preference - I try not to run AP- weapons unless my options are extremely limited or there's some other affect that compensates. S6 AP- Blast, from my experiences, will generate less wounds than bolters within rapid fire range.

Unholyllama wrote:

S6 AP- Blast, from my experiences, will generate less wounds than bolters within rapid fire range.  

If you are hitting T4 models, the shredder outperforms the bolter even if hitting only a single model, unless that model has a 5+ save
Against T3 the bolter is superior all round, albeit slightly (again assuming the shredder only lands 1 hit, which is usually the case)

Agreed on the template. One of the largest drawbacks to me is the lack of Overwatch. It isn't a terrible weapon. The problem is that it is so inferior to Blasters. A shame, too. I really prefer the Shredder gun part to the Blaster.

Anterzhul wrote:

Unholyllama wrote:

S6 AP- Blast, from my experiences, will generate less wounds than bolters within rapid fire range.  

If you are hitting T4 models, the shredder outperforms the bolter even if hitting only a single model, unless that model has a 5+ save
Against T3 the bolter is superior all round, albeit slightly (again assuming the shredder only lands 1 hit, which is usually the case)

Probability-wise - this is true but from my own experiences, I'd rather remove the chance for my opponent to make a save. That's more personal preference though.

Unholyllama wrote:

Probability-wise - this is true but from my own experiences, I'd rather remove the chance for my opponent to make a save.  That's more personal preference though.

Yep, same here

Also, the blaster is superior starting from 4+ save, but eliminating probability, alongside the chance of instakilling Tau suits and the like, as well as vehicle and MC(Not that DE have such a hard time with those) hunting capabilities probably cause everyone to always pick the blaster over the shredder

If only it was template...

Actually I will never understand why a monofile weapon didnt get the "monofile" rule like every other single Eldar monofile weapon.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Actually I will never understand why a monofile weapon didnt get the "monofile" rule like every other single Eldar monofile weapon.

My guess (ok, hope!) would be that it might be an early indicator as to what might happen in the eldar codex when it's updated.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Actually I will never understand why a monofile weapon didnt get the "monofile" rule like every other single Eldar monofile weapon.

My guess (ok, hope!) would be that it might be an early indicator as to what might happen in the eldar codex when it's updated.

More like they don't want us to just be carbon copies of the 'real' Eldar.

I'd be perfectly happy with the stats as they are but just make it a template weapon.

they are much cheaper than blasters though. Im just concerned that with the heavy shift in our FA slots toward being AT we might be able to save some points and dedicate warriors to being solely AI. Shooting 1 blaster at a tank is wasting up to 8 poisoned shots

Count Adhemar wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Actually I will never understand why a monofile weapon didnt get the "monofile" rule like every other single Eldar monofile weapon.

My guess (ok, hope!) would be that it might be an early indicator as to what might happen in the eldar codex when it's updated.

More like they don't want us to just be carbon copies of the 'real' Eldar.

I'd be perfectly happy with the stats as they are but just make it a template weapon.

The current design philosophy seems to be to try to replace as many weird codex-specific rules with USRs as much as possible. With that in mind, it does seem possible that Warp Spiders will get similar treatment in the future.

bveazey wrote:

they are much cheaper than blasters though.  Im just concerned that with the heavy shift in our FA slots toward being AT we might be able to save some points and dedicate warriors to being solely AI.  Shooting 1 blaster at a tank is wasting up to 8 poisoned shots

While this is true, that one (or two, if you're going double dark light) shot can kill a tank that is easily worth that other 8 Splinter Rifle shots. You lose that ability with the Shredder, although you could tear off a hull point. The Blaster gets away with being able to kill tanks, MEQs and TEQs and put hurt of MCs with ease. The Shredder can't really work as AT and certainly lacks against TEQs or MCs.

In fact, it doesn't even work that well as an AI weapon. Short ranged is one thing. Small blast is another. Taken together that gun better have... nope, bad AP. It just doesn't justify bringing the Kabalites needed to field one, much less plan their moves around using the Shredder. It might be moreso with Shredderborn, but how many people are signing up for that?

This thread really beautifully covers a lot of the issues with the Shredder.

Well, let's do some quick math for trueborn vs. marines. 4 blasters vs. 4 shredders.

4 blasters.
4 shots.
2.67 hits.
2.22 wounds.
2.22 dead marines.

4 shredders.
4 shots.
12 hits (assuming you can get 3 marines under each blast template on average, which shouldn't be that difficult, but number can be more or less, depending on circumstances).
10 wounds.
3.33 dead marines.

Of course, the blasters' AT capabilities make them a far more versatile choice.

Getting 3 marines under a single blast template consistently is wishful thinking though...

