Additionally Valrak has just posted that he thinks we are going to see a new WarhamerQuest game at Nova and it will be based around space hulk so we may get new Nids there.
New as not yet shown (Shrikes etc.) or new as updated (Stealers, Gaunts etc.)?
Well if its Space hulk it would be Genestealers almost for certain. Shrikes would be cool but super strange in a corridor game.
Of course it could run with regular stealers and perhaps a unique new character model or such.
I gave Shrikes only as example of new/not revealed unit (as they would indeed be strange in that environment) but I do not believe in any Tyranids like that simply because what there is left except Shrikes and Sky Slashers? Also new units that are not in codex?
From the sprue pics of genestealers it looks like the shoulder/back plates could possibly be left off to give a more old school/original space hulk silhouette. Curious to see more in person.
For me the first good news is that the new gaunts are 100% the same as the current leviathan ones. Exactly the same sprue with an extra weapon one thrown in.
So I can happily buy more Leviathan overstock ones and get more gaunts for my money with the new weapon sets.
It looks like the gun sprue has enough spine fists and devs for the full squad, boy only 1 each of the new special weapons. So if you want to take one of each of those in a squad, the bulk guys from the lev box are not going to get all the toys to play with.
If the specials are not auto include, and you only want to take ones that synergize with the basic gaunt guns, they will stretch farther.
The Neurolictor stats have me whelmed. Doesn't looks like he'll assassinate much but the weakest of characters. And all of his special abilities does nothing to help him in is task and lack the "psychic" flavor I was hoping to see with him (but at the same time, not being a psyker is a bonus in this edition I guess).
Either/Or wrote: From the sprue pics of genestealers it looks like the shoulder/back plates could possibly be left off to give a more old school/original space hulk silhouette. Curious to see more in person.
Good catch, they do seem to have that ribbed back like the old models. I have a ton of them so will be interesting to see them side by side! Also funny that one sprue is fully dedicated to arms (and a few heads thrown in to fill gaps), and they still had to put more arms on the legs sprues! So many arms there
Either/Or wrote: From the sprue pics of genestealers it looks like the shoulder/back plates could possibly be left off to give a more old school/original space hulk silhouette. Curious to see more in person.
I don't think this is true sadly, if you leave off the backplate piece you will have flat empty spaces round the shoulders and a gap in the spine. It's maybe not impossible that a future upgrade sprue for GSC could provide an alternative old-school version of this piece but it's probably a one in a million shot.
I am looking forward to seeing what the fine folks over at Goonhammer have to say about the Nid book tomorrow, both because it's the first codex of 10th and because I want to know what might be good to help me decide future purchases for my Nid army.
It seems the Norn Emissary is not as big of a model as some of the marketing material and product shots suggest. With the scenic base and the large spore chimneys it's probably the size of a Trygon but with more delicate proportions.
I just looked at the datasheet cards and they no longer seem to come with detachment cards. So that means you'll still have to get a codex for detachment rules and stratagems. Who the bloody F made that decision? The whole point of having everything nice and easy at hand on your cards just gets nullified the moment the codex gets released. Yes I get that it's probably an attempt to make sure the codex sells, but in practice people will just use free online sources for the detachment if they have already bought the datacards. Sigh... classic GW. Rant over.
It seems the Norn Emissary is not as big of a model as some of the marketing material and product shots suggest. With the scenic base and the large spore chimneys it's probably the size of a Trygon but with more delicate proportions.
So this finally ends my hope for more heads in Vores kit :(
Us3Less wrote: I just looked at the datasheet cards and they no longer seem to come with detachment cards. So that means you'll still have to get a codex for detachment rules and stratagems. Who the bloody F made that decision? The whole point of having everything nice and easy at hand on your cards just gets nullified the moment the codex gets released. Yes I get that it's probably an attempt to make sure the codex sells, but in practice people will just use free online sources for the detachment if they have already bought the datacards. Sigh... classic GW. Rant over.
Yea that sucks. Especially as it was handy to give opponent stratagem page to review
Doubt big changes to points though. Most of datasheets same and codex points decided well before 10th released so accuracy of points had no data so short of change for sake of change datasheets that didn't change shouldn't be changing all that much if any.
The whole termagaunts having support weapons "1 in 10" I expected. It's very "AoS" style and I get it, but I also hate it on two fronts.
1) It kind of devalues the special weapons as being special
2) It very much messes with Leviathan sets because they don't have those weapon options and chances are those special upgrade sets will be a nightmare to get from places like ebay.
That said honestly they don't sound gamebreaking so having bare termagaunts without them or bare devourergaunts is unlikely to cause issues and you never know GW might decide to start charging points for them next edition.
I actually like the subtle change away from "Xenos claws and teeth" because Xenos is used for all non-human factions, not just Tyranids. There are also multiple other tooth and claw monster attacks out there, so having a unique name that fits tyranids I think is a small, doesn't affect the game; but neat change.
Devalues? So would you prefer fixed amount per squad regardless do you have 10 or 20? That would favour msu when it's already hard to justify non-msu. Or every model should be able to get one?
tneva82 wrote: Devalues? So would you prefer fixed amount per squad regardless do you have 10 or 20? That would favour msu when it's already hard to justify non-msu. Or every model should be able to get one?
It devalues the concept in the sense that they are better weapons so you'd always take them because there's no downside nor cost in taking them. It's in line with "no points upgrades" in that you have no reason not to take a better weapon unless you just don't have a model for it.
I'd still prefer they were special in the sense of being a choice to take or not.
Again I don't think they are game breaking or going to massively change the performance of blocks of gaunts
While ago I wrote to GW about Rippers being 3-6 when Leviathan and CP gives only 2 bases. My recommendation was 2-6 but 1-3 is also good.
It is also nice that Raveners can change their Thorax weapons for a better save.
The 1-3 is irritating as it's basically every army will be 3x1 as bare minimum and it's good for rather boring reason. Like every army would include 3x anything that's 15 pts. Rule of unit practically irrelevanT
In fairness I don't mind something like rippers being almost an auto-include for the army. It's very thematic that no matter the type of army (swarm, mixed, zilla) it would have swarms of little rippers all over the place consuming things.
Most armies do end up with "this thing is basically a toolbox/cheap/cornerstone" type units that will appear in almost all armies. The only time that's really an issue is when
1) It happens to so many units that it nullifies army composition choices and pushes out all the other options
2) When the unit is "auto include" purely because its so insanely effective that it vastly overwhelms any other choices.
