Tyranid Rumours (1st post updated with hive guard pic.)

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.

**Sasori**

Hastings did say Tyranids would be the next 40k release after Space Marines, if Inquisitor is released in the same month as Dark Elves it will probably confirm a month early that we are getting Tyranids in November.

If Hastings said it, then it's true. However, I don't remember him saying that, so are you 100% sure?

As for Tyranids, while I'd love some new kits, they really need to fix the bajillion bad options in the codex.

I'm looking forward to it though. Pretty much every 6th Codex, except CSM, has been very well done in my opinion. I'm looking forward to this, if true, but it's still quite a ways off.

**-Loki-**

Did Space Hulk or Dreadfleet share a release month with a codex or army book? If so, then there's a better chance for Tyranids to see release this year.

**Sasori**

-Loki- wrote:
Did Space Hulk or Dreadfleet share a release month with a codex or army book? If so, then there's a better chance for Tyranids to see release this year.

I'm certain Dreadfleet did not, but this years release schedule is so dynamically different than the others that it can't really be compared.

**jifel**

My dearest wish would be as follows:

Plastic Tyranid Prime clampack
Resin Doom of Malan'tai
Plastic Mycetic Spore (~$40)
Plastic Harpy/new unit (~$60)
Plastic Dominatrix (~$85)

Fills out the obligatory kits, new Big guy and new flyer, rounds out our HQ choices and characters, and finally gives models for all those kits that need it.

**Caederes**

Sasori wrote:
Hastings did say Tyranids would be the next 40k release after Space Marines, if Inquisitor is released in the same month as Dark Elves it will probably confirm a month early that we are getting Tyranids in November.

If Hastings said it, then it's true. However, I don't remember him saying that, so are you 100% sure?

As for Tyranids, while I'd love some new kits, they really need to fix the bajillion bad options in the codex.

I'm looking forward to it though. Pretty much every 6th Codex, except CSM, has been very well done in my opinion. I'm looking forward to this, if true, but it's still quite a ways off.

Someone was going off what he said earlier and posted "Space Marines Orks Tyranids Imperial Guard" as the 40K release list, and Hastings replied with "move the Orks". As we know Space Marines are the next 40k book, it seems pretty clear that Tyranids are the following codex. From what I can gather though, they won't be releasing this year.

**kirsanth**

Optimistic. . .meh.
Cynical? Certainly, look what we have been given.
Interested, oh bloody hell yes.

Second time I get interested only to get the interesting parts destroyed. By the same guy no loss, as I play Tomb Kings too.

Fix it!
Own it!
Get it RIGHT!

**Theophony**

Maybe bugs will come out WITH the hobbit. If hobbit is doing so bad like everyone thinks they could toss bids in the same month to keep sales up.

**-Loki-**

Theophony wrote:
Maybe bugs will come out WITH the hobbit. If hobbit is doing so bad like everyone thinks they could toss bids in the same month to keep sales up.

The problem there is, again, The Hobbit is a December release, and the only December release GW make. They never release anything for their other Core games in December, only Hobbit/LotR stuff to coincide with the movie.

While they seem to be all about the money, they don't release new 40k/Fantasy stuff in the Christmas month.

**krazynadechukr**

I think the big bug kit will be either the Malefactor or Exocrene, unless they make it an either/or kit like they have been doing. Otherwise, maybe a whole new tyranid? Or, since they did Khorne Lord of Skulls (from Epic 40k into 28mm), maybe the Dominatrix (from epic)? Ooooohhhh

**-Loki-**

A dnominatirx would cause a few problems.

First, as you said, it's really an Apoc unit. They don't release Apoc units with codices, only with Apoc core releases or as waves (which they don't do now). Second, the Dominatrix isn't in the Apocalypse book, so unless a Warzone Macragge or something adds it, there's no official rules. They don't do models without rules.

Third, and this is the big one, it can't be a monstrous creature because its body shape and bulk would make it unable to fit on an oval base. While there's rules for gargantuans without bases, there's no such rule for MC's without bases. If it's a codex unit, it has to be an MC not a GC, which means it must fit on an oval base, which it won't unless they drastically change the design.

