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.

Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

2) The Melee biomorphs section does NOT clarify as the previous codex had that the biomorphs affected ALL attacks made by the model with the upgrade, does this mean that the attacks are split unto the number of weapons and adjusted as per appropriate. Example, LW & BS tyrant with scything talons gets 2 hits at ap3 swiftstrike life train and 2 at AP 6, or are all of them still going by the best option, and if the later is true how does that adapt to the bioartifact Maw-claws of Thyrax, would it get overridden by the better AP weapon or be its own separate additional attack.

3) Deathleaper says it can only be hit by snapshots, how does this affect Overwatch with regards to template weapons, can they not take them because templates don't "snap shot" but have their own rule instead?

4) Red Terror doesn't have any upgrades in its own description under the swarm section, does this mean it cannot take any biomorphs or does it simply use the adjusted models biomorphs as the Broodlord does for genestealers.

1). Correct.
2). Page 51 of the BRB applies - you pick which weapon you attack with now.
3). Wall of Death will still hit Deathleaper.

ok so then there's absolutely no use in taking multiple sets of different weapons as there was in the previous codex where say for example... crushing claws bonus to str and ap2 and armor bane could be combined with the rending claws on the Tyrant Guard, they would instead be forced to choose betwen having ap5 rending or ap2 str +1 armor bane unwieldy?... I honestly hope you're wrong on this because that is honestly even more of a game breaking nerf than losing any ability on scything talons is, and yet would explain why they lost their ability...

They are now melee weapons, so you have no reason - none - not to follow the BRB rules and pick which melee weapon you wish to use.

Tsunai wrote:
ok so then there's absolutely no use in taking multiple sets of different weapons as there was in the previous codex where say for example... crushing claws bonus to str and ap2 and armor bane could be combined with the rending claws on the Tyrant Guard, they would instead be forced to choose betwen having ap5 rending or ap2 str +1 armor bane unwieldy?... I honestly hope you're wrong on this because that is honestly even more of a game breaking nerf than losing any ability on scything talons is, and yet would explain why they lost their ability...

Unless it gets FAQ'd back in, he's correct... And yes its a pretty big change to the nids. And an un-needed nerf when they needed buffs.

Its almost like GW went: "Ok guys, who here has ever lost really badly to the Nids and doesn't like them?" *Janitor Bob raises his hand* "Ok Bob, You get to write their codex"

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And an un-needed nerf when they needed buffs.

Its almost like GW went: "Ok guys, who here has ever lost really badly to the Nids and doesn't like them?" *Janitor Bob raises his hand* "Ok Bob, You get to write their codex"

...really? You're complaining about the book that will basically end SeerStar and ScreamerStar with the new SitW? I'd say Tyranid got enough buffs.
Also: nyah-nyah, you can't take Biomancy! There's a mean-spirited nerf for ya.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And an un-needed nerf when they needed buffs.

Its almost like GW went: "Ok guys, who here has ever lost really badly to the Nids and doesn't like them?" *Janitor Bob raises his hand* "Ok Bob, You get to write their codex"

...really? You're complaining about the book that will basically end SeerStar and ScreamerStar with the new SitW? I'd say Tyranid got enough buffs.
Also: nyah-nyah, you can't take Biomancy! There's a mean-spirited nerf for ya.

I really don't see it ending seerstar or screamerstar, may make them a lttile easier to handle for needs, but don't see it ending either.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
And an un-needed nerf when they needed buffs.

Its almost like GW went: "Ok guys, who here has ever lost really badly to the Nids and doesn't like them?" *Janitor Bob raises his hand* "Ok Bob, You get to write their codex"

...really? You're complaining about the book that will basically end SeerStar and ScreamerStar with the new SitW? I'd say Tyranid got enough buffs.
Also: nyah-nyah, you can't take Biomancy! There's a mean-spirited nerf for ya.

So explain to me, how SITW did not hurt those armies in its previous version? And while doing so, explain how a lesser chance of Perils is somehow better.

