Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a newer tyranid player a lot of these changes look good, though I think 80 points for the wings on the Hive Tyrant may be a little heavy handed, I know they're strong but 80 points is kind of a lot. (See Edit)
I'd also like to see Deathleaper get a little more love, instead of changing his points make him worth 130 points. I don't know if the idea of you errata is simply to balance or innovate, but I think it might be interesting if Deathleaper allows the taking of Lictors as troops choices, and when he is attached to a squad of 3 Lictors he gains a unique "Blur of Bone" special rule which gives he and his squad 4+ invulnerable saves for one turn, usable once per game, no matter how many times he separates and rejoins different lictor squads, make it declarable like a Jink save.

Also I really like your change to Shadow in the Warp, very nice.


EDIT: I now see that you actually reduced the foot tyrants point cost so the increase of wings cost seems more justified.


Also, considering the changes you made for the Genestealers, maybe add the possibility for Hormagaunts to purchase Flesh Hooks for 1pt a model, or maybe give them for free if you bring a group of 40 hormagaunts, that would increase the points sink as a cost factor to gaining the flesh hooks.

 Alaxandir wrote:
As a newer tyranid player a lot of these changes look good, though I think 80 points for the wings on the Hive Tyrant may be a little heavy handed, I know they're strong but 80 points is kind of a lot.
I'd also like to see Deathleaper get a little more love, instead of changing his points make him worth 130 points. I don't know if the idea of you errata is simply to balance or innovate, but I think it might be interesting if Deathleaper allows the taking of Lictors as troops choices, and when he is attached to a squad of 3 Lictors he gains a unique "Blur of Bone" special rule which gives he and his squad 4+ invulnerable saves for one turn, usable once per game, no matter how many times he separates and rejoins different lictor squads, make it declarable like a Jink save.

Also I really like your change to Shadow in the Warp, very nice.

Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.


80pts is about what Wings are worth, and the base cost has been decreased enough to compensate. The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. Basically the Hive Tyrant took 45pts base and shifted them to Wings. It then decreased its cost by 20pts as a discount for T6 3+ being over valued, then increased its cost by 20pts, 10pts for each Master Level on an MC. 165-45-20+20 = 120pts. 120+80 is a 200pts Base Flyrant vs 165 + 35 =200 for the old Base Flyrant. While the Hive Tyrant was terribly costed, the Flyrant was good because of how much they undercosted the Psychic Mastery Levels and how much the undercosted the Wings. Now, a Walkrant is a reasonable choice and balanced with the Flyrant. This is how I've approached a lot of the Errata.

Deathleaper got a significant price decrease, as much cool stuff we could do, I"m trying to keep rules writing to a minimum focusing primarily on points cost, occasionally weapon profiles, and occasionally fixing special rules. Basically, the lighter the hand the better.

I just thought of something cool for Hormagaunts, I know its not really to the context of your Errata but i wanted to share.

Imagine if full broods of Hormagaunts (40) gained 1d3 hammer of wrath attacks on charge, that would be nifty

This is carried down from an above post because it looks like you responded before i finished my editing
[[Also, considering the changes you made for the Genestealers, maybe add the possibility for Hormagaunts to purchase Flesh Hooks for 1pt a model, or maybe give them for free if you bring a group of 40 hormagaunts, that would increase the points sink as a cost factor to gaining the flesh hooks.]]

 Alaxandir wrote:
I just thought of something cool for Hormagaunts, I know its not really to the context of your Errata but i wanted to share.

Imagine if full broods of Hormagaunts (40) gained 1d3 hammer of wrath attacks on charge, that would be nifty

This is carried down from an above post because it looks like you responded before i finished my editing
[[Also, considering the changes you made for the Genestealers, maybe add the possibility for Hormagaunts to purchase Flesh Hooks for 1pt a model, or maybe give them for free if you bring a group of 40 hormagaunts, that would increase the points sink as a cost factor to gaining the flesh hooks.]]

I'm not keen on adding extra things to the game with this errata. Also, the HoW on against doesn't seem quite right.

Flesh Hooks won't work,mad they'd all gain a shooting attack, and they are supposed to be a more specialized biomorphic.

With Genestealers, if fleshhooks are added, they should be extra cost.

I wish more melee options didn't have them. Incubi don't. Termies don't. Banshees shouldn't (out of scope for your balance update). Assault Grenades should be a big deal, IMO, and would hate to see them more ubiquitous.

Bharring wrote:
With Genestealers, if fleshhooks are added, they should be extra cost.

I wish more melee options didn't have them. Incubi don't. Termies don't. Banshees shouldn't (out of scope for your balance update). Assault Grenades should be a big deal, IMO, and would hate to see them more ubiquitous.

Genestealers are 13pts/model and can purchase Fleshhoods for 1pt/model.

I agree Assault Grenades should be a bigger deal, but GW has been too heavy handed in giving them out, so they should be more widely availabe at cost, lest we go through and start removing them from units... which is a distasteful idea.

well, when the Nid codex came out, psyker tests where taken on a Ld test, and a -3 to that is pretty huge actually, making it very hard for any psykers to cast spells if within SitW, so the rule WAS a very powerfull one, since Ld doesnt affect non-peril spells it got a massive reduction in affect.

My idea of getting back to a similar effect would be -1 to warp charge harnessing rolls if withing SitW AND a -2 to Ld on psykers on top, now, that is maybe a bit too strong, but it would be an equivalent effect I believe (I didnt do the math tho).

