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.

Hi guys,

first I ve to say sorry for my bad english.

I am wondering why so many people are still using tervigons in their lists. It would spawn just 23 gaunts in average per game and if it dies it kills most of them. Sure its a scoring MC but if you substract the average number of gaunts you pay around 100 Points for it. Seems cheap for a MC with synapse, 6HP and psychik powers but you have to take also 30 Termagants to make it scoring.

Summed up you spend 315 Points for a scoring MC and 53 (++/--) Termagants. The letter ones aren't a great choice, cause the only thing they are good at is sitting on an objective, as long as they stay in synapse range and for synapse you need another unit to minimize the risk of them beeing blown up with your Tervigon. Is this the best choice to spend 315 points in your troops options?

Alternatively you can spend the whole points in Hormagaunts, and a synapse babysitter, for example a Tyranid Prime who can join the unit (assuming that you ve got the free HQ slot) or 3 Zoanthropes. I think that would be a much more flexible and reliable investment.


What do you think? Is the Tervigon still worth it or are there better options?

I think they can be ok in bigger games when you will take 30 termagants anyway and need a synaps to baby sit 2-3 biovores.

Hard to say at the moment. They're not a spamming unit anymore though I'll bet, but I can definitely see the benefits of having 1 or 2 T6 W6 MCs babysit an objective while pooping out Gants every turn and providing a synapse bubble. They got nerfed hardcore, but at least there's some actual thought that has to go into working them into a list now.

Worth taking one because we need the Synapse and durable scoring unit, especially with how punishing Instinctive Behaviour is in the new book.

Yes, a single Tervigon is worth it. 30 gants are a good stand alone choice. People also keep comparing the Tervigon to last edition. If it's not as good as then, it must suck now right? No. It loses out on a few CC gimmicks (who's assaulting anyways? Gants just need to tarpit.) Biomancy nerf is rough, but we have Dominion which can help a lot with new IB charts. It's still paying 33 points per wound for scoring, Toughness 6, 3+. Yeah, that's worth it. Spawning gants is just a bonus.

Consider that we pay 32 points per model for wounds on a Trygon, this gets scoring and is more durable as it doesn't have to get close. One, with Dominion, can anchor a back line and hide well.

 jifel wrote:
People also keep comparing the Tervigon to last edition. If it's not as good as then, it must suck now right? No.

Yep, thats how most people think. I think the Tervigon is now more balanced to the rest of the Codex. Its not an auto-include any more and you have to consider if there are no better options for you re kind of army, but it can still be a valid option.

Personally I wouldn't take it, cause it doesnt fit into my bug-rush list and due to the fact that i don't like bugs with guns (Termagants). Therefor I really love the CC bugs even though they might not compete as well as a more balanced list.

30 'Gaunts and unlocking the Tervigon as a troops choice is worth it. Just one though. Any more could be a small liability taking points away from other units in the Codex.

2-3 of them? No way. One sitting on an objective squirting out more 'Gaunts is good.

 jifel wrote:
People also keep comparing the Tervigon to last edition. If it's not as good as then, it must suck now right? No.

It got more expensive.
It doesn't give its upgrades to its children any more.
It's children cannot move/assault when they appear.
It's scything talons do almost literally nothing now compared to the previous Codex, and giving it Crushing Claws is pointless.
Its Troops tax went up (doesn't bother me TBH, but it does bother some people).
It kills more things when it dies over a larger radius.
It lost access to book powers.

But it's Initiative went up by 1, so I guess it balances out right?

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is objectively worse. Trying to pretend that everything is fine and that nothing is broken is a terrible way to view this unit (and this Codex). The Terivon has been hit with the nerf stick, and then hit again... and again... and again... and so on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 jifel wrote:
People also keep comparing the Tervigon to last edition. If it's not as good as then, it must suck now right? No.

It got more expensive.
It doesn't give its upgrades to its children any more.
It's children cannot move/assault when they appear.
It's scything talons do almost literally nothing now compared to the previous Codex, and giving it Crushing Claws is pointless.
Its Troops tax went up (doesn't bother me TBH, but it does bother some people).
It kills more things when it dies over a larger radius.
It lost access to book powers.

