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.

I think the issue is whether or not those things are actually close combat weapons since the codex apparently states that Tyranids don't have close combat weapons, per se. In your example, their "weapon" would be rending claws, while they'd have the benefits from implants and boneswords. That sounds a little weird to me, but I'd be happy if that's how it played out.

Except that for the purposes of the 40k Assault rules close combat is carried out using close combat weapons, which either leave the model's profile unmodified, provide a bonus in the case of multiple close combat weapons, or provide some bonus in the case of special close combat weapon.

It's like saying: "A Tyranids claws are not close combat weapons per se, but for the purposes of the rules we're going to act like they are." That distinguishes between the fluff, according to which the so-called weapons are really parts of the Tyranid 'wielding' them, and the rules, according to which they have such-and-such weapons.

Toxin Sacs and Implant Attack at least are Biomorphs and not Weapons.

Aduro:

Don't you bring your filthy 'facts' and 'logic' into this discussion...

Nurglitch wrote:According to the rules for special close combat weapons, you have to choose one effect or another, so a Warrior with Rending Claws, a pair of Boneswords, and an Implant Attack would have 3 separate options, rather than one all-singing all-dancing chest-bursting attack.

Rending claws would be fairly worthless with boneswords anyway, since the boneswords ignore armor, and they're probably wounding on a 4+ already against meq.

You'd get the bonus for penetrating vehicles though.

And if your hitting vehicles, then the Bone Swords don't do anything, so you can just use the claws. I think the only real conflict you're going to have is Scything Talons + ??? on stuff.

True but I guess that's the choice you make. Do I want to pop heavy vehicle or do I want to guarantee dead infantry/dead characters?

It's not a choice really, as the rule book doesn't make having different close combat weapons illegal, you just can't use them at the same time. Go ahead and take Bone Swords and Rending Claws if you want, and when you're fighting guys use the swords, and when you're fighting tanks use the claws. If people really make an issue of `Nids having multiple special weapons, the only combination that is likely to cause any TFG problems are Swords or Claws combined with Scytals.

In any case it will be a case of codex > brb.

If it were the other way around then all these years using 2 sets of Scytals to get +2 attacks would have been illegal.

Inquiry:

Hive Tyrant
- Pair of Scything talons allows you to reroll all misses in CC.
- Ancient Enemy gives you Preferred Enemy (reroll misses in CC).

Does the Hive Tyrant benefit from his own Ancient Enemy ability (and therefore make a Pair of Scything talons, or one pair for that matter, a waste of weapon slots)?

Darth Bob wrote:Inquiry:

Hive Tyrant
- Pair of Scything talons allows you to reroll all misses in CC.
- Ancient Enemy gives you Preferred Enemy (reroll misses in CC).

Does the Hive Tyrant benefit from his own Ancient Enemy ability (and therefore make a Pair of Scything talons, or one pair for that matter, a waste of weapon slots)?

Preferred Enemy is specific, while Scything Talons is general, so I would go with the general advantage. Surely they wouldn't stack.

I think he means if a Hive Tyrant has Ancient Enemy, which gives all `Nids within 6" Prefered Enemy, does the Tyrant have and reason to keep his Scything Talons? I would say no.

warpcrafter wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:Inquiry:

Hive Tyrant
- Pair of Scything talons allows you to reroll all misses in CC.
- Ancient Enemy gives you Preferred Enemy (reroll misses in CC).

Does the Hive Tyrant benefit from his own Ancient Enemy ability (and therefore make a Pair of Scything talons, or one pair for that matter, a waste of weapon slots)?

Preferred Enemy is specific, while Scything Talons is general, so I would go with the general advantage. Surely they wouldn't stack.

Aduro hit it on the head. I'm not asking whether they would stack, I'm asking if you would have any insentive to keep the Talons when you just get to reroll hits from Ancient Enemy.

Yeah, it seems that you wouldn't. It seems that in this case, one or the other is redundant and needs to be replaced in the codex or the scything talons need to be re purposed. It's sort of like giving Ork Nobs cybork bodies and having a big mek with a kustom Force Field. The cybork bodies cannot be taken away, and they also work in close combat, whereas the KFF save is only against shooting and if the mek is killed, there it goes.

warpcrafter wrote:Yeah, it seems that you wouldn't. It seems that in this case, one or the other is redundant and needs to be replaced in the codex or the scything talons need to be re purposed. It's sort of like giving Ork Nobs cybork bodies and having a big mek with a kustom Force Field. The cybork bodies cannot be taken away, and they also work in close combat, whereas the KFF save is only against shooting and if the mek is killed, there it goes.