Fragile wrote:
So explain to me, how SITW did not hurt those armies in its previous version? And while doing so, explain how a lesser chance of Perils is somehow better.

SitW wasn't about causing more Perils' (it did, but a side effect). It caused the powers to fail more often.

Screamers:
Instead of testing on a 10 to manifest, they're testing on an 8.
Force a Leadership test? They're LD7.

The thing that makes Screamerstar tough is casting powers. Reduce the likelihood, reduce the effectiveness of the star.
Seerstar is the same way.

1) yes they player for lols
2) yes their weapons are now weapons not free special rules. This is not a nerf at all just a change.
3) Yes RaW Deathleaper can't be effected by Wall of Death as it is not a snap shot (it is something done instead of a snap shot). Expect that to get fixed by FaQ.
4) Red Terror can take the options listed in its entry just like the Swarmlord (i.e. none)

SitW is pretty devastating against both screamerstar and Seer star. Particularly coupled with The Horror pinning check at -5 LD, Warlocks testing for powers at Ld5. Screamers base Ld5 for going pop tests.

The codex is most certainly not a nerf compared to the last book. The massive overreaction to the codex not being just full of easy win buttons is fairly hilarious.

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) yes they player for lols
2) yes their weapons are now weapons not free special rules. This is not a nerf at all just a change.
3) Yes RaW Deathleaper can't be effected by Wall of Death as it is not a snap shot (it is something done instead of a snap shot). Expect that to get fixed by FaQ.
4) Red Terror can take the options listed in its entry just like the Swarmlord (i.e. none)

SitW is pretty devastating against both screamerstar and Seer star. Particularly coupled with The Horror pinning check at -5 LD, Warlocks testing for powers at Ld5. Screamers base Ld5 for going pop tests.

The codex is most certainly not a nerf compared to the last book. The massive overreaction to the codex not being just full of easy win buttons is fairly hilarious.

Thanks to you and everyone for the answers, though I do both agree and disagree with the last bit. Overall I am back to my original opinion on the codex not being a total nerf, but more a forced adjustment to the status quo, possibly just to sell more models since 90% of nid armies used the same... 5 or 6 models at most. Changing the way SITW works does NOT make the codex better however, it just forces us to have better protection for our synapse creatures, which sadly we don't have. It is undeniable the massive amount of AP3, ID, Grav guns, and anti monsterous creature tactics that exist, and every synapse creature that isn't a MC is low enough toughness to be instant killed by the innumerable amount of STR 8 or higher ranged weapons that exist. We got a little bit, lost a lot, and had some reductions in prices more than we had increases, but generally this codex is no "Better" than the 5th edition codex. The buff to Catalyst is amazing, but unless that is the Primaris to garuntee that we can always have it to protect ourselves, it leaves far more vulnerabilities tothe comparable answers that every other codex has. It's the same problem we had back in 5th ed, only now we don't have Doom to be the "OH GOD KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT DOES SOMETHING" distraction it was.

It's not that we don't have a codex full of easy win buttons, is that we have a codex that has NO individual win button, where other codex's have single models or units with X bit that can solo other armies. Now yes we have cheaper carnifex's again, but they still have to foot slog through enemy fire relying at BEST on the venomthrope's 5+ mobile cover save to protect them from all the AP2/3 that will be coming after them. Nids have no "answer" to any other army, while other armies all have an "answer" for tyranids.

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) Screamers base Ld5 for going pop tests.

Don't believe that's accurate. It's only the Heralds that have the -3. The unit will then default to the highest Ld in the unit, Ld 7, from the Screamers themselves who are not Psykers. It's good, but not quite crippling to Screamerstar.

2) The Melee biomorphs section does NOT clarify as the previous codex had that the biomorphs affected ALL attacks made by the model with the upgrade, does this mean that the attacks are split unto the number of weapons and adjusted as per appropriate. Example, LW & BS tyrant with scything talons gets 2 hits at ap3 swiftstrike life train and 2 at AP 6, or are all of them still going by the best option, and if the later is true how does that adapt to the bioartifact Maw-claws of Thyrax, would it get overridden by the better AP weapon or be its own separate additional attack.

