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.

Aduro wrote:

Strangelooper wrote:

Heavy VC is 48" S9 blast Assault 2. For immobilizing and popping transports, it will be great, and it can stop tanks from firing as well.

Yeah, it's a lot of points for those Fexes, but I think it will be worth it in today's mech'd up meta.

I disagree. If you want that kind of long range fire power, I think you're better off with a Tyranofex. It's cheaper than running a pair of Fexes, with a stronger gun that doesn't get penalized on the damage chart, and packs a couple of extra anti-infantry guns at the same time. Two less wounds, but a better armor save. Not to mention I just like the idea of running something larger than a standard Fex.

True, the Tyrannofex is a lot less points and the gun is stronger. It would certainly be a better choice in lower point games, or as a true anti-AV14 if the LandRaider/LRBT meta is strong in your area and/or you don't want to bring Zoeys. But as soon as you start to max out your Heavy slots, you're looking at a 2 shots backed by 6 wounds (Tyrannofex) vs 4 shots backed by 8 wounds (2 VC fexes) in that precious slot (or even 6 shots backed by 12 for a full brood, though I wouldn't do that in less than 2000 pts).

I don't see my VC Fexes going after predators or land raiders except in a target-poor environment - instead they'd use their VCs to open up Rhinos and Razorbacks while they advance up the board and get ready to mess it up in combat. The Zoeys would handle the heavy tanks. And really, it's the combination of Fexes, Zoeys and Tyrant VC that should make for too much antitank to nullify quickly. In addition, once some infantry ventures out of their immobilized/popped transports, that's 4 AP3 blasts that instakill marine characters flying around - even misses by the Fexes can be entertaining! The S10 Capsule Cannon is only AP4 I believe. My point is that the Fexes can do more than just shoot vehicles, while the Capsule Cannon Tyrannofex is pretty dedicated. Is it worth the extra points for the extra shots and extra wounds? I think so.

If the Tyranofex is hanging back shooting, that 2+ save won't do much against weapons that can reach out far enough to hurt him (Lascannons, Railguns, deepstriking plas/meltas). It'll save him from missile launchers I guess, or help him in melee if he gets into combat with something strong that doesn't ignore armor saves (ie Ogryn ) If he gets into combat, he's got 3 attacks vs the 8 attacks of the paired Fexes.

But probably the main reason I'll field the Fexes is that they're already built, and it might be a while till I can spend >$100 to kitbash a Tyrannofex.

Strangelooper wrote:Heavy VC is 48" S9 blast Assault 2. For immobilizing and popping transports, it will be great, and it can stop tanks from firing as well.

Is it actually Assault Two? I heard it was only Assault One...

If it is assault 2, then it would be an excellent heavy-infantry killer. 2 blasts @ S9 can really wreck some infantryman's day.

Everything I've heard is Assault One, which is why I don't think two Fexes are better than one T-Fex, who'll have just as many shots. I wouldn't leave him hanging in the back field either. He'll be near the mid/back of the Hoard, but he'll be advancing right along with them, so he's supported by Synapse and Venomthropes and the rest of the Synergetic goodness, as well as making use of his anti-infantry blasts and templates that he gets along with his anti-tank gun if the opportunity arises.

Hollismason wrote:A 5 man squad of thunderhammer terms will beat the dog crap out of a carnifex every single time even if it gets the charge. He may take them all out but he'll in all likelyhood die.


A trigon charging the same squad will probably live through it.

I dunno I am not great at math hammer. 3+ to hit with 7 attacks reroll all misses because of talons.

Different uses between them, carnifexes are capable of dealing significantly more damage at range and you can get more of them per force org slot. Trygons are larger, more expensive targets with no real use at range, forcing them to either take a very dangerous walk across the board or risk coming up near an army, possibly scattering away, and most certainly taking a couple of plasma or melta shots before being able to utilize the superior close combat potential (the large size makes cover difficult to attain, and the creature is still wounded on a 2+ from missiles).

As for the mathhammer, the trygon will hit roughly 6-7 times and wound roughly 6. Four of six saves will be made. On the return you have six attacks, 3 hits, and roughly 3 wounds. Next round the trygon will go again, killing another two averagely, then taking another wound on the return. Final round it wins combat. Keep in mind though, it's highly unlikely that it wouldn't have taken a lascanon shot or two, and it's even less likely that it would be the one getting the charge considering you can't charge from deepstrike, and it's not too common to see thunderhammers outside of a metal box (that same squad charging from and supported by their box would probably kill the trygon in the first round while losing two of their own number).