I wouldnt mind a global -1 to ld (all non-nids units) if a SitW unit is still on the board and a +1 to denying the witch roll for nids if the spell of a non-Nids psyker is cast within Synapse

this would be more fluffy as it would be something that affects everyone on the board while especially affecting Psykers (as the fluff says).
It certainly is stronger than the current SitW but I don't think it would be stronger than pre-6th edition SitW.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
well, when the Nid codex came out, psyker tests where taken on a Ld test, and a -3 to that is pretty huge actually, making it very hard for any psykers to cast spells if within SitW, so the rule WAS a very powerfull one, since Ld doesnt affect non-peril spells it got a massive reduction in affect.

My idea of getting back to a similar effect would be -1 to warp charge harnessing rolls if withing SitW AND a -2 to Ld on psykers on top, now, that is maybe a bit too strong, but it would be an equivalent effect I believe (I didnt do the math tho).

I wouldnt mind a global -1 to ld (all non-nids units) if a SitW unit is still on the board and a +1 to denying the witch roll for nids if the spell of a non-Nids psyker is cast within Synapse

this would be more fluffy as it would be something that affects everyone on the board while especially affecting Psykers (as the fluff says).
It certainly is stronger than the current SitW but I don't think it would be stronger than pre-6th edition SitW.

Harnessing on a 5+ instead of a 4+ is roughly equivalent to the old Casting at LD-3. And with the Psykers at -3 Leadership the net effect has been returned as closely as possible to the old one. The math works out and Inupdated the Errata already. Additional penalties would be really pushing the power level up, more so than the original or intended effect.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this comment, but:

A few weeks ago there was a thread about what needed fixing in the Orks codex. I suggested a minor rules change to Da Finkin' Kap that I've been using in my local group. It's been received pretty positively in that it's not OP (I still got stomped by a Necron Decurion) but has resulted in a lot more close games (in terms of units being destroyed/run off the table - we usually play Maelstrom so getting VPs is still largely up to chance).

Add the following to the end of the description of Da Finkin' Kap: "Alternately, the wearer of Da Finkin' Kap may choose to select any one Warlord Trait without being required to roll randomly; this option negates the ability to generate a second Warlord Trait from the Strategic table."

This works well for obvious reasons but it also enhances the survivability of The Green Tide and the Ork Warband formations: the ability to Waaagh every turn after the first combined with the Prophet of the Waaagh! trait makes the army Fearless every turn after the first. It obviates all the hassle of the original, or even the updated Mob Rule rules.

Of course, the obvious nerfs/downsides to using the rule this way is that it's extremely limiting: it requires you to take one of two very specific, model-heavy formations for this strategy to be effective, you're limited in your choice of Warlord (the stock Warboss who can only use this relic).

But for people who want to run an old-fashioned Boyz-heavy army (because they've built up a mountain of them over the years and editions) this is a pretty good way to make lists much less fragile than the current codex allows.

 Multimoog wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this comment, but:

A few weeks ago there was a thread about what needed fixing in the Orks codex. I suggested a minor rules change to Da Finkin' Kap that I've been using in my local group. It's been received pretty positively in that it's not OP (I still got stomped by a Necron Decurion) but has resulted in a lot more close games (in terms of units being destroyed/run off the table - we usually play Maelstrom so getting VPs is still largely up to chance).

Add the following to the end of the description of Da Finkin' Kap: "Alternately, the wearer of Da Finkin' Kap may choose to select any one Warlord Trait without being required to roll randomly; this option negates the ability to generate a second Warlord Trait from the Strategic table."

This works well for obvious reasons but it also enhances the survivability of The Green Tide and the Ork Warband formations: the ability to Waaagh every turn after the first combined with the Prophet of the Waaagh! trait makes the army Fearless every turn after the first. It obviates all the hassle of the original, or even the updated Mob Rule rules.

Of course, the obvious nerfs/downsides to using the rule this way is that it's extremely limiting: it requires you to take one of two very specific, model-heavy formations for this strategy to be effective, you're limited in your choice of Warlord (the stock Warboss who can only use this relic).

But for people who want to run an old-fashioned Boyz-heavy army (because they've built up a mountain of them over the years and editions) this is a pretty good way to make lists much less fragile than the current codex allows.

Interesting change, but is it necessary? Sure, it fixes one build of Orkz, but how does it help balance the army internally or externally? IMO that is why the new Mob Rule is important, it affects more than just one unit choice, doesn't require a specific combination, and just works accross the board to help balance Orks.

It is good as a single short term fix, but I don't think it has a place in a Balance Errata like this, no "must have" or shoehorned choice really does.

 Zagman wrote:


Interesting change, but is it necessary? Sure, it fixes one build of Orkz, but how does it help balance the army internally or externally? IMO that is why the new Mob Rule is important, it affects more than just one unit choice, doesn't require a specific combination, and just works accross the board to help balance Orks.

It is good as a single short term fix, but I don't think it has a place in a Balance Errata like this, no "must have" or shoehorned choice really does.

That's very true, but in terms of an overall, armywide mechanic, I can imagine paying 10 points to pick any Warlord trait is something that could benefit a wide variety of Ork builds without being OP while staying in spirit of the fluff/original rule. I think Necrons have something similar?