Doesn't the Tyrant (re: all MC's) Smash rule apply here? That all attacks are Ap2? BRB pg42 - smash: 'All of the CC attacks, except HoW, are resolved at Ap2.' It doesn't specify if you are using a weapon or not.

Tyrant Guards, however, replace a ScyTal with CClaw. This leaves them with a CClaw and a Rending Claw - how is this resolved? Do you choose to use the rending or the claw for all attacks (therefore changing your init)? Or do you do 1 attack with the RClaw, and 1 with the CClaw? I hope they FAQ it like they did for the last dex.

Citadel,
I do love 'counts as' and 'resolve at' due to the wonderful ways they twist the rules around without creating conflicts! It doesn't matter what is on the profile when you encounter these within the rules, even if that profile is coming from a codex, because your not referencing it when it comes to resolving the rule. It makes so many things a lot more easier, so keep an eye for it when you encounter it into the rules and respect it for what it can do.

As for the second concern, unless they have a Special Rule about how to handle the Close Combat weapons like the old codex, then it would fall under page 51's 'More then One Weapon.' I can not give any more information then that, all of it would be speculation as I do not have the Codex, but it seems that there is some questions concerning this fact so it might fall under the general rules. If not, then the only people whom can give you far more information on this matter are those with the Codex itself.

JinxDragon wrote:
Citadel,

I do love 'counts as' and 'resolve at' due to the wonderful ways they twist the rules around without creating conflicts! It doesn't matter what is on the profile when you encounter these within the rules, even if that profile is coming from a codex, because your not referencing it when it comes to resolving the rule. It makes so many things a lot more easier, so keep an eye for it when you encounter it into the rules and respect it for what it can do.

As for the second question, unless they have a Special Rule about how to handle the Close Combat weapons like the old codex, then it would fall under page 51's 'More then One Weapon.'

Right on. So pick one and resolve all the attacks with that weapon's statline (in the TGuard case). But as to the first response, and sorry I must be dense, but you are agreeing with me, correct?

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So explain to me, how SITW did not hurt those armies in its previous version? And while doing so, explain how a lesser chance of Perils is somehow better.

SitW wasn't about causing more Perils' (it did, but a side effect). It caused the powers to fail more often.

Screamers:
Instead of testing on a 10 to manifest, they're testing on an 8.
Force a Leadership test? They're LD7.

The thing that makes Screamerstar tough is casting powers. Reduce the likelihood, reduce the effectiveness of the star.
Seerstar is the same way.

Yes, Rigeld, but you haven't explained how 3d6 did not hurt those armies before. You average would be 10.5 on 3d6 vs 7 on 2d6. Old way was a failure (yes, you cannot roll halves, but its too late for me to mathhammer it out) while the new Sitw, they will succeed. So how is it better for those Psy Tests.

Citadel,
To the first point?
I thought you where asking questions about how Smash can resolve on codex weapons with a stated AP, I do apologize if that wasn't the case but it is a question we have seen a few times on this site. In a cryptic way I was stating that all Close Combat Attacks granted to a Monstrous Creature are Resolved at AP2. The 'resolves at' informs us of the AP value we are to use when resolving the rule in question, so we don't even look at the AP value on the profile.

Yes, Rigeld, but you haven't explained how 3d6 did not hurt those armies before. You average would be 10.5 on 3d6 vs 7 on 2d6. Old way was a failure (yes, you cannot roll halves, but its too late for me to mathhammer it out) while the new Sitw, they will succeed. So how is it better for those Psy Tests.

