Gargoyle datasheet has been leaked. The gargoyle statline is unchanged, but it confirms the fleshborers statline being Assault 1 18" S5 AP-1 D1.

The face looks more inspired by generation 1 (original game) scourge from the Zerg - the little air suicide creatures. Them mixed with the alien queen's head - although honestly the shape of the crest more makes me think inspired by the second generation (3rd edition) hive tyrant crest.

I'm a little concerned that with the weapon stat bloat that Gargoyles and Termagants are just going to be too expensive to field.

That is a BIG jump stat increase for fleshborers. At this rate I actually expect lasguns to have a stat boost as well.

 Sasori wrote:
I'm a little concerned that with the weapon stat bloat that Gargoyles and Termagants are just going to be too expensive to field.

I wouldnt worry about that if you pay attention to any recent release lol.

The New books seem to just be ramping up lethality yet again at little to know cost. I bet there is some free army doctrine that will somehow let them advance and shoot as stationary with additional AP. Seems to be the go to at the moment lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
That is a BIG jump stat increase for fleshborers. At this rate I actually expect lasguns to have a stat boost as well.

Assault 3 24" with s4 ap -1 at half range? lol Who even knows anymore.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I'm a little concerned that with the weapon stat bloat that Gargoyles and Termagants are just going to be too expensive to field.

I wouldnt worry about that if you pay attention to any recent release lol.

The New books seem to just be ramping up lethality yet again at little to know cost. I bet there is some free army doctrine that will somehow let them advance and shoot as stationary with additional AP. Seems to be the go to at the moment lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
That is a BIG jump stat increase for fleshborers. At this rate I actually expect lasguns to have a stat boost as well.

Assault 3 24" with s4 ap -1 at half range? lol Who even knows anymore.

If it wasn't a horde unit, I'd be less concerned. It doesn't take much to price them out though.

LOL, I called it when they decided to up the basic Shuriken weapons for Eldar. If that Fleshborer stat is true, its hilarious that it'll wound Marines and T3 at the same rate.

So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Have we seen the stats on them yet? IIRC one source of leaks basically said that it was the case, but not sure if that was hyperbole or not.

In any case there is a great new combat patrol to help you re-buy all the gribbles you need!

EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL, I called it when they decided to up the basic Shuriken weapons for Eldar. If that Fleshborer stat is true, its hilarious that it'll wound Marines and T3 at the same rate.

I can't wait for Marines with buffed toughness in their 2.0 Codex.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Yes.

Although I'm hoping for some spinefist buff.

 Tyran wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Yes.

Although I'm hoping for some spinefist buff.

I'm not. I spent too much time breaking off all my spinefists and replacing them with devs or borers when they got nerfed to crap and stayed that way for multiple editions.

Voss wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Yes.

Although I'm hoping for some spinefist buff.

I'm not. I spent too much time breaking off all my spinefists and replacing them with devs or borers when they got nerfed to crap and stayed that way for multiple editions.

Spinefists used to actually be good!? When?

I started playing 40k (Nids were my first army) in 5e btw.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Yes.

Although I'm hoping for some spinefist buff.

I'm not. I spent too much time breaking off all my spinefists and replacing them with devs or borers when they got nerfed to crap and stayed that way for multiple editions.

Spinefists used to actually be good!? When?

I started playing 40k (Nids were my first army) in 5e btw.

They used to have Strength of Model plus as many shots as the model base attack stat x2 I believe. That was 4th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still have most my gaunts as spine fists.

IIRC they were only base attack X1. But they were also twinlinked.

Devourers were the ones with base attack X2, but -1 to strength.

Spinefists used to be popular because they were free, if memory serves

Spinefists were good in 4th ed mainly because they were a point cheaper than fleshborers. They were the best option if you wanted to maximise your model count.
The gun was still garbage, but it was very cheap garbage.

I will emphasize that while I am not a fan of the Parasite model I am specifically not a fan of how the pieces are put together; I feel it is less than the sum of its parts. But the parts are really good; it would be a gold mine for pieces to make other conversions with.

 Sasori wrote:
I'm a little concerned that with the weapon stat bloat that Gargoyles and Termagants are just going to be too expensive to field.

Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

I'm a little leery about new fleshborers too. Maybe we won't keep the Scorch Bugs strat? Surely we won't, actually... wounding Marines on 2s with fleshborers is just nuts.

Part of me is glad to see it, as in the current meta, without some buffs, they would be pure tax, and risk the whole book being DOA.

The other part of me weeps for the power creep and prays for a reset to some sanity.

Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Wait 'til the Lasgun gets AP-1, and we're back to 2nd Ed all over again.

 Stormonu wrote:
Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Yes. Splinter Pistols, Splinter Rifles, etc.

Hence why Kabalite Warriors are presently gathering dust on shelves, 'Eldar Guardian but with vastly worse shooting' is not really appealing for an ostensibly shooting unit.

I’m waiting for power armour (except chaos of course) to get a flat “ignore the first pip of AP” rule. As well as a point cut.

 vipoid wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Yes. Splinter Pistols, Splinter Rifles, etc.

Hence why Kabalite Warriors are presently gathering dust on shelves, 'Eldar Guardian but with vastly worse shooting' is not really appealing for an ostensibly shooting unit.

And funnily enough, bolters.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

Out of curiousity I did some quick mathhammer:

At the very start of 8E it took an average of 12 S4 fleshborers to kill 0.99 MEQ models (with of course 1 wound).
Right now using this profile without any strats or other special rules on either side, 12 fleshborers kill a grand total of... 0.99 2W marines.

From an anti-marine POV all that's happened is gaunts catching up to exactly where they were before 9E. Except of course when any transhuman or ignore AP abilities are in play, in which case they're worse off.

 Stormonu wrote:
Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Firstborn bolters.

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Yes. Splinter Pistols, Splinter Rifles, etc.

Hence why Kabalite Warriors are presently gathering dust on shelves, 'Eldar Guardian but with vastly worse shooting' is not really appealing for an ostensibly shooting unit.

And funnily enough, bolters.

I assume things will happen with the bolter. In fact, I can't see it NOT happening at this point, barring a full retreat and abandonment of 8e/9e design principles.
I hope that the giant list of bloat just gets piled into 1 profile (probably based on the bolt rifle)

 xttz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

Out of curiousity I did some quick mathhammer:

At the very start of 8E it took an average of 12 S4 fleshborers to kill 0.99 MEQ models (with of course 1 wound).
Right now using this profile without any strats or other special rules on either side, 12 fleshborers kill a grand total of... 0.99 2W marines.

From an anti-marine POV all that's happened is gaunts catching up to exactly where they were before 9E. Except of course when any transhuman or ignore AP abilities are in play, in which case they're worse off.

Red queen in full effect in 40k huh

Really not keen on the increase in strength of the fleshborer. It feels like a bad solution to what to do with these horde units. Rather than drop the cost and truly embrace a horde for termagaunts, we have raised their effectiveness by a huge amount, which means that they are going to have to cost.
And i concur, feels thematically wrong for these guns to be dangerous to marines. Guardsmen, yes, but marines? They will need to redo the Space marine 2 trailer if these are their new guns!

Unless the next marine dex is putting all the marines up to toughness 5...

The range boost should have been enough to make de Fleshborer decent. It might have been fine on Gargoyles since they fly and move fast, but regular Gaunts often did nothing with them at 12" range. Plus getting a whole unit of 30 to shoot was an issue.

Going S5 and -1 in addition is a bit much, especially if that come at a premium increase in points. I want my gaunts cheap first, killing power is secondary for them, and S4 was already plenty for them.

 xttz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

Out of curiousity I did some quick mathhammer:

At the very start of 8E it took an average of 12 S4 fleshborers to kill 0.99 MEQ models (with of course 1 wound).
Right now using this profile without any strats or other special rules on either side, 12 fleshborers kill a grand total of... 0.99 2W marines.

From an anti-marine POV all that's happened is gaunts catching up to exactly where they were before 9E. Except of course when any transhuman or ignore AP abilities are in play, in which case they're worse off.

So much for buffing Marine toughness when they're gonna make Tyranid and Eldar guns mulch through them at the same rate and then at the same time kill vehicles and other giant targets quicker.

GW really doesn't understand how their own toughness chart works.

If they're buffing Fleshborers to at least give gaunts a chance against MEQ, what about devourers? If those leaks are right they just plain suck now against everything.

I wish the Parasite included some redesigned rippers to go alongside it. The current kit is pretty dated.

Heck, I'd have been happy with a dead guard and a ripper chestbursting out of it (as long as you could remove said guardsmen easily)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

Out of curiousity I did some quick mathhammer:

At the very start of 8E it took an average of 12 S4 fleshborers to kill 0.99 MEQ models (with of course 1 wound).
Right now using this profile without any strats or other special rules on either side, 12 fleshborers kill a grand total of... 0.99 2W marines.

From an anti-marine POV all that's happened is gaunts catching up to exactly where they were before 9E. Except of course when any transhuman or ignore AP abilities are in play, in which case they're worse off.

So much for buffing Marine toughness when they're gonna make Tyranid and Eldar guns mulch through them at the same rate and then at the same time kill vehicles and other giant targets quicker.

GW really doesn't understand how their own toughness chart works.

Oh, wow. I didn't even think about how this messes with vehicles, just because the concept is so dumb. If there are _any_ +1 to wound bonuses in the codex (or reroll wounds, or worse, both), fleshborers 'gant swarms are going to happily strip wounds off T8 tanks

 Sureshot05 wrote:
Really not keen on the increase in strength of the fleshborer. It feels like a bad solution to what to do with these horde units. Rather than drop the cost and truly embrace a horde for termagaunts, we have raised their effectiveness by a huge amount, which means that they are going to have to cost.
And i concur, feels thematically wrong for these guns to be dangerous to marines. Guardsmen, yes, but marines? They will need to redo the Space marine 2 trailer if these are their new guns!