 Multimoog wrote:

 Zagman wrote:


Interesting change, but is it necessary? Sure, it fixes one build of Orkz, but how does it help balance the army internally or externally? IMO that is why the new Mob Rule is important, it affects more than just one unit choice, doesn't require a specific combination, and just works accross the board to help balance Orks.

It is good as a single short term fix, but I don't think it has a place in a Balance Errata like this, no "must have" or shoehorned choice really does.

That's very true, but in terms of an overall, armywide mechanic, I can imagine paying 10 points to pick any Warlord trait is something that could benefit a wide variety of Ork builds without being OP while staying in spirit of the fluff/original rule. I think Necrons have something similar?

10pts to pick a Warlord Trait is light. Especially when Master of Ambush is one of the options, it is so massively powerful guarenteeing it along should be much much more than ten pts.

The Scything talon only getting ap6 as a rule is quite poor.
I really liked the old: one set gives Re-roll "1" in CC tohit, and Two sets gives Reroll all failed tohit rolls in CC.
I realise it would increase the general power of Nids but not by that much.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
The Scything talon only getting ap6 as a rule is quite poor.
I really liked the old: one set gives Re-roll "1" in CC tohit, and Two sets gives Reroll all failed tohit rolls in CC.
I realise it would increase the general power of Nids but not by that much.

Sure, it's basically just a cc weapon. No reason to change it and rebalance stuff. Lighter hand the better IMO.

Why not make SitW do -3 leadership to fear tests to all models within Synapse.

This way it doesn't effect all things leadership and can make Nid Fear rules actually get a chance to be used.

Lance845 wrote:
Why not make SitW do -3 leadership to fear tests to all models within Synapse.

This way it doesn't effect all things leadership and can make Nid Fear rules actually get a chance to be used.

The current rules are as close to the original in affect as possible in 7th. It's a solid rule, I'd hate to mess with it more than was necessary.

I'm not sold on the change to Pyrovores, giving them torrential would change their role. Changing the role is not the correct way to balance a model IMHO.

What about adding to acid blood the following:
"Meele attacks from this model gain the Armour bane special rule"

This enhances the role of "Don't let them get close, semi-glass cannons". Effective against light infantry with the heavy flamer, effective in meele against vehicles and between Initiative tests and AP2 bites can do something to heavy infantry.

Also gives a good boost in anti AV to haruspex (may require an added cost) and would make the acid blood an interesting choice on MCs. More options, always a good thing.

Does something to cover the glaring absence of anti AV in the nids codex and reduce the dependancy to flyrants.

im not sure if reducing the number of models in units is the way to go for ork balance, its not the ork way. the ork way is tons of cheep, fast, heavy hitting vehicles for overwhelming the enemy (just like boyz). if warbuggies was reduced to max 2 or 3 then just to get more you have to use up more fast attack slots (an otherwise very contested slot), same goes for mek gunz, we need these in large number squads because the heavy support is the most crowded in our codex.
while i do admit ive remarked in other posts that orks have the easiest way to unlock multible cads since we have a dirt cheap troop choice, i have found that some campaign and tournaments could be limiting (some limit to max 2 cad).
a campiagn i just started has the limit of 1 cad (no formations or codex detachments), it was a way to better balance the campaign, at that moment im glad most of our units often have large numbers (warbuggies, deffkoptas, mekgunz). i would suggest alternative limitations for this errata (though none come to mind atm)

here are other ork suggestions:
deffkoptas get a character kopta at no cost or bonus (like the chracter in flash gitz or meganobz) this way they can hit the breakin heads result on the mob rule table (also the option for the char to take a bosspole) (this assuming the mob rule table stays rouphly the same)

the errata mob rule seems too cheasy, i wouldve just gone with the 4th edition version and just use that.... or just give the squad the option of passing a moral test at the cost of randum amount of strength 4 hits (d3 for squads 10 and under, d6 for squads 11-20, d6 +3 for squads 21-30), and make the strength 4 hits ap4 (just to balance it out).

and being a little eager for kan and dredd strategies, i might suggest giveing our walkers scout...as a way to help solve the issue of their slowness, or maybe have a bigmek upgrade that allows for the teleport (deepstrike) of these walkers.

the errata mob rule seems too cheasy, i wouldve just gone with the 4th edition version and just use that.... or just give the squad the option of passing a moral test at the cost of randum amount of strength 4 hits (d3 for squads 10 and under, d6 for squads 11-20, d6 +3 for squads 21-30), and make the strength 4 hits ap4 (just to balance it out).

The errata mob rule is worse than the 4th edition one, which was the same thing with no casualties.

Random S4 hits has the same problem as the current mob rule - extra dice rolls for the hell of it. AP4 is brutal to ard boyz, which are already very overcosted, as well as to bikers and such (losing 30pts of bikers to mob rule is ridiculous). Doesn't seem necessary to me at all.

That campaign sounds pretty bad mate. Orks want to spam CAD, and are disproportionately adversely affected by having that option removed. Its the same issue as 6th edition tournies - the Eldar and Tau running the show didn't care about running multiple detachments, so they capped them, which screwed over Orks.

Spoletta wrote:I'm not sold on the change to Pyrovores, giving them torrential would change their role. Changing the role is not the correct way to balance a model IMHO.

What about adding to acid blood the following:
"Meele attacks from this model gain the Armour bane special rule"

This enhances the role of "Don't let them get close, semi-glass cannons". Effective against light infantry with the heavy flamer, effective in meele against vehicles and between Initiative tests and AP2 bites can do something to heavy infantry.