This rumor page (http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=12625&start=0) lists it as being assault 1. So I guess no double-tapping with this.

On another topic; has anybody heard about this upgrade?

"- Toxic blood - When this model loses a wound in melee the model that caused the wound must stand an I check or lose a wound with no AS allowed, tanks are hit on 4+ with a glancing hit"

Taken from the same page. Any ideas on if this made the final cut, and what units get to take it?

Strangelooper wrote:True, the Tyrannofex is a lot less points and the gun is stronger. It would certainly be a better choice in lower point games, or as a true anti-AV14 if the LandRaider/LRBT meta is strong in your area and/or you don't want to bring Zoeys. But as soon as you start to max out your Heavy slots, you're looking at a 2 shots backed by 6 wounds (Tyrannofex) vs 4 shots backed by 8 wounds (2 VC fexes) in that precious slot (or even 6 shots backed by 12 for a full brood, though I wouldn't do that in less than 2000 pts).

As has been said, the Venom Cannon is only Assault 1. Taking scatter in mind you will hit less than half the time, depending on the size of your target. The Capsule Cannon hits once on average, with a higher strength, without the -1 to the damage result and at a longer range. So for anti-vehicle, the Capsule Cannon is at probably about twice as good. Of course the Venom Cannon can always scatter on another enemy, so you might get lucky there.

In addition, once some infantry ventures out of their immobilized/popped transports, that's 4 AP3 blasts that instakill marine characters flying around - even misses by the Fexes can be entertaining! The S10 Capsule Cannon is only AP4 I believe.

The Venom Cannon is also AP4. Only the Zoanthrope's Warp Blast & Lance, the Carnifex' Bioplasma and the Tyrant's Life Leech are AP3 or better.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:On another topic; has anybody heard about this upgrade?

"- Toxic blood - When this model loses a wound in melee the model that caused the wound must stand an I check or lose a wound with no AS allowed, tanks are hit on 4+ with a glancing hit"

Taken from the same page. Any ideas on if this made the final cut, and what units get to take it?

It is in, with the slight modifications that the unit (not model) that caused the wounds must take the test, and that tanks should be changed walkers. The Hive Tyrant, Tervigon and Broodlord can get it as upgrade, and the Pyrovore always has it.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:This rumor page (http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=12625&start=0) lists it as being assault 1. So I guess no double-tapping with this.

On another topic; has anybody heard about this upgrade?

"- Toxic blood - When this model loses a wound in melee the model that caused the wound must stand an I check or lose a wound with no AS allowed, tanks are hit on 4+ with a glancing hit"

Taken from the same page. Any ideas on if this made the final cut, and what units get to take it?

It's in and...wait...Hive Tyrants, Tervigons and Broodlords can take it.

Greets
Schepp himself

Edit: Redemption beat me to it! Go to work!

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:This rumor page (http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=12625&start=0) lists it as being assault 1. So I guess no double-tapping with this.

On another topic; has anybody heard about this upgrade?

"- Toxic blood - When this model loses a wound in melee the model that caused the wound must stand an I check or lose a wound with no AS allowed, tanks are hit on 4+ with a glancing hit"

Taken from the same page. Any ideas on if this made the final cut, and what units get to take it?

Just to a note, in the english version its walkers that get the 4+ glancing, which makes more sense

Strangelooper wrote:
True, the Tyrannofex is a lot less points and the gun is stronger. It would certainly be a better choice in lower point games, or as a true anti-AV14 if the LandRaider/LRBT meta is strong in your area and/or you don't want to bring Zoeys. But as soon as you start to max out your Heavy slots, you're looking at a 2 shots backed by 6 wounds (Tyrannofex) vs 4 shots backed by 8 wounds (2 VC fexes) in that precious slot (or even 6 shots backed by 12 for a full brood, though I wouldn't do that in less than 2000 pts).

