Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: jhobin on January 16, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
-
I've only played one game so far with the new tyranid codex, but one thing has already started to creep into my mind and I was wondering what other tyranid players think.
With the Tervigon now in the codex is the hormagaunt (HG) obsolete?
The Initiative 5 is nice and the scything talons is ok. But for the same points or slightly less a unit of termagaunts (TG) or there varients within range of a tervigon, blows the HG out of the water. HG's have one less attack and initiave but when within range of a tervigon you get Furious Charge/Posion 4+/ and counter attack. I also gave my Tervigon Catalyst which seems essential. The one major drawback is dependance on the Tervigon. I can foresee at least taking 2 Tervigons which will increase there suvivabilty.
Even in hth, HG charge they would get +1 attack over the TG. Which is not big when you consider the TG would get a poison attack. Getting charged the HG are better off with counter attack from the Tervigon they would have the same attack's and poision.
It's strange the role of TG and HG almost seems reversed. I use to use TG as screens for the HG because the were cheaper. Now it almost seems reversed.
Is the HG going extinct?
(meaning I convert 30 of my HG over to TG!)
-
Are nids no longer immune to instant death??
-
Termagaunts seem strictly superior.
-
I was looking at the tyranid codex again last night and found something interesting with the Mawloc (ml). With the borrow ability. I do not have the codex on me, but from what I remember, when the ml reappears it hits all units under its base with a str6 ap2 hit and then push’s the survivor’s off and they have to be at least 1inch away from the ml and anything that remains on the template is dead. So, if you were able to surround a dedicate transport with your model’s leaving enough room for a ml sized base to appear, and had the ml appear and not deviate, would the transport and all its occupants be dead?
-
because noone in the transport can move away, yes
-
wouldnt you have to blow up the transport though?
-
Technically no,
because the wording of the Mawloc rule reads any model's left on the template are destroyed, the caveate of not being within 1 inch of an enemy model apply's so if there is no where to put your model its destroyed.
Even if the transport counted as destroyed you then have to deploy the model's and if there is no where to put them they are dead.
That said it is very hard to do. Your vehicle would have to immobilised or stunned from a previous turn and you would have to have enough model's in position from the previous round.
I can see some abuse with the ML in other ways as well, like charging 20 or gaunts into a squad of terminators or marines losing hth have everyone consolidate in real tight and then have the maloc pop through and kill everyone
-
And god forbid you have a lictor there to make him not scatter :P
-
I was thinking the same thing,
Taking a Tyrant with +1 reserve roll then taking a lictor adding another +1, taking 2 mawlocs and a trygon prime.
You start mawlocs on the board round 1 they borrow,
Round 2 lictor's and prime come on a 2+, putting lictor in enemy deployment zone. Prime appears without scatter, then 2 mawlocs come in on his left and right. 3x str6/tough6/3+save 18 wounds in your opponents zone.
-
Sounds fun.
-
i thought the lictor ability had the stipulation that he cant use the no scatter rule if he deepstruck in the same turn.... thats what any other icon-esque ability says at least, i havent looked in that book alot...
-
From what I remeber it doesn't actually have that stipulation on his rules. I'm gonna look later on tonight.
I'm really suprised that some of the Mawloc rules slipped through the play testing cracks, if the tyranids immobilise a vehicle now its gone if a mawloc hits it.
It'd be funny in a gladiator style tourney to immobilise a titan and then have a ML give it the old heave-ho
-
I checked this weekend the Lictor does have to be on the board to use his benefit.
Also, with the ML immobilised vehicles are only destroyed if there is no where for it to go i.e. enemy model within 1inch. They do get hit in the rear with the template though.
-
In between being horrifically sick over the last five days or so I had a chance to skim the new codex along side the old one.
I have to say that overall it seems to me that all of the existing models / units have either remained largely at the same power level or gotten slightly (or even significantly) worse.
The real power is in all the new models (and their effect on the older ones).
They also seem to be pushing named characters which in my never to be humble opinion is pretty lame fluff wise. Yeah I know they excuse them as 'legends of a similar beast' and such but I think it's silly. They are however fairly powerful.
One of the strangest things I saw was Gargoyles not only loosing fleet but also getting a leadership of 6 (down from 10) making them useless outside synapse range. Sometimes I wonder if GW even reads their own rules much less play tests them.
Several of the new creatures are blatantly powerful and unfortunately it looks to me like the taranofex (The thing that craps termigaunts - no codex for spelling right now) is going to be a virtual auto-include on every list. Which IMO is unfortunate because I don't particularly like automatic choices.
Also of note was the fact that Zoenthropes no longer act independently. One more reason IMO that you will see those taranofexes (or whatever they are called) wandering around so much seeing as they are an amazing synapse creature.
Personally I am very disappointed about the Gargoyles and the utter decimation of Hormagaunts. I really liked those models and their fluff.
-
I agree with what your saying Matt. The gargoyle's I think are still funtional but they can't fill the role that they use to. I was talking with some friends who play 'Nids last weekend, one of the big things we noticed is how gargoyle's are now an assault troop vs shock and awe. It seems like they have 2 use's now 1.) maxed out squad used to give cover save to Warrior's (strangly enough they are bug enough now. 2.) assault you need to buy poison sacs for them. They have a big negative now of drop in Ld and there is not much that can give them a cover save is a big hinderance for both use's.
So far they seem to have run into the "I heard that unit was nasty kill it" syndrome.
the big guy is called a Tervigon, and your right its almost a necessity for any gaunt based army now.
I havn't played with Zoenthropes in the new dex and never really did in the last. Most people seem to have been playing them with 2x in a spore pod.
-
I agree with what your saying Matt. The gargoyle's I think are still funtional but they can't fill the role that they use to. I was talking with some friends who play 'Nids last weekend, one of the big things we noticed is how gargoyle's are now an assault troop vs shock and awe.
The thing is they are deep strikers who move quickly. Making them have to stay in synapse range makes me wonder if they have ANY real roll left or if it is more of a 'well if you like those you can use them to...' type of thing. As far as I can tell they no longer have any unique roll.
It seems like they have 2 use's now 1.) maxed out squad used to give cover save to Warrior's (strangly enough they are bug enough now.
Warriors are not monsterous creatures (IIRC) so they get cover from any intervening unit.
Only the winged warriors would need the gargoyles vs. something else as screening due to speed issues. And I am not sure if the investment would be worth it. Very situational. I think you would have to play it a bunch before you knew.
2.) assault you need to buy poison sacs for them. They have a big negative now of drop in Ld and there is not much that can give them a cover save is a big hinderance for both use's.
Well the Tervigon can give them invulruble saves but I don't know what the point would be over a better unit.
The thing is they lost an attack and living ammunition (though they gained that roll a 6 = wound thing) so I am not sure how much I like them as shock troops.
So far they seem to have run into the "I heard that unit was nasty kill it" syndrome.
Could be their point is to distract the opponent's fire for the first couple of months of the codex being out and then sit on a shelf and look pretty.
the big guy is called a Tervigon, and your right its almost a necessity for any gaunt based army now.
