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.

The garbage truck on legs, king of the bin men, scavenger supreme. The one, the only, the haruspex does hit hit on 3's.

Haruspex has the same statline as the new Exocrine, except it goes from the 4 attacks base to 5.

Grasping tongue changes from D3 to flat 3 damage
Ravenous maw changes from D3 to flat 2 damage
Claws change from D6 to D3+3 damage

 Sasori wrote:
I'll add on to the Chorus that I don't think the Tyrannofex is getting T9. I could see more wounds though.

I'm okay with this being the toughness design choice for big bugs, if it's T8/2+. Diffrenates them quite a bit from -1 D and 5++ that's rolling around everywhere.

I'm curious How many bugs are going to get the upped toughness treatment.

And the Crusher Stampede says, "Why not both?!"

 xttz wrote:
Haruspex has the same statline as the new Exocrine, except it goes from the 4 attacks base to 5.

Grasping tongue changes from D3 to flat 3 damage
Ravenous maw changes from D3 to flat 2 damage
Claws change from D6 to D3+3 damage

Spoiler:

Thanks for that! Was a bit annoyed that we got the Exo and no pics of the Haruspex to be honest Between the two, the later needed a buff more so it's to get the pics!

The maw is currently doing D3 hit per attacks, so going flat 2 or 3 would be great. Just hope they get a better mechanic for the claws!

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I would be fine with the Trygon being a softer target if it comes with an increase in movement, it is a giant ravener after all.

I never understood why Raveners should be that fast. Unless they use their bodies as a coil springs they should be slower than any other creature of similar size and weight with legs. I guess it's a heritage of the not-thought over-so-well 3rd edition codex.

Like many Tyranid organisms they have unexplained factors in their capabilities (IMO wise of GW as no explanation is generally better than a bad one). Nothing about their form suggests or explains how they might burrow so quickly, we can infer that there is some sci-fi biotrickery allowing that. Perhaps it boosts their speed above ground as well.

Sidenote; nothing stopping them from using arms for movement either, modeling such would just mean they don't fit on the base!

In 40k, being a long boi makes you fast, ask the Necrons with their Wraiths and Ophydian Destroyers.

Well if you move via hovering legs would just be extra weight! You do have a point though, GW tends to make snake-bodied things really fast. Which is odd because it isn't an adaptation known or used for speed.

Welp. Seeing the Eldar previews has me hoping we get some teases of our own soon and some shenanigans to book.

Eldar Guardians with a 4+, melee Guardians getting the option for a 5++ and transhuman lite perma....and all guardians getting rerolls of 1 in objective range...?

At this point I hope we get shenanigans other than base toughness and save increases across our monsters.

Tyranids getting an armywide Transhuman would be hilarious but probably would make people explode in rage - even if it was something like 'as long as they're in Synapse range' - fluffy and fitting, showing the Hive Mind just pushing them on regardless of damage.

I'm getting a bad gut feeling though.

A horrible gut feeling that sees us end up the 6th ed Ork equivalent - where there was blatant power ramp...with the exception of Orks who were very sub par even compared to the older 6th ed books!

Considering Tyranids are currently winning tournaments thanks to all the layers of shenanigans from PA, Leviathan and Crusher Stampede, I find that a weird hope.

We already have plenty of shenanigans, what we actually need are decent stats so we do not rely on shenanigans so damn much.

Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

Here's to hoping they can be both at once/either.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

This. A nid swarm, fluffwise isn't just hordes of gribblies, it's a mix of everything top to bottom.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

 Sasori wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

Imo they should expand the Crusher stampede concept to favor whatever big monster is concerned, by Hive Fleets rules :

- meleefex/Haruspex in Behemoth

- Trigon/Mawloc in Jormungandr

- Toxicrene in Gorgon

- Exocrine/shootyfex in Kronos

etc.

It would be awesome to make certain big monsters much more threatening when playing a certain hive fleet.

By extension, making raveners better than warriors when playing jormungadr, and other little difference that would make each hive fleet much more unique.

 Sasori wrote:

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

I'm concerned that the existence of Crusher Stampede will make that tricky. Even if the codex has "perfect" internal balance between the various list archetypes then CS is going to swing it towards nidzilla.
Will be interesting to see what happens with the existing nid rules.

 xttz wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

I'm concerned that the existence of Crusher Stampede will make that tricky. Even if the codex has "perfect" internal balance between the various list archetypes then CS is going to swing it towards nidzilla.
Will be interesting to see what happens with the existing nid rules.

They can always errata away crusher stampede or fix it. I would hope they are not basing the monsters balance on a single AOR.

That being said, it's quite possible it will be the most comp form of nids until it gets fixed, but as long as the actual codex is solid internally, that's fine with me at least.

 Tyran wrote:
We already have plenty of shenanigans, what we actually need are decent stats so we do not rely on shenanigans so damn much.

