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.

 Grimskul wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

I've never understood GW's aversion to making Tyranid monsters tougher than the T6-7 range they seem perpetually stuck in. As if bolters wounding them on 6's is some form of rule-writing sacrilege they can't cross. Tyranid monsters need wound/toughness boosts across the board, make Nidzilla great again!

I think part of the issue is that the toughness ceiling has been artificially capped at 8, so there's a lot less room at the top of the scale than there really should be.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

So why shouldn't said metal box be tough enough to do that? They do literally nothing else.

They both should. The difference is that Tyranids have NO resilient unit, no matter their role when in the lore, a single nids monster is portrayed as much more resilient than on the tabletop. Marine right now are in a pretty good place right now and tyranids are down the gutter. Distraction carnifexes should come back and actually be playable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

because carnifexes are made to be one of the toughest "battle tank" unit the tyranids create while rhinos are meant to be a metal box that carries troops?

So why shouldn't said metal box be tough enough to do that? They do literally nothing else.

No one is saying Rhinos should be fragile. But that Carnifexes should be tougher.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No one is saying Rhinos should be fragile. But that Carnifexes should be tougher.

Yeah I would have thought that obvious, but I guess not.

Rhinos are fine. Rhinos can continue Rhinoing as long as they want. The only real problem with Rhinos isn't a problem with Rhinos, but more GW's terrible game design. I'm talking about Smoke Launchers being a Strat rather than equipment. But that's a whole other conversation.

But Carnifexes should be tougher than fething Rhinos. I'd put them to T7 and give 'em a 2+ Save. Make it one of the rare 2+ saves in the 'Nid 'Dex.

If nids get the kind of customizability they had in my old 2e/3e codex with things like extended carapace for extra pip of save I might finally take the plundge

Maybe im just got those nostalgia rose tinted glasses

I hope Nids get the "they finally play like the lore" treatment and the Loyalists here all take the high road they told us we should have during the worst of the Marine fandex derailment of 8th.

 vipoid wrote:


I've seen villains in Saturday-morning cartoons who get more victories than the evil 40k factions.

The heroes also get more victories. In 40K rarely does anyone win. It’s usually a stalemate and/or exterminatus.

 Eldarain wrote:
I hope Nids get the "they finally play like the lore" treatment and the Loyalists here all take the high road they told us we should have during the worst of the Marine fandex derailment of 8th.

Unfortunately they've added rules to 9th that makes anything in a squad size larger than 5 count as a "horde" for the purposes of blast weapons and coherency, so we are penalised just for playing the army the way it is intended.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

Well they appear to be letting Daemon Engines hit more often than a Guardsman, so maybe they'll do the same for Tyranids?

I would love for Carnifexes to have WS3+, no penalty on the Crushing Claws and D6+2 damage against vehicles.

And a 2+ save!!!

 Togusa wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And now we live in a world where Rhinos are more durable than Carnifexes.

That's not a good thing.

1. Why aren't they allowed to be?
2. Are they ACTUALLY more durable point for point?

I mean yes, obviously, way more. A rhino is like 80pts, I don't know how much lower than 100 a carnifex can be, and a rhino has like +1T +2W over a carnifex.

So yeah, it's gonna be more durable. The main problem with carnifexes though is their miserable damage output. A carnifex on the charge deals like 2w to a rhino compared to a similarly priced dreadnought dealing like 7.

A carnifex and a rhino are both toughness 7.

But yes carnifexes hit like wet noodles for their point costs. Monstrous scything talons not doing much against vehicles wouldn't be so bad if their high strength option, the crushing talons, didn't make them hit on fething fives.

This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

Kids are actually better in shooting than they are in combat at the current time. Their shooting are actually even better than Space Marine with the only exception in the period when Eradicators had already been introduced while Aggresors have not been nerfed into oblivion.

So yes, that is very "anti narrative".

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

I thought it was more that Cruddace still works for them and hates 'Nids?

