New Nids for New Edition. Deathleaper pp45

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Scottywan82**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shadow Walker wrote:
Gargs, Termas and Hormas are Battleline.
Battleline is a keyword in the unit card itself?

Well there goes the idea of each detachment defining what's BattleLine...

Yeah, I am not really sure what the point of the detachments are beyond the stratagems and enhancements. So... we just mathhammer the best one from each book and everyone uses that? Why wouldn't we?

**H.B.M.C.**

Voss wrote:
Not sure why you thought that was going to be the case.

Because they said that there would be detachments for different types of armies, and a 1st Company army was given as an example. If Terminators aren't Battleline, and a 1st Company detachment doesn't make them Battleline, then you'd be limited in how many Terminators you can take in your 1st Company army. If they do an "Armoured Company" deatchment, and Russes aren't Battleline, how would you do an Armoured Company when Battleline are still infantry squads?

And just the other day they gave an example of a "Monster Mash" style Tyranid detachment. If Monsters aren't Battleline, yet the small bugs are, then it's just a regular Tyranid army with some different Strats/Enhancements.

As Scotty said above, if that's the case, people will just mathhammer out the most effective detachment and completely ignore the rest.

Detachments should have some influence on the army's structure, otherwise what's the damned point?

**NAVARRO**

The Phazer wrote:
These big PDFs of datacards feel virtually unusuable. I am baffled why this is considered an improvement. I can at least see an argument that the printed versions can be flipped over, but in this format it just feels like the layout is half finished.

As suspected, I feel like they are getting the balance of where rules sits wrong here. When people wanted the game to be simpler I think what they meant is "you should be able to look at a model on the tabletop and have a reasonable stab at what it is able to do without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the faction's latest codex."

If anything, it feels like we have gone backwards on that. Boneswords now have different weapon profiles to claws on some models but not others, and I need to look at paper to find out which. Meanwhile the list of stratagems and special rules is... still actually quite long? This is more cognitive load of stuff to remember, not less. I don't think they're really meeting the design goals of this edition.

The print versions they will sell are going to be so good. On the next 3 years of 10th each army will have several versions of these cards and they will all be sold in very affordable packs every time. What's not to like?

**Scottywan82**

Voss wrote:
Not sure why you thought that was going to be the case.
Detachments change 3 things: detachment rule, strats, enhancements. Datacards are universal for that faction.

For myself, I thought the detachments would function in a similar way to the existing detachments concept. They would provide bonuses to certain army builds by allowing more of some units and fewer of others. But this just seems to be like the faction rules without having to paint them differently.

**Voss**

The Phazer wrote:
These big PDFs of datacards feel virtually unusuable. I am baffled why this is considered an improvement. I can at least see an argument that the printed versions can be flipped over, but in this format it just feels like the layout is half finished.

Really? I like this pdf much better than cards that need to be sorted and flipped, or the current 9th edition datasheets.
The only problem here is the ordering of the units is wretched. Its reasonably functional up to gargoyles, then it just goes to hell.

(Though a quick check tells me it prints wrong- set to the card format rather than both part of the sheet as the top and bottom of a page)

**Gene St. Ealer**

The Phazer wrote:
These big PDFs of datacards feel virtually unusuable. I am baffled why this is considered an improvement. I can at least see an argument that the printed versions can be flipped over, but in this format it just feels like the layout is half finished.

As suspected, I feel like they are getting the balance of where rules sits wrong here. When people wanted the game to be simpler I think what they meant is "you should be able to look at a model on the tabletop and have a reasonable stab at what it is able to do without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the faction's latest codex."

If anything, it feels like we have gone backwards on that. Boneswords now have different weapon profiles to claws on some models but not others, and I need to look at paper to find out which. Meanwhile the list of stratagems and special rules is... still actually quite long? This is more cognitive load of stuff to remember, not less. I don't think they're really meeting the design goals of this edition.

It's bad form to just say "this", but you nailed it here. The actual rules seem pretty reasonable but the usability and design goals that the rules team talked about are just not there.

IDK, I'm not really surprised, I don't want to criticize GW too harshly. These sorts of meta-goals or soft-goals are almost harder to achieve than the rules/datasheet balance (mathhammer is easy!) But yeah, I don't think they nailed it 100% this first time around.

**H.B.M.C.**

NAVARRO wrote:
The print versions they will sell are going to be so good. On the next 3 years of 10th each army will have several versions of these cards and they will all be sold in very affordable packs every time. What's not to like?

And these ones that came out today will no doubt be completely valid for years to come.

**Scottywan82**

Did I miss something or do these files still not have points in them?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Haruspex feels a bit of an odd fish.

Its Maw deals nicely with ickle stuff. It’s claws deal with big tanks and other big things quite nicely.

But…nothing in between. Thankfully the Shovelling Claws come under Extra Attacks. Yet one of two sets of attacks aren’t going to fuss the natural target of the other.

Grasping Tongue being precision is pretty nice though. Not something I’d necessarily factor into a battle plan (1 attack at 12” isn’t something anyone should be basing a strategy around). But it does have some chance of hoiking out and eating a more threatening model.