Unless the next marine dex is putting all the marines up to toughness 5...

a) GW moves away from horde atm. That's back for 10th or 11st edition
b) you assume they won't just give free power update like other books been giving

I just don't get it. In terms of in-setting justification for a s5 ap-1 gun, it just isn't there.

Balance wise I'm not sure gaunts will be ripping up the meta but it massively irks me that they're toting guns of that quality compared to so many other factions now.

Dudeface wrote:
I just don't get it. In terms of in-setting justification for a s5 ap-1 gun, it just isn't there.

Balance wise I'm not sure gaunts will be ripping up the meta but it massively irks me that they're toting guns of that quality compared to so many other factions now.

Don't worry. They will fix that. Next marine codex will have S6 AP-2 bolters for marines

And the idea that Astartes Power Armour might be a thing that ignores first point of AP might not be that far fetched idea...

tneva82 wrote:
[

a) GW moves away from horde atm. That's back for 10th or 11st edition
b) you assume they won't just give free power update like other books been giving

Yeah their approach since early 9th has been to keep a strict limit on 'spammable' troop units like cultists / poxwalkers / Boyz / gaunts. GW clearly don't want to see regular lists with 100-200 models swarming tables, so we get inflated point costs and occasionally hard caps like with cultists.

Sometimes those units get a buff or two to compensate for the fact they're not worth 5ppm+, but of course it's not always enough. The Discord leaker heavily implied gaunts will cost more points than currently, without giving a figure.

Voss wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, that is way too strong for what is supposed to be a cheap spammy gun. Every termagant is really running around with a weapon of higher strength than a bolter? That just doesn't feel right thematically.

Out of curiousity I did some quick mathhammer:

At the very start of 8E it took an average of 12 S4 fleshborers to kill 0.99 MEQ models (with of course 1 wound).
Right now using this profile without any strats or other special rules on either side, 12 fleshborers kill a grand total of... 0.99 2W marines.

From an anti-marine POV all that's happened is gaunts catching up to exactly where they were before 9E. Except of course when any transhuman or ignore AP abilities are in play, in which case they're worse off.

So much for buffing Marine toughness when they're gonna make Tyranid and Eldar guns mulch through them at the same rate and then at the same time kill vehicles and other giant targets quicker.

GW really doesn't understand how their own toughness chart works.

Oh, wow. I didn't even think about how this messes with vehicles, just because the concept is so dumb. If there are _any_ +1 to wound bonuses in the codex (or reroll wounds, or worse, both), fleshborers 'gant swarms are going to happily strip wounds off T8 tanks

The buff to a lot of guns to s5 and 6 is why vehicles and monsters need to be buffed in toughness. With even leadership breaking the 10 mark, there is no reason even titans should be limited to T8.

 xttz wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
[

a) GW moves away from horde atm. That's back for 10th or 11st edition
b) you assume they won't just give free power update like other books been giving

Yeah their approach since early 9th has been to keep a strict limit on 'spammable' troop units like cultists / poxwalkers / Boyz / gaunts. GW clearly don't want to see regular lists with 100-200 models swarming tables, so we get inflated point costs and occasionally hard caps like with cultists.

Sometimes those units get a buff or two to compensate for the fact they're not worth 5ppm+, but of course it's not always enough. The Discord leaker heavily implied gaunts will cost more points than currently, without giving a figure.

If any army should have 100-200 models swarming tables, it should be Tyranids.

Usual story of waiting and seeing.

S4->S5 AP-1 feels heavily like creep. But I can't really say basic fleshborers were impacting the meta much.

Tyel wrote:
Usual story of waiting and seeing.

S4->S5 AP-1 feels heavily like creep. But I can't really say basic fleshborers were impacting the meta much.

I agree, I think the issue is you'll likely see chaos marines after maybe with s4 ap - bolters and they'll just immediately seem less meaningful than what will inevitably be a max 8 point gaunt at range. Fear the impending s4 ap-2 lasgun!

Iracundus wrote:

If any army should have 100-200 models swarming tables, it should be Tyranids.

In theory, sure. Unfortunately there's a bunch of practical issues that mean we're unlikely to see the tabletop accurately reflect the fluff.

Making it viable to put that many models on a table means it's possible block out whole swathes of the board; preventing opponents manoeuvring, getting in weapon range of targets, or near objectives.

Killing up to 200 models is just incredibly unfun to play against, as we often found in 8th. It's slow to play and many factions require a tailored list to clear that many wounds quickly enough.

It requires Tyranid players to buy and likely paint up to ten times the models as other armies.

What I think is far more likely to happen is that GW will add some ways to bring back dead gaunts without costing reinforcement points, in the spirit of the old Without Number rules. Those new models are effectively already 'baked in' to the 6-8ppm cost you pay upfront when writing an army list.

Just do what AoS did to fix the summoning issues: hard limits or earning resources to spend. Allow a Tervigon to Spawn any combo of say 40 Gants max over a game and bake that into the cost like FEC do. Or do a X points killed equals so many Biomass points and use that to determine how much you can summon like Daemons do in AoS.

Dudeface wrote:
I just don't get it. In terms of in-setting justification for a s5 ap-1 gun, it just isn't there.

Balance wise I'm not sure gaunts will be ripping up the meta but it massively irks me that they're toting guns of that quality compared to so many other factions now.

Serious question, as I don't have any of the old Tyranid books anymore...

Was there any biomorph that improved AP on weapons? Might be that Gargoyles have it "rolled in" now? Or it's possible the boosted stats are to compensate for the lack of a melee weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Just do what AoS did to fix the summoning issues: hard limits or earning resources to spend. Allow a Tervigon to Spawn any combo of say 40 Gants max over a game and bake that into the cost like FEC do. Or do a X points killed equals so many Biomass points and use that to determine how much you can summon like Daemons do in AoS.

I may or may not be crossing my fingers for the Brood Nests to someday make a reappearance.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Seriously, is there any weapon in 9E in the new books that isn’t at least AP -1 anymore?

Firstborn bolters.

Death Guard bolters weep.

There is actually a precedent for S5 fleshborers. Back in 4th edition, a fleshborer termagant with toxin sacs had S5.

Bring back Gargoyles with Flamespurt guns, dammit! If the Adeptus Mechanicus can have flappy fire bois the ‘Nid can have them back again.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Bring back Gargoyles with Flamespurt guns, dammit! If the Adeptus Mechanicus can have flappy fire bois the ‘Nid can have them back again.

That is something.

What is these stats are not for gaunts, but just gargs?

 Nevelon wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Have we seen the stats on them yet? IIRC one source of leaks basically said that it was the case, but not sure if that was hyperbole or not.

In any case there is a great new combat patrol to help you re-buy all the gribbles you need!

Or just count all your devourers as fleshborers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
So devourers are crap now and its all about Fleshborers?

Have we seen the stats on them yet? IIRC one source of leaks basically said that it was the case, but not sure if that was hyperbole or not.

In any case there is a great new combat patrol to help you re-buy all the gribbles you need!

Or just count all your devourers as fleshborers.

I’ve done it the other way round, so why not?

Personally I only own 30, and they are 15/15. I’m less fussed about WYSWYG with my nids, as they are a casual army. And handwaving a whole units to be the same gun is an easy counts-as.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I just don't get it. In terms of in-setting justification for a s5 ap-1 gun, it just isn't there.

Balance wise I'm not sure gaunts will be ripping up the meta but it massively irks me that they're toting guns of that quality compared to so many other factions now.

Serious question, as I don't have any of the old Tyranid books anymore...

Was there any biomorph that improved AP on weapons? Might be that Gargoyles have it "rolled in" now? Or it's possible the boosted stats are to compensate for the lack of a melee weapon.

Not that I can recall, as other have mentioned there was a wildly inefficient method for bumping up the strength. The AP has always been equal to a bolter however, but they also didn't have a melee weapon previously.

Today's leak:

So, just to start out: a quick reminder about how the hive fleet traits work. There's two parts, a static and an adaptive - the adaptive trait can be switched out for something from the Lurk, Feed, or Hunt table - three tables of 5 traits each. Each hive fleet has access to two of these tables (for example, Leviathan can swap out their adaptive trait for anything from Feed or Hunt, kronos can swap for anything from Feed or Lurk, etc).

Now with all that reminder out of the way, here's one of the possible traits from each table. Remember that these can be switched out after you see your opponents list.

Lurk: Ignore ap-1
Feed: Targets of a charge cannot fire overwatch or set to defend
Hunt: All units in your army can heroically intervene as if they were characters

Bonus leak: Overrun not only stayed, but actually got buffed in the new codex

Warrior & Prime stats (this is in line with previous Discord leaks)

Warriors: +1BS, +1S, +1T
Prime: +1BS

Discord leaker confirms Primes can now take venom cannons (and presumably barbed stranglers)

Damn, tyranid warriors got BEEFY.

Ok, so the s5 ap-1 dumbassery applies to spinefists as well. Stellar. Add to that the 5 shot devourers because we all wanted gaunts spewing out 150 s4 shots at 18".

I think this may be the book that finally breaks me.

Dudeface wrote:
Ok, so the s5 ap-1 dumbassery applies to spinefists as well. Stellar. Add to that the 5 shot devourers because we all wanted gaunts spewing out 150 s4 shots at 18".

I think this may be the book that finally breaks me.

Devourers on gaunts have a different profile: Assault 2 S3

And before anyone freaks out, a reminder that these S+1 rending claws are a different profile to Genestealers.

 xttz wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Ok, so the s5 ap-1 dumbassery applies to spinefists as well. Stellar. Add to that the 5 shot devourers because we all wanted gaunts spewing out 150 s4 shots at 18".

I think this may be the book that finally breaks me.

Devourers on gaunts have a different profile: Assault 2 S3

And before anyone freaks out, a reminder that these S+1 rending claws are a different profile to Genestealers.

If that's the case are they going marine-ise the nids? Devourer, nomnom devourer, chonky devourer for the 3 profiles assumingly?

Edit: has the 2 shot variant on gaunts been confirmed visually?