Also gives a good boost in anti AV to haruspex (may require an added cost) and would make the acid blood an interesting choice on MCs. More options, always a good thing.

Does something to cover the glaring absence of anti AV in the nids codex and reduce the dependancy to flyrants.

I tried to come up with the simplest fix to make Pyrovores better. It does change thier role by adding an additional 12" range to their threat, but since the Torrent version is weaker there is still a great incentive to close and use the Heavy Flamer. Either way the unit gained uitily. I never used Pyrovores, but with Torrent, I could see alternative uses for them, especially out of a Tyrranocyte. Torrent also give the ability for models that can't put a Flamer Template down effecively to still git models. Say the front Pyrovore is in range of the HF and the rest torrent the Flamer.

I don't really see how that change to Accid blood really is appropraite. I could see it being an argument for Acid Maw, but blood is all about hurting the units that hurt them.

Nids don't have much AV, but I did help the Tyrannofex, ground MCs in general, geenstealers with rending, etc to help out for anti AV.

geargutz wrote:im not sure if reducing the number of models in units is the way to go for ork balance, its not the ork way. the ork way is tons of cheep, fast, heavy hitting vehicles for overwhelming the enemy (just like boyz). if warbuggies was reduced to max 2 or 3 then just to get more you have to use up more fast attack slots (an otherwise very contested slot), same goes for mek gunz, we need these in large number squads because the heavy support is the most crowded in our codex.
while i do admit ive remarked in other posts that orks have the easiest way to unlock multible cads since we have a dirt cheap troop choice, i have found that some campaign and tournaments could be limiting (some limit to max 2 cad).
a campiagn i just started has the limit of 1 cad (no formations or codex detachments), it was a way to better balance the campaign, at that moment im glad most of our units often have large numbers (warbuggies, deffkoptas, mekgunz). i would suggest alternative limitations for this errata (though none come to mind atm)

here are other ork suggestions:
deffkoptas get a character kopta at no cost or bonus (like the chracter in flash gitz or meganobz) this way they can hit the breakin heads result on the mob rule table (also the option for the char to take a bosspole) (this assuming the mob rule table stays rouphly the same)

the errata mob rule seems too cheasy, i wouldve just gone with the 4th edition version and just use that.... or just give the squad the option of passing a moral test at the cost of randum amount of strength 4 hits (d3 for squads 10 and under, d6 for squads 11-20, d6 +3 for squads 21-30), and make the strength 4 hits ap4 (just to balance it out).

and being a little eager for kan and dredd strategies, i might suggest giveing our walkers scout...as a way to help solve the issue of their slowness, or maybe have a bigmek upgrade that allows for the teleport (deepstrike) of these walkers.

I didn't reduce the number of models in any squad, I did increase the minimum for some. Unless I mistyped something the units should all be allowed the same number of maximum models as before, I don't think there is a single instance where that is the case. If there was a reduction it may have gone from 1-5 to 2-5 etc.

A Deffcopter character would be nice, but I didn't want to go adding unit entries instead focusing on what is already there.

Mob Rule too cheesy, it is less powerful than the 4th edition version and vastly better than the 7th edition version. It also reduces the number of rolls significantly, and fits the spirit of the Mob rule as conveyed in 7th. Big mobs have higher leadership but take damage to pass.

Your suggested mob rule is very convoluted and will slow play down just as much as the current one with no real benefit. And AP4 is really problematic and punishing to more costly models Ard Boyz, Bikes, etc.

Dakkamite wrote:

the errata mob rule seems too cheasy, i wouldve just gone with the 4th edition version and just use that.... or just give the squad the option of passing a moral test at the cost of randum amount of strength 4 hits (d3 for squads 10 and under, d6 for squads 11-20, d6 +3 for squads 21-30), and make the strength 4 hits ap4 (just to balance it out).

The errata mob rule is worse than the 4th edition one, which was the same thing with no casualties.

Random S4 hits has the same problem as the current mob rule - extra dice rolls for the hell of it. AP4 is brutal to ard boyz, which are already very overcosted, as well as to bikers and such (losing 30pts of bikers to mob rule is ridiculous). Doesn't seem necessary to me at all.

That campaign sounds pretty bad mate. Orks want to spam CAD, and are disproportionately adversely affected by having that option removed. Its the same issue as 6th edition tournies - the Eldar and Tau running the show didn't care about running multiple detachments, so they capped them, which screwed over Orks.

Exactly, it isn't as good as the old Mob Rule, but quite a bit better than the new one.

Pyrovores need to leave the elites slot. Get them into Heavy Support. If I was choosing between Carnifex or Pyrovores it would be a more strategic choice. When it's between the thropes and Pyrovores it's no choice at all. The thropes come the vores stay.

Alternatively, Make it so every unit of gants can replace 4 gants with 1 pyrovore. Then they can fill a sergeant kind of role in the troops section. I bet they will see TONS of use if you can bring some flamers with your hordes. You wouldn't even need to change their stat line at all then.

Just remove that really stupid self destruct rule.

yeah sorry, misread your rules for unit restrictions. so you didnt change the max, but you did the minimum? if that is the case then why the increas of minimum? if the minimum is increased then the units become expensive. that could work for balance but changes the strategies of units. for example a defkopt that doesnt have a character option has to come in squads of 3, the squad has a high chance of running if just one kopta dies (thats why most poeple take them min squads of one bike as cheep ogj sec).

i was just throwing ideas at the wall with mobrule.