Ergo its not just cheap enough to squeeze in or a good solid choice ,but just broken as heck
15 pts is bonkers cheap though. There isn't any other unit for the role that competes for role. And most armies don't have 15 pts unit(not model. Unit) that can score so many vp's.
Rippers thematic, lone ripper swarms at corner sitting doing actions less so.
Looks like I oopsie whoopsied on buying so many termagants/rippers already. Was hoping that the special weapons would be one per 10 or one per 20 so I could spread them around, not one of each per 10. Knew that wasn't how it was going to be, but I was hoping. Luckily none of them seem worth angsting over.
But rippers!? I was concerned about how I was going to get 18 ripper swarms at reasonable prices to max out my options without ending up with a hundred extra gaunts I would never use. Now I don't need to worry about stripping the ones I was using to test paint schemes because I can't even use all that I already have. Dropping the minimum unit size to 1 is bonkers, but I do like that it's giving people options to use up the last few points that they otherwise wouldn't due to 10th's essentially static unit sizes and free unit upgrades. That's nice, and something I'd like to see repeated in other armies - just in a slightly different fashion. Being able to field an independent unit for so cheap seems too abusable.
Instead, I'd like to see them as unit attachments. For example, pull armorium cherubs (and other models that are basically just tokens) out of their current squads into their own dedicated units with stats and make them FOLLOWERS with the same basic attachment rules and unit restriction lists as LEADERS (only they don't conflict with a unit already having a LEADER and they're removed from the table if the unit they're attached to is destroyed). Would give players an easy way to spend their leftover points, field cute mascots, and stay in theme, all without putting extra units on the table. Rippers aren't one-use tokens like most mascots, but I could see them following the same basics - let them attach to any Gaunt unit, but then give them a high OC value so they have a purpose (or leave them as is - perhaps nullifying enemy OC is sufficient). Maybe even allow multiples to attach to the same unit.
Thing is with editions only 3 years apart it could all change with 11th. GW might go insane for going back to points costs on everything and suddenly it all flips head over heels again.
So whilst it might not be the most efficient for 10th edition; it might balance out long term.
I don't regret my investment in Leviathan stuff, it will never be as cheap again.
Overread wrote: Thing is with editions only 3 years apart it could all change with 11th. GW might go insane for going back to points costs on everything and suddenly it all flips head over heels again.
So whilst it might not be the most efficient for 10th edition; it might balance out long term.
I don't regret my investment in Leviathan stuff, it will never be as cheap again.
I agree 100% with this. Editions and rules come and go while models stick around for much longer.
Leviathan was such a good deal and still is since people can still get it.
This release is full of nice minis and I will get them all eventually but theres no rush I have years ahead to get them.
tneva82 wrote: Goonhammer doesn't even seem to know which points to use using 2 souce at same time. Doh
Points will only become official when the app updates next week I think? I'm not counting on them just yet.
Looks like a great release - I like all of the new minis but I'll take my time adding them to my existing collection. Might sculpt/kitbash the new special weapons for termagants to try them out first.
Haven't ordered anything yet but I'll probably get the book and one of the lictor types to paint up, still have my second Leviathan set to build too and extra Leapers. from Goonhammer -it looks like there are some cool options. What struck me was they mentioned a few things not making sense - enhancements which didn't really have any good critters to apply them for- maybe this is future proofing for a new character release over the edition cycle- like the Red Terror.
tneva82 wrote: Goonhammer doesn't even seem to know which points to use using 2 souce at same time. Doh
Points will only become official when the app updates next week I think? I'm not counting on them just yet.
.
You never use pdf points NOW and codex rules do you?
Goonhammer uses pdf points unless unit doesn't exist in which case use points in codex...
That's...convoluted. And why they would think pdf points for index would supercede later released codex points no idea...but that's what they did with example lists. Rather than use all points from codex.
"For both of these, I’ve used the points values from the Munitorum Field Manual where they exist, and the Codex where they don’t"
tneva82 wrote: Goonhammer doesn't even seem to know which points to use using 2 souce at same time. Doh
Points will only become official when the app updates next week I think? I'm not counting on them just yet.
.
You never use pdf points NOW and codex rules do you?
Goonhammer uses pdf points unless unit doesn't exist in which case use points in codex...
That's...convoluted. And why they would think pdf points for index would supercede later released codex points no idea...but that's what they did with example lists. Rather than use all points from codex.
"For both of these, I’ve used the points values from the Munitorum Field Manual where they exist, and the Codex where they don’t"
Because they are betting PDF would have been written after the the book went to print. Which to be fair I'd take the same bet. The these days the points given in codexs literally aren't worth the paper they are written on.
tneva82 wrote: So you are saying that the pdf we are using with index with index rules and without any new units is actually codex points?
Guess admech points are codex points as well then
Also funnily enough codex has nerfs to index while points lower so if you use index points you get double nerf of weaker rules and point hikes.
Funny that. Points changing when datasheet changes.
And would be 1st time ever to use point costs for different product.
Anyway no rule supports using points from 2 sheets mixing&matching so youu use indet sheetyou use completely. Don't plan using norn emissaries then
And gt's system is use latest. Which one is latest? Codex.
What an odd to pick a fight on, logistics says the revised pdf with points was edited more recently than the points printed in the codex. They'll be closer to reality for sure.
Index were made first. Codex later. Logic dictates codex points are newer which actually is supported by buffed units getting increases and nerfed decreases.
And there's not been updates to index point costs yet.
But as long as you stick to one source fine. Can't mix&match to your desires. So if you use index points use it. Don't take anything from codex or you are cheater.
tneva82 wrote: Index were made first. Codex later. Logic dictates codex points are newer which actually is supported by buffed units getting increases and nerfed decreases.
And there's not been updates to index point costs yet.
But as long as you stick to one source fine. Can't mix&match to your desires. So if you use index points use it. Don't take anything from codex or you are cheater.
You actually can't prove the index was written first, but besides the point, indirect and Tower units have had point adjustments due to a reaction to live meta.
You don't need to be a clairvoyant to see that the points pass on the 2nd week of September will conveniently align with the nids book.
All that aside when the book tells you to scan a qr code to geothermal latest points, which ten points at the current pdf, the two are in conflict.