Barbed strangler and venom cannon are disappointing. For a gun that can only be taken 1 for every 3 models, D3 shots with 2 damage is not attractive at all, and the strangler stacks up poorly against almost any of the other anti-infantry guns they can take (though it could have a new ability that changes things).

Dudeface wrote:

Edit: has the 2 shot variant on gaunts been confirmed visually?

Not as far as I know, but it comes from a source that predicted everything on that Warrior datasheet (and others) accurately.

Madjob wrote:
Barbed strangler and venom cannon are disappointing. For a gun that can only be taken 1 for every 3 models, D3 shots with 2 damage is not attractive at all, and the strangler stacks up poorly against almost any of the other anti-infantry guns they can take (though it could have a new ability that changes things).

I remember the BS being horrifying in earlier editions. I forget the rules and it's probably nostalgia, but I do hope they add that flavor back in. Venom went up an AP and sits on BS3 now, so...not terrible. Decent for going after Tau suits.

The BS 3+ is low-key a super good buff for them! Prime baby-sitting no longer needed for shooty Warriors!

Love the -1 on the Talons too, as it help anything Warrors-sized and up (Primes, Raveners, potentially Red Terror and Mawloc if they keep regular Talons). I would want Horma/Stealers Talons to stay at AP 0 though, but with the insane Fleshborer, maybe not happening.

Rending Claw also look quite nice on them now. S6 and AP-4, perfect for anything Deathguards or with -1 damage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Madjob wrote:
Barbed strangler and venom cannon are disappointing. For a gun that can only be taken 1 for every 3 models, D3 shots with 2 damage is not attractive at all, and the strangler stacks up poorly against almost any of the other anti-infantry guns they can take (though it could have a new ability that changes things).

I remember the BS being horrifying in earlier editions. I forget the rules and it's probably nostalgia, but I do hope they add that flavor back in. Venom went up an AP and sits on BS3 now, so...not terrible. Decent for going after Tau suits.

We dont know any of the spe ial rules attached yet.

Dudeface wrote:

If that's the case are they going marine-ise the nids? Devourer, nomnom devourer, chonky devourer for the 3 profiles assumingly?

I really, really, really, really want those to be the actual names too if so.

It makes a weird kind of sense though to have the different profiles, right? To differentiate that these are living organisms subsisting off of the host creature some differences in statlines would be expected--at least IMO.

That was the gimmick in the 3rd (4th?) edition codex. The ranged weapons were model's strength plus, minus or times a value, and in some cases rate of fire was based on the model's attacks.

Skywave wrote:Rending Claw also look quite nice on them now. S6 and AP-4, perfect for anything Deathguards or with -1 damage.

The Boneswords still have higher S, though, and the difference between AP-2 and AP-4 is easily negated by invulns (anything 3+/5++ sees no difference between the two).

So really, the Rending Claws have an advantage against models that have damage reduction, are T5 or T8+, and have good armor but no invulns. That's quite a niche. Plague Marine-heavy Death Guard, pretty much.

And even that's assuming Boneswords are losing the bonus attack they currently get. Unless there are some significant special abilities we're not seeing, it's looking like Boneswords will still be better than Rending Claws against the overwhelming majority of targets, and cost will still be the deciding factor as to which is worth taking.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It makes a weird kind of sense though to have the different profiles, right? To differentiate that these are living organisms subsisting off of the host creature some differences in statlines would be expected--at least IMO.

In 3rd/4th it worked like that, as Voss said. In 3rd Devourers were S-1 and Assault 2X, so on a Termagant you got 2 shots at S2, and on a Warrior it was 4 shots at S4. The 3rd Ed codex had a grand total of 6 ranged weapons, unless I'm forgetting any.

I can understand the reasoning behind switching to fixed profiles, but it does make remembering the stats of each variant somewhat harder.

I'm pretty surprised by the Fleshborers moving to S5 Ap-1, not really a fan of it to be honest. The only reason I can think why it's the case is that it's the slimmed-down version of the rules out of the box, perhaps they've included Toxin Sacs or some other boost just so they'd have a bit of a better chance straight out of the box.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Madjob wrote:
Barbed strangler and venom cannon are disappointing. For a gun that can only be taken 1 for every 3 models, D3 shots with 2 damage is not attractive at all, and the strangler stacks up poorly against almost any of the other anti-infantry guns they can take (though it could have a new ability that changes things).

I remember the BS being horrifying in earlier editions. I forget the rules and it's probably nostalgia, but I do hope they add that flavor back in. Venom went up an AP and sits on BS3 now, so...not terrible. Decent for going after Tau suits.

We dont know any of the spe ial rules attached yet.

I know - I'm just hopeful for something akin to rules of yore instead of just +1 to hit against big units.

So do we have any reliable rumors on Carnifexes? Been hearing different things - going to T8, others say staying at T7. Some saying move to Elites, others saying they drop to 65 points, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So do we have any reliable rumors on Carnifexes? Been hearing different things - going to T8, others say staying at T7. Some saying move to Elites, others saying they drop to 65 points, etc.

Carnifexes are one my other strong old-hammer memories. I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So do we have any reliable rumors on Carnifexes? Been hearing different things - going to T8, others say staying at T7. Some saying move to Elites, others saying they drop to 65 points, etc.

Carnifexes are one my other strong old-hammer memories. I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

Carnifexes were the BIG boys back then, now they look like dwarfs in comparison with the scale creep and HUGE kits spam that GW likes so much.
I confess that I dont want or need kits bigger than Fexes.

I get that they are not longer the big boys in the list, but want them to be solid midline anchors.

The seem to have done a good job making dreads viable, fexes should fill the same spot in a modern nid list.

 Nevelon wrote:
I get that they are not longer the big boys in the list, but want them to be solid midline anchors.

The seem to have done a good job making dreads viable, fexes should fill the same spot in a modern nid list.

For me they will always be my favourites... But GW is selling them in packs of 2 as direct only? Almost like they dont want to sell them anymore.

Agreed. I sold off my nids army around 5th/6th ed (either right before or right after all the bigger beasts were released). I recently bought a bunch of carnifexes (prompted by various rumors for the bugs) and as I was putting them together was stunned by how small they were in comparison to the newer bigger bugs. Calling them a heavy support choice in relation to some of the other bugs almost seems like a joke. I can understand if they don't get T8 or buffed up to be the living tanks they were during 4th edition and fill more of a dreadnought niche... but for that to happen they need to not be competing for slots with the actual heavy-hitter bugs and need to be costed appropriately for their role and capability.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I get that they are not longer the big boys in the list, but want them to be solid midline anchors.

The seem to have done a good job making dreads viable, fexes should fill the same spot in a modern nid list.

For me they will always be my favourites... But GW is selling them in packs of 2 as direct only? Almost like they dont want to sell them anymore.

Sold a pair to me. I could not start a nid army without them, even thought I’m late to the party. They are just too iconic from the early days not to have in the swarm.

But for a new player who doesn’t have the nostalgia goggles of greybeards like me? Probably a lot of “meh, pass”

Rumors is that carnifexes have inbuilt -1 damage, although I haven't heard anything else.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

I'd prefer them to live up to their "Living Battering Ram" reputation than some lame moniker.

 Tyran wrote:
Rumors is that carnifexes have inbuilt -1 damage, although I haven't heard anything else.

Korkin said they were not T8 2+, all the other specific details are in the OP.

tl;dr - large increase in offensive melee power

Edit: Checked on Discord, they are T7 2+

They're the one thing outside of Hive Guard that should be 2+...

Yeah, I would have settled for T7 2+, but hopefully they get a big points cut (and move to elites) to justify the disappointing statline.

The fact that a Hive Tyrant has a higher T than a Carnifex is mind boggling to me tbh.

From the Nids Discord:


Synapse still allows you to ignore morale, but now only works in a 6" range. Shadow in the warp remains in the codex, but I'm unsure what form it takes.

Ravener info from the discord.

3/12: Raveners, our favorite mini snake bois.

To start out, they're slightly more expensive than warriors, but not much. As expected, Raveners get s5/t5 4+ save. However, they also get 4 wounds and a whopping 5 attacks base. In addition, they are always -1 to hit in melee.

Their weapons have been simplified somewhat, with them having Ravener Claws and a pair of Scything Talons base, giving them 5 s5 ap-2 d1 attacks and 2 s5 ap-1 d1 attacks. Alternatively, they can swap out their Scything Talons for rending claws to get 5 s6 ap-4 d1 attacks. Finally, if they don't take any guns they get reroll 1s to hit in melee.

Also they're core

Also confirmation Tyranid Warriors are troops.

Ravener claws presumably being their uppermost set of scything talons? That's an obnoxious distinction to make.

 Tyran wrote:
Ravener info from the discord.

3/12: Raveners, our favorite mini snake bois.

To start out, they're slightly more expensive than warriors, but not much. As expected, Raveners get s5/t5 4+ save. However, they also get 4 wounds and a whopping 5 attacks base. In addition, they are always -1 to hit in melee.

Their weapons have been simplified somewhat, with them having Ravener Claws and a pair of Scything Talons base, giving them 5 s5 ap-2 d1 attacks and 2 s5 ap-1 d1 attacks. Alternatively, they can swap out their Scything Talons for rending claws to get 5 s6 ap-4 d1 attacks. Finally, if they don't take any guns they get reroll 1s to hit in melee.

Also they're core

Also confirmation Tyranid Warriors are troops.

This is a very solid Statline, and if they are around 30 points or less seems really good. Curious what the points cost of the other weapons are.

 Tyran wrote:
Ravener info from the discord.

3/12: Raveners, our favorite mini snake bois.

To start out, they're slightly more expensive than warriors, but not much. As expected, Raveners get s5/t5 4+ save. However, they also get 4 wounds and a whopping 5 attacks base. In addition, they are always -1 to hit in melee.

Their weapons have been simplified somewhat, with them having Ravener Claws and a pair of Scything Talons base, giving them 5 s5 ap-2 d1 attacks and 2 s5 ap-1 d1 attacks. Alternatively, they can swap out their Scything Talons for rending claws to get 5 s6 ap-4 d1 attacks. Finally, if they don't take any guns they get reroll 1s to hit in melee.