But it's Initiative went up by 1, so I guess it balances out right?

This isn't a matter of opinion. It is objectively worse. Trying to pretend that everything is fine and that nothing is broken is a terrible way to view this unit (and this Codex). The Terivon has been hit with the nerf stick, and then hit again... and again... and again... and so on.

No doubt. I mean, the other codecies troop spawning MCs that can also score (if one is so inclined) are way better than the Tervigon. Oh wait...

/sarcasm off

I really like how H.B.M.C. cuts off Jifel's quote to not show how he DID mention some of the negative nerfs the Tervigon received, along with his reasoning for why he still thinks the Tervigon is worth it's points. I guess it was at the end of the quoted sentence that he "saw red" and had to put the free thinking, granola munching, Tervigon loving mental patient back in line with the rest of crowd.

It's not lost on me that this response is as unhelpful and unfriendly as the one I'm mocking. Ah well...forums.

 jifel wrote:
Yes, a single Tervigon is worth it. 30 gants are a good stand alone choice. People also keep comparing the Tervigon to last edition. If it's not as good as then, it must suck now right? No. It loses out on a few CC gimmicks (who's assaulting anyways? Gants just need to tarpit.) Biomancy nerf is rough, but we have Dominion which can help a lot with new IB charts. It's still paying 33 points per wound for scoring, Toughness 6, 3+. Yeah, that's worth it. Spawning gants is just a bonus.

Consider that we pay 32 points per model for wounds on a Trygon, this gets scoring and is more durable as it doesn't have to get close. One, with Dominion, can anchor a back line and hide well.

I never factored in gant spawns to the cost of a Tervigon anyway so the fact that it averagely takes what out what it brought in when it dies is, well, ok. Even if you don't have the Tervigon you should be packing a 30 man gant squad regardless, I hardly view that as a cost to taking it, and for the same reason I don't really care about them not being able to move that turn. The real setbacks to him now relative to last edition, are him not providing TS/AG to your Term's, and powers. Biomancy nerf does definitely hurt, but mostly for its CC side of things, which is where I disagree with you. Crushing Claws Warp Speed Tervigon was an absolute beast in CC, with smash he was a Scoring/Synapse/Gantspawning/AG+TS-providing Carnifex with more attacks, With the ability to outflank him now, I'd be taking him with CC + All 3 Biomancy powers each game if they were still an option.

So let's put things into perspective, as I could be going either way with this statement. As you said, 32 points per Synapse T6 3+ wound. Compare this to warriors who are 30 pts for a Synapse T5 +4 wound, with far FAR higher damage output. But wait, Warriors aren't 30 pts per wound, they are 30 pts per 3 wounds - with instant death making it the possibility of them only being a wound each. So even assuming high Str fire towards both of them and counting Warriors as 1 wound each I think they are on a similar power level, a squad of 6 warriors with Deathspitters being able to melt gak, but a Tervigon have 1 more point of toughness per wound. The difference in firepower is quite substantial and comparable, instead of 18x S5 AP5 shots, he gets 4x S5 AP4 shots or a large blast no AP, and instead of 24x S4 attacks on the charge at WS6, he gets 4x S6 or 2x S10 attacks at WS3 on the charge. The only other thing he can do that warriors can't is hope for a lucky Catalyst roll, and hope for lucky Termagant rolls. Warriors can also be used to safely Synapse termagant squads (your staple troop choice) as well as having a much larger Synapse bubble and being able to split into smaller groups. Tervigon is either on par but likely worse than Warriors now.

And Warrior's are not good units.


Sorry, but H.B.M.C. is right. There was just a few too many nerfs to unit. I'm looking at this trying to be objective and unbiased and trying to encompass all the information to do with them, but their use is very niche now. They are now on a level as playable as warriors, because of the added reliance on Synapse with this dex they might just be necessary, but they are a bad unit all in all. I think for me I would prefer a Warrior squad.

Personally, they are perfect for my swarm lists. I tend to make lists with 60 gants and 2 Tervs then work from there. The synapse is invaluable and despite the increase in price, a scoring MC is great to have. I think the days of seeing 3+ Terv lists are gone (luckily). But they still have a place in the army.