"The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. "

No the flyrant is undercosted, severely actually. It is too strong for its points cost, especially considering 5 can be taken in most tournament settings. It's OP, and needs either a nerf or an 0-1 restriction. Your rules do nothing to reign in one of the most abusive units of the entire game, and thats a problem.

Also the bubble 2+ cover is waaaaaaaay too accessible for tyranids. Malanthropes need some serious work done to make them a reasonable unit

 Silverthorne wrote:
"The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. "

No the flyrant is undercosted, severely actually. It is too strong for its points cost, especially considering 5 can be taken in most tournament settings. It's OP, and needs either a nerf or an 0-1 restriction. Your rules do nothing to reign in one of the most abusive units of the entire game, and thats a problem.

Also the bubble 2+ cover is waaaaaaaay too accessible for tyranids. Malanthropes need some serious work done to make them a reasonable unit

If I was going to redo HT I would do this.

Step 1: Bring in a Armor Plating Biomorph that can be taken by HT, Warriors, Fexs, Primes and such that increases armor save by +1. This way Walkrants can get a single great save going for them.

Step 2: Points reduction on HT. Go from 165 to 145.

Step 3: Wings cost 45 instead of 35 AND replace a pair of Sycthing Talons. Wings will also be exclusive to Armor Plating. No Flyrants with 2+

The over all here is that a HT now costs a little less as a flyrant and a lot less as a walkrant while reducing it's TLDwBLW to 6 shots. It also means your thorax swarm becomes your second weapon you fire off each turn making things besides the electroshock grubs a tad more useful.

The unit is still great with a more fair price point while other options for the HT become more viable. You want the 2 pair tldwblw? Make it a walkrant and armor it up.

That being said, Cover is basically all we got. The only source of an invul save in the basic codex is on a zoanthrope. You cannot take away nid cover without crippling the entire army.

Lance845 wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
"The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. "

No the flyrant is undercosted, severely actually. It is too strong for its points cost, especially considering 5 can be taken in most tournament settings. It's OP, and needs either a nerf or an 0-1 restriction. Your rules do nothing to reign in one of the most abusive units of the entire game, and thats a problem.

Also the bubble 2+ cover is waaaaaaaay too accessible for tyranids. Malanthropes need some serious work done to make them a reasonable unit

If I was going to redo HT I would do this.

Step 1: Bring in a Armor Plating Biomorph that can be taken by HT, Warriors, Fexs, Primes and such that increases armor save by +1. This way Walkrants can get a single great save going for them.

Step 2: Points reduction on HT. Go from 165 to 145.

Step 3: Wings cost 45 instead of 35 AND replace a pair of Sycthing Talons. Wings will also be exclusive to Armor Plating. No Flyrants with 2+

The over all here is that a HT now costs a little less as a flyrant and a lot less as a walkrant while reducing it's TLDwBLW to 6 shots. It also means your thorax swarm becomes your second weapon you fire off each turn making things besides the electroshock grubs a tad more useful.

The unit is still great with a more fair price point while other options for the HT become more viable. You want the 2 pair tldwblw? Make it a walkrant and armor it up.

That being said, Cover is basically all we got. The only source of an invul save in the basic codex is on a zoanthrope. You cannot take away nid cover without crippling the entire army.

What i would do the HT is the following: Wings upgrade drops your R to 5. Brings it in line with other Nid FMC, can't be too sturdy and still fly, nids don't have fantasy gizmos for that. At R5 it would be a good unit but much more risky.
On the cover there is one thing i would do. Taking aside the Malanthrope which is FW and in this thread we are not considering FW, there is still the problem that a Venom does what it does for 45 and there is almost no reason to take more than one model in the unit.
I would change the venom shroud rule to depend on the number of venoms in the unit:
1) Models in 6" that do not have the shrouded rule get the Stealth rule.
2) Models in 6" get shrouded.
3) Models in 9" get shrouded.

At least now there is a choice in the number of venoms you carry.

Also since we are taking a good look at everything nid, should we also remember that part of the codex than no one in his right mind uses? Maybe that we should think of something to give nids back their beautiful tails?
Maybe the following:
Bone tails from 15 to 10
Thresher Scythe from 10 to 5 and replace rend with shred
Prehensile pincer from 10 to 5
Toxin spike gains ID on 6

On a final note, can't we do something for stranglewebs? Maybe remove pinning and add "A model hit by this weapon must pass a Pinning test" or "A model hit by this weapon must pass a STR check or get pinned" like the old codex.

Spoletta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
"The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. "

No the flyrant is undercosted, severely actually. It is too strong for its points cost, especially considering 5 can be taken in most tournament settings. It's OP, and needs either a nerf or an 0-1 restriction. Your rules do nothing to reign in one of the most abusive units of the entire game, and thats a problem.

Also the bubble 2+ cover is waaaaaaaay too accessible for tyranids. Malanthropes need some serious work done to make them a reasonable unit

If I was going to redo HT I would do this.

Step 1: Bring in a Armor Plating Biomorph that can be taken by HT, Warriors, Fexs, Primes and such that increases armor save by +1. This way Walkrants can get a single great save going for them.

Step 2: Points reduction on HT. Go from 165 to 145.