Not just guant based armies. Both his best psychic powers work on any unit. 6 wound high toughness synapse creature with potential 18" synapse or a feel no pain save for any unit around it? Plus at least once a game it farts out a scoring unit?
Sure he wants guants around to be at his best and it is easier to fit him on the list if you take one unit but I don't think he will be limited to gaunt based armies. There is just too much awesome in that model. (which is why I am not a huge fan)
I havn't played with Zoenthropes in the new dex and never really did in the last. Most people seem to have been playing them with 2x in a spore pod.
That makes sense. 2 Zoenthropes is a decent price point vs. survivability and chance of their blasts hitting, and the pod gets them where they are needed. I would be tempted to strip the pod for points savings but it can shoot too so that is a consideration.
I don't particularly like the susceptibility of these new multi-wound expensive (points wise) models to instant death even if you are careful about synapse range. But it is what it is. I do however like that they fixed shadow in the warp so it is meaningful again.
And I will continue to lament the lower number of biomorphs available indefinitely.
-
this post upsets me.
-
this post upsets me.
Huh? Why?
-
40k should not be about "if X and Y and Z align properly, i win the game. i should do that ever time." and i see it more and more. its codex creep.
-
40k should not be about "if X and Y and Z align properly, i win the game. i should do that ever time." and i see it more and more. its codex creep.
agreed, field what you think is cool... not everything has to be about powergaming :P
-
like my 8 point guardsmen, who are the mainstay of an army without access tothe vast majority of the poweful choices from their real list.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
That vid is awesome.
-
40k should not be about "if X and Y and Z align properly, i win the game. i should do that ever time." and i see it more and more. its codex creep.
I agree there is codex creep... or more than creep, maybe codex Zoom. I don't particularly like it but it is a way to sell models. It will be part of any game.
What you are describing with X+Y+Z = powerful is NOT codex creep. That is figuring out how units work together to face a variety of challenges. Many people enjoy figuring out those combination even if they only field them once to prove their theory worked and then move on to other ideas.
As a player of a zero sum game you had better expect that some players will look at a codex and figure out that X unit just isn't worth it and field it very rarely, while Y unit is good at its job and field that, because like it or not some people want to play with the intention of trying to win.
As far as the post upsetting you, please note that I am not advocating using a particular unit all the time because it is powerful, I was pointing out that you will see many players doing that, and that I don't like it when they print units/models that are such a blatantly good choice.
Personally I own Gargoyles and once assembled will field them because they look cool. That in no way stops me from pointing out that in the 4E codex they were by no means amazing but filled a clear roll in the army, and in the 5E the lost that roll.
-
agreed, field what you think is cool... not everything has to be about powergaming :P
There is a difference between fielding a balanced coherent list and power gaming. And there is a huge difference between discussing a list seeming to be stupidly broken and showing up to play with it.
Believe it or not this game has a winner and a looser (0 sum) and some people like figuring out which units are good at which things, and against which opponents.
....... 1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a flame war. ;)
-
Believe it or not this game has a winner and a looser (0 sum)
Actually, have you played 5th edition?
"Oh look, it's the 1/3 of missions we auto tie!"
"GG Buddy!"
I really want the fabled missions book to come out. *sigh*
-
...some players will look at a codex and figure out that X unit just isn't worth it and field it very rarely...
This is what I've come to conclude about the Space Marines Land Raider. For 250 points base, it just doesn't give me the return that 2 or 3 other units that total up to 250 points would get me.
But onto the Tyranid Codex, I don't think that there have been that many drastic/amazing changes done to it. I was fairly ignorant of them until the new codex came out, when a lot of my friends in NJ were raving about it, but from what I surmise about it is that a lot of Elites, HQ's, and Heavy Support choices switched roles, and were modified differently to accommodate certain flavorful lists. When my friend started going on and on about a few units, I made it a point to ask which category they fell under on the Organization Chart, and the majority of them fell under Elites or HQ's. So before worrying about all this uber crap he was going to bring, I did the math, and realized that it's impossible for him to field that many Elite and HQ choices. And therefore, nothing left to worry about.
As for the units that I do know of, the Trigon, the Doom of Malintide (spelling?), and the Monstrous Creature that acts as a "Drop Pod" are the only units I've seen out of the new codex in a game, and this is my analysis. The Trigon, while it can deep strike, should start the game on the board. If it deep strikes, then you run the risk of it mishapping or just not getting to come out in time when you need it (This happened in one of the games I played, and as it turned out, it didn't come into the game until Turn 4, and by then his Hive Tyrants were dead, along with all of his other elite choices, making it the only target 2/3 of my army had to shoot at. It never got to assault, as a result of that).
As for the latter two, they were much more effective in combat. Only downside to either of them is that they are susceptible to Instant Death.
So all in all, I don't think that it's as "broken" as some people said it would be; just different, with a few adjustments. Being that I don't play Tyranids, it's hard for me to truly assess the codex, but as a person who's played against the old and the new one, I don't see many daunting differences.
-
But onto the Tyranid Codex, I don't think that there have been that many drastic/amazing changes done to it....
...and realized that it's impossible for him to field that many Elite and HQ choices. And therefore, nothing left to worry about.
I think that depends upon your definition of drastic and how closely you look. The 'amazing' stuff is all in the new units/models/characters.
As for the force org... one of the most blatantly powerful options the Tervigon can be taken as a troops choice if you grab some gaunts... which you will take anyway because the troop options are so limited.
Sure you can't take every amazing new thing. That is true for any codex. But there are some very powerful combinations that can fit together on a list.
If you want to use a lot of deep strikers like the Trygon (or it's variants), Raveners, etc. you can stack your list to give you a plus on the reserve rolls. And some of the stuff pretty much avoids mishaps.
-
So all in all, I don't think that it's as "broken" as some people said it would be; just different, with a few adjustments. Being that I don't play Tyranids, it's hard for me to truly assess the codex, but as a person who's played against the old and the new one, I don't see many daunting differences.
I kind of expect with any new codex for many players of the new army to grumble about being shafted, while opposition players might be muttering about codex creep. It might take several months for the Bug players to figure out the best new tricks while the opposition learns to counter them. Only then will a real opinion be very meaningful.
-
I kind of expect with any new codex for many players of the new army to grumble about being shafted, while opposition players might be muttering about codex creep. It might take several months for the Bug players to figure out the best new tricks while the opposition learns to counter them. Only then will a real opinion be very meaningful.
Wow you summarized almost the exact OPPOSITE of the discussion we just had.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
This is brilliant. Very, very well done and funny to boot!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
This is brilliant. Very, very well done and funny to boot!
I concur :D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
This is brilliant. Very, very well done and funny to boot!
Rick James looked almost exactly like Hitler in that clip when we tried to explain that the rule really was ambiguous.
-
I found another blatant problem in the codex (besides the spirit leach issue).
The swarm lord entry makes a big deal out of the fact that he can use 2 psychic powers a turn... but he never can.
Every power he has is a psychic shooting attack and the 5th ed book clearly states you can not make two unless you give up another shooting attack. With none to sacrifice... he can never use the second power.
