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.

 agnosto wrote:

 pretre wrote:


That's not rules. That's White Dwarf editorial fluff.
.

I know this is a dead horse but the rules say very much the same thing.

The rule for point of reference:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the closest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the shooting phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different target unit but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."

Is someone able to point out to me where the rules for a MC firing from the base are located in the BRB, I see nothing in the shooting section and the MC section just has this:
Monstrous Creatures: Shooting
"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target. They may never Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Thanks. Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply curious.

The general rules for measuring between units require you to measure range from the base.
The general rules for Line of Sight say nothing about drawing LoS from the guns.
Since there are no exceptions to those rules in the MC rules, they still apply.

rigeld2 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 pretre wrote:


That's not rules. That's White Dwarf editorial fluff.
.

I know this is a dead horse but the rules say very much the same thing.

The rule for point of reference:
"Each weapon on this model automatically fires at the closest enemy unit within range and line of sight. The shots are resolved at the end of the shooting phase before Morale checks are taken. Each weapon can fire at a different target unit but they cannot be fired in any other way or at any other time."

Is someone able to point out to me where the rules for a MC firing from the base are located in the BRB, I see nothing in the shooting section and the MC section just has this:
Monstrous Creatures: Shooting
"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase - they must, of course, fire both at the same target. They may never Go to Ground, voluntarily or otherwise."

Thanks. Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply curious.

The general rules for measuring between units require you to measure range from the base.
The general rules for Line of Sight say nothing about drawing LoS from the guns.
Since there are no exceptions to those rules in the MC rules, they still apply.

Ahh, that's what I was missing. Thanks!

it's obvious how the rule want thses guns to be fired. I don't understand why it's a point of contention for some. Guess some like to be contrarian for the sake of it.

Though they clearly could have made a bette job of clarifying it

I agree from a RAI perspective. But this is another in the long list of ways the rules are not written with consistency in mind.

You shouldn't have to wade through intent and interpretations to play a game. It hinders the game at every level of participation.

you do need ap2 or ap1 to one shot a vehicule since the vehicule damage chart changed in 7th, but it is possible.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
you do need ap2 or ap1 to one shot a vehicule since the vehicule damage chart changed in 7th, but it is possible.

Doesn't open topped allow non AP1/2 weapons to still explode on pens?

indeed, but the discussion was about comparing droppods to the new spores and the droppods arent open topped

 Eldarain wrote:

 fartherthanfar wrote:
you do need ap2 or ap1 to one shot a vehicule since the vehicule damage chart changed in 7th, but it is possible.

Doesn't open topped allow non AP1/2 weapons to still explode on pens?

Yep. Is a drop pod open-topped? I'm not an SM player, so I actually don't know. If the answer is yes, then a S7 weapon could one shot a drop pod, but the chances are very slim (roll a 6 for armor pen, then roll another 6 = 1/36 chance of popping it) vs. the almost guaranteed ID from a S10 weapon (which will almost certainly bypass the 4+ armor save and ID it unless it is shrouded or something).

Again, I don't see a lot of S10, so I'm not too concerned about this issue. I also don't think many people are going to want to assault these things. Except Orks, they assault everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fartherthanfar wrote:
indeed, but the discussion was about comparing droppods to the new spores and the droppods arent open topped

Well, there you go. Never mind.

 fartherthanfar wrote:
indeed, but the discussion was about comparing droppods to the new spores and the droppods arent open topped

They are in my Marine Codex. What makes you say they aren't?

really, I was saying it as a top of mind thing
I might be wrong im not looking at a codex
so theyr open topped eh, that nice to know

 pretre wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
When was the last time GW updated infantry for 40k?

Would it have killed them to make a new type of infantry?

Not sure if serious...

There have been a ton of new infantry kits this year and a ton of new/updated infantry units...

Cavalry Genestealers...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Astra Militarum saw the Scions and Ogryn kits.

Orks had Flash Gits. DE had Wracks. Eldar had Wraiths.

So yeah, there's been a lot of updated/new infantry.

OK when I say new infantry I mean new infantry not updates to current finecrap.

I mean an alternate form of line infantry. It's not like its so hard to understand, they have made up:

Crone
Horruspex
exocrine
toxicrene
Toxicrene variant (forgot name)

Yet they haven't released a new small bug kit in forever. I like the new kits but it would be nice to see some new line troops, the list of MC's from that book is getting hilariously long.

makes me wonder how much more cost efficient these large kits must be.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
When was the last time GW updated infantry for 40k?

Would it have killed them to make a new type of infantry?

Not sure if serious...

There have been a ton of new infantry kits this year and a ton of new/updated infantry units...