I was going to play Tyranids when I started back at this thing we call a hobby but I couldn’t get over how un-Tyranid-like they seem now. The models are mostly cool but Carnifexes used to be so cool, it’s sad to see what they’ve become.

 Overread wrote:
Well to be fair when Necrons started they didn't really have much. Warriors, Immortals, Destoyers, Lord, Monolith, Spyders and Scarabs and even then a good few of them didn't appear till later. When you've a very limited roster you've either got to go for mass numbers or elites and since Necrons were all metal without any plastic save the Monolith, it made more sense to have them more elite than cheap.

Incorrect.
Prior to our 2002 3rd ed codex we Necron players had:
1 Lord (on foot with staff),
Warriors,
Immortals,
Scarabs,
Destroyers (of wich the Heavy was a per squad upgrade & had no separate model).
Our Wargear options (of wich no bitz existed for) for the Lord consisted of the Resurrection Orb, the Veil of Darkness, the Gaze of Flame & Scourge of Light.
The only plastic involved was the bases & the flight stands)
Our list(s) (one for 2e, then for 3e, & some wargear additions) were in the pages of White Dwarf from #216/217/218, #230, & #239 - and then a few years wait for the 3e Codex.

Spyders, Monoliths, Heavy Destroyer models, Lords with different wargear represented, Destroyer Lords, Wraiths, Flayed Ones, Pariahs, PLASTIC Destroyers, PLASTIC Warriors, Nightbringer, Deceiver, & increased wargear options came along in our 3rd ed Codex (2002)

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

This is true to an extent, but there has also been a significant degradation of the Carnifex's statline.

Now, granted, it was never particularly skilled. However, it used to be S9/10 and ignored all armour saves in melee regardless of what weapons it was armed with. It tore apart vehicles with ease and even a single would would instant-death any character that wasn't T6+.

Now though, its strength has almost halved, if you give it 2 ranged weapons then it becomes utter garbage in melee, and even if you give it melee weapons it's still pretty weak.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

This is true to an extent, but there has also been a significant degradation of the Carnifex's statline.

Now, granted, it was never particularly skilled. However, it used to be S9/10 and ignored all armour saves in melee regardless of what weapons it was armed with. It tore apart vehicles with ease and even a single would would instant-death any character that wasn't T6+.

Now though, its strength has almost halved, if you give it 2 ranged weapons then it becomes utter garbage in melee, and even if you give it melee weapons it's still pretty weak.

It's the one part of monstrous creatures I kind of wish they'd look back to, they were actually scary to be in a fight with most of the time because you knew it was capable of slam dunking your dudes with each hit, even if it had low attacks it could still threaten expensive infantry or vehicles.

I just checked the stats of a carnifex and holy crap, those are bad
A choice of 4 attacks S12 hitting on 5s or S6 hitting on 4s? Fething plague marines can be massively better and cheaper in combat than that.

They should be *at least* as powerful as a dread or helbrute in combat, this is a bad joke.

Index rules problems really.

I'd expect Carnifexes - and Tyranids in general - to be changed to WS 3+.

Realistically though the Carnifex is always slightly screwed I think because of scale creep. I mean the Toxicrene/Mawloc/Trygon/Haruspex/Maleceptor are all there as "bigger melee beat stick variants". So you can only be so powerful in an absolute sense.

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


This. They claim that Nids are supposed to be masters of CC combat, yet the best you ever get to hit is a 4+ unless it's done by some weird character or rule stacking. GW seems to be TERRIFIED of letting nids hit on a 3+ in CC.

There are a lot of units and armies that take dispute with that claim of being the masters of CC. Genestealers are up there certainly but Nids are usually displayed as masters of dragging you down beneath endless swarms of literally disposable bodies and hitting something with a stick/claw requires less waste and bio-engineering than making a gun.

