The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v0.5 by Gwar!: Feedback Thread

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.

**Gwar!**

(Title reedited by Gwar!)
First, the Legal Junk:

"The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v0.5 by Gwar!" is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence.
Please click and review the licence agreement before downloading "The Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ v0.5 by Gwar!".
By downloading this document you agree to be bound by the above licence agreement.

I, the user of Dakkadakka.com known by the pseudonym “Gwar!”, have no affiliation with the owners of Dakkadakka.com, Adepticon or anyone on the INAT FAQ Council and this is NOT Part of the INAT FAQ nor am I aware of any approval or endorsement of this FAQ by them.

This FAQ is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.

Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2009, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

No challenge to the status of any other Trademarks, Registered Trademarks or copyrights is intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

This thread is for feedback regarding the Unofficial Codex: Tyranids FAQ by Gwar!
The current version is 0.4 updated 14/Jan/2010.

To download the latest version, please read the disclaimer at the start of this post then click here.
If you are having trouble opening the PDF, please download the latest version of Adobe Reader. If you do not want to use Adobe Products, you can also use Foxit Reader or PDF-XChange Viewer. These three programs I have tested and so know work with the FAQ. If you are a Linux, Mac, Acorn, Amiga, DOS or FreeBSD user, I apologise for not being able to check compatibility. If you are using a program other than those listed here, please ensure they are compatible with Adobe Acrobat 9.0 files.

If you find any typos, or formatting errors, please respond here so that I may correct them in a subsequent release of this FAQ.

Do not post "XYZ Ruling is Incorrect", insults, flames, trolls or anything of that kind, please. If you feel something is incorrect, please PM me.

A friendly bump or questions are always appreciated.

And yes, I know it is nowhere near complete. I have yet to add in questions about biomorphs and the army list, mainly because I am busy with work and won't have time to do so until sometime next week. Until then, feel free to PM me questions for inclusion and to provide any and all constructive feedback.

**Brother Ramses**

Gwar, you're the RAW cultist of YMDC and you do a great job of doing these FAQ projects. However, I question why?

The SW faq came out and when certain rules do not mesh with your vision of RAW you piss all over them and say that you will not play it that way.

You joked that you were pissed that they only used half of your faq yet you push that faq are not errata and therefore do not need to be followed.

Do you see where I am getting with this? You push for a RAW interpretation of the rules, put them in a FAQ format, and then say that FAQ are useless that you won't even play by.

Like I said, nice arguments and great work in the various projects, but ease up on your hate for FAQ's when you are a chief FAQ provider.

**Platuan4th**

Brother Ramses wrote:Gwar, you're the RAW cultist of YMDC and you do a great job of doing these FAQ projects. However, I question why?

The SW faq came out and when certain rules do not mesh with your vision of RAW you piss all over them and say that you will not play it that way.

You joked that you were pissed that they only used half of your faq yet you push that faq are not errata and therefore do not need to be followed.

Do you see where I am getting with this? You push for a RAW interpretation of the rules, put them in a FAQ format, and then say that FAQ are useless that you won't even play by.

Like I said, nice arguments and great work in the various projects, but ease up on your hate for FAQ's when you are a chief FAQ provider.

He doesn't "hate FAQs", he hates GWs stance on their FAQs, ie. GW doesn't consider the FAQs they themselves publish to be official. Basically he hates the silly wussy back-stepping attitude they treat their own FAQs with.

At least, that's what I gather from his rants.

**Aduro**

That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.

**Saldiven**

Aduro wrote:That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.

Seconded.

**Gwar!**

Platuan4th wrote:He doesn't "hate FAQs", he hates GWs stance on their FAQs, ie. GW doesn't consider the FAQs they themselves publish to be official. Basically he hates the silly wussy back-stepping attitude they treat their own FAQs with.

At least, that's what I gather from his rants.

Pretty much. This and the fact that GW faqs have a nasty habit of either:
Breaking clear RaW
Changing the RaW without Errata
Answering Questions that were never asked
Totaly fething up clear RaW (cf. Space Wolves FAQ)

**calypso2ts**

All that said, thank you for taking the time to provide answers with RAW backup. Even if they do not always mesh with the GW FAQ, it helps provide resolution or clarification to rules conundrums (I like the bundled GK fan Codex

).

**kirsanth**

Saldiven wrote:
Aduro wrote:That and I think he hates FAQs that disagree with his preconceived notion of how it should work.

Seconded.