Fourth, GW have an aversion to using Epic units with Epic names in their codices. Anything that's ported from Epic to 40k by the GW studio is renamed and the old unit still exists in the fluff (with the sole exception of the Trygon, and that's only because they pilfered the entire design from Forgeworld), so even if we get 'giant psychic leader bug', it won't be a Dominatrix.

**kirsanth**

Wasn't the Trigon an Apoc unit?

**krazynadechukr**

The "BIG BUG" Kit is going to be larger than Tervigon, an oval base, it is hunched over, but wider, has an 18 "synapse, is a psyker 4, grants FNP and Counter Attack to Nids in 12", and has stats like Tervigon, except it has 2A and SitW.....

Now you know!

**-Loki-**

kirsanth wrote:
Wasn't the Trigon an Apoc unit?

As I said, when the GW studio brings a Epic unit into 40k, they completely redesign and rename it. It's a new unit. Forgeworld are more than happy to redo Epic units and keep their name.

The Trygon was pilfered, rules and design, from the Forgeworld redesign. They basically took that, changed it to a plastic kit and rules to a monstrous creature, broke the tunnel rule, and slapped it in the codex with a few options.

It doesn't fit the standard of GW bringing Epic units to 40k because GW didn't bring it to 40k, Forgeworld did, the studio just wanted that in the codex.

Look at the stuff the GW studio have brought from Epic. Wraith Knight? Jervis admitted it's a redesign of the Eldar Knight walkers, and even wanted the horse knight but it looked a bit silly. The Lord of Skulls is obviously a redesigned Lord of Battles. The Tervigon is obviously a redesigned Malefactor, and the Tyrannofex a redesigned Exocrine (there was even a debate in the studio to keep those names). All of them ended up as new units, new fluff, new names, new design.

The Trygon is the outlier because the GW studio didn't do the new design, and renaming it would have caused all kinds of confusion with the rules in Imperial Armour.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Third, and this is the big one, it can't be a monstrous creature because its body shape and bulk would make it unable to fit on an oval base.

BTW, who said it was lmtd to that base, or a base at all?

Because if it's in the codex, it has to be a monstrous creature (gargantuans are limited to apocalypse). Monstrous creatures require a base, because all measurements are done from the base like infantry. GW don't sell or make a base bigger than the oval base.

I did say this in the paragraph you snipped that out of, you know?

Look, I'm all for wishlisting, but there's design limitations GW impose on themselves.

**SpaceMonk**

The dex needs it customisable creatures back

If they do that its a win in my book

**-Loki-**

Customiseable creatures went too far. It's bad enough trying to remember what someones army can do, but when you can modify individual stats on them it becomes a nightmare for opponents (and cases of unintended cheating when someone forgets they didn't give an option to their unit).

Tyranids need a lot of their options back, but a standard profile for each unit is needed for ease of play.

**krazynadechukr**

-Loki- wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
Wasn't the Trigon an Apoc unit?

As I said, when the GW studio brings a Epic unit into 40k, they completely redesign and rename it. It's a new unit. Forgeworld are more than happy to redo Epic units and keep their name.

The Trygon was pilfered, rules and design, from the Forgeworld redesign. They basically took that, changed it to a plastic kit and rules to a monstrous creature, broke the tunnel rule, and slapped it in the codex with a few options.

It doesn't fit the standard of GW bringing Epic units to 40k because GW didn't bring it to 40k, Forgeworld did, the studio just wanted that in the codex.

Look at the stuff the GW studio have brought from Epic. Wraith Knight? Jervis admitted it's a redesign of the Eldar Knight walkers, and even wanted the horse knight but it looked a bit silly. The Lord of Skulls is obviously a redesigned Lord of Battles. The Tervigon is obviously a redesigned Malefactor, and the Tyrannofex a redesigned Exocrine (there was even a debate in the studio to keep those names). All of them ended up as new units, new fluff, new names, new design.

The Trygon is the outlier because the GW studio didn't do the new design, and renaming it would have caused all kinds of confusion with the rules in Imperial Armour.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

krazynadechukr wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Third, and this is the big one, it can't be a monstrous creature because its body shape and bulk would make it unable to fit on an oval base.

BTW, who said it was lmtd to that base, or a base at all?

Because if it's in the codex, it has to be a monstrous creature (gargantuans are limited to apocalypse). Monstrous creatures require a base, because all measurements are done from the base like infantry. GW don't sell or make a base bigger than the oval base.

