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.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:How can it be a transport if it isn't a vehicle?

I'm with you Gwar! I'm just waiting to see how GW mess up the rules for it so that by RAW it's totally useless, I feel so certain they will, as I said, I expect it to revolve around the fact that according to the disembark rules only models "embarked on a vehicle" are allowed to disembark, of course there's always the chance they will write the rules for it fine, I just don't see it happening.

gwar, you have a groupie! now that you have a website, perhaps you could sell him a tshirt! or gwar contributing member status!

perhaps we could just use some common sense and the dreaded RAI to figure this all out (similar to working out how bjorn gets an invul save). considering that the nidpod rules seem similar to a drop pod in that unborn units must birth when they arrive, i don't think the lack of vehicle status will have any in game effect. you simply "disembark" as if you were a vehicle when you arrive and never have to worry about it again as you won't be able to rip your way back in through the birth canal most likely. i guess we'll find out when the english version lands.

as for the bases, i'd say err on the side of caution and use the biggest size used by any model component until GW says something official. so for tervigons, since they use trygon parts, use the trygon base. for dakkafexes, since they are tyrant/fex hybrids, use one of the 60mm ones. i don't know what the harpy looks like and what model parts you're supposed to use so i won't comment on that one. for the drop pod, i'd say 60mm only because it doesn't have any supa-monsta kreetur parts on it.

Aduro wrote:Typically stuff that's bigger has more wounds, so I'm using that stat as a system of measurement of their general size.

Except terminators (1 wd) are on 40mm bases and Blood Crushers (2 wd) are on a 60mm base

wyomingfox wrote:

Aduro wrote:Typically stuff that's bigger has more wounds, so I'm using that stat as a system of measurement of their general size.

Except terminators (1 wd) are on 40mm bases and Blood Crushers (2 wd) are on a 60mm base

that's the magic of the word he used, "typically". it means that there can be an exception to the general rule and yet his statement is still true. "typically" things with higher toughness have larger bases but there are exceptions to that too (cassius). either way, your example reinforces his statement as your "bigger" model with a bigger base actually has more wounds.

Gwar! wrote:How can it be a transport if it isn't a vehicle?

The same way a squiggoth can be a transport, actually.... because the outside resource (codex/IA volume/apoc book) says it can, and the outside resource overrides the BGB.

The preview codex didn't say what bases to mount the Tervigon, Harpy or Mycetic Spore on.

Tervigon sounds like it should go on a Trygon base since it is like an insect queen and probably should be large and has 6 wounds like a Trygon and uses Trygon parts to build.

Harpy has 4 wounds and sounds like a flying carnifex so sounds like it should have a Carnifex base.

The largest thing that can take a Mycetic spore is a Carnifex so it should at least go on a Carnifex sized base if not a larger Trygon one since it has to fit the Carnifex inside.

warboss wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:How can it be a transport if it isn't a vehicle?

I'm with you Gwar! I'm just waiting to see how GW mess up the rules for it so that by RAW it's totally useless, I feel so certain they will, as I said, I expect it to revolve around the fact that according to the disembark rules only models "embarked on a vehicle" are allowed to disembark, of course there's always the chance they will write the rules for it fine, I just don't see it happening.

gwar, you have a groupie! now that you have a website, perhaps you could sell him a tshirt! or gwar contributing member status!

perhaps we could just use some common sense and the dreaded RAI to figure this all out (similar to working out how bjorn gets an invul save). considering that the nidpod rules seem similar to a drop pod in that unborn units must birth when they arrive, i don't think the lack of vehicle status will have any in game effect. you simply "disembark" as if you were a vehicle when you arrive and never have to worry about it again as you won't be able to rip your way back in through the birth canal most likely. i guess we'll find out when the english version lands.

I wouldn't call me a groupie, in fact, while I think Gwar! has a firm grasp on the english language I differ greatly from him in terms of how I personally choose to play most situations (or atleast am led to believe I do), not to mention I've butted heads with him on rulings enough times, I simply share his lack of belief in GWs ability to write good RAW.