Also they're core

Also confirmation Tyranid Warriors are troops.

Troop confirmation gives hope for Crusher Stampede though to be honest with some of the new Hive Fleet bonuses (Leviathan cough) and a FNP save warlord trait that's generic we may be fine running crushers through other mediums. I dunno, sacrificing -1 Damage on our monsters for TransNid may just make up for a lot.

There's a lot of leaks so sorry if this has been answered, but are Crushing Claws finally going to be worth it on ANY unit that can take them? I've always loved the look of them but they've always too expensive and/or subpar compared to other biomorphs so I've never seen them taken. Hope that changes now.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
There's a lot of leaks so sorry if this has been answered, but are Crushing Claws finally going to be worth it on ANY unit that can take them? I've always loved the look of them but they've always too expensive and/or subpar compared to other biomorphs so I've never seen them taken. Hope that changes now.

Gotta see the cost on Tyrant Guard, but it looked like it was worth it there according to the leaks.

 Tyran wrote:
Ravener info from the discord.

3/12: Raveners, our favorite mini snake bois.

To start out, they're slightly more expensive than warriors, but not much. As expected, Raveners get s5/t5 4+ save. However, they also get 4 wounds and a whopping 5 attacks base. In addition, they are always -1 to hit in melee.

Their weapons have been simplified somewhat, with them having Ravener Claws and a pair of Scything Talons base, giving them 5 s5 ap-2 d1 attacks and 2 s5 ap-1 d1 attacks. Alternatively, they can swap out their Scything Talons for rending claws to get 5 s6 ap-4 d1 attacks. Finally, if they don't take any guns they get reroll 1s to hit in melee.

Also they're core

Also confirmation Tyranid Warriors are troops.

The 4th wound is very surprising, but finally 4+ save! At 5+ they were just too squishy, at least 4+ is decent, especially with all the other stats buff. From that leak I take it that their main talons are -2 AP (instead of -1 as seen on the Warriors leak), and their smaller middle arms are actual regular talon at -1 AP and grant 2 more attacks? Also, is the info that talons giving 2 hit roll per attack still relevant? They would have an obscene amount of attack if it is.

Dunno if these have been posted yet, first time I've seen them (I *think* these are new datasheets/rules? I dont have the current nids book to compare to):

Wow those Warriors looks better and better. S8 Boneswords is real, the cost will be interesting to see how they balance that versus other weapons.

All those keywords gained is troubling All those things gonna unlock strats I guess, meh. At least they still get regular rules so hopefully not.

Also Prime with Venom Cannon wooo!


Edit from Discord:

Free leak because warriors got spoiled: Warriors are 25ppm, and that's irrelevant of wargear (except cannons those cost extra). Also adrenal glands/toxin sacs/flesh hooks are +X points per unit, regardless of how many models are in that unit

To be honest, I'm just happy we get to use both venom cannon and barbed strangler for every 3 models.

We actually got something out of GW's "you only get to use bits on the box" obsession, it seems it also means "you only get to use ALL the bits on the box".

Woof thats a big points jump, say goodbye to cheap 17 point scytal warriors :( Actually say goodbye to scytal warriors period? Why would you ever want to field them if they cost the same as literally any other weapon loadout other than cannons? dual boneswords for the same price as scytals is a no-brainer, the dual boneswords have better S, AP, D, and you get the same additional attack bonus.

I guess they really want to incentivize max sized squads with the adrenal/tox/flesh hook costing then, more efficient to take tox sacs and adrenal glands for 9 minis than 3.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Woof thats a big points jump, say goodbye to cheap 17 point scytal warriors :( Actually say goodbye to scytal warriors period? Why would you ever want to field them if they cost the same as literally any other weapon loadout other than cannons? dual boneswords for the same price as scytals is a no-brainer, the dual boneswords have better S, AP, D, and you get the same additional attack bonus.

I guess they really want to incentivize max sized squads with the adrenal/tox/flesh hook costing then, more efficient to take tox sacs and adrenal glands for 9 minis than 3.

While I agree dual boneswords (or rather, quad boneswords, that is now a thing) are better, note the wording of the weapons. You get an additional attack for each scything talon, so a full scytal warrior gets 7 attacks.

Holy smokes, you're right!

 Tyran wrote:
To be honest, I'm just happy we get to use both venom cannon and barbed strangler for every 3 models.

We actually got something out of GW's "you only get to use bits on the box" obsession, it seems it also means "you only get to use ALL the bits on the box".

Well don't say it too loud because the box don't have enough swords to quad-wield them on every warriors!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Dunno if these have been posted yet, first time I've seen them (I *think* these are new datasheets/rules? I dont have the current nids book to compare to):

Spoiler:

Wow, so... that's a lot.

First- uh, gargoyles are troops now? (Triangle on the sheet, not lightning jag of fast attack) I miss their melee/bioplasma. Oh well.
Why are they troops?

Warriors-
Immediate reaction- I have no idea what the barbed strangler is for. None. I'd rather have the Ap and fixed shots of the deathspitter. Its just a better TAC weapon. I guess if you KNOW you're fighting orks, you'd take the strangler. At least the venom cannon has a point, even if d3 attacks still sucks. Deathspitter seems like the clear winner for ranged attacks, to be honest.

Bonesword and lashwhip. Pass. I'd rather have dual swords all the time. I'd be surprised if there aren't other sources of reroll ones.
Scything talons are pointless.... Edit: well, maybe not completely if you're getting a bonus attack per talon.
Rending claws- I'd rather have swords, but at least there is a definite function to claws.

Adrenal glands are really good. Flesh hooks are bizarrely specific and corner case. Lashwhips.. eh. Toxin sacs... not for this unit. Potentially nice on a unit that's throwing a lot of low strength attacks, but that clearly isn't the warriors' role.

Adrenal deathspitter dual bone warriors. Every time. Especially if everything is the same cost bar cannons.

Slotless primes? Kinda nice.

I'm going to mutter obscenities about the primes getting the ability to take cannons back. I just switched it over to the current legal loadout a couple months back.

Amazed that so much is on the datasheets.

toxin hormas are going to be so nasty, and probably expensive, but so nasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Immediate reaction- I have no idea what the barbed strangler is for.

Range.

A small unit of warriors sitting of an objective probably wants a barbed strangler and a venom cannon to be able to contribute against far away targets.

Just need to see how much adrenal glands cost but it seems warriors are a top pick.

Max 20 Gargoyles per unit, hey?

I guess these new datsheets also all but confirm that dakkdarants and x4 dakkafexas are dead now.

Hope you magnetized those...

 Tyran wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Woof thats a big points jump, say goodbye to cheap 17 point scytal warriors :( Actually say goodbye to scytal warriors period? Why would you ever want to field them if they cost the same as literally any other weapon loadout other than cannons? dual boneswords for the same price as scytals is a no-brainer, the dual boneswords have better S, AP, D, and you get the same additional attack bonus.

I guess they really want to incentivize max sized squads with the adrenal/tox/flesh hook costing then, more efficient to take tox sacs and adrenal glands for 9 minis than 3.

While I agree dual boneswords (or rather, quad boneswords, that is now a thing) are better, note the wording of the weapons. You get an additional attack for each scything talon, so a full scytal warrior gets 7 attacks.

Well 5 bonesword attacks still better. So if cost true lol

...So Trygons are gonna have a ****ton of attacks then?

tneva82 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Woof thats a big points jump, say goodbye to cheap 17 point scytal warriors :( Actually say goodbye to scytal warriors period? Why would you ever want to field them if they cost the same as literally any other weapon loadout other than cannons? dual boneswords for the same price as scytals is a no-brainer, the dual boneswords have better S, AP, D, and you get the same additional attack bonus.

I guess they really want to incentivize max sized squads with the adrenal/tox/flesh hook costing then, more efficient to take tox sacs and adrenal glands for 9 minis than 3.

While I agree dual boneswords (or rather, quad boneswords, that is now a thing) are better, note the wording of the weapons. You get an additional attack for each scything talon, so a full scytal warrior gets 7 attacks.

Well 5 bonesword attacks still better. So if cost true lol

From what we know you are right. But we also have the Chainsword situation where no multiple additional attacks are allowed so both could just be 4 Attacks and also there might be a strat that does something with Scything talons and not with Boneswords. I would be fine if Talons are for tons of attack, Sword for Elite and Claws for high Save enemies. For me these leaks point in that direction

Do warriors with 4 scything talons really have 7A S6 DS1 with AG?

No bio-plasma on Gargs? GW do you even look at your models?

 Astmeister wrote:
Do warriors with 4 scything talons really have 7A S6 DS1 with AG?

Until they FAQ it to a single extra attack no matter how many pairs you have.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
No bio-plasma on Gargs? GW do you even look at your models?

Calm your tits, might be moved to a Strat.

Do 'Nids have HIVE TENDRIL as a Faction Keyword at the moment? Seems an odd one.

I wonder if that "Endless Multitude" keyword is the new "Without Number" rule for gaunts? Some way to respawn them without using reinforcement points.

 Dysartes wrote:
Do 'Nids have HIVE TENDRIL as a Faction Keyword at the moment? Seems an odd one.

No, I think that's been added to help with current detachment building rules, and because the old TYRANIDS keyword is also used by GSC.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Do warriors with 4 scything talons really have 7A S6 DS1 with AG?

Until they FAQ it to a single extra attack no matter how many pairs you have.

I think that would be weird, because in this case it does not matter whether you have 1 or 2 pairs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Do warriors with 4 scything talons really have 7A S6 DS1 with AG?

Until they FAQ it to a single extra attack no matter how many pairs you have.

Doubt it. The rule has, literally, nothing to do with pairs of talons. In the equip part you can only take them n pairs, but that’s different.

A Scything Talon (NO s) let’s you make one extra attack with it. Thus each Talon you’re equipped with gives you an extra attack with the Scything Talon profile. Ork Dread Klaws have the exact same wording and get +4 attacks when loaded up with max Klaws.