Cavalry Genestealers...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Astra Militarum saw the Scions and Ogryn kits.

Orks had Flash Gits. DE had Wracks. Eldar had Wraiths.

So yeah, there's been a lot of updated/new infantry.

OK when I say new infantry I mean new infantry not updates to current finecrap.

I mean an alternate form of line infantry. It's not like its so hard to understand, they have made up:

Crone
Horruspex
exocrine
toxicrene
Toxicrene variant (forgot name)

Yet they haven't released a new small bug kit in forever. I like the new kits but it would be nice to see some new line troops, the list of MC's from that book is getting hilariously long.

makes me wonder how much more cost efficient these large kits must be.

What about the updated Warrior and Hive Guard kits? One is an upgrade for two kits, but I at least welcomed the new warriors. We currently have five troop choices(six if you count the Tervigon). Not really much more we need- maybe just tweaking the current rules for them. Hormagaunts/Genestealers changed to beasts might be enough.
Current infantry for tyranids-
Warriors and Prime(and shrikes)
Lictors
Tyrant guard
Hive guard
Pyrovores
Venomthropes
Zoanthropes
Genestealers(and Broodlord)
Hormagaunts
Termagants
Rippers(and skyslashers)
Gargoyles
Ravenors
Biovores
What gaps need to be filled?(other than infantry that could hurt armor at range-for some reason we are denied that).

Wow! These new Nid Models are GORGEOUS! Well done GW! I've really been blown away by the kits they've released so far this year.

 pretre wrote:

Byron40k wrote:
aiaiaiai... is anyone of you reading the rules or just talking?


it says clearly: MEASURE FROM THE MUZZLE OF EACH GUN!

http://i.imgur.com/gqr5Lzr.jpg

last paragraph on the left. And if you are looking at "16" now go a few lines up. Thanks.


(pic from 3plusplus.net forum)

That's not rules. That's White Dwarf editorial fluff.

Pretty much this. White Dwarf gets a LOT of rules wrong... although occasionally they get things right, like the revelation that you don't need to obscure 25% of a monstrous creature in order to give it a cover save. And again, given that that statement is not made in the actual models rules, but in a separate editorial discussion on it, its irrelevant.

I agree from a RAI perspective. But this is another in the long list of ways the rules are not written with consistency in mind.

You shouldn't have to wade through intent and interpretations to play a game. It hinders the game at every level of participation.

I used to play the RAI way, but after a while it got tiring trying to figure that out and explain it to people, etc. at this point its just easier to play to the letter of the rules. If GW doesn't like it they can FAQ it.

Hey I just got my White Dwarf in the mail, Issue 40 (Toxicrene/Malceptor) and it came with a little card titled "The evolution of the end" that has the 4 stages of a Tyranid attack on one side written out like; I - Invasion, II - Predation, III - Consumption, IV - Assimilation with artwork to go with all 4 and on the other side it has "1 INVASION" with the artwork of the first but a bit larger, it also came with a like a Tyranid pin that has the Mucolid Spore on it.

Not sure if it's been covered yet. I can post a picture if anyone is interested.

But as it stands if the Malceptor and Toxicrene were a teaser of sorts and the Tyrannocyst and Sporocyst are "Stage 1 - Invasion" and the Venomthrope and Zoanthrope have vanished from the web stores leading the the belief they have a dual plastic kit coming (backed up by the fact the the preview for the White Dwarf after issue #41 has a teaser for "The Psychic Horror". Could this mean a potential 4-5 waves for Tyranids? 1 for each week of November perhaps?

Oh God how I wish...

Im going to guess Venomthrope/Zoanthrope are Predation, maybe we'll see Parasite for Consumption?

I still think the GW model looks hideous compared to Hydracast Drop Spores

 Sir Arun wrote:
I still think the GW model looks hideous compared to Hydracast Drop Spores

Yeah but that guy is an artist who rivals Forge World in terms of quality, his other models are even more beautiful. I'm the proud owner of at least 1 of everything he's done (2 of his Tervigons)

 Zande4 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I still think the GW model looks hideous compared to Hydracast Drop Spores

Yeah but that guy is an artist who rivals Forge World in terms of quality, his other models are even more beautiful. I'm the proud owner of at least 1 of everything he's done (2 of his Tervigons)

Er GW is Forgeworld... They have great sculptors too, just perhaps they rush models instead of making them beautiful. Main difference I'd say is GW is very hit or miss (but so is FW).

 Kirasu wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I still think the GW model looks hideous compared to Hydracast Drop Spores

Yeah but that guy is an artist who rivals Forge World in terms of quality, his other models are even more beautiful. I'm the proud owner of at least 1 of everything he's done (2 of his Tervigons)

Er GW is Forgeworld... They have great sculptors too, just perhaps they rush models instead of making them beautiful. Main difference I'd say is GW is very hit or miss (but so is FW).