I did say this in the paragraph you snipped that out of, you know?

Look, I'm all for wishlisting, but there's design limitations GW impose on themselves.

**kirsanth**

Repeating that Tyranids are the outlier for 40k conversions is not really helpful. I struggle to think of another they did first or worse.

I am certain that one should exists, but. . .yea.

It was a GC that is now a MC because of a codex addition. Assuming everything else could not be given the same treatment is just absurd.

**-Loki-**

What a great addition to the conversation!

**kirsanth**

Guessing you meant the post before mine.

**-Loki-**

kirsanth wrote:
Repeating that Tyranids are the outlier for 40k conversions is not really helpful. I struggle to think of another they did first or worse.

I am certain that one should exists, but. . .yea.

It was a GC that is now a MC because of a codex addition. Assuming everything else could not be given the same treatment is just absurd.

Again, I never said that. I said if it did happen, the very simple fact that a monstrous creature, as per the rles, needs a base which the dominatrix design is too big for, and the fact that when the GW studio brings an Epic unit to 40k they not only redesign but rename it and make it a new unit, means that any 'giant psychic leader bug' won't be a Dominatrix. It might be a giant psychic leader bug, but it'll have a new design, new name, new fluff, and won't be a Dominatrix.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:
Guessing you meant the post before mine.

Yeah.

**kirsanth**

Entirely viable as an option, but it seems to retread the same ground (not that that is out as an 'new' idea).

I read it as just as likely they will repurpose the same idea instead of inventing something like Hiveguard.
Perhaps it is just the rose-tints or somesuch.

**davethepak**

-Loki- wrote:
Customiseable creatures went too far. It's bad enough trying to remember what someones army can do, but when you can modify individual stats on them it becomes a nightmare for opponents (and cases of unintended cheating when someone forgets they didn't give an option to their unit).

Tyranids need a lot of their options back, but a standard profile for each unit is needed for ease of play.

This.

Just better options, or at least where its not one piece of wargear/option is so clearly better than all the others (scatter lasers anyone?).

I will be excited for nids, and I would not be surprised at all for a really big bug; and to the nay sayers, who would have predicted the tau riptide, or even more extreme the wraithknight (which would have easily fit into apoc).

If they can keep up the mostly good internal balance and nice build options of the last few books, I will be happy.

**kirsanth**

Wait.

Customizing gear per model, with options per squad, along with army wide changes is fine, but allowing Tyranids to modify a brood is too much?

You lost me.

Especially when you note that we get no allies.

You sound like a goon.

**-Loki-**

Cusstomising wargear per model is normal, part of every army in 40k, even Tyranids. Certain Tyranid broods being able to add to their ws, bs, strength, toughess, initiative and save base stats is far too much to keep track of and easily forgotten, either on purpose or accidentally.

Thanks for the insult though, I think I may report that.

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

I hope that if they are doing a huge, Wraithknight/Riptide equivalent MC, that they don't get lazy with it and just make it like a super-carnifex or something. I'd like it to be an original creature, not a variant of something that already exists.

**Absolutionis**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I hope that if they are doing a huge, Wraithknight/Riptide equivalent MC, that they don't get lazy with it and just make it like a super-carnifex or something. I'd like it to be an original creature, not a variant of something that already exists.

The "Tyrannofex" doesn't really give me faith in their creativity. With the trend in other armies, you may as well abandon all hope.

**lord_blackfang**

Carnage43 wrote:
Brother SRM wrote:
This sounds bogus to me. I can't see them recutting Gaunts and potentially Stealers, they have plenty of oval base bugs already, and I have no idea how they could fit into the release schedule, with Marines in September, supposedly Inquisition in October, a Fantasy release of some sort in November, and Hobbit in December to tie in with the new movie.

Agreed...this is just a list of models that don't have models in the current codex, with a big nasty tacked onto the end.

Thirded. It's just a list of things that seem like "safe bets" to aspiring trolls.

**Puscifer**

In before they turn Tervigons into transport beasts.

**monkeypuzzle**

RandyMcStab wrote:
Aren't pyrovores powerful enough already?

rofl

**V1ND4LOO**

No problem with nids getting a big gribbly. If anyone should have one it's them.