Will be interesting to see the strats. Lot of Keyword being tossed around.

I suspect gargs might have lost some of their special rules in the move to the troop slot. But also suspect that they will get them back as strats.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Calm your tits, might be moved to a Strat.

Oh goody...

Bitharne wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Astmeister wrote:
Do warriors with 4 scything talons really have 7A S6 DS1 with AG?

Until they FAQ it to a single extra attack no matter how many pairs you have.

Doubt it. The rule has, literally, nothing to do with pairs of talons. In the equip part you can only take them n pairs, but that’s different.

A Scything Talon (NO s) let’s you make one extra attack with it. Thus each Talon you’re equipped with gives you an extra attack with the Scything Talon profile. Ork Dread Klaws have the exact same wording and get +4 attacks when loaded up with max Klaws.

Also, contrast the “pair of boneswords” profile which is explicit that you only get one extra attack for each pair.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
No bio-plasma on Gargs? GW do you even look at your models?

Calm your tits, might be moved to a Strat.

That... isn't a good thing.
Burning a resource on a unit that will just go splat (when formerly they could do it innately) is a loss. Pure and simple.


I'm more concerned by the troops shift. It makes tyranid brigades a little harder.
ObSec is a little nice, but they've got so little durability...

Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Warriors are looking like they are going to be the way to go. Deathspitters and Dual Boneswords ahoy!

Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

It's the same wording as Lightning Claws. It's an additional attack per each talon.

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

You would lose that wager. Note the wargear wording, scything talons sets are no longer a thing, each scything talon is its own weapon.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I guess these new datsheets also all but confirm that dakkdarants and x4 dakkafexas are dead now.

Hope you magnetized those...

Dakkatyrants are dead, but I fail to see why dakkafexes would be, specially when the warrior datasheet allows things like quad boneswords.

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

I don’t know.

Right now it looks like they are the blender option, where we can just toss out a LOT of fairly basic attacks. To offset how nice the boneswords are looking, +1 per claw seems like it’s balanced.

The looser of the melee weapons looks to be the rending claws. Sure, it’s got all that AP, but it’s only doing 1 wound. How many high armored 1W models are there these days?

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

The wording has completely changed. We went from, "If the bearer has more than 1 pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights.", to "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon". Unlocking an extra attack(s) is no longer dependent on having 2+ pairs of talons, it's tied to each individual talon. If this same wording carries over to the MC versions of scything talons, the damage nerf we saw on the Hive Tyrant sheet also starts to make more sense - they're making 7 attacks with Monstrous Scything Talons and not 5 like we would have assumed, and 9 with two sets.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

I don’t know.

Right now it looks like they are the blender option, where we can just toss out a LOT of fairly basic attacks. To offset how nice the boneswords are looking, +1 per claw seems like it’s balanced.

The looser of the melee weapons looks to be the rending claws. Sure, it’s got all that AP, but it’s only doing 1 wound. How many high armored 1W models are there these days?

Sisters, but they have a 6++.

And Death Guard, with their -1 Damage, are good targets for that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sisters, but they have a 6++.

And Death Guard, with their -1 Damage, are good targets for that.

Also there are a few factions with abilities to ignore AP1/2 completely, which would really make Boneswords less effective. AP4 neatly bypasses that.

Voss wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
No bio-plasma on Gargs? GW do you even look at your models?

Calm your tits, might be moved to a Strat.

That... isn't a good thing.
Burning a resource on a unit that will just go splat (when formerly they could do it innately) is a loss. Pure and simple.

Depends what it does. The old Blinding Venom rule was fairly pointless and depended on first scoring unsaved wounds from a WS4+ S3 AP0 profile. Even then, -1 to hit isn't much of an obstacle to kill a T3 6+ unit.

Personally I'd rather have a stratagem that works more reliably, like automatically forcing fights last or similar.

 Nevelon wrote:
The looser of the melee weapons looks to be the rending claws. Sure, it’s got all that AP, but it’s only doing 1 wound. How many high armored 1W models are there these days?

Incubi come to mind, too, but they ALSO have a 6++/5++.

Rending claws on Warriors will probably be trash, but I'm sure they'll still be just fine on Genestealers due to sheer number of attacks per model.

BTW, if you look at that gargoyle datasheet, notice the fact instinctive behaviour is freaking GONE.

Good riddance if you ask me.

 Tyran wrote:
BTW, if you look at that gargoyle datasheet, notice the fact instinctive behaviour is freaking GONE.

Good riddance if you ask me.

It could still be there, just as an overall "army rule" that's tied to that Endless Multitude keyword?

Would be nice to see it gone though!

I recall the old days where losing synapse meant the swarm just went into instinctive and - yeah you'd generally be on a losing streak. Which meant you made darn sure you had a lot of it. GW seems to be shifting Tyranids more toward Synapse being a bonus ontop rather than the underlaying control mechanic. Which honestly I think works well; it opens more more list diversity options for the Tyranid player and it means that synapse is now shifted from mandatory to desirable as a feature. Lose it and you suffer, but its not the same as ending up slipping back into instinctive behaviour.

 Tyran wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

You would lose that wager. Note the wargear wording, scything talons sets are no longer a thing, each scything talon is its own weapon.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I guess these new datsheets also all but confirm that dakkdarants and x4 dakkafexas are dead now.

Hope you magnetized those...

Dakkatyrants are dead, but I fail to see why dakkafexes would be, specially when the warrior datasheet allows things like quad boneswords.

The warrior kit has enough swords to put quad swords on one model, so it's "legal" in GW's eyes.

But the Fex kit only comes with one pair of Devourers if i remember right.

To be honest I never liked the look of the Dakkafex. Just so damn goofy with those 4 dinky little arms on such a huge body.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

The warrior kit has enough swords to put quad swords on one model, so it's "legal" in GW's eyes.

But the Fex kit only comes with one pair of Devourers if i remember right.

To be honest I never liked the look of the Dakkafex. Just so damn goofy with those 4 dinky little arms on such a huge body.

Fexes got repacked a while ago to a box of two. Technically you can build one with four devourers and another with four deathspitters from one box.

 Sasori wrote:
Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Warriors are looking like they are going to be the way to go. Deathspitters and Dual Boneswords ahoy!

Or a Lash Whip if you fancy some rerolls. And people mocked my bonesword Warriors. 'Go Scytals' they all said.

Mine have rending claws T-T

 Sasori wrote:
Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Its a pretty crazy price for that gun. I wonder if fleshborer termagants are going to be 6 or 7?
With an 18" range, I don't know that the gargoyles are useful over the basic 'gant.
Maybe as mid-game reinforcements to steal objectives and strip off wounds.

Bitharne wrote:
Doubt it. The rule has, literally, nothing to do with pairs of talons. In the equip part you can only take them n pairs, but that’s different.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Also, contrast the “pair of boneswords” profile which is explicit that you only get one extra attack for each pair.

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's the same wording as Lightning Claws. It's an additional attack per each talon.

 Tyran wrote:
You would lose that wager. Note the wargear wording, scything talons sets are no longer a thing, each scything talon is its own weapon.

And, like I said, this is all well and good until GW FAQ it to a single attack no matter how many pairs of talons - or perhaps just individual talons - you have.

Remember, they FAQ'd out gaining extra attacks from multiple pairs in the past:

Q: If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A: 1 additional attack with one of those pairs.

Took an already bad weapon and made it worse. What's that? You have 3 pairs of Talons? Too bad. The second and third count for nothing.

You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical doom posting.

I'm showing what GW have done in the past. You're making personal attacks. And somehow I'm the donkey-cave?

Look: Someone posted the new ScyTal rule, and pointed out the sheer wealth of attacks it would grant. I mentioned that GW, in the past, FAQ'd ScyTals to reduce their attacks. The response was basically "Nah! They'd never do that!", so I decided to reply and quote the whole damned FAQ where they did so. Call it "constant negativity". I call it managing expectations, and learning to recognise that GW takes more away than it gives.

HBMC; is there any ambiguity about the number of attacks that Deff Dreads have? I've never heard about it, as an Ork player; just the short-lived VERY CLEAR two attacks for a pair of Killsaws (that was FAQed away).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical doom posting.

I'm showing what GW have done in the past.

You're making personal attacks.

And somehow I'm the donkey-cave?

Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Yeah, I'm as willing to criticize GW as the next guy but presenting the old wording & eratta as analogous to the new is a stretch at best. Yeah there is a chance they will do something dumb but not more than the baseline level for everything.

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

or like when they FAQ'd tyranid primes couldn't ride in a mycetic spore for...no reason whatsoever. GW has a long history of weird and inconsistent rulings, especially with tyranids. pointing that out isn't being an donkey-cave.

it does look like they're going out of their way to un-feth the faction though, so kudos to them if they keep it up.

 gigasnail wrote:
it does look like they're going out of their way to un-feth the faction though, so kudos to them if they keep it up.

I personally like the glimmer of hope for the Dakkafex because the kit does technically contain enough parts for the build, because you get two kits. That's good news. Got two of those things.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

"Everyone".

v0iddrgn wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

One-upping hyperbole with even more hyperbole doesn't improve the conversation.

TBH, if the rumor I saw that all Warriors are 25PPM unless they have Venom Cannons is true, then this debate is pretty much academic- even if Scything Talons do allow 7 attacks, at S6/AP-1/D1 that's roughly equivalent to 5 attacks at S7/AP-2/D2 against most W1 models, and against multi-wound models without DR it isn't even close.

I'm hoping that rumor is false because the internal balance is going to be pretty out of whack otherwise.

That's the norm, though.

Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

And before I learned to use superglue instead of plastic glue.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 xttz wrote:

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

Then perhaps "everyone" made a mistake by entering a forum instead of an echo chamber?

Ever since the move from 3rd to 4th edition I've always said - for Tyranids if its a Warrior or bigger, magnetize the arms/weapons. Because a codex change can mess SOOO many things up.

Smaller than a warrior and I think the cost-benefit isn't there (just buy and build more swarmy gaunts). But for Warriors and up the weapon range and potential changes are great enough to keep things flexible.