That's really neither here nor there though, what is of greater interest to me is that, having now seen the codex with my own eyes, it turns out GW did get the spores right, rather than be lazy and try to reference the transport rules, they pretty much re-printed the disembarking rules, saying that upon landing the unit inside the spore deploy within 2" of it.

Drunkspleen wrote:I wouldn't call me a groupie, in fact, while I think Gwar! has a firm grasp on the english language I differ greatly from him in terms of how I personally choose to play most situations (or at least am led to believe I do), not to mention I've butted heads with him on rulings enough times, I simply share his lack of belief in GWs ability to write good RAW.

I do not for one second belive GW can write GOOD RaW. But what they write is what they write, and if they didn't intend to write them as they wrote them, they wouldn't have written them that way!

That's really neither here nor there though, what is of greater interest to me is that, having now seen the codex with my own eyes, it turns out GW did get the spores right, rather than be lazy and try to reference the transport rules, they pretty much re-printed the disembarking rules, saying that upon landing the unit inside the spore deploy within 2" of it.

I am Shocked and Appalled! First they make sure Lictors work without confusion, now this? Is this the start of a new Golden Age!?!?!?!

Gwar! wrote: Is this the start of a new Golden Age!?!?!?!

Or the coming of the apocalypse.

I sure hope that when they do make a Tervigon model (if ever), that they use a 60mm base. I know a lot of players who are cannibalizing their old Sniperfexes for Tervigons and having to reconstruct it again if it's on the large oval base would be a little much.

Really, MasterSlowPoke?

Cutting a piece of plasticard to size, glue the old base on top, gravel/flock and paint is "a little too much".

Maxus wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Maxus wrote:I thought about this too, there are going to be 2 base sizes for MCs. The round 60mm that comes with the carnifex and hive tyrant, and the oval 100mm x 120mm that comes with the tygon/mawloc. From what i've read so far, the Tervigon and Tyranofex (per fluff) are bigger than a carnifex, so I personally will put those on the oval trygon base, the Harpy sounds like the best would be to put it on the round base. Even for modeling purposes, it looks like from the pictures available the Tervigon and Tyranofex use the back legs of a fex, and a larger torso, hunched over, using scything claws arms as 'feet'. So they are going to be longer and have more girth than the current fex model.

I'd be careful about rushing to put your Tervigon on that large oval base, I don't know the exact measurements but the Tervigon with the many advantages it can offer to models within proximity to it certainly benefits greatly from having a larger base size.

Until GW comes out with a model for the Tervigon, there wont be exact measurements since the model doesn't have a sculpt, just art. If and when they create a sculpt and it has a 60mm base, then the base may have to be changed. Until then, there will be 2 different size bases for MC creatures, which one should I use? GW advised how to create a Tervigon model, they said to use parts from a Tygron, and a Carnifex and put them togeather. Guess what, they come with two different bases, which one should I use? And I'm not trying to be a jerk about using the oval base, trying to gain an advantage, my model is going to be bigger than a carnifex, and wont fit. But since i haven't finished it yet, I will end up trying both and see what looks and fits better.

As an aside, the Biovore on pg 27 of the Jan 2010 White Dwarf, can you see whats wrong with that base?

A Tervigon is a Carifex (When I say it is a Carnifex I mean it has the same stats line and looks like one.) that at base cost has no weapons other then teeth/claws. You can choose to take him like that or you can give him 2 sets of scything talons or crushing claws with 1 set of scything talons. The picture in the codex just looks like a Carnifex with scything talons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you played me in a tourny with it on the large Trygon base I wouldn't except it. Because with this unit the bigger the base the better for sure. I really doubt any competitive player would let you get away with it.

its a transport because the rules for the thing say it can hold models....

the only time it gets funky is that it can fight in assault phase but cant move isnt a vehicle and there is no rule for what happens if it wins combat, can it sweeping advance, what if its in combat with a unit and the unit loses models and there is another friendly tyranid unit in combat as well, the thing ends up not in base to base with enemy models, is it in combat still? etc.