Just to address this , if there is any significant amount of AV 14 where you play, the Tyrannofex is more than twice as effective at popping AV 14 than two heavy venom cannon Carnifexes. With the venom cannon -1 to the vehicle damage chart, it can only destroy AV 14 on back to back rolls of "6," while the capsule cannon needs back to back rolls of "5+." Also, the capsule cannon can destroy on a glance, which the venom cannon cannot do, I believe.

my nids came in the the post just need to get it from the post office

Schepp himself wrote:Edit: Redemption beat me to it! Go to work!

What makes you think I'm not at work?

Saldiven wrote:Also, the capsule cannon can destroy on a glance, which the venom cannon cannot do, I believe.

What makes you think that? It's just a S10 AP4 weapon. The only way it can kill on a glance is if it gets a weapon destroyed or immobilised result after all weapons are already destroyed and the vehicle is already immobilised, but that goes for every weapon.

Lyracian wrote:

Strangelooper wrote:Heavy VC is 48" S9 blast Assault 2. For immobilizing and popping transports, it will be great, and it can stop tanks from firing as well.

Is it actually Assault Two? I heard it was only Assault One...

I just had a quick glance at a store copy of the codex - I *thought* the Heavy VC was Assault 2 AP3, but I could be (wishfully) misremembering. Damn. Uh, yeah if it's only Assault 1 AP4 then that does make the Fex a rather expensive platform.

Time to glue my two fexes to one another and call them "Tyranno"...

Nope the Heavy Venom Cannon is definately Assault 1 Blast. And Acid Blood, IMHO, is the saving grace for the Pyrovore.

This should put an end to the Tyrant Guard debate.

Tyranid Codex page 35, copright Games Workshop wrote:A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an independent character.

That is the entry for shield wall. The Hive Tyrant only acts as an Ic in that it is able to join a unit, it does not become an IC and therefore does not have any other rules that adhere to IC's. Since this is an odd case of a unit joining another unit, the Tyrant would function as if it were an upgrade character, and therefore not targetable in Shooting or CC.

If Swarmlord is an IC, however, he would be targetable.

It is not a retinue, the Guard can seperate.

No upgrade character status.

kirsanth wrote:It is not a retinue, the Guard can seperate.

No upgrade character status.

I did not say it was an Upgrade Character I said it acts as if it were. You can act like something while not outright being it. It does not count as an Upgrade character; it acts as one in that it is untargetable in CC and Shooting. The alocation of wounds goes to the owner of the Tyrant and it's Guard. You cannot pick out the Tyrant in shooting or CC, since it's not an IC, just one unit joining another.

Darth Bob wrote: It does not count as an Upgrade character; it acts as one in that it is untargetable in CC and Shooting. The alocation of wounds goes to the owner of the Tyrant and it's Guard. You cannot pick out the Tyrant in shooting or CC, since it's not an IC, just one unit joining another.

MCs can be targeted, unless a rules actually prevents it.
None do.

The rest is just hopeful, despite the text.

kirsanth wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:

MCs can be targeted, unless a rules actually prevents it.
None do.

Please quote a rule from the rule book that say that, because IIRC, that is only "IC's which are Monstrous Creatures". The Hive Tyrant, however, is not an IC.

I don't recall (dont have rule book in front of me) Monstrous Creatures being able to join units unless they were IC's. So therefore, the Hive Tyrant would be a first-timer in that it is a non-IC Monstrous Creature that can join a unit.

Gotcha, so you are saying it joins one exactly as an IC, but does not have the drawbacks of being one?

editing to add:
I think I understand the issue, but it would seem that "joined exactly as if" would mean both sides of the coin. Otherwise it would say something along the lines of "may join despite the HT not being a".

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:Gotcha, so you are saying it joins one exactly as an IC, but does not have the drawbacks of being one?

Precisely.

It says "as if it were an IC". So it does not gain the "IC" special rule, they just use the reference of "IC" to let you know that it joins a unit like an IC. If it said "a tyrant joining a unit of guard gains the "IC" special rule" then it would actually be an IC.

Interesting...that'd be the only way Tyrant Guard are even in the realm of playability, so sounds plausible.

The alternative is that perhaps Cruddace forgot about the random caveat about MC IC's and how they would need special exceptions to give them regular IC protection in a non-MC squad.

Either way, I like Darth Bob's take on it. Maybe this book will get a FAQ as quickly as the SW one.