For fucks sake GW... hire an editor/rules tester.
-
If the swarm lord is a monstrous creature, he may fire twice.
-
If the swarm lord is a monstrous creature, he may fire twice.
Doh. The rule made it sound like he actualy needed something to sack but upon second reading it seems like it should work though it is still slightly ambigous as it says 'replace the fireing of' but the part before that makes me think it will work.
-
If the swarm lord is a monstrous creature, he may fire twice.
Stop trying to powergame it.
-
If the swarm lord is a monstrous creature, he may fire twice.
Stop trying to powergame it.
There can be no fun. For we are its enemies and we shal prevail.
-
How are swarm lords different from Eldar Farseers with spirit stones (can 2 psychic powers in a turn) or even Eldrad with his staff (3)? If a specific special rule or widget over rides the default base rule, that is hardly unusual. That's the way the game works all too often.
-
How are swarm lords different from Eldar Farseers with spirit stones (can 2 psychic powers in a turn) or even Eldrad with his staff (3)? If a specific special rule or widget over rides the default base rule, that is hardly unusual. That's the way the game works all too often.
I've had a similar debate about Psychic powers and certain IC's being able to use more than one in a turn. (In my case, it was Njal Stormcaller).
If you read the Psychic Powers section in the rulebook, it says that if a model (that is capable of using Psychic Shooting Powers) is able to fire more than 1 weapon during the Shooting phase, then it can replace each of it's normal shooting attacks with a Psychic Shooting attack.
So in the case of monstrous creatures who have multiple shooting attacks, if it is capable of using Psychic Powers, it can use more than one during the shooting phase, so long as he:
A) Has at least 2 different shooting attacks
- and -
B) Has at least 2 different psychic shooting attacks
Note also that no model can use the same psychic power more than once during any turn (unless otherwise specified in a codex).
Farseers with Spirit Stones and Librarians with an Epistolary can use 2 Psychic powers in a single turn, but never more than one in a single phase (Phases being "Movement, Shooting, & Assault"), because (and correct me if I'm wrong) Farseers and Librarians only have 1 normal non-psychic shooting attack. Therefore, since you can only replace one non-psychic shooting attack with one psychic attack, that is why Farseers and Librarians can only use one per shooting phase.
-
Farseers with Spirit Stones and Librarians with an Epistolary can use 2 Psychic powers in a single turn, but never more than one in a single phase (Phases being "Movement, Shooting, & Assault"), because (and correct me if I'm wrong) Farseers and Librarians only have 1 normal non-psychic shooting attack. Therefore, since you can only replace one non-psychic shooting attack with one psychic attack, that is why Farseers and Librarians can only use one per shooting phase.
I have been unable to find a rule saying only one psychic power per phase, only one psychic power per turn. (Core 40K, Page 50.)
I'm with you that swarm lords are monstrous, and thus are allowed two psychic shooting attacks.
I agree that Farseers and Librarians cannot use two psychic shooting attacks in the same phase or turn. Psycher shooting attacks are shooting attacks, and small models can only shoot once. This is a limit on shooting, however, rather than a limit on psychic powers. This limit does not apply to non-shooting powers.
I cannot see why a psycher can't throw two non shooting powers in the same phase. Farseers have five possible powers : Doom, Guide and Fortune are thrown "at the start of the Eldar turn". Mind War and Eldritch Storm are used in the shooting phase. Mind War and Eldritch Storm count as shooting attacks, and Farseers can only shoot once per turn.
I don't see why a Farseer with a spirit stone cannot throw multiple start of turn powers. An ordinary Farseer with a spirit stone might use both Fortune and Guide at the start of the turn. Eldrad with his staff could do Fortune and Guide twice. (The staff allows a duplicate power.)
-
It seems there is agreement with respect to the Tyranid model so I sugest any further eldar/rules discussion be moved to a new thread.
Back OT What are peoples thoughts on the Tyrannofex (the gunning platform guy)?
Also, what do you think of the transport spores? They seem to me like they would be faily good at contesting objectives (That works right?), given their weapons though I wonder how often the 6" attack will se use.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I97qAyRq_F0)
This is brilliant. Very, very well done and funny to boot!
Rick James looked almost exactly like Hitler in that clip when we tried to explain that the rule really was ambiguous.
Hitler was no real man, he only had a stach, real men grow beards!
-
Bob, after taking another look at the rulebook, I didn't see anything about it saying that psychers can't use more than 1 psychic power during an assault or movement phase specifically either. I'm under the impression that so long as you're able to use more than 1 per turn, you can use 2 on an assault or movement phase, if it's allowed.
As for the Transport spores that Matt brings up, they certainly can contest objectives just as a Drop Pod would if it landed by one. When I first played against it though, it was an Annihilation game, and being that it is susceptible to Instant Death, it didn't contend as well as my opponent had hoped. But it did bring down a Doom of Malintide onto the table, which did it's damage as well before taking 3 Lascannons to the face.
As for it's weapon, if it is similar to the Drop Pod, in that it can't shoot until the turn after it's been put into play, I don't know how effective it'd be. Is it a buyable upgrade, or does it just come with it to start? I could see if it were buyable, then players might just forgo taking it if it's only 6" in range, but I've never seen it used before.
-
OT:
The Tyranofex seems a little overpriced for what he does. I think a carnifex with a venom cannon will be more effective in the long haul and will save you some points.
-
Rurouni
The simple version. Psychic shooting attacks are shooting attacks. Monstrous creatures can only shoot twice. Smaller creatures can only shoot once. I can't swear it's that simple, but it seems like a legit argument.
Also, immobile vehicles cannot contest in the Mega Battle, which could be problematic for drop pod like things. Now, if the bug thing isn't a vehicle???
-
Also, immobile vehicles cannot contest in the Mega Battle, which could be problematic for drop pod like things. Now, if the bug thing isn't a vehicle???
I wasn't aware of this... But since it's technically a monstrous creature, maybe it can. As for regular game play (as in non-Mega Battle games), I'm pretty sure it still would though
-
OT:
The Tyranofex seems a little overpriced for what he does. I think a carnifex with a venom cannon will be more effective in the long haul and will save you some points.
I was thinking something similar. I am wondering about it with either of the other weapon options though.
Assault 20 just sounds cool, even if it ends up being useless.
-
As for the Transport spores that Matt brings up, they certainly can contest objectives just as a Drop Pod would if it landed by one. When I first played against it though, it was an Annihilation game, and being that it is susceptible to Instant Death, it didn't contend as well as my opponent had hoped. But it did bring down a Doom of Malintide onto the table, which did it's damage as well before taking 3 Lascannons to the face.
As for it's weapon, if it is similar to the Drop Pod, in that it can't shoot until the turn after it's been put into play, I don't know how effective it'd be. Is it a buyable upgrade, or does it just come with it to start? I could see if it were buyable, then players might just forgo taking it if it's only 6" in range, but I've never seen it used before.