You guys mean the preconceptions started by the GW authors, via their writing?
Nice.

Anyway, thanks Gwar!, for something to work with. I missed some obvious ones.

**Commander Endova**

TYR.54.03

Isn;t the expression "Immovable Object meets Unstoppable Force?"

**wyomingfox**

@ Gwar! Does "Hive Comander" stack with "Pheromone Trail" given that they are two separate rules for modifying the reserve roll? IIRC, the precedence is that bonuses from taking multiple units that grant the same rule don't stack in regards to reserve modifiers.

**Gwar!**

Commander Endova wrote:TYR.54.03

Isn;t the expression "Immovable Object meets Unstoppable Force?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence ("Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?").

So there

wyomingfox wrote:@ Gwar! Does "Hive Comander" stack with "Pheromone Trail" given that they are two separate rules for modifying the reserve roll? IIRC, the precedence is that bonuses from taking multiple units that grant the same rule don't stack in regards to reserve modifiers.

Nah, the precedent is that they do. (Autarchs)

Then they don't. (Imperial Guard Astropaths)

Gotta love GW!

The answer is yes anyway as they are 2 different rules, but I'll remember to add that for version 0.2 xD

**wyomingfox**

@ Gwar! Do venomthropes still grant (ie can they make use of) a 5+ cover save to MC Units even though the wargear does not state that MC units are obscured.

Similarily, given that GW errata the SW Storm Caller rule to target all "units", can vehicle units make use of the 5+ cover save even though the stormcaller rule does not mention that the unit is obscured.

**ghost11**

There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.

**wyomingfox**

Gwar! wrote:Gotta love GW!

No I don't. What I gotta do is buy more GW product because I have an unhealthy addiction to their plastic crack.

**Commander Endova**

ghost11 wrote:There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.

I chuckled.

Ahh. As with most things, you are correct, it seems. I've just never heard it said that way. I guess I need more friends who are physicists.

**Gwar!**

ghost11 wrote:There's wargaming and there's gwargaming.

Indeed. You should all Play GWarhammer. It will make you happy and make your organs bigger! And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!

@wyomingfox: I don't think it needs to. In any case, I can see why that would come up and I'll add it. The irony is I was looking for something wrong with the venomthrope and knew something was, but couldn't put my finger on it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, noticed another one, this time regarding Tyrant Guard, Swarmlord and Swarmlord biting the dust. The other first two mentions of Hive tyrant are clear and mention that it includes the swarmlord as well, but the last one doesn't, which can imply that it doesn't happen if the Swarmlord dies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
v0.2 Uploaded!

**Davor**

If v0.2 is out, how come it's labled v0.1?

**Gwar!**

Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now

**Davor**

Gwar! wrote:Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now

LOL sorry to laugh that was funny when I read it. Great FAQ. Is this a record? I mean a FAQ before the codex is released for public sale? (not including pre orders).

**Gwar!**

Davor wrote:
Gwar! wrote:Because I am an idiot and forgot to change the version number! I'll fix it now

LOL sorry to laugh that was funny when I read it. Great FAQ. Is this a record? I mean a FAQ before the codex is released for public sale? (not including pre orders).

No, my Space Wolves FAQ was out 2 weeks before General Sale

**Drunkspleen**

TYR.35.01

A: Yes. Remember that while the Tyrant Guard are not a Retinue, the Hive Tyrant is also not an Independent Character, so is treated as a normal member of the unit during the Assault phase, so can be “picked out” in a close combat. [Clarification/Rules Change]

That's just wrong, if you are ruling that the IC rules other than joining don't apply, he either can be picked out in both phases (because the rules saying he can't be picked out aren't in the section on ICs joining units) or he can't be picked out in either phase (because you choose to ignore the fact that nothing says he can't be picked out).

My main issue here is that, it's not a Clarification at all IMO, it's a ruling with no grounds in the RAW and thus entirely a Rules Change and should be labelled as such.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]

That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."

Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.

**Darth Bob**

Drunkspleen wrote:TYR.35.01

A: Yes. Remember that while the Tyrant Guard are not a Retinue, the Hive Tyrant is also not an Independent Character, so is treated as a normal member of the unit during the Assault phase, so can be “picked out” in a close combat. [Clarification/Rules Change]

That's just wrong, if you are ruling that the IC rules other than joining don't apply, he either can be picked out in both phases (because the rules saying he can't be picked out aren't in the section on ICs joining units) or he can't be picked out in either phase (because you choose to ignore the fact that nothing says he can't be picked out).