If an IC MC is joined it can be picked out, if the MC is joined exactly as if it were an IC, then, logically, it could be able to be picked out as well.

Oh, I much prefer Darth Bob's take on it, but I am not certain how valid it is; as such I tend to take vague rules for my units in the least beneficial way.

Its really the "exactly" that gets me.

More reading!

kirsanth wrote:If an IC MC is joined it can be picked out, if the MC is joined exactly as if it were an IC, then, logically, it could be able to be picked out as well.

Oh, I much prefer Darth Bob's take on it, but I am not certain how valid it is; as such I tend to take vague rules for my units in the least beneficial way.

Its really the "exactly" that gets me.

More reading!

You can have a replica of a M41A Pulse Rifle that looks exactly as if it were real. And yet, it is not real.
Conversely...
You can have a non IC that joins a unit exactly as if it were an IC. And yet, it is not an IC.

I think logic would also point more towards the Guard being able to guard the Tyrant since logic would tell us that their ability to guard the Tyrant is the only way they are at all viable.

Unfortunately, Darth Bob, logic and GW rules do not always go hand in hand.....

Darth Bob wrote:I think logic would also point more towards the Guard being able to guard the Tyrant since logic would tell us that their ability to guard the Tyrant is the only way they are at all viable.

This is a logical fallacy, examples of which can be found in Chaos Possessed, Stormtroopers, and tankbustas.

Janthkin wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:I think logic would also point more towards the Guard being able to guard the Tyrant since logic would tell us that their ability to guard the Tyrant is the only way they are at all viable.

This is a logical fallacy, examples of which can be found in Chaos Possessed, Stormtroopers, and tankbustas.

Theres a difference between a unit sucking and a unit not doing what it is meant to do (where they could in the previous codex.)

Dysartes wrote:Unfortunately, Darth Bob, logic and GW rules do not always go hand in hand.....

This is true, but since it is rather vague, we have no choice but to either use RAI or RAW. When it comes to vague subjects, I usually go for the RAW factor. And RAW-wise, my argument seems pretty solid. It does not explicitly say the Tyrant gains the IC characteristic, therefore, for all intensive purposes, it does not. Therefore, no targeting him explicitly in assault or shooting.

Darth Bob wrote:This is true, but since it is rather vague, we have no choice but to either use RAI or RAW. When it comes to vague subjects, I usually go for the RAW factor. And RAW-wise, my argument seems pretty solid. It does not explicitly say the Tyrant gains the IC characteristic, therefore, for all intensive purposes, it does not. Therefore, no targeting him explicitly in assault or shooting.

First, "intents and purposes".

Second, when the rules are vague, it is generally more acceptable to use the least advantageous interpretation -- not claim older RAW = RAI.
If they intended the rules to remain the same, they would not change them.

kirsanth wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:This is true, but since it is rather vague, we have no choice but to either use RAI or RAW. When it comes to vague subjects, I usually go for the RAW factor. And RAW-wise, my argument seems pretty solid. It does not explicitly say the Tyrant gains the IC characteristic, therefore, for all intensive purposes, it does not. Therefore, no targeting him explicitly in assault or shooting.

First, "intents and purposes".

Second, when the rules are vague, it is generally more acceptable to use the least advantageous interpretation -- not claim older RAW = RAI.
If they intended the rules to remain the same, they would not change them.

Woops...

But then the rules are not the same now are they? The Tyrant is able to seperate from the unit. Before, he was not, as the unit was counted as a retinue. Therefore it is just as easy to argue that that was the change that was made, rather than the change being him as a target.

Sorry, but this is a huge disadvantage, and I'm not going to concede to taking what may or may not be a nerf without putting up a fight. The inability of the guard the tyrant makes absolutely no sense, and is complete bullcrap. Since RAW (whether by technicality or not) points to the fact that they can guard the tyrant, RAI points to the fact that they can guard the tyrant (if you interperet it thusly) and a simple understanding of english points to the fact that the Tyrant Guard can guard the tyrant, then I say the guard can guard the tyrant and the Tyrant should not be targetable in CC or Shooting.

That is my stand on the subject and I will not change it until an official FAQ comes out.

An official FAQ means squat. Now if it's an Official Errta now that changes the rules. FAQ are nothing more than 'house rules'