Lmao, so a Haruspex has hyper-evolved to the apex of being a big dumb fat slow stupid idiot? Nids MCs are some of the worst jokes in the game; a Carnifex is actually one of the better ones, that's the ignominy. To be fair, there are plenty of Nids that do hit on 3s in melee (Stealers (which can go to 2+), Warriors, Tyrant Guard, etc.), they're just all mid-sized. It's the melee MCs that are the utter jokes (and GW is aware, hence the Blood of Baal-specific strats that still didn't lift them to more than mediocre). I'll add that the Haruspex is my favorite model in the game, it's why I feel very passionate about this.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Hive tyrants, carnifexes (all variants), toxicrenes, and harridans are all T7. Tervigons, haruspexes, exocrines, tyrannofexes, hierodules, and hierophants are all T8.

There are more big bugs T7+ than there are T6.

I think the problem the Carnifex has is its role and position has changed. In older games it was THE massive monster after a Hive Tyrant; you feared the fex because it was the biggest, baddest and heavily versatile beast. It was a close combat monster all the way to artillery platform and every role inbetween.

Today its a bit stuck. You've got exocrines for artillery; you've got tervigons for support; trygons and mawlocks for close combat sneak attacks; haurspex for heavy close combat; tyranofex for heavy hitting.

The Carnifex used to do most of these roles depending on what loadout you gave it. So in some way its taken a step down because other things have stepped into the very slots and roles the fex used to occupy. It's trapped between warriors, who do much the same with cheaper points and numbers; and higher cost single big elite style monsters.

Make the fex too weak and people don't want it; make it too good and it overshadows the "better" options. Or those better options become so good they have very high costs which makes them unsuitable to take in more than one-off per army situations.


In a way Tyranids have suffered with their fantastic model expansions because they've gained a lot of big elites. Because warriors and fex are so multi-role with tehir weapon options, Tyranids haven't had the mid-level explosion of model options that other armies have seen.

 Jidmah wrote:
I just checked the stats of a carnifex and holy crap, those are bad
A choice of 4 attacks S12 hitting on 5s or S6 hitting on 4s? Fething plague marines can be massively better and cheaper in combat than that.

They should be *at least* as powerful as a dread or helbrute in combat, this is a bad joke.

The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:



In a way Tyranids have suffered with their fantastic model expansions because they've gained a lot of big elites. Because warriors and fex are so multi-role with tehir weapon options, Tyranids haven't had the mid-level explosion of model options that other armies have seen.

Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think GW's thought process was to keep a difference between monsters and vehicles/ tanks. Therefore former tanks like a rhino became T7 while all those Tyranid monsters stayed at 6, because they aren't tanks. Just a matter of edition transfer. You might argue that that logic doesn't work when looking at Xenos tanks and comparing them to the monsters and you'd be absolutely correct.GW is not known for consistency . Or they just like their metal boxes that's why the Rhino came out pretty tough in 8th.
Since GW was more willing to rework weapons in 9th instead of using the translated profiles from 3rd - 7th in 8th, I could see them giving those monsters higher T values.

Hive tyrants, carnifexes (all variants), toxicrenes, and harridans are all T7. Tervigons, haruspexes, exocrines, tyrannofexes, hierodules, and hierophants are all T8.

There are more big bugs T7+ than there are T6.

Ha, I guess you cought me having no idea of tyranids at all and just trying to make sense of dakkaposts and find a GW reasoning were apparently there is none

the_scotsman wrote:


Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

Honestly when I look at Tyranids right now I don't see many "gaps" for new concepts. I do see room for replacement plastic kits for things like the pyrovore and lictor and such; I also see room for gw to add some of those specialist "hero/unique" models that they stripped out a while back. But for actual troops/warriors/monsters I don't see many gaps. Perhaps a jump-pack winged shock troop (shrieks) and a big lord of war that isn't from FW. But otherwise the Tyranid range is pretty chunky in terms of what its got.

It's well into the "lets have some new concept gaunt models" rather than adding things.