It has lash whips and a 6 inch weapon base and it is unclear wither you can opt NOT to buy one of the several additional longer range weapons. Personally there is an 18" twin linked that I think would be worth the 10 or 15 points (I forget which).
I would have to check on shooting the turn it came in. I didn't read those rules as carefully as I do some.
At 50-60 points I think it should be decent at contesting on average, but not necessarily brokenly so. It will of course depend upon what is fielded against it.
I am honestly not sure how I feel about instant death on larger beasts with 6 wounds and such. In some ways it is what instant death is about... in others it feels a little excessive. It is what it is but I could see something like D6 wounds or D3+1 being a neat alternate rule if GW got it's act together.
-
Also, immobile vehicles cannot contest in the Mega Battle, which could be problematic for drop pod like things. Now, if the bug thing isn't a vehicle???
Please not the title of this thread. This is not about the Mega Battle it is about the new Codex. How a non-vehicle spore will interact with objectives in the mega battle is a question for a different thread.
-
1. Every unit should list a base size. There is no reason not to list this and every reason to do so.
2. GW is not always clear about when you MUST select one of X options and when you MAY select 1 of X options or none. Clear wording is needed.
3. The organization of the new codex is a frikin mess and while page numbers are listed going one direction (points page to fluff) they are not listed the other way (filled them in myself).
3.1. The 'fluf' pages are not clearly organized and do not specify which units are troops, fast attack, etc.
3.2 The 'fluf' pages do not show any points cost or range which is aggravating.
-
I was thinking the tyranofex with the templates might be worth it as well only downside id its 250pts. For 175 you can get a Htyrant with a thorax swarm for 60 points more you can give him a buddy (TyrantGuard) for 235. Same amount of wounds and toughness, but shodow of the warp and synapse which the Tranofex doesn't have?? (no 'dex on hand)
I was impressed this past weekend with the Hiveguard. I didn't think they would be that good but for 150pts 6 str8 shots ap4 24inch range was a good light armour puncher.
-
QFT
2. GW is not always clear about when you MUST select one of X options and when you MAY select 1 of X options or none. Clear wording is needed.
The Eldar Codex is very guilty of this as well, specifically under the Wave Serpent entry.
3. The organization of the new codex is a frikin mess and while page numbers are listed going one direction (points page to fluff) they are not listed the other way (filled them in myself).
Again, Eldar Codex very guilty of this too.
3.1. The 'fluf' pages are not clearly organized and do not specify which units are troops, fast attack, etc.
3.2 The 'fluf' pages do not show any points cost or range which is aggravating.
At first, this took me some time to get used to, and eventually I just started remembering a lot of small details about each unit as I read it more and more (ie - how many points for certain upgrades). However, this was only with the Space Marine Codex, which for what it's worth, is fairly well organized, IMHO.
Space Marines are also the only codex I've seen that list units at the minimum amount (ie - Tact Squads listed at 90 points for the minimum 5 models), while listing additional troops by their point value, where almost every other codex out there lists each model individually. I know it's only arithmetic, but it would save a bit of time if GW would just follow this model with each codex. It wouldn't be redundant, and it would speed game play/organization along very well.
Personally... with each and every other codex I've picked up, it's almost like reading a new language, in terms of how "organized" it is written. I share a lot of Matt's sentiments when it comes to this, since I'd really like the chance to play other armies and not have to spend a week's worth of dedicated time to learn each codex (like the Eldar one...). But I guess that's what makes 40K more "special" of a game.
-
Rurouni,
I thought the old Tyranid codex was better organized / more usable. What did you think of that one in terms of layout?
-
I was thinking the tyranofex with the templates might be worth it as well only downside id its 250pts. For 175 you can get a Htyrant with a thorax swarm for 60 points more you can give him a buddy (TyrantGuard) for 235. Same amount of wounds and toughness, but shodow of the warp and synapse which the Tranofex doesn't have?? (no 'dex on hand)
IIRC the Tyrant guard does not work as it used to. So in close combat there would be a difference.
But I can see what you are saying about it being an expensive choice with potentially better ways to spend the points.
I think the Tyranofex is going to either be one of those specialized things you bring out in certain situations only, or a model you WANT to be cool but doesn't live up to its points like the old (or for that mater new) biovore.
I was impressed this past weekend with the Hiveguard. I didn't think they would be that good but for 150pts 6 str8 shots ap4 24inch range was a good light armour puncher.
As soon as I saw them I thought they would be great. Only down side is they are strictly trudging. No deep striking. But I think they look like a very solid option. And depending upon terrain you should be able to really take advantage of their line of sight rule.
-
Matt,
It's hard for me to compare the two, since I've only had a chance to skim through them. From what I remember though, the first codex did seem a little easier to understand. When I get the chance, I'll take another look at both.
-
My game over the weekend against the space puppies, had me thinking that you generally do not want to engage your Tyrant with a unit with IC or Powerfist in it.
To me it seems his passive abilities are worth more than putting him in hth. I gave my Tyrant a Heavy VenomCannon and 2 Tyrant Guard with Lashwhips (only tguard I have!) and old adversay. He did more damage with his cannon and psychic ablities than he did in hth. It was either him or a zoey that dropped a predator and he knocked a unit of Thunder Cav down to BS and WS 1 with the ability even though I forgot about in the hth phase. Plus because he had 2 Tervigon's flanking him he and tervigons gave my 90 termagaunts: Counter attack, Posion, Furious Charge, Preferred Enemy, and 2 units FNP.
-
We ran into something else, with the Hive Guard. The unit getting shot at does not get a cover save unless they are in cover. Would a Rhino poping smoke or under the influence of that SW power count as in cover? I can see either way, My inclination is no because they do not confer any benefits of cover besides the save, i.e. they do not block line of sight, etc.
-
We ran into something else, with the Hive Guard. The unit getting shot at does not get a cover save unless they are in cover. Would a Rhino poping smoke or under the influence of that SW power count as in cover? I can see either way, My inclination is no because they do not confer any benefits of cover besides the save, i.e. they do not block line of sight, etc.
I would give the smoke guys the cover save. Just on fluff. They are 'in' a smoke cloud.
RAW I don't know. Should be clarified but likely won't be.
-
Unfortunetly, I think by RAW the Rhino would not be able to. I don't have the 'dex in front of me but I beleive the wording for the Hive guard says you only get the save if you are in cover or touching it. I think technically since the cover being provided by the rhino is given by wargear not terrain. I'm gonna take a look at the marine 'dex when I get home to read the wording.
-
In this case I would like to think that smoke and by nature Storm for the spacewolves would put the vehicle into cover. And would therefore still give them there save against these guys.
-
Unfortunetly, I think by RAW the Rhino would not be able to. I don't have the 'dex in front of me but I beleive the wording for the Hive guard says you only get the save if you are in cover or touching it. I think technically since the cover being provided by the rhino is given by wargear not terrain. I'm gonna take a look at the marine 'dex when I get home to read the wording.
IIRC it says they get a save from cover they are in or touching only if the cover is between them and the guard but I could have that wrong. Definitely 'check the Dex/RAW' time.