Because SitW had no effect on pinning checks or morale checks. Its also helped the Grey Knights Tyranid balance. As for some reason before the anti-daemon specialist Grey Knights were amazing against Nids and not great against Daemons. Now they just run screaming in terror from the Nids

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, Rigeld, but you haven't explained how 3d6 did not hurt those armies before. You average would be 10.5 on 3d6 vs 7 on 2d6. Old way was a failure (yes, you cannot roll halves, but its too late for me to mathhammer it out) while the new Sitw, they will succeed. So how is it better for those Psy Tests.

Because SitW had no effect on pinning checks or morale checks. Its also helped the Grey Knights Tyranid balance. As for some reason before the anti-daemon specialist Grey Knights were amazing against Nids and not great against Daemons. Now they just run screaming in terror from the Nids

Pinning and Morale are not things that those Deathstars are concerned about. Shutting down their psychic powers that give them the 2+ rerollable abuse is. The OP made it out that the new SITW did something that the old SITW did not, which is incorrect. SITW now affects LD across the board for Psykers, which can be good situationally, but as far as Psy Tests go, it has gotten a slight nerf.

Fragile wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, Rigeld, but you haven't explained how 3d6 did not hurt those armies before. You average would be 10.5 on 3d6 vs 7 on 2d6. Old way was a failure (yes, you cannot roll halves, but its too late for me to mathhammer it out) while the new Sitw, they will succeed. So how is it better for those Psy Tests.

Because SitW had no effect on pinning checks or morale checks. Its also helped the Grey Knights Tyranid balance. As for some reason before the anti-daemon specialist Grey Knights were amazing against Nids and not great against Daemons. Now they just run screaming in terror from the Nids

Pinning and Morale are not things that those Deathstars are concerned about. Shutting down their psychic powers that give them the 2+ rerollable abuse is. The OP made it out that the new SITW did something that the old SITW did not, which is incorrect. SITW now affects LD across the board for Psykers, which can be good situationally, but as far as Psy Tests go, it has gotten a slight nerf.

Your original statement was that the older, increased, chance of Perils is what caused them issues. You and I both know that's incorrect, hence the reason I replied at all.

Yes, they went from a 48% chance to cast to a 50% chance to cast. Forgive me if I call that "the same".
In addition to being forced to use a lower LD for any other tests.

Tsunai wrote:
Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

Ok, may be my english is not very good but what I understood is we can built any kind of army with the nids or is just GW forget to write the FOC?

 hellpato wrote:

Tsunai wrote:
Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

Ok, may be my english is not very good but what I understood is we can built any kind of army with the nids or is just GW forget to write the FOC?

What? The White dwarf game was a special one with a different scenario. If you're playing "normal" games you follow the regular rules for FOC

 hellpato wrote:

Tsunai wrote:
Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

Ok, may be my english is not very good but what I understood is we can built any kind of army with the nids or is just GW forget to write the FOC?

Counter to rumor, nids still use the Standard FOC

 hellpato wrote:

Tsunai wrote:
Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

Ok, may be my english is not very good but what I understood is we can built any kind of army with the nids or is just GW forget to write the FOC?

As was stated above, we use the regular FOC; WD batreps are all for lulz and to show off new models, most of their reps ignore FOC, and I have even seen them flat break rules in some battles. I wish they would actually make those reports useful overviews of how the army actually plays.

 Battlesong wrote:

 hellpato wrote:

Tsunai wrote:
Ok... really just a few simple questions/opinions/clarifications that I'm looking for. I'm new here so ill put them pretty plain...

1) White dwarf didn't use a proper FOC chart what so ever... I assume they did this for the lulz and that it does NOT mean that nids are not restricted by FOC any more?

Ok, may be my english is not very good but what I understood is we can built any kind of army with the nids or is just GW forget to write the FOC?

As was stated above, we use the regular FOC; WD batreps are all for lulz and to show off new models, most of their reps ignore FOC, and I have even seen them flat break rules in some battles. I wish they would actually make those reports useful overviews of how the army actually plays.

Thank that made me rethinking my army. I found a little odd that they didn't written the FOC section in the book and didn't have a FOC (because they can have allies) open some interesting option for building my nidz.