Step 3: Wings cost 45 instead of 35 AND replace a pair of Sycthing Talons. Wings will also be exclusive to Armor Plating. No Flyrants with 2+

The over all here is that a HT now costs a little less as a flyrant and a lot less as a walkrant while reducing it's TLDwBLW to 6 shots. It also means your thorax swarm becomes your second weapon you fire off each turn making things besides the electroshock grubs a tad more useful.

The unit is still great with a more fair price point while other options for the HT become more viable. You want the 2 pair tldwblw? Make it a walkrant and armor it up.

That being said, Cover is basically all we got. The only source of an invul save in the basic codex is on a zoanthrope. You cannot take away nid cover without crippling the entire army.

What i would do the HT is the following: Wings upgrade drops your R to 5. Brings it in line with other Nid FMC, can't be too sturdy and still fly, nids don't have fantasy gizmos for that. At R5 it would be a good unit but much more risky.
On the cover there is one thing i would do. Taking aside the Malanthrope which is FW and in this thread we are not considering FW, there is still the problem that a Venom does what it does for 45 and there is almost no reason to take more than one model in the unit.
I would change the venom shroud rule to depend on the number of venoms in the unit:
1) Models in 6" that do not have the shrouded rule get the Stealth rule.
2) Models in 6" get shrouded.
3) Models in 9" get shrouded.

At least now there is a choice in the number of venoms you carry.

Also since we are taking a good look at everything nid, should we also remember that part of the codex than no one in his right mind uses? Maybe that we should think of something to give nids back their beautiful tails?
Maybe the following:
Bone tails from 15 to 10
Thresher Scythe from 10 to 5 and replace rend with shred
Prehensile pincer from 10 to 5
Toxin spike gains ID on 6

On a final note, can't we do something for stranglewebs? Maybe remove pinning and add "A model hit by this weapon must pass a Pinning test" or "A model hit by this weapon must pass a STR check or get pinned" like the old codex.

The problem with the shrouded changing depending on number of models is that venomthrops are already not very survivable. The reason malanthropes are so popular is they are venomthropes that can hang around through an attack. Coupled with their complete lack of survivability, if each time you lost one their survivability got WORSE because shrouded would keep on degrading they would become target 1 no matter what.

The issue of venoms is their ability to take a hit, any hit. People bring them in groups of 1 because the 6 inches is not a very big bubble. If you want your army covered you need one on each flank. If they got more expensive to be viable you would stop seeing them all together.

geargutz wrote:
yeah sorry, misread your rules for unit restrictions. so you didnt change the max, but you did the minimum? if that is the case then why the increas of minimum? if the minimum is increased then the units become expensive. that could work for balance but changes the strategies of units. for example a defkopt that doesnt have a character option has to come in squads of 3, the squad has a high chance of running if just one kopta dies (that why most poeple take them min squads of one bike as cheep ogj sec).

i was just throwing ideas at the wall with mobrule.

I didn't change the max, just the minimum because 18 and 25pt units that are capable is a bit too much. Being a separate unit in and of itself is powerful, as it takes a minimum of an activation away from your opponent. I feel we need to be very wary of any unit under 40-50pts hence the change to minimum squad size. Each model is balanced for its cost, but the extremely cheap MSU can be problematic. Other codicies got the same treatment ie Nurglins, Furries, etc.

Deftkoptas come in squads of two, with up to three additional. 60pts is still cheap, and a pair of Koptas is still quite useful. LD7 is still a 58% chance of success and Koptas will most likely be far enough away to attempt a regroup, again a 58% chance of regrouping. Snap shots are also only a 50% reduced chance of hitting.

This Mobrule works well, as it reflects how Orks act in Mobs, and greatly reduces wounds taken and leaderships failed for Mobs, especially units that have 8+ models. The 7th Ed mobrule was very punishing and took quite a bit of rolling... especially random allocation, and really didn't offer an advantage. It was also quite convoluted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
"The Flyrant is definitely worth its poitns, almost a little too good with its shooting. "

No the flyrant is undercosted, severely actually. It is too strong for its points cost, especially considering 5 can be taken in most tournament settings. It's OP, and needs either a nerf or an 0-1 restriction. Your rules do nothing to reign in one of the most abusive units of the entire game, and thats a problem.

Also the bubble 2+ cover is waaaaaaaay too accessible for tyranids. Malanthropes need some serious work done to make them a reasonable unit

I'm still struggling with the Tyrant, when I wrote the first draft of the Errata for Tyranids, my general Errata had a limit on FMCs, on per full 500pts in a list. I've since removed that restriction and things like Pentarants are now more problematic, extremely so as a 10pt increase in cost and always being visible with no terrain cover saves doesn't really balance them out with opening up their Psychic access. When they were limited to say 3 in 1850, it wasn't a problem.

I'm considering making Wings reduce the Hive Tyrant's AS to a 4+. I would also make Daemon Princes unable to take a 3+ AS with Wings. Since I've also make it that FMCs are always visible and cannot claim a cover save outside of Jinking while Swooping, I'd let them start the game in Swooping Mode when deployed. Thoughts?

That is because the Malanthrope is a terribly costed model, it should be ~115pts, not 85pts. Since this errata doesn't include quite a bit of content that isn't in the Codices right now, so the Malanthrop is currently out until I add a little section for it. But, its fine as is so long as it is costed appropriately, 115pts would be fair.


@Lance845 and Spoletta
What about the above changes reducing the Flyrant to a 4+AS? Fitting as almost all Skyfire weapons are AP4 and my Erratas have given fair access to skyfire missiles. I do like idea of the HT changes and they could work, but that is adding quite a bit more changes and conditions. I'm looking for the simplest solution.