-
My thought on how to use the hive guard was more along the lines of keeping the Hive Guard behind a wall or similar while shooting out, so regardless of wither the opponent gets a save... you are shooting them and nothing is coming back at you.
Failing that the closest thing possible.
I think their usefulness will depend a lot on the board setup.
-
I've just been proxy the model's so far but I think they are small enough that you could probably hide them behind a carnfex sized model.
I think the Harpoon cannon is similiar in effect to a flamer in that it negates cover, except it doesn't use a template. If a heavy flamer were to hit a rhino it wouldn't get it smoke save, right?
Edit:
Found from another forum rule reads;
"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
The key word being "only". By this does it mean that if you are not in or touching terrain you do not get a save? Does this over ride all other ways to gain cover i.e. smoke, going fast, etc. By RAW I think it does.
-
a rhino in smoke is its own cover.
-
No it provides a cover save, it does not create cover.
You can't use common sense in a RAW interpretation
-
"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
The key word being "only". By this does it mean that if you are not in or touching terrain you do not get a save? Does this over ride all other ways to gain cover i.e. smoke, going fast, etc. By RAW I think it does.
The way I read that is...
For cover the target is in or touching... it must be between the target and Hive guard to count. Other things that provide a cover save would still work.
Not sure if that is correct though. I think the rule could be better worded (SHOCK!!).
-
a rhino in smoke is its own cover.
jhobin is correct on this one. For RAW it provides a cover save. No cover is created.
We already covered how people might play for fluff but when talking RAW... the rules are the rules.
That said my reading of the exact wording for the rule... the Rhino get's the cover save anyway. But I could be wrong.
-
I think the key part is the word "only". That condition has to be met in order to receive the outcome.
In this case by the wording of the rule the condition is you have to be in or touching the terrain to recieve the cover save. By this wording all other instances are a mute point. i.e. going fast or poping smoke. For instance the rhino has poped smoke with the above rule is the rhino in cover, no, he has the benefits of a cover save but he is not physically in cover, therefore he does not get a save and going fast the same case.
That being said I can see both side's of the argument. I have looked in the rulebooks and can't seem to find a rule by RAW that would support smoke and psyhic powers getting there save. I would love to be wrong on this can someone point to a page that would contradite this?
-
"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
Actually I think it all comes down to a very small semantic point.
The sentence could be read as:
Only count the benefits of cover IF X
or as
Only count the benefits of type of cover Y IF X
It is obviously not written very well but... I think the second is the correct interpretation. Think:
"The target can only count the benefits of (cover they are in or touching) if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
No effect on the benefits of cover they are not in or touching.
This may not have been GWs intent. Intent is hard to judge but I think this is a rather silly rule if the RAW is what was intended.
However if the alternative was the case the rule would have to read:
"The target can only count the benefits of cover if they are in or touching if it and it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
At least that is how I read it. Again I think that makes it a silly rule, because an intervening unit would grant cover (for example) and I think the intent was to NOT allow that type of cover save. I firmly believe in never attempting to play some bullshit rules as intended because you just never know.
-
Watch the Language >:(
I think its a wait and see what's ruled by GW or INATFAQ. I am always interested in rule interpretations and have been a rule judge on occasion and as a competitor in this game I like to think up things my opponents may try rule-wise.
EDIT: INATFAQ did rule that psyker's and such do confer there ability, which is cool by me ;D
Interestingly they also say that went a tyrant is joined with tyrant guard they are essentially a retinue and the tyrant can not be picked out and the tyrant is free to come and go from the unit
-
EDIT: INATFAQ did rule that psyker's and such do confer there ability, which is cool by me ;D
huh? Not sure what you mean by 'confer their ability'.
Interestingly they also say that went a tyrant is joined with tyrant guard they are essentially a retinue and the tyrant can not be picked out and the tyrant is free to come and go from the unit
Doesn't that directly contradict the book? Last edition they were a retinue but this addition nothing was said like that. 5th ed they can't be singled out in CC?
-
Confer their abilities i.e. smoke cloud for the orks, Space puppies storm thingy. doesn't mention smoke launcher but I would assume they fall under this category.
The INATFAQ re-writes some ambigous stuff. I think in this case its the wording of the shieldwall rule.
They havtheir ups and downs as far as FAQ's go but they are the most comprehensive now that GW doesn't do them. They are also what is universally used for independantly run GT's everywhere (at leaset the good ones! ;D )
-
So what do you think of the venomthrope?
Seems to me like it is over-cost for what you get, or under survivable. At 5 points less than a Zoenthrope I am having a hard time seeing why you would go that route.
Very cool fluff wise, and the model is cool, but I am not sure about the rules.
-
The only use I can see for them is in what I've been calling the 'buff' army. Basically layering all transferrable special abilities close to each other so you can make super-gaunts. I was thinking of taking 2 indepdant and hiding them behin tervigon's. The tervigon should be big enough to conceal them from some shots. Also making sure your gaunt bullet screen is with 6' will give them and the tervigon's a 5+ inv. Not to bad for 55pts.
-
i feel like that if a unit benefits from a cover save, there has to be cover to provide it
-
i feel like that if a unit benefits from a cover save, there has to be cover to provide it
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.
-
The only use I can see for them is in what I've been calling the 'buff' army. Basically layering all transferrable special abilities close to each other so you can make super-gaunts. I was thinking of taking 2 indepdant and hiding them behin tervigon's. The tervigon should be big enough to conceal them from some shots. Also making sure your gaunt bullet screen is with 6' will give them and the tervigon's a 5+ inv. Not to bad for 55pts.
Not too bad, but I was thinking 2 Zoenthropes for 10 points more would add more to the group by providing the heavy hitting to help break open Chimeras etc.
The venomthrope isn't bad, but it just seems like I would be reaching for other elites over it most of the time given the limited slots available.
The Ven. seems to want to be up front in CC with its misma and 2+ poison attacks, but seems like it would have a hard time surviving past the first round of CC with only 2 attacks base, toughness 4 and a poor save.
-
I was just reading that he also confer's defensive grenades on units within 6' as well as the cover save.
I think he is defenetly a passive model to use. The lash whips and poison are ok but similiar to what Matt said if you have to use those rules the Venomthrope's are already SOL.
I'm thinking of trying them in my list next time. I'm lucky so far I have 1HQ 6T 1E 2H at 1850 I think I'm gonna try 2 independants to see if they are worthwhile.
-
i feel like that if a unit benefits from a cover save, there has to be cover to provide it
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.
i'm not one for internet tough-guy arguments, but if the book were to say "a unit behind a wall gains a 4+ cover save" is that any different from "a vehicle using smoke launchers gains a 4+ cover save"? essentially, it boils down to [source of cover + recipiant of cover] grants a [value of save] cover save.
-
Does the cover save generated by the SW power give them other benefits of cover, such as striking first?
-
Your right to certain extent about cover being cover.
There is nothing wrong with that if your playing against a friend or a casual tournament at the local store.