Really the nid codex is now more about synergy. You can spam certain units to win, but its not like the 5th ed codex. It takes a lot of thought and testing to find the right combination for 6th, but it's worth it.

I don't understand why you would choose Synapse that can down your entire swarm army with it when it dies, but meh I don't know how they do it where you play.

It would have to be a pretty large (probably Apoc) sized game for me to consider a Tervigon now. While I can forgive most of the other nerfs, the changes to Synaptic Backlash leave me utterly perplexed. Now not only do they kill the very unit they're meant to synergise with, and not only is it harder to avoid, but you're even more reliant on synapse for the army to function.

What other unit in the game is such a liability for the owning player? (Un-FAQ'd Pyrovores not withstanding)

 SHUPPET wrote:
So let's put things into perspective, as I could be going either way with this statement. As you said, 32 points per Synapse T6 3+ wound. Compare this to warriors who are 30 pts for a Synapse T5 +4 wound, with far FAR higher damage output. But wait, Warriors aren't 30 pts per wound, they are 30 pts per 3 wounds - with instant death making it the possibility of them only being a wound each. So even assuming high Str fire towards both of them and counting Warriors as 1 wound each I think they are on a similar power level, a squad of 6 warriors with Deathspitters being able to melt gak, but a Tervigon have 1 more point of toughness per wound. The difference in firepower is quite substantial and comparable, instead of 18x S5 AP5 shots, he gets 4x S5 AP4 shots or a large blast no AP, and instead of 24x S4 attacks on the charge at WS6, he gets 4x S6 or 2x S10 attacks at WS3 on the charge. The only other thing he can do that warriors can't is hope for a lucky Catalyst roll, and hope for lucky Termagant rolls. Warriors can also be used to safely Synapse termagant squads (your staple troop choice) as well as having a much larger Synapse bubble and being able to split into smaller groups. Tervigon is either on par but likely worse than Warriors now.

And Warrior's are not good units.

That is a convincing argument to take warriors, thanks. Not that I mind, the Tervigon hurts my aesthetic sensibilities, and I was looking for an excuse to ditch it. Still, I'd have preferred that warriors would have been boosted to the level of a 5th ed. Tervigon, instead of nerfing the Tervigon to the level of warriors.

They made Warriors an option to consider not by buffing them, but by nerfing everything else and making Instinctive Behaviour more punishing... I hate you, Cruddace.

If you only compare the Tervigon to last edition, it will look bad. Yes, it is worse than before. No questions asked. That isn't the point here, the point is "is it worth it?" I think it is, because it is an incredibly tough troops choice that makes more troops. It is no longer an assault beast, but I never used it as that anyways. It is now a mono-role unit, but it is JUST as good at scoring as it was before. So use it for support and Dominion and you should really be fine.

A Tervigon is as durable as 6 warriors against krak missiles. It takes 50% more bolster shots to kill the Tervigon though, and more Battlecannon hits as well. It is also less vulnerable to auto cannons and missiles. Cast Dominion and his range is better than Warriors. Spawn one unit of gants and roll anything but 1,1,1, and he is now less net points than those less durable Warriors.

The Tervigon used to have two roles potentially: Objective holder or Assaulting brick. She is no longer a good assault unit, but is now scoring and support only. Any other role is a waste, but she is still tough as nails. I will still take one in every list.

Tough as nails? Are we playing the same game? I can't think of a single army that can't put down a T6 W6 3+ creature that when it dies takes out a HUGE chunk of the army with it. Any player with a bit of common sense will focus fire it down to nothing, killing a major chunk of your scoring units in one blow. I intend to run a single Tervigon with a venomthrope baby sitter to make sure the damn thing doesn't just explode second turn, this is not GOOD synergy, this is BAD synergy. Good synergy is when two decent units make each other work better and becoming great units. Bad synergy is when you have a terrible unit that relies on another to become useful again.

My main issue with the tervigon is it applies no benefit to termagants except for synapse while providing a major drawback to the main unit its meant to synergise with, its better used for babysitting shooters like hive guard or biovores or moveing with carnifex's.

I guess relying on other units for synapse for termagants is a much better idea.

Yep.....