But this is a pre-release copy so it's not a surprise it's happened.
tneva82 wrote: Index were made first. Codex later. Logic dictates codex points are newer which actually is supported by buffed units getting increases and nerfed decreases.
There's a very high probability that this codex went to print long before the digital indexes (and certainly the later points revisions) were completed. Most likely it was finalised well before Summer. Remember that the first digital indexes were recieved in June had a lot of errata already implemented that wasn't in the earlier printed versions.
Honestly given that this is the first codex for edition fully intended for digital points, things could well go either way. GW might decide to just roll with the old points figures as printed and see how things shake out in real world games alongside all the new detachment rules & revised units. Or they could use the limited data from Tyranid index games and make tweaks based on how specific units have been used in July & August. I still fear for Zoanthropes...
Personally I think they'll retain at least the points for the new / amended units as they're printed in the codex. Other units like the Harpy (which was part of a blanket change due to the aircraft / towering rules) may depend on wider game changes. For example the balance update next week could result in those point increases getting reverted if cover / LOS rules are revised.
None of the points will be correct. The codex points won't include changed made on feedback since 10th started while the index points won't have changes made because of the rules differences between the index and the codex.
Of course you can derive points that will probably be close to the correct ones by looking at both index and codex and comparing what changed and which index erratas aren't reflected in the codex.
But the only way we are getting the real points is waiting until next Saturday? when they will hopefully upload a new updated points sheet
Matrindur wrote: But the only way we are getting the real points is waiting until next Saturday? when they will hopefully upload a new updated points sheet
If it's anything like 9th edition, we should get a balance update and revised points list for all factions on Wed/Thur this week.
Sadly yes. And melee Warriors somehow went up in cost.
By the by, Goonhammer's mixing of point sources is stupid. Obviously the revised Index points were written after the the Codex went to print, but those are points for the Index. If you have the Codex, use the Codex. There is no mixing and matching, otherwise you might as well mix and match datasheets as well (who would be ok with someone using 95% of the Codex, yet still using Index Tyrannofexes with their Damage reduction rule?).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly yes. And melee Warriors somehow went up in cost.
By the by, Goonhammer's mixing of point sources is stupid. Obviously the revised Index points were written after the the Codex went to print, but those are points for the Index. If you have the Codex, use the Codex. There is no mixing and matching, otherwise you might as well mix and match datasheets as well (who would be ok with someone using 95% of the Codex, yet still using Index Tyrannofexes with their Damage reduction rule?).
It'll be a none issue come launch day in theory anyway, it's only because they've a pre-release copy so the points updates aren't public, as there's a chance both are wrong anyway.
Regards the melee warriors I wondered if it was getting the vanguard keywords from the prime giving warriors advance and charge? I know it's bad form to price according to a "subfaction" but it might make a tiny bit of sense this way?
Do you find they actually do anything? Mine tend to charge and die just from return punching.
On the Goonhammer points discussion, I think the logic they used was a reaction to the QR code. The codex links to the MFM download page, therefore, until the pdf gets updated, current pdf points are what we should use. You would only use the codex points if you couldn't follow the link for some reason. Regardless, I expect it to be a moot point because the MFM will be updated on release day.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly yes. And melee Warriors somehow went up in cost.
By the by, Goonhammer's mixing of point sources is stupid. Obviously the revised Index points were written after the the Codex went to print, but those are points for the Index. If you have the Codex, use the Codex. There is no mixing and matching, otherwise you might as well mix and match datasheets as well (who would be ok with someone using 95% of the Codex, yet still using Index Tyrannofexes with their Damage reduction rule?).
This. Also the standard for precedence is determined by date of release, not date of creation. The pdf may have been written after the codex went to print, but the codex release is more recent than the pdf release, ergo codex points supercede pdf points.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sadly yes. And melee Warriors somehow went up in cost.
By the by, Goonhammer's mixing of point sources is stupid. Obviously the revised Index points were written after the the Codex went to print, but those are points for the Index. If you have the Codex, use the Codex. There is no mixing and matching, otherwise you might as well mix and match datasheets as well (who would be ok with someone using 95% of the Codex, yet still using Index Tyrannofexes with their Damage reduction rule?).
This. Also the standard for precedence is determined by date of release, not date of creation. The pdf may have been written after the codex went to print, but the codex release is more recent than the pdf release, ergo codex points supercede pdf points.
The codex isn't out yet, when it releases they will update the app with the relevant points, with any adjustments from the field munitorium update. There is every chance they will tweak the points on launch, the app trumps everything and will validate or otherwise the codex points. Yes I did get Votann on launch in 9th..
I think everyone new that the Tyranid Combat Patrols price was dumb as its £95 while the Ultimate Starter has double the models with terrain for £125.
But I just noticed something even dumber. The Starter set has nearly the same contents minus the Barbgaunts but you can buy those on their own for £27.50. Plus the £65 for the starter set results in £92.5 which is less than the Combat Patrol. And you get the whole Marine half for free.
So even if you have absolute no use for the Terrain and Marines from the Ultimate set and don't want to sell them so you might think the Combat Patrol would be worth it for the £30 saved, its still more expensive than just buying the normal starter and Bargaunts and throwing away the Marines.
I really have no idea why they released that Combat Patrol now instead of waiting until 11th edition when the starter set will be changed.
Probably because there are people who won't spot the better deals or who don't want too. Some customers only want to buy from their local store (3rd party or GW); they don't want second hand online Leviathan overstock; nor go through the hassle of buying a starter set and selling off the Marine half of it to someone else.
They just want to walk into the store, buy the Combat Patrol and leave.
Plus the Leviathan stock in the 2nd hand market and the Starter sets are limited accessibility. The 2nd hand will dwindle overtime, heck it might get a little boost when/if the Partworks magazine gets done, though that might even spark more interest and drain the stock faster.
The starter sets are only a 3 year product cycle, whilst the Combat Patrol could likely be a 5-10 year product cycle.
tneva82 wrote: He didn't compare buying 2nd hand though. Just from other items gw sells.
Buy starter set, buy barbgaunts(both from gw), throw all but combat patrol models to bin, save cash.
Yeah and as I said some people won't spot that option. They go into the store and they want the codex and combat patrol set same as any other army to get started with.
No splitting a duel box and finding a marine player to flog them too; no dumping in them in the bin or starting a marine army or whatever.