I don't know how familiar you are with the scope and depth some people go to for some of the larger tournaments. I know some people that fly across the country and and other continents to go to tournaments. Sometmies dropping over a grand to go. I know I have spent over $500 going to national tournaments multiple times. One of the most annoying things that came about in the early days of these events was the set of rules would change from place to place. This led to a lot of arguments. GW was good with FAQ's for awhile but were slow recently a independant group came up with a fairly comprehensice set of rules to cover most sticky situations.
There are two sets of rules arguments RAW (rule as written) and RAI (rule as interpretted). Most of the time rules are judged in the favor of RAW because it makes sense. The reason why is there is a million dofferent opinions about "fluff-wise" a rule should be rules a certain way. RAW good or bad is a literal intrepration good or bad its the fairest in my opinion.
That being said I mostly play "as if" meaning as if I am in a tournament. Literal interpretation usually wins out in a rules argument because its in black and white.
If you want to play cover is cover go method go ahead as long as you have your opponents permission, but don't expect everyone to play that way.
That being said its a game have fun! ;D
-
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243927
If the rule was quoted correctly (as that is the only time I have read the rule, I don't have a 'nid codex available to me), then this post definitely proves it on the side of smoke, etc. grants cover.
In particular, read post #20. The car example (again, if the quoted rule is quoted correctly) is great for it.
-
That being said its a game have fun! ;D
that happens to actually be a rule, despite what alot of people do. thankfully some people actually play by it.
-
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243927
If the rule was quoted correctly (as that is the only time I have read the rule, I don't have a 'nid codex available to me), then this post definitely proves it on the side of smoke, etc. grants cover.
In particular, read post #20. The car example (again, if the quoted rule is quoted correctly) is great for it.
The car post is well worded. Exactly what I was trying to say earlier.
-
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243927
If the rule was quoted correctly (as that is the only time I have read the rule, I don't have a 'nid codex available to me), then this post definitely proves it on the side of smoke, etc. grants cover.
In particular, read post #20. The car example (again, if the quoted rule is quoted correctly) is great for it.
Post #20 certainly seems to have the best understanding of the rule. Other interpretations seem quite obvious to me as failures to comprehend the rule properly.
The sentence doesn't even seem make sense when you try to interpret it as "only" meaning "other types of cover not functioning."
-
The rule as written:
"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard"
The way it would need to be worded to mean other types of cover would not work:
"The target can only count the benefits of cover IF they are in it or touching it AND it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
The rule as written is CLEARLY setting the conditions for a specific type of cover. Other interpretations do not at all match with the manner in which the sentence is framed.
-
must be a somewhat slow day :P
-
lol warseer.
-
lol warseer.
lol 4chan
-
lol warseer.
lol 4chan
lol lolis.
-
lol warseer.
lol 4chan
lol lolis.
It's ok Rob, they did it for the lulz.... Also, why don't you take a seat. ;)
Anyway, back OT, I think the discussion that Rob posted from the other site made it quite clear how the intended use vs. the interpreted intended use of the creatures ability to ignore cover in certain situations.
Best way to avoid any confusion, like jhobin said, is to ask on a game to game basis, on how your opponent feels about the rule. In casual game play, I don't think issues will really be, well, an issue. In tournaments, my guess is that they're going to use the RAW method over RAI, but then again it never hurts to just ask.
Hehe, funny how a little bit of outside information can bring our discussions to such closure. We should cite other webpages and forums a lot more often. ::)
-
I didn't notice until last night that Zoethropes warp blast was a lance weapon on top of being str10!
-
Best way to avoid any confusion, like jhobin said, is to ask on a game to game basis, on how your opponent feels about the rule. In casual game play, I don't think issues will really be, well, an issue. In tournaments, my guess is that they're going to use the RAW method over RAI, but then again it never hurts to just ask.
No.
The best way to avoid confusion is to use the rule as it is clearly written.
There are cases where rules are unclear (ex. doom) or where they clearly were not meant to act in a strict RAW manner (ex. Storm lord isn't clearly specified to be a form of hive tyrant). But the hive guard rule CLEARLY is NOT one of these. The rule has one correct interpretation.
So to avoid confusion... use the rule as written.
-
The best way to avoid confusion is to use the rule as it is clearly written.
... where they clearly were not meant to act in a strict RAW manner (ex. Storm lord isn't clearly specified to be a form of hive tyrant). .... So to avoid confusion... use the rule as written.
You contradict yourself there. You say play as RAW, but then you say play RAI. The rule is clearly written the SwarmLord is NOT a Hive Tyrant, he is a SwarmLord, so any psychic powers (Like Leech) do not work to their fullest capacity for him. The power will still go off and hurt whatever it was shot at if the test is passed, but the SwarmLord will not regain any wounds because the power as written (RAW) says the HIVE TYRANT (not SwarmLord RAI) regains the wounds. Just like Paroxysm(sp) when cast by the SwarmLord will never end if you play RAW, because it lasts until the end of the Hive Tyrant's (which the SwarmLord is not) next turn.
Thats just two examples where RAW fails. Some rules are written clearly, some are not, use your head and common sense when you play and a lot less headaches appear, after all this is just a freaking game.
-
"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."
The key word being "only". By this does it mean that if you are not in or touching terrain you do not get a save? Does this over ride all other ways to gain cover i.e. smoke, going fast, etc. By RAW I think it does.
Jeff, running late on this so if we're already at this point, oh well.
I'm not even sure I follow where you are going with this. The Tyrant guard rules say you have to be touching cover. But smoke launchers "obscure the target" end of story, no mention of cover.
Going fast, again is in regards to shooting so follows those rules, that is counts as obscured.
Of course vehicles wanting to claim being obscured because of a building or some other cover\terrain feature would now need to be touching it.
It seems clear in the written rules.
Cheers,
Alan
-
The best way to avoid confusion is to use the rule as it is clearly written.
... where they clearly were not meant to act in a strict RAW manner (ex. Storm lord isn't clearly specified to be a form of hive tyrant). .... So to avoid confusion... use the rule as written.
You contradict yourself there. You say play as RAW, but then you say play RAI. The rule is clearly written the SwarmLord is NOT a Hive Tyrant, he is a SwarmLord, so any psychic powers (Like Leech) do not work to their fullest capacity for him. The power will still go off and hurt whatever it was shot at if the test is passed, but the SwarmLord will not regain any wounds because the power as written (RAW) says the HIVE TYRANT (not SwarmLord RAI) regains the wounds. Just like Paroxysm(sp) when cast by the SwarmLord will never end if you play RAW, because it lasts until the end of the Hive Tyrant's (which the SwarmLord is not) next turn.
Thats just two examples where RAW fails. Some rules are written clearly, some are not, use your head and common sense when you play and a lot less headaches appear, after all this is just a freaking game.
This one confused me, the description of the swarm lord, names this as the pinnacle of hive tyrant bioform. Also under tyrant guard it states "a 'Single Hive Tyrant (including swarmlord)..."
That seems pretty clear that a swarlord is indeed a Hive Tyrant...
Cheers,
Alan
-
The best way to avoid confusion is to use the rule as it is clearly written.