edit- As for the MAWLOC base size if you use a larger base you can come play me anytime All that happens if is you put your large 2.5" template on a unit of mine and do some str6 ap2 hits I will make a ring with the survivors and your mawloc will not be able to be placed within 1" due to your base size in relation to a 2.5" template from the mawloc effect and your mawloc dies, enjoy

I put my T-Fex on a big base, and I've only had a single person not like it, but he doesn't like anything I do on principle. Everyone else had said it looks much better and more size appropriate, so I'm gonna stick with it because I very much agree.

With the way I plan to make my Tervigons, you'd wouldn't be able to charge me if I used a 60mm, because you'd not be able to get your model into base contact. They're going to be just that big. Plus the Trygons I'm going to make them out of come with Large Ovals, so it'll just be easier to use em.

TheJuan wrote:

A Tervigon is a Carifex (When I say it is a Carnifex I mean it has the same stats line and looks like one.) that at base cost has no weapons other then teeth/claws. You can choose to take him like that or you can give him 2 sets of scything talons or crushing claws with 1 set of scything talons. The picture in the codex just looks like a Carnifex with scything talons.

Uh, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, they have very different stat lines... different S, W, A, and Ld at the very least, and the Tervigon does come with a gun, standard, and I don't believe it does start with Talons. It's also an HQ (to start with) rather than a Heavy Support. Not really a stretch to imagine they'd have different bases.

(Now, not really a stretch to imagine they'd have the same bases too, but mostly just pointing out that the Tervigon is very much not a Carnifex, other than the picture looking like one...its actual stat line is really closer to the Trygon or Mawloc, particularly Mawloc, and they're on oval bases.)

A Tervigon is a Carifex (When I say it is a Carnifex I mean it has the same stats line and looks like one.) that at base cost has no weapons other then teeth/claws.

A Vendetta has the same armor stats as a Hellhound, are they the same size?

A Tervigon has 50% more wounds than a Fex, and is described as having a massive bulk so big it requires all three sets of limbs to act as legs to support itself. Same as the Tyranofex.

TheJuan wrote:
If you played me in a tourny with it on the large Trygon base I wouldn't except it. Because with this unit the bigger the base the better for sure. I really doubt any competitive player would let you get away with it.

Actually, in an tournament, since there is no official model (and thereby no official base size) you could use any size base you damn well please.

Nothing ridiculous, of course, (like a 2'x2' base) but models that don't have official bases can be put on any base size until they have an official model or GW comes out and says "This is the size it should be on."

I think the Trygon base is a good size for it, actually, because there's no way something the size of a Carnifex could poop out 3d6 gaunts per turn. Also, take a look at your codex, because I'm almost positive the statline of the Tervigon is different.

sirisaacnuton wrote:

TheJuan wrote:

A Tervigon is a Carifex (When I say it is a Carnifex I mean it has the same stats line and looks like one.) that at base cost has no weapons other then teeth/claws. You can choose to take him like that or you can give him 2 sets of scything talons or crushing claws with 1 set of scything talons. The picture in the codex just looks like a Carnifex with scything talons.

Uh, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, they have very different stat lines... different S, W, A, and Ld at the very least, and the Tervigon does come with a gun, standard, and I don't believe it does start with Talons. It's also an HQ (to start with) rather than a Heavy Support. Not really a stretch to imagine they'd have different bases.

(Now, not really a stretch to imagine they'd have the same bases too, but mostly just pointing out that the Tervigon is very much not a Carnifex, other than the picture looking like one...its actual stat line is really closer to the Trygon or Mawloc, particularly Mawloc, and they're on oval bases.)

Yes you are so right I have been killing mine off after 4 wounds. I was playing today and my friend said its not dead it has 6 wounds and I looked and it did I was very happy. I don't know why I got so mixed up with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darth Bob wrote:

TheJuan wrote:
If you played me in a tourny with it on the large Trygon base I wouldn't except it. Because with this unit the bigger the base the better for sure. I really doubt any competitive player would let you get away with it.