Hit the nail on the head. Being able to do well with Leviathan + Crusher Stampede + specific units makes the faction something of a one-trick pony.

I'm hoping the army is getting appropriate buffs to underperforming units while dialing back the shenanigans, to make a variety of builds viable without any particular ones overperforming.

I want better internal balance. It's been bad for ages, always with certain units/gimmicks being a near requirement. Obviously every army has that to some extent but I feel Nids have always really suffered by just how awful the army gets when stepping outside the optimum.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

I'd much rather see them do this to Orks. It's depressing that Ork armies have so few... y'know... Orks.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

I'd much rather see them do this to Orks. It's depressing that Ork armies have so few... y'know... Orks.

That’s gonna need a fundamental change to the core game in order to make big units viable. In both cases, I feel.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

I'd much rather see them do this to Orks. It's depressing that Ork armies have so few... y'know... Orks.

That’s gonna need a fundamental change to the core game in order to make big units viable. In both cases, I feel.

Tyranids are already 50% closer by being able to ignore morale - that's a massive detriment to the current Ork horde now.

Another issue is GW's insistence on inflating the cost of basic troops since late 8th / early 9th. Cultists & grots being 5ppm is the most obvious example, but it also affects things like gaunts and boyz. One solution I liked was to just have diminishing costs for horde units. So hypothetically you could have gaunts cost say 6ppm. But if you take over 15 or 20 in the unit they all become 5ppm instead, and perhaps there's a 4ppm tier too.

That adds a trade-off against blast weapons currently making MSU the auto-take option.

MSU is VERY heavily pushed in AoS right now as well.

Heck right now in AoS each unit is bought only at its minimum unit count. You then have "reinforcement" points which allow you to increase the number of models in a unit by "1 box" worth of models (in general). However at 2K points you only have 4 of those reinforcement points.

So suddenly you can only have, at most, 2 full units; assuming most units come in 10 model boxes and have 30 units to a full unit. Ergo 2 reinforcement points to reach 30 models.



It skews things heavily and whilst it has a bonus in that it makes middle-weight elite style units more viable since they are no longer having to compete purely against big infantry blocks; it has the other flipside of making the game more of a middle skirmish in appearance from what it was before. It also means that, esp in AoS, you are kind of encouraged to have lots of command models per boxed set you build. This can, to me, appear very silly when you've things like cavalry where there's perhaps 5 models to a set and of those 5, 3 are command models (Slaanesh is even worst, they have 4 to a set of 5).

That was fine when units game in 10-20 blocks; but in 5 unit blocks you suddenly have more commanders on the field than actual fighting troops. Visually its jarring. Though I do notice that newer model sets are reducing the command element.

I suspect banners and musicians will be things of the past, in time, in infantry sets; being replaced with likely heroes/leaders taking those roles.
At least if GW maintains this choice;

I hope that Reinforcement Point rule never worms its way into 40k.

If 40k didn't define a 'horde' as anything 6 models and above, things might be better.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

Imo they should expand the Crusher stampede concept to favor whatever big monster is concerned, by Hive Fleets rules :

- meleefex/Haruspex in Behemoth

- Trigon/Mawloc in Jormungandr

- Toxicrene in Gorgon

- Exocrine/shootyfex in Kronos

etc.

It would be awesome to make certain big monsters much more threatening when playing a certain hive fleet.

By extension, making raveners better than warriors when playing jormungadr, and other little difference that would make each hive fleet much more unique.

Darkness above, absolutely not. You must be <blue> to use <unit X> effectively is the dumbest thing that 9th edition enables and focuses on. Its even more absurd for an army that focuses on rapid adaptation to overcome circumstances, rather than crippling themselves with overspecialization.

Its also an exceptionally weird response to someone enthusing about variable playstyles as a strength of the faction

Voss wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

The absolute worst take I've seen so far.

It shouldn't be one or the other.

BOTH should be viable options and what you would want to aim for. If you want to take an army and hammer it into what -you- perceive it to be, to hell with the rest, then that's damn sloppy design.

Swarms, Mid-range Nids, Infiltrate/burrow nids and Nidzilla should all be viable and usable. Not one at the cost of all the others.

100%, and a big part of the appeal of nids is the ability to play these various playstyles. Only army in the game where you get tons of big monsters.

This is why I'm really hoping they get both the internal and external balance right. Internal balance has been a problem since I started the Army back in 5th, so I'm hoping they at least get a lost closer this time.

Imo they should expand the Crusher stampede concept to favor whatever big monster is concerned, by Hive Fleets rules :

- meleefex/Haruspex in Behemoth

- Trigon/Mawloc in Jormungandr

- Toxicrene in Gorgon

- Exocrine/shootyfex in Kronos

etc.

It would be awesome to make certain big monsters much more threatening when playing a certain hive fleet.

By extension, making raveners better than warriors when playing jormungadr, and other little difference that would make each hive fleet much more unique.