... where they clearly were not meant to act in a strict RAW manner (ex. Storm lord isn't clearly specified to be a form of hive tyrant). .... So to avoid confusion... use the rule as written.
You contradict yourself there. You say play as RAW, but then you say play RAI. The rule is clearly written the SwarmLord is NOT a Hive Tyrant, he is a SwarmLord, so any psychic powers (Like Leech) do not work to their fullest capacity for him. The power will still go off and hurt whatever it was shot at if the test is passed, but the SwarmLord will not regain any wounds because the power as written (RAW) says the HIVE TYRANT (not SwarmLord RAI) regains the wounds. Just like Paroxysm(sp) when cast by the SwarmLord will never end if you play RAW, because it lasts until the end of the Hive Tyrant's (which the SwarmLord is not) next turn.
Thats just two examples where RAW fails. Some rules are written clearly, some are not, use your head and common sense when you play and a lot less headaches appear, after all this is just a freaking game.
This one confused me, the description of the swarm lord, names this as the pinnacle of hive tyrant bioform. Also under tyrant guard it states "a 'Single Hive Tyrant (including swarmlord)..."
That seems pretty clear that a swarlord is indeed a Hive Tyrant...
Cheers,
Alan
The very next sentence after "pinnacle of hive tyrant bioform" says that the swarmlord "is to a hive tyrant what a hive tyrant is to a termagant". Guess Termagants are hive tyrants too :)
As for the tyrant guard entry, the parenthesis indicates that this is a special inclusion, otherwise they needn't have even mentioned it.
On the other hand, RAI, my opionion is that the swarmlord is obviously a hive tyrant :)
but by RAW, it doesn't seem to be so, not that I can think of any rule in which this distinction becomes important.
-
Umm, besides the ones that Steve Riley mentioned I mean ;)
-
I publicaly admit that I was wrong ;D I was thinking they would get there save but wanted to see if there was away around it I was not doing it to be cheesy just interested to see if it would apply. I think I posted I was wrong about 2 pages ago when I found a ruling on a credable source I use for rule question.
You guys are worse than my wife! ;D
-
You contradict yourself there. You say play as RAW, but then you say play RAI. The rule is clearly written the SwarmLord is NOT a Hive Tyrant...
I disagree. In the case of the swarm lord there is clearly confusion as he is specifically given powers that are listed as "hive tyrant" powers. Yes they refer to "hive tyrant" within them as well but there is clearly at BEST confusion over wither he should get the benefits of powers he is specifically given.
In the case of the hive guard the rule is very clear. No confusion at all.
If the RAW is clear.. then it is clear. If it is unclear or self contradictory... then you are required to make a call.
-
Umm, besides the ones that Steve Riley mentioned I mean ;)
You mean basically every single one of it's psychic powers?
It is a big deal if you decide not to count the swarm lord as a hive tyrant. It drastically alters the powers.
GW consistently failed to mention that the special characters in the book were X type of creature. So the same/similar problems exist for the others as well. Just a completely retarded unbelievably easy to catch mistake that applies to every codex... so SOP for GW.
-
Umm, besides the ones that Steve Riley mentioned I mean ;)
You mean basically every single one of it's psychic powers?
It is a big deal if you decide not to count the swarm lord as a hive tyrant. It drastically alters the powers.
GW consistently failed to mention that the special characters in the book were X type of creature. So the same/similar problems exist for the others as well. Just a completely retarded unbelievably easy to catch mistake that applies to every codex... so SOP for GW.
I completely agree that it's a big deal. Nevertheless, many times RAW leads us to these (silly) kinds of conclusions.
-
Umm, besides the ones that Steve Riley mentioned I mean ;)
You mean basically every single one of it's psychic powers?
It is a big deal if you decide not to count the swarm lord as a hive tyrant. It drastically alters the powers.
GW consistently failed to mention that the special characters in the book were X type of creature. So the same/similar problems exist for the others as well. Just a completely retarded unbelievably easy to catch mistake that applies to every codex... so SOP for GW.
Maybe the problem is that GW has failed to take into consideration the pedantic nature of it's player base. I personally believe that the Swarmlord is adequately described as a Hive tyrant in it's description.
I will play it as such and allow all others to play it as such. That would of course change if GW release something to say it is not.
Cheers,
Alan
-
Doesn't it say in the 'dex that he can take tryrant guard?
If he can take tyrant guard he's a tyrant, right?
-
Doesn't it say in the 'dex that he can take tryrant guard?
If he can take tyrant guard he's a tyrant, right?
You can't make that kind of inference and claim it is RAW. You could easily have a situation where something that was not a hive tyrant could take tyrant guard for some reason.
-
Maybe the problem is that GW has failed to take into consideration the pedantic nature of it's player base. I personally believe that the Swarmlord is adequately described as a Hive tyrant in it's description.
Cheers,
Alan
Cute dig Alan. But words have meaning and the rules of the game are the rules of the game. Other manufacturers have shown that they can write rules that are clear, and issue timely FAQ when mistakes are made. There is absolutely no excuse for GW publishing rules like spirit leach or not specifying clearly that something counts as a hive tyrant. This is very VERY basic game design.
You can whine all you want about players not playing the way you like... but the rules are abjectly badly written, and some (like spirit leach) are abjectly unclear or have unclear interactions with other rules. Of course we can 'house rule' them. But that is no excuse for GW dropping the ball.
If GW doesn't want to support players using the rules they should stop writing codexes and just make models for us to use under whatever rules we feel like that day.
-
Maybe the problem is that GW has failed to take into consideration the pedantic nature of it's player base. I personally believe that the Swarmlord is adequately described as a Hive tyrant in it's description.
Cheers,
Alan
Cute dig Alan. But words have meaning and the rules of the game are the rules of the game. Other manufacturers have shown that they can write rules that are clear, and issue timely FAQ when mistakes are made. There is absolutely no excuse for GW publishing rules like spirit leach or not specifying clearly that something counts as a hive tyrant. This is very VERY basic game design.
You can whine all you want about players not playing the way you like... but the rules are abjectly badly written, and some (like spirit leach) are abjectly unclear or have unclear interactions with other rules. Of course we can 'house rule' them. But that is no excuse for GW dropping the ball.
If GW doesn't want to support players using the rules they should stop writing codexes and just make models for us to use under whatever rules we feel like that day.
Seriously I'm not trying to be cute, that in fact may be beyond my powers at this stage. But, as I've said before, I feel it's very clear in the description of the swarmlord that it is a Hive Tyrant. I just believe you're overthinking this one.
Sorry,
Alan
-
I'm with ya Alan ;D
seems pretty clear by description he's a tyrant!
-
As a neutral party here I read the description of the Swarmlord and I must agree he is a Hive Tyrant
-
Fluff is not rules per RAW, no where in his Wrtten rules does it say he counts as a Hive Tyrant. If fluff were rules all Relic Blades would require 2 hands to use one.
-
Fluff is not rules per RAW, no where in his Wrtten rules does it say he counts as a Hive Tyrant. If fluff were rules all Relic Blades would require 2 hands to use one.
You may want to read your that space marine codex again.... Relic blades are two handed, hence no extra attack for addition CCW..