I didn't really think about the Tail Biomorphs, you are right, they do probably need a decrease in cost.

I'm not a fan of making the Venomthropes abilities dependent on number of models, it is punishing, and they are already fragile and a fire magnent. I originally had it at 50pts, but after a good go around and realizing it only has a 5+AS which means most cover ignoring weapons can wound it easily, I felt it was balanced when compared to say an Ork KFF.

I'll take another look at Stranglewebs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
Pyrovores need to leave the elites slot. Get them into Heavy Support. If I was choosing between Carnifex or Pyrovores it would be a more strategic choice. When it's between the thropes and Pyrovores it's no choice at all. The thropes come the vores stay.

Alternatively, Make it so every unit of gants can replace 4 gants with 1 pyrovore. Then they can fill a sergeant kind of role in the troops section. I bet they will see TONS of use if you can bring some flamers with your hordes. You wouldn't even need to change their stat line at all then.

Just remove that really stupid self destruct rule.

Hmm... I'm not terribly opposed to moving the Pyrovore out of the Elites slot. I don't really want to mix it into the Troops as a Seargent HQ, especially with non synergistic special rules.

The Torrent ability is not enough to make them worth considering for a third Elite?

There is only six options in Elites and seven in Heavy support already. Making that five and eight seems like it crowds heavies with even more.

 Zagman wrote:


@Lance845 and Spoletta
What about the above changes reducing the Flyrant to a 4+AS? Fitting as almost all Skyfire weapons are AP4 and my Erratas have given fair access to skyfire missiles. I do like idea of the HT changes and they could work, but that is adding quite a bit more changes and conditions. I'm looking for the simplest solution.

I didn't really think about the Tail Biomorphs, you are right, they do probably need a decrease in cost.

I'm not a fan of making the Venomthropes abilities dependent on number of models, it is punishing, and they are already fragile and a fire magnent. I originally had it at 50pts, but after a good go around and realizing it only has a 5+AS which means most cover ignoring weapons can wound it easily, I felt it was balanced when compared to say an Ork KFF.

I'll take another look at Stranglewebs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
Pyrovores need to leave the elites slot. Get them into Heavy Support. If I was choosing between Carnifex or Pyrovores it would be a more strategic choice. When it's between the thropes and Pyrovores it's no choice at all. The thropes come the vores stay.

Alternatively, Make it so every unit of gants can replace 4 gants with 1 pyrovore. Then they can fill a sergeant kind of role in the troops section. I bet they will see TONS of use if you can bring some flamers with your hordes. You wouldn't even need to change their stat line at all then.

Just remove that really stupid self destruct rule.

Hmm... I'm not terribly opposed to moving the Pyrovore out of the Elites slot. I don't really want to mix it into the Troops as a Seargent HQ, especially with non synergistic special rules.

The Torrent ability is not enough to make them worth considering for a third Elite?

There is only six options in Elites and seven in Heavy support already. Making that five and eight seems like it crowds heavies with even more.

The Flyrants AS is not the problem. People complain constantly about how many come because of the destruction they lay down. 12 tl s6 shots in the air is a bit much per model. The Flyrant is one of the few survivable models we have. Nids need to maintain some of that. Especially with the Tyrant as he is often the center piece of the swarm holding it all together and going where the fighting is thickest. Reducing it's punch by half by making the wings take up a slot with the appropriate point adjustments puts it into a place that makes a lot more sense while maintaining it's usefulness. I would not stop taking Tyrants if I had to fire off a template and 1 set of devourers each turn.

I think the problem with tail biomorphs is that they do not benefit from any other rules. No poison, no furious charge etc etc... If they did they would be used more often.

Both Heavy and Elites are crowded.

There needs to be a bit of a shuffle. I feel like Trygons and Trygon Primes should be in fast attack. Pyrovores in Heavy or Troops and the option to replace a small cluster of gants with one would make them super viable and useful. Again, the real issue is that Pyrovores are competing against things that are MUST BRING. The thropes are all must haves in one way or another. You cannot put the pyrovore next to them and expect them to show up at all. Being able to drop a flamer into a group of devil gants and watch the world burn would be great. The Biovore would gain a little survivability in the form of ablative gant wounds and the gants would gain a template to use. Awesome.

You have 3 elite slots and limited points. You would take something other then cover saves/synapse/warp lance?

Lance845 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Zagman wrote:


@Lance845 and Spoletta
What about the above changes reducing the Flyrant to a 4+AS? Fitting as almost all Skyfire weapons are AP4 and my Erratas have given fair access to skyfire missiles. I do like idea of the HT changes and they could work, but that is adding quite a bit more changes and conditions. I'm looking for the simplest solution.

I didn't really think about the Tail Biomorphs, you are right, they do probably need a decrease in cost.

I'm not a fan of making the Venomthropes abilities dependent on number of models, it is punishing, and they are already fragile and a fire magnent. I originally had it at 50pts, but after a good go around and realizing it only has a 5+AS which means most cover ignoring weapons can wound it easily, I felt it was balanced when compared to say an Ork KFF.

I'll take another look at Stranglewebs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:
Pyrovores need to leave the elites slot. Get them into Heavy Support. If I was choosing between Carnifex or Pyrovores it would be a more strategic choice. When it's between the thropes and Pyrovores it's no choice at all. The thropes come the vores stay.