Quote :

12 hits (assuming you can get 3 marines under each blast template on average, which shouldn't be that difficult, but number can be more or less, depending on circumstances).

If you assume that your opponent has a brain you can calculate 1 hit each. Maybe 2 for a lucky scatter.
You have to place the template over the base, radius is 1,5", Squad coherency is 2"

In my experience, relatively few players consciously try to maintain a strict maximum 2" coherency in order to minimize blast template effects. I suppose that they may be more likely to pay closer attention to this in a tournament setting, however.

krayd wrote:

Well, let's do some quick math for trueborn vs. marines. 4 blasters vs. 4 shredders.

This is also cherrypicking the results a bit, IMO.  You are ignoring the need to get within 12 inches to the use the Shredder.  And you are ignoring the inability to use blast weapons in snap shots (that's still a thing in 7th, right?  I'm not going crazy...)

And it isn't enough just to throw some marines in the mix.  There are other scenarios other than perfectly landed Shredder shots vs MEQs.  If IEQs were in here we'd certainly agree Shredders were the better weapon, but that would be obvious.  What about against big based multi wound models like Grots or Nids?  What about TEQs?  Or, what about when the footprint of the squad is small enough that the scatter dice are not kind?  Against a single target the Shredders produce 4 hits which are inferior to the Blaster's 4 hits.  It isn't just one result in a vaacuum, or even one situation you are most likely to run into.  When people weigh the pros and cons of one weapon vs another they have to take in the total spectrum of strengths and weaknesses.

With all that said, Shredderborn are the only way I would consider them.  I'd prefer to have an additional Splinter Rifle on my Kabalites than a Shredder.  I want them to sit on objectives and poke targets, not go running into rapid fire range.  When they go to ground I want every gun, no matter how small a chance to be able to return fire.  I likewise want every gun I pay for to get a chance to send another enemy model to his grave before charging me.  The Shredder asks me to risk too much for a performance that is unpredictable and niche.  At least with a Flamer on a SM squad I know that template is going to deny cover and will burn things.  I can plan around that.  A Shredder asks me to get close, target a clump of models and hope that a die roll with 1/3 a chance of hitting where intended performs.  

Now, if an Archon could have one...

Don't forget though shredders are 5 pts now. 5 is pretty cheap. And gives a bit of versatility because they have a reasonable chance of taking Hull points off rear armour. If I had actually modelled any I might take them.

krayd wrote:

In my experience, relatively few players consciously try to maintain a strict maximum 2" coherency in order to minimize blast template effects. I suppose that they may be more likely to pay closer attention to this in a tournament setting, however.

They do.

Also, you aren't taking scatter into account, which is a *big* effect versus blast weapons.
Even if all we o is say all of them hit and all of them hit 2 models each - suddenly the quality of the weapons is tied vs. MEQ, whilst Blasters remain superior in multiple other occurrences.

What if, of the 4 blasts, 1 hits 3, 2 hit 2, and one misses altogether? (a not bad set of results in most people's minds, I would think) Now you're doing 1.94 dead Marines. And Blasters still remain superior in other situations.

However, the big issue is this;
Shredders kill infantry and, with Shred, are good at killing infantry with high toughness and low armor saves.
So do splinter weapons.
Y'know, those weapons that *everyone* in our army basically has?
The ones we can spam on accident?
So, basically our entire army is pretty good at the job of Shredders.
But we can pay to get something with questionable range and scatter effects to help us do it.
Or we can pay a bit more for an assault lance weapon that is good versus things splinter weapons can't harm.

That's really the core issue.

perhow wrote:

Don't forget though shredders are 5 pts now. 5 is pretty cheap.  And gives a bit of versatility because they have a reasonable chance of taking Hull points off rear armour. If I had actually modelled any I might take them.

It isn't just rear armor. Rhinos, Vypers, other DE skimmers... they don't like Mr. Shredder. Not the best tactical choice, though. If you absolutely have to, ok. Kabalites without dark light don't really have another response. I think you hit the nail on the head as to why to take it. Small investment to take out small fry vehicles with a small loss in overall range and firepower. I could also see it in one of those weird tactical situations we've run into where it is better to charge a target than shoot them with Splinter Rifles.

Anterzhul wrote:

Getting 3 marines under a single blast template consistently is wishful thinking though...

One can say the he same thing about marines that are not in cover, especially when they are up to 18" away ;-)

I consider the shredder an interesting option, I guess not very competitive, but I like the idea that the shredder can be used for AT and AI. Sure the shot has to go against the rear to have an OK chance but in times of secure DS that should not be a problem and after Thor665 talked about the shredder on Splintermind 3.5 I'm even more sure that I will escort my archon with shredder born! I know, crazy - but then again, that's my name ;-)