So let me ask another question, are terminators space marines? every other unit mentions the word space marine but not that one...
We're being silly people.
Alan
-
Seriously I'm not trying to be cute, that in fact may be beyond my powers at this stage. But, as I've said before, I feel it's very clear in the description of the swarmlord that it is a Hive Tyrant. I just believe you're overthinking this one.
Sorry,
Alan
But the thing is, does it say he's a Hive Tyrant? If not, then you're reading what you assume (and rightfully so) they intended it to be. Key word: intended. If it doesn't say it's a Hive Tyrant, then you read the rule as it was intended to be, which I don't think anybody would disagree with in a friendly or tournament setting.
This game requires reading rules in an RAI form many times, but to say that it's not RAI is a false statement.
-
Since the new thing is referencing other site's I throw my hat in;
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.2.pdf
"PG 95 +TYR.56H.01 - Q:All of the Swarmlord's psychic powers are written as working for a 'Hive Tyrant'. Is he considered a 'Hive Tyrant'?
A:A Super Version of a Hive Tyrant, but yes {clarification}."
basically, he's a tyrant
-
Since the new thing is referencing other site's I throw my hat in;
http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.2.pdf
"PG 95 +TYR.56H.01 - Q:All of the Swarmlord's psychic powers are written as working for a 'Hive Tyrant'. Is he considered a 'Hive Tyrant'?
A:A Super Version of a Hive Tyrant, but yes {clarification}."
So, basically suck it up he's a tyrant :P
I never said he wasn't, in fact I agreed he was.
You're quoting an independent (though professional) FAQ that's saying the Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant, and telling me that's GW's official written rule?
Summary: Yes he should be a Hive Tyrant. Yes that's what GW intended it to be. No it's not the rule that's written, it's the rule that any logical person would figure out was under the rules as intended type of situation.
-
Seriously I'm not trying to be cute, that in fact may be beyond my powers at this stage. But, as I've said before, I feel it's very clear in the description of the swarmlord that it is a Hive Tyrant. I just believe you're overthinking this one.
Sorry,
Alan
But the thing is, does it say he's a Hive Tyrant? If not, then you're reading what you assume (and rightfully so) they intended it to be. Key word: intended. If it doesn't say it's a Hive Tyrant, then you read the rule as it was intended to be, which I don't think anybody would disagree with in a friendly or tournament setting.
This game requires reading rules in an RAI form many times, but to say that it's not RAI is a false statement.
Yes it does.
-
Seriously I'm not trying to be cute, that in fact may be beyond my powers at this stage. But, as I've said before, I feel it's very clear in the description of the swarmlord that it is a Hive Tyrant. I just believe you're overthinking this one.
Sorry,
Alan
But the thing is, does it say he's a Hive Tyrant? If not, then you're reading what you assume (and rightfully so) they intended it to be. Key word: intended. If it doesn't say it's a Hive Tyrant, then you read the rule as it was intended to be, which I don't think anybody would disagree with in a friendly or tournament setting.
This game requires reading rules in an RAI form many times, but to say that it's not RAI is a false statement.
Yes it does.
Does it? I haven't been looking at one, I've just noticed the general consensus is that it doesn't... clearly, at least.
-
Well this about to be a flame war...
-
Well this about to be a flame war...
I'm surprised it hasn't been locked yet. :p
I'm just really baffled by the "GW intended for this to be a Hive Tyrant, even though they don't specifically say it. Thus, it's not Rules-as-Intended" ideas going on here.
-
Seriously I'm not trying to be cute, that in fact may be beyond my powers at this stage. But, as I've said before, I feel it's very clear in the description of the swarmlord that it is a Hive Tyrant. I just believe you're overthinking this one.
Sorry,
Alan
But the thing is, does it say he's a Hive Tyrant? If not, then you're reading what you assume (and rightfully so) they intended it to be. Key word: intended. If it doesn't say it's a Hive Tyrant, then you read the rule as it was intended to be, which I don't think anybody would disagree with in a friendly or tournament setting.
This game requires reading rules in an RAI form many times, but to say that it's not RAI is a false statement.
Well put Rob.
Alan. I am in no way claiming that ANYONE in their right mind would play him as anything but a hive tyrant even at a tournament. The issue I have is that GW had every chance to make the codex clear... and FAILED. Then when they issue poorly worded rules... they don't issue FAQ fast enough (or at all).
Spirit leach is a good example of something that might actually be played differently depending upon the players... EVERYBODY knows this by now... so do we have a GW official FAQ?
-
Well this about to be a flame war...
Wow what a helpful and insightful post.
-
BTW who changed the title of the thread and why is that even allowed?
WTF battlegrounds.
-
The author has the rights to the change the title ;D
I changed it back. I apologize for anyone offended.
-
The author has the rights to the change the title ;D
I changed it back. I apologize for anyone offended.
But it was more descriptive with the new title... ;D
-
The author has the rights to the change the title ;D
I changed it back. I apologize for anyone offended.
But it was more descriptive with the new title... ;D
Agreed. Gave people insight to what the thread was about. :p
-
I'm pretty sure this thread could be renamed "Internet Coliseum - Fight to the Death" and not lose any relavence.
-
I'm pretty sure this thread could be renamed "Internet Coliseum - Fight to the Death" and not lose any relavence.
(http://www.pokeplus.net/pokeplus/sites/default/files/pictures/primeira-geracao/stadium/stadium.jpg) ?
-
*like*
-
Paul, is that your Kriegin your sig?
-
yes, thats my new signature. and it's fantastic.
-
Baaaa
-
Looking to understand Tyranids and psi...
What is the effect of the Warp Field power?
Does the creature casting it need to roll a psycic test to make it work?
At one point, Tyranids messed up the use of psi by anyone else. Is that still in the codex, and if so what is the rule?
-
Warp field is a passive psychic power but technically now its an ability not a power so, it does not require a check.
The new muck with psychic power's ability is called Shadow of the Warp. I beleive its any unit trying to cast a power in 12 inch's has to take the test on 3D6 using the total! if there are any double 6's or 1's it counts as a perils.
-
I was thinking about the new 'Nid codex over lunch and remember a story a friend of mine told me about fighting 'nids in a tourney situation.
My friend had to face two trygons on the board, and had a tough go of it. Got me thinking for some armies that alone could be a game decider, expecially with multiple 6W critter's running around. For instantance my IG 10+ chimera's would not have much a problem, but my Tau that have just 4 weapons >= str8 would have a tough go of it.
I wondering if you are going to see more mechanized armies in a competitive situation because of tyranids.
-
I wondering if you are going to see more mechanized armies in a competitive situation because of tyranids.
So, you have been playing 5th ed in competitive situations right? Nothing will change.
-
Well this about to be a flame war...
Wow what a helpful and insightful post.
Why thank you broguy. What's gooooddd.
-
I wondering if you are going to see more mechanized armies in a competitive situation because of tyranids.
So, you have been playing 5th ed in competitive situations right? Nothing will change.
thats about right. my feet hurt, for the record.