Plus finally every army has a combat patrol, it makes sense that Gw puts that out in the market even if right now its not going to be a best seller. It fills an expected product slot in the line-up and the materials for it were likely all setup around the same time anyway. Plus long term that's likely how those models will be sold until they are given new sculpts and sprues.
Yeah and as I said some people won't spot that option. They go into the store and they want the codex and combat patrol set same as any other army to get started with.
And thats exactly what I don't like. Of course people who don't know about the starter set will buy it but it just seems a bit scummy of GW to me to give them the option to pay more for less just because they didn't know better.
Plus finally every army has a combat patrol, it makes sense that Gw puts that out in the market even if right now its not going to be a best seller. It fills an expected product slot in the line-up and the materials for it were likely all setup around the same time anyway. Plus long term that's likely how those models will be sold until they are given new sculpts and sprues.
Yes that will be how they will be sold in the future after the starter sets are changed as seen with the past edition but the difference is that for 9th they only changed the combat patrol after the starter was gone while they already released the Tyranids one now. Again just seems a bit scummy to me.
I can understand the business decision behind it, even ignoring the potential additional profit this way, because of the fact Combat Patrol is its own gamemode now it makes sense to have a box titled Combat Patrol on the shelves but it still doesn't change the bad feeling it gives me
tneva82 wrote: He didn't compare buying 2nd hand though. Just from other items gw sells.
Buy starter set, buy barbgaunts(both from gw), throw all but combat patrol models to bin, save cash.
Yeah and as I said some people won't spot that option. They go into the store and they want the codex and combat patrol set same as any other army to get started with.
No splitting a duel box and finding a marine player to flog them too; no dumping in them in the bin or starting a marine army or whatever.
Plus finally every army has a combat patrol, it makes sense that Gw puts that out in the market even if right now its not going to be a best seller. It fills an expected product slot in the line-up and the materials for it were likely all setup around the same time anyway. Plus long term that's likely how those models will be sold until they are given new sculpts and sprues.
Yep. So predatory practice exploiting those who can't do simple math.
Any GW store employee is going to be happy they have an easy up sell for anyone wanting a Tyranid combat patrol.
And I really don’t think it’s fair classifying different options as “predatory”. Selling more of something at a cheaper per unit (but larger overall) cost isn’t unusual.
Isn't "Direct only" these days just "3rd parties can't get discount to sell this cheaper" for the most part. I know a while back 3rd parties couldn't even stock them, but these days they do; its just product without any store discount on them.
Overread wrote: Isn't "Direct only" these days just "3rd parties can't get discount to sell this cheaper" for the most part. I know a while back 3rd parties couldn't even stock them, but these days they do; its just product without any store discount on them.
I believe 3rd parties get a much-reduced discount (e.g 10% off rather than 40%), mainly so that once their costs are included it doesn't push the product above RRP.
Most likely this is direct-only because 3rd parties can already order the other starter sets, and GW don't anticipate a lot of demand for these CP boxes too. They'll be made in a small volumes and only stocked in GW warehouses.
Direct Only has never (at least in the US) really meant "direct only", as xttz noted it just carries a reduced wholesale discount and (usually) means that it doesn't come in retail packaging (usually "white box"), but has otherwise always been an option for retailers.
Oh, also IIRC they cannot be purchased through GW sales reps, instead it has to be ordered through the online trade sales portal.
I distinctly recall where 3rd parties couldn't order them or were even more heavily discouraged from doing so because no where stocked any "direct only" stuff. Then at some stage something changed and now most stores will stock them, or at least list them for sale even if they don't hold much stock.
I can only go by what I experienced at my local store. There was never a point (in the past 20 years of me being involved in this hobby) where I was unable to order "direct only" goods via my FLGS. My FLGS would also periodically (like once/twice per year) stock in random "direct only" product in the generic white citadel packaging. Seemed to me there weren't any real obstacles to prevent it, and the owner always insisted it was not an issue to get the direct only stuff.
Every store should be able to get the direct only items but since the margins on them are way less and a store doesn't have unlimited space its not really worth it to stock them. You can still try to ask them directly to order them for you
Whatever... I have zero and find this detachment a bit narrow as is. ;-)
My assumption is also based on them not giving a list in the codex apparently. So you have to pick all the harvester keywords in the datasheets. This seems only wise if you plan to update the list of harvesters easily when introducing new units.
Besides I think in comparison to Necrons - who were the top enemy in last edition - the tyrandis are still lacking stuff comparable to the Silent King et al.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also? I’m given to understand the Haruspex hasn’t changed stats wise, and is now 5 points cheaper.
If so? Every list of mine will include three, because I’m an adult and the only person that can stop me, is me, and even then I won’t take a telling.
Of course once points are adjusted based on sales data now that 10th is out(ie we have sold enough, push others instead) you risk having paper weighs.
Possibly in 2 days withdataslate.
Even if the points go up, they’re absolute killing machines. When they’re as cheap as they? Trio straight up a flank to demolish whatever they come across, and don’t worry too much about Synapse. Maybe a unit of little bugs to follow them up to seize cleared objectives. But just an absolute wrecking ball distraction, they’re plenty cheap enough, and will require a significant investment from my opponent to halt their rampage. Those guys can smash up pretty much anything in short order.
Main risk is lack of native Inv save, but there are ways and means, which might put them in the centre of my deployment?
But at the current 125, soon to (allegedly) be 120? You can’t beat them for sheer value, because they’re such a small part of the army but can do so much damage.
Gw is known for overcorrections. It matters less what it's worth and more what marketing department wants to sell.
Sooner or later marketing decides it has sold all haruspex it can for a while and can bring bigger profit by pushing something else. And they do it bluntly.
They do look very effective. They have a job (shoveling troops into their gullet) and they do it well. Right now they are both effective and efficient due to the low points. Even if they jack the points up, it’s still going to eat it’s way across the table. The question is if you could use the points better elsewhere. But unless you are playing at the top tables where you need to squeeze every drop of power out of a list, one or two should not gimp your chances of victory.
It’s more that once it’s in range to get stuck in, it does rapid damage. And as its Shovelling Claws are Extra Attacks, you can’t even chuck in a hefty character or Dreadnought with impunity.
It’s about as great a close combat monster as we could hope for. More than enough attacks to devour infantry, and enough extra clout to absolutely shred heavier stuff.