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

I'm in a weird situation where I have a whole stack of quad-ScyTal Warriors, but also a whole bunch of double Bonesword/Rending Claw Warriors. Why? Because I have oodles of OG plastic Tyranid Warriors, and Scything Talons didn't exist then!

So I can use old Warriors for the better equipment, or take worse equipment with better models. I have 3 or 4 of the current Warrior kit, but mostly used them to build Devourer Warriors, 3 (or 5?) Primes with all sorts of weapon combos, and a few more heavy weapons.

Maybe I should have built Boneswords?

I should rebase them though. So many of them are on the original tiny Warhammer fantasy square bases that they came with - not even 40mm ones!

 vipoid wrote:
Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

It's a weird phenomena. Some people on this board seem more interested in discussing me than the topic. I can't explain why. I want to talk about Tyranids. They want to talk about me talking about Tyranids. So weird!

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

And before I learned to use superglue instead of plastic glue.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 xttz wrote:

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

Then perhaps "everyone" made a mistake by entering a forum instead of an echo chamber?

His first entry into this discussion was a one sentence assumption of the worst possible scenario, later backed by a FAQ ruling on a completely different rules wording from very early in 8th edition, which we can agree was made by a very different GW. It's clear he's arguing in bad faith.

And yet I was the one accused of derailing the thread.

But no, by all means, keep discussing me rather than the actual topic. That's far more worthwhile.

 Overread wrote:
Ever since the move from 3rd to 4th edition I've always said - for Tyranids if its a Warrior or bigger, magnetize the arms/weapons. Because a codex change can mess SOOO many things up.

Smaller than a warrior and I think the cost-benefit isn't there (just buy and build more swarmy gaunts). But for Warriors and up the weapon range and potential changes are great enough to keep things flexible.

I maged my 2 fex’s and my flyrant. Didn’t clean up any bonesword arms, but they are in the bitz box. For melee, I think they are probably going to be the go-to build. My my heart rests with the classic Screamer-Killer and all the talons, But I kinda want to see what a carnafex can do with the blades. I’m guessing blend MEQ like there is no tomorrow.

I'm attempting to figure out the point of multiple rending claws. That should have been a design factor to include some advantage for having multiples of them as well as bone swords or scything talons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a weird phenomena. Some people on this board seem more interested in discussing me than the topic. I can't explain why. I want to talk about Tyranids. They want to talk about me talking about Tyranids. So weird!

Mchagen wrote:
I'm attempting to figure out the point of multiple rending claws. That should have been a design factor to include some advantage for having multiples of them as well as bone swords or scything talons.

Multiple claws have no use as far as I can tell.

Claws + paired boneswords gives you one extra attack with them
Claws + paired scything talons gets you 2 extra swings with them
Claws + bonesword/whip lets you choose what to use for your base attacks, and lets you re-roll ones.
Claws + gun lets you shoot

When I wrote "...as well as bone swords or scything talons," I didn't mean claws + other melee weapons. But rather claws + claws should give a bonus the same way bone swords + bone swords, or talons + talons give a bonus for having multiples.

It's bad design to have options that penalize for no reason. This shouldn't be an excuse for GW to remove the option altogether, but to give benefits for taking it.

Presumably some of these weapons will transfer over to Raveners. I wonder if it'll be worthwhile giving them Rending Claws?

Voss wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Its a pretty crazy price for that gun. I wonder if fleshborer termagants are going to be 6 or 7?
With an 18" range, I don't know that the gargoyles are useful over the basic 'gant.
Maybe as mid-game reinforcements to steal objectives and strip off wounds.

I'm guessing 7. It's an interesting delta. 6 PPM and I think Termagants are very usable. 7 PPM is very likely just too much (With the info we have now) and I'd rather just take warriors.

Mchagen wrote:
When I wrote "...as well as bone swords or scything talons," I didn't mean claws + other melee weapons. But rather claws + claws should give a bonus the same way bone swords + bone swords, or talons + talons give a bonus for having multiples.

It's bad design to have options that penalize for no reason. This shouldn't be an excuse for GW to remove the option altogether, but to give benefits for taking it.

Yeah, agreed. The current setup definitely incentivizes players to filed either 2 dual boneswords or 4 scything talons. The Claws have obvious value in their AP-4 characteristic, but taking them with either scything talons or dual boneswords is a huge tradeoff in damage output for that weapon in order to gain the flexibility that comes from having claws. I think the only real value the claws might have is when paired with a ranged weapon or paired with bonesword + lashwhip, but both options seem relatively sub-optimal vs taking dual boneswords or 2 scything talons instead.

I'd much rather have a gun (specifically: deathspitters) than quad swords or talons.
9 S5 AP2 shots for the basic unit at 24" is pretty nice, and gives flexibility that can't really be matched in slot (or in the list as a whole). Meanwhile there are lots of faster, heavier hitting melee units that can easily match the loss of 1 attack each. (or 2 scytal attacks)

Same; I was toying with starting Tyranids a few years back and wanted to lean into their presence in all three phases of the game.

Basically my list I wanted back then is just better for all the buffs. I can’t see why you’d double up melee weapons when you can push through so much more threat-of-damage and actual damage with a set of guns.

Same on Fexes with double guns and an acid maw (in current codex) just seemed awesome to me.

See, I'm all about cc nids, not interested in shooting capabilities, would gladly forego all ranged weapons they have access to in order to focus on melee capability. Thats the nid army I ran in 4th/5th ed which didn't do too well, but now with the ability to advance in the shooting phase instead of shooting and the smaller table sizes, etc. the whole "three phase" play concept is less relevant as you can get to melee a lot faster (and in doing so limit your opponents units to play a "three phase game" by denying or limiting the ability for them to shoot).

Quite the opposite of my experience. 9th is an utter gak-show if you can’t threaten people with range firepower…if they’re army is quite well constructed. My oft attempts at melee lists show this time and time…and time…again.

Madjob wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

And before I learned to use superglue instead of plastic glue.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 xttz wrote:

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

Then perhaps "everyone" made a mistake by entering a forum instead of an echo chamber?

His first entry into this discussion was a one sentence assumption of the worst possible scenario, later backed by a FAQ ruling on a completely different rules wording from very early in 8th edition, which we can agree was made by a very different GW. It's clear he's arguing in bad faith.

A very different GW? LOL

It isn't a different GW.

But it is a different rule, the same one you can find on lightning claws or dread klaws. And yet GW hasn't FAQed those.

Interesting how he completely ignored my question: being the wording is IDENTICAL (I checked before I clicked post); and not once have I seen someone say they don’t get four extra attacks for 4 klaws.

Lightning claws too, form what I hear, but don’t have to wording on hand to be 100% sure myself.

So anyway, how about some more datasheets:

 gigasnail wrote:
or like when they FAQ'd tyranid primes couldn't ride in a mycetic spore for...no reason whatsoever. GW has a long history of weird and inconsistent rulings, especially with tyranids. pointing that out isn't being an donkey-cave.

it does look like they're going out of their way to un-feth the faction though, so kudos to them if they keep it up.

I think my favorite WTF FAQ answer they have ever given for Tyranids came from (I believe) 4th edition. Instinctive Behavior was a leadership test back then, and people asked about Carnifexes needing to test. The FAQ answer was something like "Why would they test? Monstrous Creatures don't take Leadership Tests." Um.... What? That's not a rule in the game GW.

Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Arson Fire wrote:
So anyway, how about some more datasheets:

Spoiler:

Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane...

Also RIP Dakkarant, though I think we were all prepared for that.

Time to take the devourers of my flyrant then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane.

Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

 Redemption wrote:
Time to take the devourers of my flyrant then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane.

Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

I would expect a lot of this happening throughout the book, actually.

Also: I do find it a tad hilarious that GW went full Chapterhouse on this codex, it seems, and gave the "Claws on the hands with the wings" their own specific profile to fight with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

Bitharne wrote:
Also: I do find it a tad hilarious that GW went full Chapterhouse on this codex, it seems, and gave the "Claws on the hands with the wings" their own specific profile to fight with.

I reckon the Tyrant talons are the scything talons-like feet.

Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

To be fair, in their old 3rd and 4th edition incarnations they were grapnels. Back then they let you treat impassible terrain as difficult terrain.

I remember in my first ever game of 40k back in 3rd ed I used flesh hooks to have a pair of carnifexes scale up the side of a building. Good times.

And considering they also grant the FLESH HOOKS keyword, I wouldn't be surprised to see a stratagem keying of that to do something extra. Although I also wouldn't be surprised to see it doing something unimaginative like simply doing some mortal wounds to an enemy in engagement range or something.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

Whilst I completely agree that that's what they should do - as they originally did way back in 2nd Ed - they've been grapnel/climbing equipment for a while now.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Also RIP Dakkarant, though I think we were all prepared for that.

Don't care. I have a third winged HT, and I'm still going to give it the big spore arms from the Tyrannofex kit. GW be damned!

 Redemption wrote:
I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

It's probably the new version of the Thornback rule, only it's a strat, because all equipment and special rules are strats now, just to make things more needlessly complicated.

 Redemption wrote:
Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

I mean, it's just as likely, isn't it?

Except for the 8th/9th so far where they’ve been (terrible) guns, hence my surprise. Never owned Nids in between 2nd and 8th so wasn’t aware they’d already had grapnels. So odd.

Still. nice to expand the toolbox.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

I doubt it, since the Swarmlord also has the HORNED CHITIN keyword, too.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

I doubt it, since the Swarmlord also has the HORNED CHITIN keyword, too.

OK_E has been reliable for info so far:


If there are other charge bonus abilities to go alongside the built-in charge reroll on Flyrants that's gonna be pretty nuts. Assuming the Leviathan supplement stays, it can land MW on the charge then hit with an AP4 Monstrous Bonesword that rerolls 1's to hit and ignores invulns.

gimme carnifex datasheets damnit

chaos0xomega wrote:
gimme carnifex datasheets damnit

+1

RIP Twin Bonesword Tyrants. Guess that puts the Synaptic Hive Blades into the ground for Flyrants.