I took it out of my list as much as I like a Spawning unit.

If i want Synapse I'll take Zoans. They Ignore 2/3s of ID attacks and have 10/1 Lance or 5/3 Blast.

I might try a Tervigon behind the Zoans handing off hordes of little buggers to them so when he dies he won't kill anything.

2 Tervs handing off Bugs to 2 groups of Zoans w/ Venoms giving cover? Shoot at the terv thru Zoans and they'll have 3+ cover b/c of the Venoms.

Tervigons only went from "single greatest Troops unit in the game" to "arguably the single greatest Troops unit in the game".

They are a scoring unit that makes other scoring units of significant size. They are too dangerous for almost anything to get near and leave alive (if you're less than T6 and don't have Eternal Warrior, don't stand near a Tervigon). They are tough enough to ignore the offense of nearly ever other Troops unit. They are Fearless with a 12-18" Fearless bubble.

Tervigons do things out of the Troops slot what many other armies can only get out of HQ or Elite.

one in a list works for me.

I might be getting the gants anyway, and its a durable synapse unit that can score, and thats enough.

Yeah, its crap now compared to before as others comment, but I can't do anything about that, so I just try see how it works now.

Unless I roll catalyst, I go for the primaris for backfield synapse. I usually don't keep any gants near it anyway (if I bother to spawn some, they are for distraction, multi assault etc.).

So, worth it....that will depend on your list.

For me, they are useful enough in my current lists.

One in troops to hold objectives with zero upgrades is still workable (because the rest of the troop options are literally more terrible), but that's about it. To be completely fair, this unit stopped being viable anyhow about the time "markerlighting Riptide" entered the metagames of most areas.

Just because something is objectively worse than before does not make it objectively worthless.

No, but it is still largely worthless outside of camping objectives and generating synapse. It has no real ranged threat capabilities and cannot fight its way out of a wet paper bag. If it could not be a troop choice, no one would have ever taken one before, let alone now.

 Phazael wrote:
No, but it is still largely worthless outside of camping objectives and generating synapse. It has no real ranged threat capabilities and cannot fight its way out of a wet paper bag. If it could not be a troop choice, no one would have ever taken one before, let alone now.

Sounds like tac marines. Welcome to the club!

Even without paying points for upgrades, TAC marines are able to do stuff at range, bare minimum. Bolters still kill guys, which is more than the Tervigon can pull off. You can still stuff them in a pod to drop in on an objective across the board. With a single fist, they will beat down that Tervigon in close combat (most Nid MCs in fact). It can do all of these things for less than a naked Tervigon costs. TAC Marines might be bland, but they are far from useless.

 Phazael wrote:
Even without paying points for upgrades, TAC marines are able to do stuff at range, bare minimum. Bolters still kill guys, which is more than the Tervigon can pull off. You can still stuff them in a pod to drop in on an objective across the board. With a single fist, they will beat down that Tervigon in close combat (most Nid MCs in fact). It can do all of these things for less than a naked Tervigon costs. TAC Marines might be bland, but they are far from useless.

They're pretty damn close to useless. There's a thread for that, though. It's possible the Tervigon is worse now, I'm not denying that.

 Phazael wrote:
Even without paying points for upgrades, TAC marines are able to do stuff at range, bare minimum. Bolters still kill guys, which is more than the Tervigon can pull off. You can still stuff them in a pod to drop in on an objective across the board. With a single fist, they will beat down that Tervigon in close combat (most Nid MCs in fact). It can do all of these things for less than a naked Tervigon costs. TAC Marines might be bland, but they are far from useless.

...and tac marines don't blow up and kill your scouts marines when they die.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
Even without paying points for upgrades, TAC marines are able to do stuff at range, bare minimum. Bolters still kill guys, which is more than the Tervigon can pull off. You can still stuff them in a pod to drop in on an objective across the board. With a single fist, they will beat down that Tervigon in close combat (most Nid MCs in fact). It can do all of these things for less than a naked Tervigon costs. TAC Marines might be bland, but they are far from useless.

...and tac marines don't blow up and kill your scouts marines when they die.

Yeah, that's true. Tac marines are putrid, but GW can always print something worse.