My proposed trio (i currently only own one, sad face) become a nasty thing for my opponent to deal with. Unless you can deal with them At Range? They’re going to take far more than their points cost to put down and keep down.
I’d be tempted to treat them as a “fire and forget” rampage of gribbly death. Set them on their way, and just do what I can to ensure they’re being a nuisance and gobbling stuff up as often as possible.
Though if there’s a way to get them to Fight First, you bet your bum I’ll be using that!
Imho Haruspex are for sure too cheap but they seem to be not so awesome at the moment, because they are not perfect for handling elite infantry or Monsters/Tanks.
Vs a Rogal Dorn it does around 6 damage in melee
Vs Custodians it certainly is better in melee than most tyranid stuff but will only kill 2-3 Custodian guard. So it will get killed immediately.
Astmeister wrote: Imho Haruspex are for sure too cheap but they seem to be not so awesome at the moment, because they are not perfect for handling elite infantry or Monsters/Tanks.
Vs a Rogal Dorn it does around 6 damage in melee
Vs Custodians it certainly is better in melee than most tyranid stuff but will only kill 2-3 Custodian guard. So it will get killed immediately.
3 custodian guard is basically a break even in points. 1:1 return is still good no matter what.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, never judge based purely on averages. Doesn’t take a great shift from mean to overperform.
Or underperform. Which is why you should always judge based on averages. Outliers don't mean squat.
Pure mathhammer sometimes neglects what happens on the tabletop. There are buffs/debuffs, situational events, etc. and out fickle little 6 sides friends have minds of their own.
It’s still a good benchmark, and a reasonably fair one. But sometimes you need to take a wider look.
It is better then the extreme cases people like to use. “Look how broken this thing when you layer these 5 things onto it”. Or “It sucks vs. <worst case scenario> so it’s trash”
When you’re a 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, the odds of over performing exceed those of underperforming.
Which is what makes the Haruspex so nasty. That, and once I’m stuck into combat, there’s no one particular answer to it. You can feed it chaff, but it’ll chew through them pretty quickly. You can throw in something capable of killing it, and risk losing that unit. If there’s a character in the unit? Its ranged take has a not great, but still ultimately feasible, chance of gobbling that troublesome model, removing it from the equation.
Find a way to boost its accuracy or to wound? And it becomes a lawnmower of a beast.
And because they’re so cheap? I really don’t mind losing them, because in taking them out I’ve still tied up a big chunk of your available resources in the effort.
My take is simply: It is not obvious to play 2-3 of them in every list. And I think they very well might do nothing, because they get shot off the board.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When you’re a 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, the odds of over performing exceed those of underperforming.
What does this mean? I don't think it means anything
Find a way to boost its accuracy or to wound? And it becomes a lawnmower of a beast.
...I mean, is there a way to boost those things? I think the assimilation swarm may have some synergistic tools but I'm not convinced.
Look, don't get me wrong, I've always loved the Haruspex and have had 3 of them since 2015 when they were total pants. They are pretty good now. But loving the Haruspex doesn't give one license to ignore mathhammer. Against tough targets, their average performance isn't amazing. They could power up... or they could power down. It's all based on a uniform probability distribution.
From a modeling POV, how hard do you think it would be to model the nerolictor with no legs? Just lean in hard to his snake like tail?
Looks like the feet are the contact point with the base, but the tail could be pinned. And the spot where the legs normally would be could have some small claws added to ensure we stay at 6 limbs.
Looking at the sprue pic I think it could happen with minimal work
Tyran wrote: If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.
We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".
What targets do you want to kill with the Haruspex? I calculated against the Rogal Dorn tank and it is around 11.6 (same for Leman Russ) Wound, which is actually pretty good. It does not kill it and I just fear that he will not arrive at the target.
The spread in damge it does is also quite high, because its major weapon has D6+1.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I think we can stop the discussion because the point adjustment on thursday might change everything.
Even with this super cheap Haruspexes I find them good but not overwhelmingly so.
Zoantrophes are more No-Brainers in most lists tbh.
But on that? Why would I ever set it on a Rogal Dorn?
It’s primarily an infantry deleter. Its Shovelling Claws allow it to be effective against….pretty much any size of infantry, including Dreadnoughts and equivalent.
Their job, in my army at least, is to rampage across a single flank, devouring anything that looks like it might be trying to get an objective, following up with something cheap to camp the objective.
Against bigger things? The Maw isn’t brilliant - but still has enough attacks and oomph that my opponent is only a botched save or two away from suffering some nasty damage.
Get me +1 to hit, and it becomes an absolute horror show for an opponent to combat.
Either way, they’re still not something my opponent can ignore. But they’re currently tough and cheap enough to require a significant effort to remove from the board. All of which is firepower, effort and even opponent attention the rest of my army doesn’t have to deal with.
Used well (which is always a caveat, and not guaranteed from me!) I can “rock and a hard place” my opponent. Three cheapo horrors bounding up the board, perfectly capable of handling themselves, or…..everything else I’m up to at the same time. You can’t effectively deal with all of it at the same time. If you focus on X, I need to capitalise with Y, and vice versa.
Haruspex are absolutely ideal for that. But looking at the Datacards on WarCom? I think they’ve dropped its AP?
It’s primarily an infantry deleter. Its Shovelling Claws allow it to be effective against….pretty much any size of infantry, including Dreadnoughts and equivalent.
Problem is, deleting infantry is not that interesting for Nids. We have lots of tools for infantry, but melee anti-tank is actually super limited. I'd definitely like to see it hit a little harder against tanks.
Tyran wrote: If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.
We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".
Well….I’d have thought it was clear enough as it is.
The easier your success roll? The more likely you are to roll an above average batch, than a below average batch?
Horses for courses, crap chances to succeed means you never worry about whiffing massively, and that is a pretty good understanding to go in with. In most cases I would rather deal with wild variation on the plus side than the negative side.
Lets say my average is 8 in 9. So in this case I have after 9 rolls a 34.6% chance of getting better than 8 successes, and only a 26.3% chance of less than 8. But my better than average can only be 1 better, whilst my worse than average can be a lot lot worse than average.
tneva82 wrote: Gw is known for overcorrections. It matters less what it's worth and more what marketing department wants to sell.