Unless of course they just go Bonesword and then my Twin-Sword Flyrant is just going to have to treat the second bonesword as a Lash Whip with a BS fluff logic of it being used in a similar manner to parry and probe attacks.

'BuT tHe KiT DIdN'T CoMe WiTh TWo BoNeSWoRdS.' - it did. Nothing stopping you from using a pair of the Swarmlords sabres as a pair of Monstrous Boneswords. Guess GW forgot that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

No, they originally existed to turn 2nd ed Lictors into batman. They could scale vertical surfaces and then 'GET OVER HERE' their prey straight towards them.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
RIP Twin Bonesword Tyrants. Guess that puts the Synaptic Hive Blades into the ground for Flyrants.

Unless of course they just go Bonesword and then my Twin-Sword Flyrant is just going to have to treat the second bonesword as a Lash Whip with a BS fluff logic of it being used in a similar manner to parry and probe attacks.

'BuT tHe KiT DIdN'T CoMe WiTh TWo BoNeSWoRdS.' - it did. Nothing stopping you from using a pair of the Swarmlords sabres as a pair of Monstrous Boneswords. Guess GW forgot that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

No, they originally existed to turn 2nd ed Lictors into batman. They could scale vertical surfaces and then 'GET OVER HERE' their prey straight towards them.

GW didn't forget, those are Bonesabres, not Boneswords. Gotta keep it WYSIWYG, duh

Death Throes not being an explode anymore, but only targeted to the closest enemy unit with 6" instead is somewhat interesting. Can't "blow up" on your own units anymore at least.

Losing Devourers and Deathspitters was expected but why are the melee options for flyrants cut back so dramatically? They can't get double boneswords, they can't get two pairs of proper monstrous scything talons. These guys better have point parity with the walkrant because it seems like on top of the durability tradeoff for the wings, they lose build flexibility too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

If I were a betting person, I'd say +1A on charges, and being charged.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

If I were a betting person, I'd say +1A on charges, and being charged.

That'd be an army-wide rule, listed in the abilities part of the datasheet and not keywords. Since it's a keyword, as mentioned it's most likely for unlocking the use of a stratagem, like Tankbusta Bombs on Ork Boyz and Tankbustas.

Hmm. The flyrant's datasheet is oddly complicated for how few options it really has.
Plus two different sources of rerolls (technically 3 with Will, if you want) for the same model seems... excessive. They didn't have any better ideas?

The Haruspex seems deliberately mathematically calculated to be just shy of good. As a switch hitter for anti-infantry and anti-tank its... fine. But it seems precisely tuned to gobble GEQ or tanks and choke on anything else. Not quite fast enough, not quite strong enough, and will likely get worse as it gets in close enough to do it thing.

Maybe there is a niche for it, but it innately seems an 'also ran' unless the other MCs are much worse.

15 D2 attacks in CC isn't anti-GEQ.

There's a rumor floating around that the Endless Multitude units regain 1d3 models in the command phase. But I would expect it to be an ability instead of a keyword if that was the case. Another stratagem perhaps.

Voss wrote:
The Haruspex seems deliberately mathematically calculated to be just shy of good. As a switch hitter for anti-infantry and anti-tank its... fine. But it seems precisely tuned to gobble GEQ or tanks and choke on anything else. Not quite fast enough, not quite strong enough, and will likely get worse as it gets in close enough to do it thing.

Maybe there is a niche for it, but it innately seems an 'also ran' unless the other MCs are much worse.

Well, it does have the ability to regain up to 7 wounds per round (1 from shooting, 3 in the fight phase and 3 in the opponent's fight phase) as long as it keeps eating. And it has a T8 2+ W15 statline now, so it doesn't look like it's completely made of glass. If other rumored abilities like the 4++ to Monsters from a Zoanthrope's synaptic link or Hive Fleet Leviathan's Trans-Nid pan out, it might become reasonably tough.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
15 D2 attacks in CC isn't anti-GEQ.

Yes it is. They're strength 7, so they wound on 2+ against guard. At WS 3+, ~10 will hit, wound on 2+, killing about 8.XX, and leadership penalty and morale casualty roll kills off the remaining model of the 10 man squad.
Armor and luck might leave 2 survivors, but essentially they gobble a 10 man squad if they can make combat, especially if you toss in the tongue before charging.

Don't get caught up on the D2, the strength 7 is what matters. Against MEQ, they kill significantly less, wounding on 3s instead of 2s and armor saving half. Those 15 attacks will kill about 3. Assuming no transhuman or Death Guard shenanigans or whatever.

You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Good news!

Kraken static: When you charge, are charged, or heroically intervene get +1AP.
Kraken adaptive: Advance D3+3 inches.

Behemoth Static: When you charge, are charged, or heroically intervene get +1S.
Behemoth adaptive: reroll charges

Jorm static: non-monsters count as being in dense from >12" away, monsters count as being in dense from >18" away
Jorm adaptive trait: your units count as having half the number of models for blast

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.
It is not a tournament Custodes/DE/TAU killer unit true. None of those three armies field GEQ or MEQ, and if at all they should be reduced in power and not all other armies moved to their level

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit. Just that the 9th edition standard is multiple units will die.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

killing 3 marines is around a 33% return in points. Although I'm more interested in the claws, 2 Haruspexes should do quite a number on an Imperial Knight.

Dudeface wrote:

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

Eh? Compared to the guns on the field these days, it isn't at all. It will wither (or out right die) fast, and be much, much worse at its one job.

And I'm dubious that a critter with 15 attacks is 'not supposed to be a murder machine'

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit. Just that the 9th edition standard is multiple units will die.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

There are to many variables. If you go second you might be able to charge already. And true if you can focus with multiple units one enemy unit it can die, but that isn't different to any other edition since 3rd.
I think as mentioned we just play differently/have different experiences. I agree it is not the most OP unit I can think of, but I still see it as usefull even against MEQ.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

Eh? Compared to the guns on the field these days, it isn't at all. It will wither (or out right die) fast, and be much, much worse at its one job.

And I'm dubious that a critter with 15 attacks is 'not supposed to be a murder machine'

Well, it was you identifying they're not exactly clearing marines off the board, they're a melee quad autocannon if you like. Similar targets and purpose, also like autocannons, a bit out of favour in terms of output. But a cheap-ish t8 2+ creature who regenerates wounds when killing chaff/troops sounds good on an objective, if they're being blasted away immediately then they've served as a reasonable distraction. Again the vision/intent is clearly there for me, whether the execution is worth it... meh.

Edit: I'd go to add if it was meant to be killing more any more efficiently, then what niche are tyrants, toxicrenes, carnifex etc. meant to accomplish at that point since they're similar profiles assumingly and similar job.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

I'd prefer them to live up to their "Living Battering Ram" reputation than some lame moniker.

Well, based on the leaks - it's both!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

I'd prefer them to live up to their "Living Battering Ram" reputation than some lame moniker.

Well, based on the leaks - it's both!

huh? was there a carnifex datasheet leak??

chaos0xomega wrote:
huh? was there a carnifex datasheet leak??

No datasheet - just the stuff from the first page. I'm just slow to the party.

Stanglethorn cannon is blander than I'd like, but the blast on it means it is always getting 6 shots against 6+ models, which is neat. Quite an improvement overall.

"Huge, tough, and very stupid"

Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

Still, very tasty. That thing can cause some pain.

An exocrine is not a carnifex. Please beg the leaker (if you know where to find the source) for carnifex datasheets.

I was always wary about building units over 5-man due to Venom Cannons and the like...now, it seems, Tyranids get hilariously efficient "elite-horde" killing weapons in every unit now. I like it.

 Redemption wrote:
"Huge, tough, and very stupid"

Finally, a Tyranid organism i can relate to.

I know this is somewhat out of the blue, but is there anyone else who was stupid enough to build venom crawlers instead of zoanthropes and is a tiny bit excited if they get more usable somehow? :-)

 licensedfool wrote:
I know this is somewhat out of the blue, but is there anyone else who was stupid enough to build venom crawlers instead of zoanthropes and is a tiny bit excited if they get more usable somehow? :-)

I'm really curious how you built venom crawlers (a CSM unit) from the Zoanthrope/Neurothrope/Venomthrope kit.

Doh, I play too many armies for my own good ^^ i meant the venomthropes of course

 licensedfool wrote:
I know this is somewhat out of the blue, but is there anyone else who was stupid enough to build venom crawlers instead of zoanthropes and is a tiny bit excited if they get more usable somehow? :-)

In an ideal world, every unit would be usable and have a place on the table.

Never got around to picking up the zoanthrope kit, but it’s pretty high on my list. I didn’t even realize is was a duel kit.

The venomthrope version of the kit is pretty fun. It's a hundred leagues better than the finecast venomthrope, may it be digested for 1,000 years.

 Nevelon wrote:
Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

They could've also just put it under abilities that it can't shoot that weapon in melee.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

They could've also just put it under abilities that it can't shoot that weapon in melee.

I mean, does anything stop a weapon without random shot count from being Blast?

It's purely detrimental, but to my knowledge, you can do that.

There are a ton of minimal impact rules like that and they really slow down gameplay.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

They could've also just put it under abilities that it can't shoot that weapon in melee.

That would have been nice. Looking at the big guy, he seems the sort of thing you should be able to tie up in CC without getting shot. The blast is a way to get that without special bespoke rules.

It’s just a little irritating that we need to roll for shots all the time with little impact. Slows thing down for little return.

 Nevelon wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

They could've also just put it under abilities that it can't shoot that weapon in melee.

That would have been nice. Looking at the big guy, he seems the sort of thing you should be able to tie up in CC without getting shot. The blast is a way to get that without special bespoke rules.

It’s just a little irritating that we need to roll for shots all the time with little impact. Slows thing down for little return.

Quite frankly it would've been a good weapon and profile at 7 shots.

The bit that I'm less impressed by is the wording in the special rule about ignoring cover - would it have killed them to have made it simpler and stating "half its Move or less", so you don't have to worry about moving a tiny fraction under, say, 3.5" to still have the ability trigger?