**H.B.M.C.**

Scottywan82 wrote:
Did I miss something or do these files still not have points in them?

Nope. End of next week we get the points for everything in one go.

**Scottywan82**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Scottywan82 wrote:
Did I miss something or do these files still not have points in them?
Nope. End of next week we get the points for everything in one go.

Thanks. I was very confused.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Haruspex feels a bit of an odd fish.

I just wish it still got wounds back for eating people. That was such a cool rule.

**Platuan4th**

Scottywan82 wrote:
Did I miss something or do these files still not have points in them?

Mostly already answered, but you missed them saying datasheets wouldn't have points so that they didn't need to be touched if there was a points update.

**Shadow Walker**

Looks like Detachment has no Stratagems used in opponent's turn (red ones in rules).

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Haruspex feels a bit of an odd fish.
I just wish it still got wounds back for eating people. That was such a cool rule.

That would be nice. But the more I think of it, the more I’m starting to really like the Haruspex. It’s kind of anti-everything, and if you pull off the ranged attack, you’ve some chance of killing off a support character before bundling into the unit proper.

It’d be sick if you could Precision specific models out of a standard unit (such as a Medic or Veteran Sargent) of course, but I’ll take being able to pick out characters as a close second, spesh if they’re low-mid level and thus more likely to be killed outright.

Yeah. Nice little all-rounder unit there. Tricky to put down without focussing on it too.

**Altruizine**

No smoke, no grenades confirmed. Lame for an entire army to be blocked out of 3 core strats.

**Daedalus81**

I wonder if GW is going to add a min 1 clause so that praxoysm can't reduce you to zero. To be honest I think in this system it could be fine.

I like that the Maleceptor basically has a Demolisher Cannon for it's spell.

**Hellebore**

I like that the character stalking lictor actually looks like a threat now. They and genestealers have always been my fav nids.

**Daedalus81**

Altruizine wrote:
No smoke, no grenades confirmed. Lame for an entire army to be blocked out of 3 core strats.

Yea I'm not quite sure it's fair. I would have expected Canifexes could 'tank shock', but their blistering assault is pretty great.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That would be nice. But the more I think of it, the more I’m starting to really like the Haruspex.

I'd like it more if it had kept its 2+ save.

Daedalus81 wrote:
I like that the Maleceptor basically have a Demolisher Cannon for it's spell.

I like that Warp Blast is a thing again.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

True, but given we’re so far seeing a marked decrease in overall AP it may turn out to be not as marked a difference as current.

**Voss**

Hellebore wrote:
I like that the character stalking lictor actually looks like a threat now. They and genestealers have always been my fav nids.

Now they just need to do a new model...
Oh. Free Rapid Ingress as well. That's rather neat. Kind of shame that they're capped at 3 total (plus death leaper).

Not sure about the other two holdouts- pyrovores and biovores. They seem... almost viable?

**H.B.M.C.**

Pyrovores look pretty gakky IMO, but Biovores, well, they're certainly a contender now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
True, but given we’re so far seeing a marked decrease in overall AP it may turn out to be not as marked a difference as current.

I kinda liked the Haruspex being this weird mindless thing that just rushes forward, shrugging off anything and eating things in its path, healing as it did. Now it doesn't do that at all.

**Rihgu**

Voss wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shadow Walker wrote:
Gargs, Termas and Hormas are Battleline.
Battleline is a keyword in the unit card itself?

Well there goes the idea of each detachment defining what's BattleLine...

Not sure why you thought that was going to be the case.
Detachments change 3 things: detachment rule, strats, enhancements. Datacards are universal for that faction.

Detachment rule still can add Battleline keyword to datasheets.

**xttz**

Rihgu wrote:

Detachment rule still can add Battleline keyword to datasheets.

It will literally need to for several list archetypes to even work. Some factions don't have enough depth in their roster to function without taking 4+ of a single unit in a themed list.

**catbarf**

I don't mind consolidated weapons but the implementation is bizarrely inconsistent. If GW cares about the difference between a Devourer and a Deathspitter, why don't they care about the difference between Boneswords and Rending Claws?

Still, some of these abilities look interesting and add a lot of flavor to what could otherwise be bland units, so I'll reserve judgment until I see how it all plays.

**Shadow Walker**

catbarf wrote:
I don't mind consolidated weapons but the implementation is bizarrely inconsistent. If GW cares about the difference between a Devourer and a Deathspitter, why don't they care about the difference between Boneswords and Rending Claws?

This!

**Tyran**

The melee warrior datasheet is probably the biggest missed opportunity.

Although for some reason I just cannot care about the consolidated ravener profile.

**H.B.M.C.**

Tyran wrote:
The melee warrior datasheet is probably the biggest missed opportunity.

Well you know what we say about GW and missed opportunities.

**xttz**

Tyran wrote:
The melee warrior datasheet is probably the biggest missed opportunity.

Although for some reason I just cannot care about the consolidated ravener profile.

Me neither. A fair number of Tyranid players cannot tell the difference between the Ravener weapon options, let alone opponents.

However I thought that boneswords were visually distinct enough to deserve a separate weapon profile. Would have preferred to see them remain as a D2 weapon with fewer attacks.