Sooner or later marketing decides it has sold all haruspex it can for a while and can bring bigger profit by pushing something else. And they do it bluntly.
Their overcorrections aren't due to marketing. They're due to them not understanding their own damn games.
Imho the major problem with GW's design of Tyranids is that their very few AT units have a huge variance in damage output. Because most are D6 +X or something.
Astmeister wrote: Imho the major problem with GW's design of Tyranids is that their very few AT units have a huge variance in damage output. Because most are D6 +X or something.
I suspect that's an intentional part of their design and faction identity. Tyranids have very strong board control ability, good mobility, no issue at all with clearing troops, but their weakness is heavy armour. That was also the case in earlier 40k editions too, and the issue was much more pronounced due to how vehicles worked then. You could plausibly have your carnifexes picked off them be totally unable to damage a land raider.
Every faction has (or should have) aspects of the game they do well and other aspects they struggle with. I'd argue that a faction that can reliably kill any kind of target and also control the board is a faction that should be nerfed.
I would disagree and say that Tyranids (and especially monsters) were always bad when it considered shooting heavy targets or long range shooting. The latter is now pretty good but melee AT is really not good enough at the moment.
It is almost impossible to kill a knight with Tyranids.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry I wanted to add: Tyranids were always good at AT in melee. Now not so much.
I don't know that I agree with the idea that Tyranids were always good at melee AT. Back in the day of armor values (going back to the halcyon days of 4th ed here), the only tyranid model that could actually damage a land raider in melee was the carnifex, and in those days they cost as much as a land raider in order to get that capability. Did I mention the part where any vehicle in the game in that era could move faster than a carnifex could? Good luck getting into melee with that land raider, if your opponent wanted to play keep-away, you'd have a tough time getting there.
That's the thing, they were good at damage in melee, it was getting there which was the issue for a long time. Tau were really good at mobile fireteams on Tyranids whilst Tyranid shooting back was haphazard.
That's why we started seeing GW push these options that allowed for faster crossing of the board to get into close combat, which of course meant that they then had to beef up ranged damage so that ranged armies weren't torn apart by close combat ones denying them several turns of shooting.
Basically instead of making ranged attacks weaker or giving close combat armies a few more guns; they kind of did everything else that led them down the path of increased lethality.
Okay my idea was that if you're only good at killing tanks in melee than you better be awesome at this. Because it is still much harder to get into melee than shooting someone.
Also the Tyrannofex has its Rupture canon with 2D6 damage which is extremely swingy.
Back then, the Venom Cannon (with the Thudd Gun template) was a reliable anti-tank weapon, between being able to get up to four hits and decent strength and damage values. Same for spore mines that were actually scary.
As for vehicles being faster than a ‘fex… yeah, in a fairly predictable straight line forward. If you were chasing one down on foot instead of flanking it you were doing it wrong.
That said, dropping spore mines in front of them and watching the driver panic turn to avoid them, flip over, and explode anyway was always funnier.
It's the "anything that has dice roll involved sucks" mentality. Tournament try hards hate when they can't calculate game result before single dice is rolled.
tneva82 wrote: It's the "anything that has dice roll involved sucks" mentality. Tournament try hards hate when they can't calculate game result before single dice is rolled.
...does it though? I've been to 1 non-narrative tournament in my life, where I placed in the bottom 25%. I don't like d6 anti-tank damage. Nids are demonstrably pretty weak at anti-tank in 10th.
Tyran wrote: People really exaggerate how swingy is the rupture cannon.
2D6 is a curve. Most than half the time you will roll between 5 and 9.
Well and the other half you will roll something else. So you're right it might be 7 mostly but even this 7 is not good enough with its 2 shots. I mean it is almost impossible to 1-shot a Leman Russ.
Tyran wrote: And why should a 200 pts heavy monster be able to reliably one-shot another 200 pts heavy tank?
I don't think it should reliably one-shot an LRBT. But it's also basically the only tank killer that Nids have outside of medium range stuff that doesn't want to be in melee. I agree with you, but Nids (and many other factions are actually worse off than Nids in this department) are in a very weird place right now where anti-tank is just one or two units that have to deliver for the whole list, whether fighting a TAC list with a couple tanks or a heavy tank list.
In general, my gripe is that across the board in 10th, GW did not do the S/T transition very well.
I agree to what Mr Stealer said.
The tyrannofex is the titan/tank hunter in the tyranids army and is way worse regarding this than a 145 points Hammerhead from Tau (which also sucks).
Astmeister wrote: Imho the major problem with GW's design of Tyranids is that their very few AT units have a huge variance in damage output. Because most are D6 +X or something.
Maybe they should give Tyranids a "stuff the barrel" stratagem? Representing the story tropes they have of tyranid organisms sacrificing themselves to jam big weapons and to take them down. It'd be something like letting them take D3 mortal when in melee to deal the target's weapon damage to itself (as mortal?) - or something similiar.
Otherwise, I guess Tyranid's lack of AT is akin to Tau's lack of melee/psychic options - meant to be a sort of downside/drawback to the army?
Tyranid lack's of AT is mostly because some very weird design decisions like S9 Heavy Venom Cannons and S9 Massive Scything Talons, and of course Hive Guard being bad.
On the other hand Zoanthropes are fantastic and if you spam them you can deal with most tanks.
Tyran wrote: Tyranid lack's of AT is mostly because some very weird design decisions like S9 Heavy Venom Cannons and S9 Massive Scything Talons, and of course Hive Guard being bad.
On the other hand Zoanthropes are fantastic and if you spam them you can deal with most tanks.
I think you are right. However Zoantrophes can't deal with very heavy armour so well. And besides in my opinion Tyranids could be bad at AT shooting, but AT melee should be great for some units. Why does a Trygon not have a Knight profile light? I mean he is almost their size and fluff wise (from epic 40k) the tyranids version of a knight for melee.
Tyran wrote: Tyranid lack's of AT is mostly because some very weird design decisions like S9 Heavy Venom Cannons and S9 Massive Scything Talons, and of course Hive Guard being bad.
On the other hand Zoanthropes are fantastic and if you spam them you can deal with most tanks.
I think you are right. However Zoantrophes can't deal with very heavy armour so well. And besides in my opinion Tyranids could be bad at AT shooting, but AT melee should be great for some units. Why does a Trygon not have a Knight profile light? I mean he is almost their size and fluff wise (from epic 40k) the tyranids version of a knight for melee.