 Dysartes wrote:
The bit that I'm less impressed by is the wording in the special rule about ignoring cover - would it have killed them to have made it simpler and stating "half its Move or less", so you don't have to worry about moving a tiny fraction under, say, 3.5" to still have the ability trigger?

I suppose it's GW trying to make it absolutely loophole-proof, as is the case now we're on another level of RAW-dickery.

Leman Russes have been dealing with that for 5 years now.

There is a point where adding clarity turns into accommodating rule-lawering TFGs.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is a point where adding clarity turns into accommodating rule-lawering TFGs.

It's more trying to prevent rules lawyering nonsense. Let's not forget that this game has a history of rather insane interpretations of the rules from members of the community (to include people on this site) due to how things were worded less precisely in the past.

Not all were done seriously, but the less TFG enabling via vague rules language the better.

Odd to see Devourers with Brain leech worms vanish from the Winged Hive Tyrant.

Still not as odd as Fleshborers now being base strength 5.

Edit.
Think the Scything Talons only add 1 additional attack per set, not per Scything Talon. Dual Boneswords grants the same bonus, so I take from that that dual weapons bonus is the same across the board for Tyranids... shame Rending Claws (which also come as a pair on the models) don't get an additional attack, but that is down to game balance I guess.

 stonehorse wrote:
Odd to see Devourers with Brain leech worms vanish from the Winged Hive Tyrant.

Not in the kit, so... sucked into the warp. Mixing and matching kits is simply forbidden. Forbidden!!!

Still not as odd as Fleshborers now being base strength 5.

That, I would love to know the rationale on. Because it isn't just S5. Its also +6" range AND 1AP. Its a huge bump for very bottom tier infantry, that AFAIK, no one expected or ever asked for. The lethality escalation is purely internal.

Voss wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Odd to see Devourers with Brain leech worms vanish from the Winged Hive Tyrant.

Not in the kit, so... sucked into the warp. Mixing and matching kits is simply forbidden. Forbidden!!!

Still not as odd as Fleshborers now being base strength 5.

That, I would love to know the rationale on. Because it isn't just S5. Its also +6" range AND 1AP. Its a huge bump for very bottom tier infantry, that AFAIK, no one expected or ever asked for. The lethality escalation is purely internal.

So much for conversions, oh well. Just thought, doesn't the kit come with a pair of the big Deathspitters? Seems they are missing as an option too.

The Fleshborer changes just show how the game is getting out if hand. Yes, Strength 5 Fleshborers were possible back in 3rd edition, but they were not standard, and they were very expensive...and they were still Range12".

 stonehorse wrote:

Voss wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Odd to see Devourers with Brain leech worms vanish from the Winged Hive Tyrant.

Not in the kit, so... sucked into the warp. Mixing and matching kits is simply forbidden. Forbidden!!!

Still not as odd as Fleshborers now being base strength 5.

That, I would love to know the rationale on. Because it isn't just S5. Its also +6" range AND 1AP. Its a huge bump for very bottom tier infantry, that AFAIK, no one expected or ever asked for. The lethality escalation is purely internal.

So much for conversions, oh well. Just thought, doesn't the kit come with a pair of the big Deathspitters? Seems they are missing as an option too.

It does not. They're exclusive to the carnifex kit at this point.
There was a period of time (because they weren't originally part of either kit) that you could buy that sprue separately, but then they just included it with the carnifex.

Amusingly the current 'carnifex brood' deal on the website doesn't show the devourers or deathspitters either (which tells you how old those pics are), but the text mentions them, and you can see them in the pictures of the 'thornback brood' (but not the screamer-killers either)

It will be curious to see if those 'in name only' variants survive.

Just occurs to me, I have an on-foot Hive Tyrant with twin Death Spitters.

Cool...

Voss wrote:
That, I would love to know the rationale on.

They really want people to take Termagants.

I mean, look at the Combat Patrol 'Nids are getting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just occurs to me, I have an on-foot Hive Tyrant with twin Death Spitters.

Cool...

Voss wrote:
That, I would love to know the rationale on.

They really want people to take Termagants.

I mean, look at the Combat Patrol 'Nids are getting.

Right, but that's encouraging people NOT to buy the overpriced boxes of termagants. Just the combat patrols. That's nearly a $100 (US) that they're encouraging people not to spend.

 stonehorse wrote:


Edit.
Think the Scything Talons only add 1 additional attack per set, not per Scything Talon. Dual Boneswords grants the same bonus, so I take from that that dual weapons bonus is the same across the board for Tyranids... shame Rending Claws (which also come as a pair on the models) don't get an additional attack, but that is down to game balance I guess.

Reading is fundamental. The weapon options are "dual boneswords" or "2 scything talons". "Dual boneswords" are a single weapon. "2 Scything Talons" are, in fact, two weapons. Both Dual Boneswords and Scything Talons have the same bonus text, as you noted, except you have 2 scything talons vs 1 dual boneswords, thus when it says you get an extra attack with "this weapon", you have 2 scything talon weapons eligible to make the aforementioned additional attack - and therefore get 2 extra attacks - vs just 1 dual bonesword which can only grant you one additional attack with that weapon..

chaos0xomega wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:


Edit.
Think the Scything Talons only add 1 additional attack per set, not per Scything Talon. Dual Boneswords grants the same bonus, so I take from that that dual weapons bonus is the same across the board for Tyranids... shame Rending Claws (which also come as a pair on the models) don't get an additional attack, but that is down to game balance I guess.

Reading is fundamental. The weapon options are "dual boneswords" or "2 scything talons". "Dual boneswords" are a single weapon. "2 Scything Talons" are, in fact, two weapons. Both Dual Boneswords and Scything Talons have the same bonus text, as you noted, except you have 2 scything talons vs 1 dual boneswords, thus when it says you get an extra attack with "this weapon", you have 2 scything talon weapons eligible to make the aforementioned additional attack - and therefore get 2 extra attacks - vs just 1 dual bonesword which can only grant you one additional attack with that weapon..

Think you may be over thinking this, GW aren't the best when it comes to explaining their rules, remember the back & forth debate about how many weapons a Monstrous Creature could use in Overwatch due to the wording say may make an attack?

 stonehorse wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:


Edit.
Think the Scything Talons only add 1 additional attack per set, not per Scything Talon. Dual Boneswords grants the same bonus, so I take from that that dual weapons bonus is the same across the board for Tyranids... shame Rending Claws (which also come as a pair on the models) don't get an additional attack, but that is down to game balance I guess.

Reading is fundamental. The weapon options are "dual boneswords" or "2 scything talons". "Dual boneswords" are a single weapon. "2 Scything Talons" are, in fact, two weapons. Both Dual Boneswords and Scything Talons have the same bonus text, as you noted, except you have 2 scything talons vs 1 dual boneswords, thus when it says you get an extra attack with "this weapon", you have 2 scything talon weapons eligible to make the aforementioned additional attack - and therefore get 2 extra attacks - vs just 1 dual bonesword which can only grant you one additional attack with that weapon..

Think you may be over thinking this, GW aren't the best when it comes to explaining their rules, remember the back & forth debate about how many weapons a Monstrous Creature could use in Overwatch due to the wording say may make an attack?

There's really not much to overthink here.
'Scything Talon' is a weapon. You get two of them. Each one grants an extra attack, worded the same as lightning claws (minus the re-roll wounds bit).
Do space marines with two lightning claws not get two extra attacks?

With how Scything Talons seem to work now, that means that Hormogaunts will have at least 3 attacks per model. If they remain cheap, and relatively fast, they very well could be decent this edition.

Voss wrote:
There was a period of time (because they weren't originally part of either kit) that you could buy that sprue separately, but then they just included it with the carnifex.

Amusingly the current 'carnifex brood' deal on the website doesn't show the devourers or deathspitters either (which tells you how old those pics are), but the text mentions them, and you can see them in the pictures of the 'thornback brood' (but not the screamer-killers either)

It will be curious to see if those 'in name only' variants survive.

Deathspitters and Devourers have been in the Carnifex kit since day 1. It's on the same sprue as all the heads.

 cuda1179 wrote:
With how Scything Talons seem to work now, that means that Hormogaunts will have at least 3 attacks per model. If they remain cheap, and relatively fast, they very well could be decent this edition.

Oh ya. I assume they get the 3-rank-fighting ability too. Which would be sweet. Hope they keep their 6” pile too

EDIT: So pretty much everything is leaking on Discord right now.

Trygon Prime has 12, TWELVE attacks. So I was right...

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Have any of the leaks said whether Carnifexes are still split into 3 types (regular, thornback, screamerkiller) and whether they still have all of their biomorphs like Acid maw or regeneration?

Someone just dumped pretty much the entire codex on discord. There's a lot to compile, but it should be everywhere soon. Have these to tide you over.

So pretty much everything is leaking on Discord right now.

Trygon Prime has 12, TWELVE attacks. So I was right...

EDIT: Actually I'm having second thoughts about posting this. It's pretty much the whole codex, which might make the mods upset. I'm sure it won't be hard to find, but I might just edit it out.

Mawloc has SIXTEEN attacks. They're only S7 AP-1 D1, but still...

Well they made sure Gaunts don't get the good versions of scything talons or devourers:

Hormies still get 3 attacks at least. But yeah, RIP Devilgaunts...

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Hormies still get 3 attacks at least. But yeah, RIP Devilgaunts...

As a long time fan of devilgaunts (I mean they even have the coolest nickname) it feels like an unfair nerf. Like was it so wrong to let them keep assault 3 on what's basically a lasgun?

EDIT: Toxin sacs are basically an autotake on Hormagaunts. Maybe Adrenal Glands too (Move 11" anyone?).

Wonder how common gargoyles will be for anti-tau. Getting to combat without overwatch might be useful there just to tie stuff up.

LOL, a dakkafex can get 30-32 shots in one turn. 24=D3 at strength 6, and 5 more at strength 5. Not too bad looking.