I never said it wasn't? And if you can't tell the difference between the detail of a Forge World model and a Games Workshop (I'm referring to the plastic ones on their main site, I know they're the same company) then perhaps you've never owned one?

 pretre wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
and the removal of the finecast zoanthrope and venomthrope models from GW's webstore.

That's hardly an indicator. Just all the Bret players.

Not even when it's done to only two Tyranid models in their range, which just happen to share a similar look (hence could be made into a dual-kit), in a month where new Tyranid models are coming out and just when an announcement for a 'Psychic Horror' is made?

I'm not sure what Bretonnia's status is, as I don't follow or play Fantasy, but I'm not sure it's fair to compare the two armies. 40k has received far more releases than Fantasy over the last few years and Tyranids are probably one of the best supported armies in 40k, receiving a codex and new models every edition since their release.

Just how often has the removal of Tyranid models from GW's website not been a precursor to them receiving an update of some sorts (move to finecast or a new plastic model)? It's not like a Zoanthrope is some obscure special character with a vastly outdated model that they can just scrap from the range.

Holy floating testicle - That Tyrranic...thing...is erm well...

...And aquired taste I guess...But seriously, $68?



...Time to dig up the old Spore Pod mold, then!

'Bout time the nids got some love. Not thrilled about the actual models though. They probably look better IRL, which most models tend to do.

 Treadheadz wrote:

Holy floating testicle - That Tyrranic...thing...is erm well...

You may want to consider a visiting a doctor...

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Im all for tyranids getting better, but drop pods are a HUGE problem in this edition. They need to be not able to even contest objectives, or give you linebreaker for what they do and how many points they are, its broken. here is my space marine drop pod army. Blow 12 pods off the board by turn 5 or lose the game, Hope you dident have something else you needed to shoot more.

A single Tyranid drop pod nearly 3x the cost of a Space Marine drop pod.

Space Marine Drop pods may be a problem this edition, but I do not foresee The Tyranid ones having the same impact as they are much more expensive and not objective secured.

They may be only a little over the cost of 2,but they also bring to the table 2x the number of units Wong, they both bring 1 unit in.
or MCs which are largely favored this edition and also 5x the shooting. At Bs 2 or even more points invested.
They also have 2x the wounds with 6 and can only be instakilled with a str 10, while regular drop pods can be killed with 1 shot with anything str 7 or higher no matter the ap. Lol what?....no. hullpoints are much more valuable than wounds that have a 4+ armor save. Drop pods cant be one shotted by anything s7 or higher, read up on your rules.
Assaulting this will also be much tougher because still a MC so ap 2, while a drop pod for space marines is auto hits for the attacker. Of course why would your opponent assault it in the first place?

Decent arguments, but you stated them all funky.

Im glad for the nids.
But its not making them top tier OP.

First part you got me I meant to say models, but accidentally put units when I meant models. Still being BS that is still quite a few shots at str 5, where drop pods on have a storm bolter, unless want to drop another 15 pts. on a deathwind that is marginal at best. Though I would say hull points are much worse than wounds, especially in an army that can easily get FnP and atleast the wounds have a save, no save for a drop pod in the open. And yes drop pods can be killed with 1 shot str 7 or higher, they are only armor 12 and open topped, so if roll 6 to pen and then 6 on table, kaboom. Regarding assaulting them at least marines could try and kill it with grenades opposed to trying to shoot and wound on 5s, where grenades wound on 3s and stops quite a bit of shooting.

I like the idear of a toxicrene or a exocrine crawling out of the pod behind the enermy
Very dangerous

 Sir Arun wrote:
I still think the GW model looks hideous compared to Hydracast Drop Spores

Spoiler:

You're entitled to your own opinion, and I agree from a technical perspective it looks nice, but it looks too static to me. Seems more like terrain than anything threatening.

I like the GW model better than most or all of the third-party mycetic spores. The GW model fits the Tyranid aesthetic well, while most third-party spores don't.

Anyone using a third-party spore better be ready to allow their opponents to draw LOS through it, because the official model is elevated and is clearly not intended to be a major factor with LOS blocking.

I agree with Gorgon, plus the models in hand will be a major factor vs the photos. I generally don't care for the colors GW uses for their Nids anyway, no sinister enough for me.
Really amazing release!

Speaking of Rules Disptues with these Pods...

There has been A LOT of people, not me, arguing that because the rulebook says a Gargantuan Creature is a Monstorous Creature it can fit into a Tyranocyte...


I've poopooed it MANY times, but I just find it hilarious people think its legal to do this