Darkness above, absolutely not. You must be <blue> to use <unit X> effectively is the dumbest thing that 9th edition enables and focuses on. Its even more absurd for an army that focuses on rapid adaptation to overcome circumstances, rather than crippling themselves with overspecialization.

Its also an exceptionally weird response to someone enthusing about variable playstyles as a strength of the faction

No, I get where he's coming from.

Wanting the viability of multiple builds....

But also having specific Hive Fleets granting bonuses to specific build archetype. So Jormungandr giving inherent bonuses and encouraging the 'Infiltrate/Borrow' AT of Raveners, Trygon, Genestealers etc. But I don't quite agree with filtering the monsters out like that entirely.

The idea of Hive Fleets favouring inherent archetype playstyles works to an extent. It certainly adds flavour to them. But it shouldn't be Playstyle X is only valid in Hive Fleet Y. That would be terrible.

The way I see things at the moment? We need general stat buffs....

So tougher monsters with better saves, our mid-range getting better saves as well would all be pretty solid. I do feel with how Transhuman is being spammed everywhere in the oddest ways (literally giving Transhuman Lite to Storm Guardians for bringing a force field generator? Whaaaaaa?) that adding something as an addition to Synapse could be interesting - and again, represent the whole horror aspect of Synapse just forcing nids forwards even as they literally start to fall apart..

I'm actually curious to see if our damage outputs are going to increase - the sheets for the Exocrine and the HVC on the Tyrant (and presumably Carnifex) show a significant increase and boon there. Plus the Bonesword looks to be a hell of a lot better (which might just make Twin Bonesword Slayer Tyrants even more terrifying as assassins).

I do feel that Crushing Claws are a bit meh, in part because the units that can take them don't for the most part cause they drop so hard in actually hitting anything. (50% to 33% in most cases) - so I'll be curious if new datasheets have information about them as it seems they did have a very recent reboxing in advance - hopefully during this week I'll get my awaited order and be able to shed some light on the Tyranid Warriors and Harpy/Crone to see if there's a new sheet in there...

 xttz wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Heres to hoping tyranids become more swarm than nidzilla

I'd much rather see them do this to Orks. It's depressing that Ork armies have so few... y'know... Orks.

That’s gonna need a fundamental change to the core game in order to make big units viable. In both cases, I feel.

Tyranids are already 50% closer by being able to ignore morale - that's a massive detriment to the current Ork horde now.

Another issue is GW's insistence on inflating the cost of basic troops since late 8th / early 9th. Cultists & grots being 5ppm is the most obvious example, but it also affects things like gaunts and boyz. One solution I liked was to just have diminishing costs for horde units. So hypothetically you could have gaunts cost say 6ppm. But if you take over 15 or 20 in the unit they all become 5ppm instead, and perhaps there's a 4ppm tier too.

That adds a trade-off against blast weapons currently making MSU the auto-take option.

Tyranids also have command phase buffs and psychic powers that synergize well with big blocks of troops. Orks do not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope that Reinforcement Point rule never worms its way into 40k.

If 40k didn't define a 'horde' as anything 6 models and above, things might be better.

Given that AOS has Reinforced Units as a capping mechanic, you have nothing to worry about.

Might be interesting if 40K went the opposite and had compulsory Reinforced Units instead

 Overread wrote:

It skews things heavily and whilst it has a bonus in that it makes middle-weight elite style units more viable since they are no longer having to compete purely against big infantry blocks; it has the other flipside of making the game more of a middle skirmish in appearance from what it was before. It also means that, esp in AoS, you are kind of encouraged to have lots of command models per boxed set you build. This can, to me, appear very silly when you've things like cavalry where there's perhaps 5 models to a set and of those 5, 3 are command models (Slaanesh is even worst, they have 4 to a set of 5).

That has zero impact. Only thing you are encouraged is more unit leaders. Banners, musicians etc you should build max regardless are you minimum or maximum size. You have 1 per 5 and unit is 10 to 30? You build 2 if you are 10, you build 5 if you are 30. Either way you go for maximum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

It would be awesome to make certain big monsters much more threatening when playing a certain hive fleet.

By extension, making raveners better than warriors when playing jormungadr, and other little difference that would make each hive fleet much more unique.

That's basically what 40k atm is and results in a) broken as hell game b) unfluffy armies.

You really want to make balance and variety even WORSE? ROFLMAO.

tneva82 wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

It would be awesome to make certain big monsters much more threatening when playing a certain hive fleet.

By extension, making raveners better than warriors when playing jormungadr, and other little difference that would make each hive fleet much more unique.

That's basically what 40k atm is and results in a) broken as hell game b) unfluffy armies.

You really want to make balance and variety even WORSE? ROFLMAO.

...How would giving each Hive Fleet bonuses to specific monsters reduce fluffiness and variety? You appear to have found the two criticisms that work least effectively against this suggestion, then chosen to use them both in your argument.