Alternatively, Make it so every unit of gants can replace 4 gants with 1 pyrovore. Then they can fill a sergeant kind of role in the troops section. I bet they will see TONS of use if you can bring some flamers with your hordes. You wouldn't even need to change their stat line at all then.

Just remove that really stupid self destruct rule.

Hmm... I'm not terribly opposed to moving the Pyrovore out of the Elites slot. I don't really want to mix it into the Troops as a Seargent HQ, especially with non synergistic special rules.

The Torrent ability is not enough to make them worth considering for a third Elite?

There is only six options in Elites and seven in Heavy support already. Making that five and eight seems like it crowds heavies with even more.

The Flyrants AS is not the problem. People complain constantly about how many come because of the destruction they lay down. 12 tl s6 shots in the air is a bit much per model. The Flyrant is one of the few survivable models we have. Nids need to maintain some of that. Especially with the Tyrant as he is often the center piece of the swarm holding it all together and going where the fighting is thickest. Reducing it's punch by half by making the wings take up a slot with the appropriate point adjustments puts it into a place that makes a lot more sense while maintaining it's usefulness. I would not stop taking Tyrants if I had to fire off a template and 1 set of devourers each turn.

I think the problem with tail biomorphs is that they do not benefit from any other rules. No poison, no furious charge etc etc... If they did they would be used more often.

Both Heavy and Elites are crowded.

There needs to be a bit of a shuffle. I feel like Trygons and Trygon Primes should be in fast attack. Pyrovores in Heavy or Troops and the option to replace a small cluster of gants with one would make them super viable and useful. Again, the real issue is that Pyrovores are competing against things that are MUST BRING. The thropes are all must haves in one way or another. You cannot put the pyrovore next to them and expect them to show up at all. Being able to drop a flamer into a group of devil gants and watch the world burn would be great. The Biovore would gain a little survivability in the form of ablative gant wounds and the gants would gain a template to use. Awesome.

You have 3 elite slots and limited points. You would take something other then cover saves/synapse/warp lance?

I hear what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it.

I do disagree about Flyrant durability. A T6 3+AS FMC with 4W is incredibly durable and when spammed results in something most opponents cannot address. Lowing durability is a perfectly acceptable way of balancing a model's damage output. They do bring a lot of destruction, but if opponents have a more viable way to make them Jink or damage them that destruction is balanced out by a reduced longevity or temporarily reduced efficiency. The Tyrant may be one of the more survivable models the Nids had, hell it was the most, and one of the most damaging as well. Now, Nids have access to a myriad of cheaper ground MCs, as well as having other models balanced more appropriately. I don't mind if the Flyrant can dish out damage, but when they can be spammed and dish out damage while being ridiculously durable thanks to being a T6 FMC with a 3+, that is what hurts. I don't mind the damage out put of a Dakkafex, because being a ground MC the Dakkafex can be countered and killed. Its the durability of the Flyrant that causes lots of issues and why spamming them to overwhelm your opponents ability to deal Skyfire damage is IMO the most problematic, not that they have good damage output for cost.

Tail Biomorphs do suffer from that problem, but a cost adjustment does the same thing. If they are costed appropriately they will be considered as viable options.

A shuffle, so move Pyrovores to Heavy, move Trygons and Trygon Primes to Fast attack. So instead of having 6Elites, 7Fast Attack, 7Heavy Support we'll end up with 5Elites, 9Fast Attack, and 6Heavy Support. That really scews FOC slots even worse.

We have to think we are in a Multicad/formation environment where the exact number of slots is changeable. What we have to provide is balanced units and choices. We can agree that now Pyrovores gaining Torrent makes them more cost effective and at least closer to balanced than they were before. 40pts for T4 3W 4+AS and dual Flamer profiles including torrent is a solid unit for its cost. It is a balance improvement. If we start shuffling slots we'll end up with other units that are marginalized even more.

Is the Pyrovore appropriately costed?
Is the Venomthrope appropriately costed?
Is the Zoanthrope appropriately costed?

If the answer is "yes" or "pretty" close for all three of those then they are close enough.

Those three things are very important and will often require the majority of the Elite Spots. Any of those three things in that slot can be skipped, maybe its not optimal but creating optimally equal choices is virtually impossible, just as it is impossible to balance the synergy a Venomthrope brings to the table. But, ideally a Nid army that takes other units should fair better than it did before, and an optimal build should fair worse or simply be more expensive than it was before. Pushing both extremes towards the middle is what we need to be doing.

I know that what i suggested is quite punishing for the venoms, but it is intended.
Nids right now depend on flyrants and venoms, what we are trying to do right now is eliminate that dependency.
That means nerfing Flyrants, buffing pretty much the whole codex and in the end being able to nerf the venoms without screwing the army.
Let's face it, venoms are OP. For what they bring in terms of strength multiplier they are too much of a bargain. If the codex would be modified with all the buffs we are suggesting here but without at the same time nerfing the one model that allowed such a mess of an army to be semi competitive then we are getting close to Newdar.
All the points cost have been revised, we can now afford to pay more for our shroud bubble or just accept our losses.

Another point, do we need to take a look at the nid powers? They don't need much, i would just propose the following:

Dominion increases SiTW range
The Horror add "The target unit cannot fire overwatch"
Psychic shriek increase nova to 9"
Maybe bring Warp lance to AP1, makes it a bit more reliable form of AV.