That's historic stats not translating well post-armour value. Don't forget as a MC it used to get 2d6 armour pen + it's strength, so even at S6 or whatever it used to be it'd be glancing AV13 on an average roll and that's excluding the fact it'd often be hitting rear armour which was commonly lower. Then we had smash attacks which allowed half attacks at a double strength so it could still hurt big vehicles, but following the 8th transition it became a heavy infantry blender because it lost those supporting rules for punching into bigger things.
Souleater wrote: They reduced HVC down to d3 shots, and for some reason Monsters can’t tank shock, while vehicle walkers can.
I don’t know if GW wanted Nids to be less Killy into vehicles this edition, or they just made changes without really thinking things through.
Considering in recent times GW tried to cater to competitive play and the continued release of new unit usually means a faction gradually loses the drawbacks and holes in its tactical lineup, I find it harder to believe that they would deliberately build a specific weakness into the army than that it's a result of the propagated improvement to vehicles survivability in 10th ed. It's easy enough to believe that the design team got feedback they boiled down to "tanks suck, why are monstrous creatures always so much better?", went about addressing them when they wrote 10th ed and didn't stop to think how an army without tanks would fit into the new paradigm.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Imagine having to negotiate to use your printed Codex. Your printed brand new Codex.
tneva82 wrote: I'm sure you are fine eldar using rules as were. And knights.
And one day you're going to reply to the things people actually say, rather than the stuff you invent in your head.
Whilst I'm agreeing it's dumb and a waste of a tree, the points in the codex does literally have a section for "scan this to get the most up to date points". They'd have been better off not printing them at all really if that's their intent, but a book vs book showdown is fine if you're not bothered about being on the current meta or whatever.
porkuslime wrote: Question for those who MIGHT have seen the updated Tyranid codex already.. hah..
I have HEARD that the unit sizes have changed and Termagaunts and Hormagaunts are maxed at 20 models per unit?
And I am also wondering WHY the Winged Prime and the Neurotyrant are considered BAD, per se..
Winged prime if joined to gargoyles is T3 for the purposes of precision and hits like a wet noodle, put it with warriors and the fly is wasted, whilst still hitting like a wet noodle.
Neurotyrant seems ok, problem is again you lower their T by putting them in units and using neurogaunts to do it would be suicide by sniper.
porkuslime wrote: Question for those who MIGHT have seen the updated Tyranid codex already.. hah..
I have HEARD that the unit sizes have changed and Termagaunts and Hormagaunts are maxed at 20 models per unit?
And I am also wondering WHY the Winged Prime and the Neurotyrant are considered BAD, per se..
Winged prime if joined to gargoyles is T3 for the purposes of precision and hits like a wet noodle, put it with warriors and the fly is wasted, whilst still hitting like a wet noodle.
Neurotyrant seems ok, problem is again you lower their T by putting them in units and using neurogaunts to do it would be suicide by sniper.
They're also max 20 in the index.
appreciate that.. will have to do a bit of rebasing or slight repainting to get down from 30 alas..
The fly isn't completly wasted(have had some use of it) but the sustained wasn't most useful with index det. Now with point drop and 5 detachment not providing sustained and 1 allowing advance&charge to warriors it might see some use.
Several new detachments also have enhancements that work well with an attached Prime. There's a +2" unit movement bonus in Swarm, or a double regeneration in Assimilation that can bring back two warriors each turn.
Definitely think we'll see more of that now that the points cut effectively gives free upgrades compared to before.
I remember when the indices first started getting previews and the people who screamed bloody murder at me (and some others) for even suggesting that the cards had tons of wasted space and that they didn't need to be double sided.
And here we are, Codex in my hand, and what a shock: Everything is on a single block!
The physical cards are still double sided, likely because they want to have one unit per card so you never have to flip a card ovet to see a different unit, but we were right. Nothing needs to be double-sided.
In the grand scheme of things is it really that big a deal if the unit stats are on two sides of a cars instead of one? (Honest question, I haven't used them.)
Ease of use if everything is right there, specifically what a unit is armed with.
I go back to the original example: The Land Raider.
The 'rules' side just had Godhammer Lascannon and Twin Heavy Bolter. No indication given of how many of eithet it had.
We know, but a new playet or even a rare individual unfamiliar with Marines might not know. Hell, with the return of Twin-Linked I incorrectly assumed that the 2 shot Godhamner was representative of both guns.
Only on the flipside did we learn how many of each weapon it actually had. I thought it would be nice if the card showed what something was armed with right when you look at it. Transport capacity too, while we're at it.
Others agreed. Others acted as if I had kicked their dog.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I remember when the indices first started getting previews and the people who screamed bloody murder at me (and some others) for even suggesting that the cards had tons of wasted space and that they didn't need to be double sided.
And here we are, Codex in my hand, and what a shock: Everything is on a single block!
The physical cards are still double sided, likely because they want to have one unit per card so you never have to flip a card ovet to see a different unit, but we were right. Nothing needs to be double-sided.
And if every actual unit rule is on one side like they are in the codex, they could still use the other side for all the keywords so just in case you would need to look one up during the game you could just flip the card instead of searching through the book. This way you would actually have everything you need to play on the card
Anyone had trouble getting the dex to work with App?
Ive redeemed code from book but nothing from the dex is appearing in App. Quite possible I'm being dense and missed somthing but not sure if its a bug.
Ive redeemed code from book but nothing from the dex is appearing in App. Quite possible I'm being dense and missed somthing but not sure if its a bug.
I had the same issue. I logged out of the app, closed it, re-opened and logged in again. The codex then appeared for me. Same with the website.
At first glance the covers look similar, as they both use the same Tyrant in the foreground, but the background of the 10th edition codex has been changed, and includes the faction symbol.
Just in case people need help making sure they are buying the right version.
edit:
Back covers are also different, with the 10th having new models like Deathleaper and one of the Norns in the battle scene.
Nevelon wrote: At first glance the covers look similar, as they both use the same Tyrant in the foreground, but the background of the 10th edition codex has been changed, and includes the faction symbol.
I took me a minute to find the symbol, and that's after you said it was there. Waldo is easier to spot! Seriously, who thought that up? They should have commissioned a new round of artwork for codex covers instead. This is just poor.
I suspect we'll see each new codex do this. Faction symbol on the background of their 9th edition and then a new work of art for their limited edition.