Actually, in an tournament, since there is no official model (and thereby no official base size) you could use any size base you damn well please.

Nothing ridiculous, of course, (like a 2'x2' base) but models that don't have official bases can be put on any base size until they have an official model or GW comes out and says "This is the size it should be on."

I think the Trygon base is a good size for it, actually, because there's no way something the size of a Carnifex could poop out 3d6 gaunts per turn. Also, take a look at your codex, because I'm almost positive the statline of the Tervigon is different.

Yea I got mixed up some how I saw that today. But still useing old fexes with scything talons or crushing claws is fine since there is no model. And I hate to say it but useing the smaller base really only hurts yourself. I wish they would just make the models instead of these headaches not all of us are master model builders.

Steelmage99 wrote:Really, MasterSlowPoke?

Cutting a piece of plasticard to size, glue the old base on top, gravel/flock and paint is "a little too much".

It's even easier to put IG weapon teams on new bases and they STILL haven't shut up about that.

It isn't the same issue, though.

Nothing forces you to base your IG teams on new bases. Actually the rules forces you not to.

Most tournaments play with a "current bases" rule, rather than the rule from the book.

Really? Which?

OK would everyone agree a Carnifex with talons or talons and claws on a Trygon/Mawloc size base be good to go for tourny play? I have already seen some nice ones like this where they just dressed the base up with some old gaunts and terrain. I was thinking of magnatizing my bases so I can still switch back and forth since all my fexes and weapons are already magnatized.

It's up to the TO but I can't see there being an issue.

TheJuan wrote:OK would everyone agree a Carnifex with talons or talons and claws on a Trygon/Mawloc size base be good to go for tourny play? I have already seen some nice ones like this where they just dressed the base up with some old gaunts and terrain. I was thinking of magnatizing my bases so I can still switch back and forth since all my fexes and weapons are already magnatized.

And the Carni represents what? A carnifex? A Trygon? A Tervigon?

Actually, what *are* you supposed to do with models that don't come with bases? Prime example: Soul grinder? No base there. Killa-kan....doesn't come with a base either. Deff-Dread - no base there either.

I'd think that if there was a base that was supposed to be on the model, they would have included one? There's not an entry on the box that says, "Parts not included."

Steelmage99 wrote:

TheJuan wrote:OK would everyone agree a Carnifex with talons or talons and claws on a Trygon/Mawloc size base be good to go for tourny play? I have already seen some nice ones like this where they just dressed the base up with some old gaunts and terrain. I was thinking of magnatizing my bases so I can still switch back and forth since all my fexes and weapons are already magnatized.

And the Carni represents what? A carnifex? A Trygon? A Tervigon?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Or were you merely talking about mounting a Carnifex on a large base for fun?

hell. If someone was going to mount a Carnifex on a big oval base, it sure as hell be modelled to an appropriate size or be ripping the guts out of a dreadnaught.

the issue of base size was addressed by aduro at our flgs: the "base it comes With" rule is to prevent win-happy rules jockeys from bending intended rules for in-game advantages.
I REGULARLY mount Special Characters on 40 mm bases. Why? Cuz a well modelled base looks cool. my SM Apothecary is on a 40mm base: he's pulling some gene-seed out of a really mangled battle-brother. My Helbrecht/SM Chapter Master? 40 mm Base. Looks Cool.
For the most part, any 'benifitz' form modelling are going to be off-set by 'disadvantagiz': sure i gain about a half inch or so to determine woho's in Base to Base with my helbrecht fig. But more Enemy Models can get into base to base with him.
Small details like mounting my douche-a-gon or whatever the smeg it is on a Valk base should be moot: if youre doing it to cheese rules, sure. go play kenny (dont ask). if you did it to accomodate the size of a beast, or to make a neat f'ing modell, cool. good for you. play a game, enjoy a hobby, dont spend your time online whining and debating rules with people you'll never meet. its a little pathetic.