I agree, they should keep the Scytals the same except change it to Wounds instead of hits.

Preferred enemy doesn't work against vehicles -- scytals reroll does. Up to you if that is worthwhile.

That and you start with Scytals for "free", while Preferred Enemy is an upgrade that costs points. You can trade out the Scytals for other weapons, and then get your rerolls back with a further upgrade.

winterman wrote:Preferred enemy doesn't work against vehicles -- scytals reroll does. Up to you if that is worthwhile.

This is true. I guess that could be one redeeming quality.

Another question.

Hive Guard. Since they don't need LoS to shoot their weapons, can they always hit tanks in the rear armor regardless of where they are?

Darth Bob wrote:

winterman wrote:Preferred enemy doesn't work against vehicles -- scytals reroll does. Up to you if that is worthwhile.

This is true. I guess that could be one redeeming quality.

Another question.

Hive Guard. Since they don't need LoS to shoot their weapons, can they always hit tanks in the rear armor regardless of where they are?

Only the side they are facing.


Hive Guard rock though ^^. That elite slot has some heavy competition......

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:

winterman wrote:Preferred enemy doesn't work against vehicles -- scytals reroll does. Up to you if that is worthwhile.

This is true. I guess that could be one redeeming quality.

Another question.

Hive Guard. Since they don't need LoS to shoot their weapons, can they always hit tanks in the rear armor regardless of where they are?

Only the side they are facing.


Hive Guard rock though ^^. That elite slot has some heavy competition......

Is that made explicitly clear in the codex, because if you don't need Line of Sight then why would you only be able to shoot the side that you can see?

Vehicles are on side the Hive Guard is facing. Enemies only receive cover if inside or in contact with cover between them and the Hive Guard.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Vehicles are on side the Hive Guard is facing. Enemies only receive cover if inside or in contact with cover between them and the Hive Guard.

Okeydoke, as long as there is confirmation in the Codex. If not that would be incredibly broken.

Darth Bob wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Vehicles are on side the Hive Guard is facing. Enemies only receive cover if inside or in contact with cover between them and the Hive Guard.

Okeydoke, as long as there is confirmation in the Codex. If not that would be incredibly broken.

They're already pretty strong. Some of the review I started;

http://op40k.blogspot.com/

@ CC Weapons.

Especially the lash/ sword combo seems to be a Problem.
Both of them are stated as CC Weapons and therefore i have to choose wether i use the lash or the sword.
That would be a huge disappointment and i think it should be more like the shield/ Hammer combo...
But raw doesnt allow this to (german?) Nid players...

Mh... If it's true that you have to choose between close combat weapons, rending claws and scything talons, my favourite combo, is pretty damn worthless.

Greets
Schepp himself

i doubt GW would do that. one of my pet peeves is armies/units that completely ignore general rules. nids and demons are two armies that don't really play 40k since they break/bend so many general rules per their own special codex rules. i'd suspect that GW doesn't give the extra attack for 2 weapons but lets you combine the rules as a result.

how do deep striking spore mines work in the new codex? i'm not very familiar with the current rules for them but i assume that they blow up if they land on or near an enemy and don't have to worry about mishaps. if you're using a unit of DSing spore mines, do you have to deploy them in a tight circle per the normal deep strike or do they scatter individually?

Hive2003 wrote:@ CC Weapons.

Especially the lash/ sword combo seems to be a Problem.
Both of them are stated as CC Weapons and therefore i have to choose wether i use the lash or the sword.
That would be a huge disappointment and i think it should be more like the shield/ Hammer combo...
But raw doesnt allow this to (german?) Nid players...

It's exactly like the hammer/shield combination. The fact that you can buy them together most times in indicative of this.

You never "strike" with the lash whip in CC, in fact it's never brought up except as a defensive measure, exactly like the stormshield. So if any marine player tells you this one, then kindly ask him to ignore his 3++ save.

I would not put it past them to make a basic mistake like that.

I thought the choice of weapon use was only important specifically in the step of declaring which attacks use which weapons. Weapons that have static effects like storm shields and lash whips are simply "always on" since their effects aren't used in the actual attack rolls, and those are the only places where the "one weapon effect" rule comes into being.