Clearly just having a different cover material and less text wasn't shifting limited editions enough
Also, anyone able to spill the beans on the new Termagant weapons?
It is very subtle, but the one on the right is the new one.
Shardlauncher is blast/heavy 18” d3 shots 4+ S5 no AP 1 dam
Spike heavy 24” 1/4+/4/-1/1
Strangleweb assault/dev wounds/torrent 18” d6/-/2/0/1
I was a bit relieved to see their stats. I was worried that the sharlauncher was going to be like the barbs, and offer up some battlefield control. Which would be a must have. These are just different flavors of damage. And even if they are situationally nice, are they worth the mechanical price of separately rolling them and bogging down the game?
Nevelon wrote: These are just different flavors of damage. And even if they are situationally nice, are they worth the mechanical price of separately rolling them and bogging down the game?
I think that launcher and web are ok to have but spike is rather pointless.
Yah, the spike rifle is a bit of a “why?” Maybe if you could do a whole squad of them. It might be worth tossing one into a squad of devgaunts. But probably not worth the effort of singling out a separate guy to roll. But if you are using them to camp an objective, they do have AP, slightly better range and the +1 to hit from heavy if they don’t move. But only a single shot. Pass. Might not even bother to strip and repaint the 2 old metal one I have to match my modern scheme.
Strangleweb is tempting. It’s the only assault option, so meshes better with fleshborer/spinefist squads. Yes, it’s S2. Which sucks. But DevWounds with d6 autohits? Might get some 6’s to wound. And then you get to skip the whole armor thing. Plus works on overwatch.
Shardlauncher is the new option. Not assault, but that’s pretty much the only drawback compared to the basic guns it would be replacing. Pretty much a straight upgrade over a devourer. The only time you could argue against that is if shooting at a unit less than 5 models after you moved, where the 2 guaranteed shots vs the d3 might be preferable. The loss of assault might not even be a big deal in you are replacing a fleshborer. Sure, if you advance you can’t use it, but when you don’t it’s some pretty nice shooting. Point less S here.
My hot take is that in Dev squads, you will want the sharlauncher, maybe a spikerifle, but that’s more of a lateral, not an upgrade.
For fleshborer and spinefist squads, you probably want a strangleweb as it adds some felxability to the squad, but not required.
If you just want to field your old legacy horde, you can do so and not feel too left behind. Although will want to source some shardlaunchers for your Devigaunts.
See this is why I dislike the "no points upgrades" style GW has gone for this edition. In past editions those weapons would have been closer to special weapons.
A paid for addon that you'd include in some units and not others. They'd cost something in points, but would give you a nice bonus that would make them feel weighty and worth taking and worth keeping alive during the game - and similarly worth sniping of if the opponent has such a weapon.
Of course the upside to them being bland is that old armies don't feel left out; esp as you only get 1 set of options per boxed set and because of the limits and all you'd never actually be able to reto-fit your previous broods with them (Because each new set you'd buy also needs the very same weapons).
Overread wrote: See this is why I dislike the "no points upgrades" style GW has gone for this edition. In past editions those weapons would have been closer to special weapons.
A paid for addon that you'd include in some units and not others. They'd cost something in points, but would give you a nice bonus that would make them feel weighty and worth taking and worth keeping alive during the game - and similarly worth sniping of if the opponent has such a weapon.
Of course the upside to them being bland is that old armies don't feel left out; esp as you only get 1 set of options per boxed set and because of the limits and all you'd never actually be able to reto-fit your previous broods with them (Because each new set you'd buy also needs the very same weapons).
I’m thinking I might need a new box not for the new guns, but to have more spinefists than the 10 in my swarm right now. With the “shoot us, we surge forward” rule from the Unending Swarm detachment they might end up in CC during my opponent’s shooting phase, so could get a lot us use out of the pistol trait on their guns. (not that I wound’t build the new toys if I had them)
I do want a shardlauncher for my devs, but not $45 for one upgrade bad. And with 90+ of the little shooty buggers in the swarm, how many more do I need to adequately carpet the battlefield?
Overread wrote: I suspect we'll see each new codex do this. Faction symbol on the background of their 9th edition and then a new work of art for their limited edition.
Clearly just having a different cover material and less text wasn't shifting limited editions enough
Mavbb. Maybe noj. Aos has had similar but not every book.
Yeah the special guns are not that great, but still like that they brought back the spike rifle and strangle web!
When it was revealed, I ran to eBay to get the old metals to add to my old squad. I was stuck at 25 of the old plastic ones and wanted to eventually bring them to 30 (not that we can field that many in one squad anymore, meh!) so I managed to score 3 of each special gun, finally "finishing" these guys.
A full squad of spike rifle would have been good (as an option), but as a single special weapon it's not really noteworthy. Wonder if I'll bother at all for all my old Gants, probably not!
But I love that the Termagants, of all unit, are now more "tactical" than the no-longer-tactical Marines with a few special weapons and a "heavy" weapon per squad!
The Spike Rifle and Strangleweb look cool enough that I would break my prohibition against Tyranids which hold their guns if they could be fielded as a whole-unit weapon. But alas, they cannot, and thus I won't bother with Termagants at all.
Overread wrote: But Tyranids have been holding their guns since way back when they first appeared ^
People are always able to play with a sub-set of an faction if they don’t like the looks/idea of some parts of it. It might be a little odd to try to build a nid army with just inbuilt weapons, but would be doable.
Overread wrote: But Tyranids have been holding their guns since way back when they first appeared ^
People are always able to play with a sub-set of an faction if they don’t like the looks/idea of some parts of it. It might be a little odd to try to build a nid army with just inbuilt weapons, but would be doable.
Yep that's how I do mine. Guns in hands looks bad.
Overread wrote: But Tyranids have been holding their guns since way back when they first appeared ^
Yeah, but thats never been a look that I liked. I previously built my nids melee only (sans whatever inbuilt shooting attacks they may have had like the bioplasmic scream on carnifexes/screamer-killers, drool cannons, and the electric spines on Trygons, etc.). I eventually softened that to include more "organic" guns that were integrated into tyranid bodies in a more direct way (biovores, etc.).
At the end of the day, I like my nids alien and feral/nautralistic, holding their guns like humans would is inefficient but also seems kind of "forced"/"artificial" and also kind of silly.