My main issue here is that, it's not a Clarification at all IMO, it's a ruling with no grounds in the RAW and thus entirely a Rules Change and should be labelled as such.

He is not getting the IC rule for joining he is getting his own rule (through Shield Wall) that functions in the same wasy as the IC rule for joining.

**Drunkspleen**

Darth Bob wrote:He is not getting the IC rule for joining he is getting his own rule (through Shield Wall) that functions in the same wasy as the IC rule for joining.

I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here, but the fact remains, there is absolutely no grounds for him to be a seperate target in close combat, but not a seperate target at range, because he is definitely not following the rules for a non-MC IC joined to a squad, either because you think he doesn't follow the IC rules other than to join, or because he does follow those rules but is an MC. He should either be a seperate target in both instances, or in neither, if you are trying to follow some semblance of RAW.

**Gwar!**

TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]

That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."

Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.

It's a rules change because MC cover is determined exactly as vehicles. Vehicles only are allowed cover when obscured.

As for TYR.35.01 I think i made a major FUBAR error there and a pretty nasty typo. That is supposed to say "Cannot be picked out" in assault!

My ruling was supposed to essentially be "No, it cannot be picked out at all now go suck a lemon"

Adding a quick question about Toxin sacs and will update 0.3 in a min (with the typo fixed!)

**Darth Bob**

Drunkspleen wrote:I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here . . .

Oh, no, please do, because as far as I can see that argument is (RAW wise) foolproof.

Drunkspleen wrote: . . . but the fact remains, there is absolutely no grounds for him to be a seperate target in close combat, but not a seperate target at range, because he is definitely not following the rules for a non-MC IC joined to a squad, either because you think he doesn't follow the IC rules other than to join, or because he does follow those rules but is an MC. He should either be a seperate target in both instances, or in neither, if you are trying to follow some semblance of RAW.

Wait. Is the hang up you are having that the wording in Gwar's FAQ says the Tyrant "can" be targeted in close combat. Because that threw me off as well, but I deduced that by saying he was part of the unit, what he meant to say was "can't" be targeted in close combat.

Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.

**Gwar!**

Darth Bob wrote:Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.

Yes yes I am a massive tool we know

**Drunkspleen**

Gwar! wrote:
TYR.45.01 – Q: Does the cover save effect of the “Spore Cloud” special rule allow Monstrous Creatures to benefit?
A: Yes. [Rules Change]

That isn't a Rules Change, the rule is quite clear "any friendly units within 6" of the [venomthrope unit], can claim a 5+ cover save against any shooting attacks."

Why would that not apply to an MC? Your ruling here actually matches up with the RAW. The fact is it grants them a certain type of save, not a status of being "in cover", it could just as easily say the units get a 5+ invulnerable save, and in that case the MC would most certainly benefit.
It's a rules change because MC cover is determined exactly as vehicles. Vehicles only are allowed cover when obscured.

But Monstrous Creatures are never obscured, you can't actually superimpose the vehicle cover RAW onto MCs without it being totally useless due to references to such things as "facing of the vehicle", and "glancing or penetrating hit"

Monstrous creatures are considered "In Cover" if they are 50% or more hidden from LOS of the firer, a unit gets a cover save if 50% or more of that unit is "In Cover", the Venomthrope bypasses that by simply granting a cover save, I am quite confident with regards to this that your ruling is actually RAW.

Gwar! wrote:As for TYR.35.01 I think i made a major FUBAR error there and a pretty nasty typo. That is supposed to say "Cannot be picked out" in assault!

My ruling was supposed to essentially be "No, it cannot be picked out at all now go suck a lemon"

That makes sense, while I still don't agree with the ruling myself, atleast from a Rules perspective it now matches one of the stances which logically can be argued for.

**Gwar!**

Heh, ya know I agree with ya there Drunkspleen (about the cover thing). See what happens when Work (even when at home :() gets in the way of making FAQS!

**Darth Bob**

Gwar! wrote:
Darth Bob wrote:Edit: See above post, because Gwar! just confirmed this.
Yes yes I am a massive tool we know

*Shakes fist angrily*

**Drunkspleen**

Darth Bob wrote:
Drunkspleen wrote:I don't want to discuss why I think that argument is wrong here . . .

Oh, no, please do, because as far as I can see that argument is (RAW wise) foolproof.

I don't want to discuss it here because this is a thread about Gwar's Tyranid FAQ, if you would like to further discuss the issue with me, I suggest we do it in this thread