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.

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

The wording has completely changed. We went from, "If the bearer has more than 1 pair of scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon each time it fights.", to "Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon". Unlocking an extra attack(s) is no longer dependent on having 2+ pairs of talons, it's tied to each individual talon. If this same wording carries over to the MC versions of scything talons, the damage nerf we saw on the Hive Tyrant sheet also starts to make more sense - they're making 7 attacks with Monstrous Scything Talons and not 5 like we would have assumed, and 9 with two sets.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

I don’t know.

Right now it looks like they are the blender option, where we can just toss out a LOT of fairly basic attacks. To offset how nice the boneswords are looking, +1 per claw seems like it’s balanced.

The looser of the melee weapons looks to be the rending claws. Sure, it’s got all that AP, but it’s only doing 1 wound. How many high armored 1W models are there these days?

Sisters, but they have a 6++.

And Death Guard, with their -1 Damage, are good targets for that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Sisters, but they have a 6++.

And Death Guard, with their -1 Damage, are good targets for that.

Also there are a few factions with abilities to ignore AP1/2 completely, which would really make Boneswords less effective. AP4 neatly bypasses that.

Voss wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
No bio-plasma on Gargs? GW do you even look at your models?

Calm your tits, might be moved to a Strat.

That... isn't a good thing.
Burning a resource on a unit that will just go splat (when formerly they could do it innately) is a loss. Pure and simple.

Depends what it does. The old Blinding Venom rule was fairly pointless and depended on first scoring unsaved wounds from a WS4+ S3 AP0 profile. Even then, -1 to hit isn't much of an obstacle to kill a T3 6+ unit.

Personally I'd rather have a stratagem that works more reliably, like automatically forcing fights last or similar.

 Nevelon wrote:
The looser of the melee weapons looks to be the rending claws. Sure, it’s got all that AP, but it’s only doing 1 wound. How many high armored 1W models are there these days?

Incubi come to mind, too, but they ALSO have a 6++/5++.

Rending claws on Warriors will probably be trash, but I'm sure they'll still be just fine on Genestealers due to sheer number of attacks per model.

BTW, if you look at that gargoyle datasheet, notice the fact instinctive behaviour is freaking GONE.

Good riddance if you ask me.

 Tyran wrote:
BTW, if you look at that gargoyle datasheet, notice the fact instinctive behaviour is freaking GONE.

Good riddance if you ask me.

It could still be there, just as an overall "army rule" that's tied to that Endless Multitude keyword?

Would be nice to see it gone though!

I recall the old days where losing synapse meant the swarm just went into instinctive and - yeah you'd generally be on a losing streak. Which meant you made darn sure you had a lot of it. GW seems to be shifting Tyranids more toward Synapse being a bonus ontop rather than the underlaying control mechanic. Which honestly I think works well; it opens more more list diversity options for the Tyranid player and it means that synapse is now shifted from mandatory to desirable as a feature. Lose it and you suffer, but its not the same as ending up slipping back into instinctive behaviour.

 Tyran wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

I'd wager more likely its just a dropped s in editing rather than intentional 2 attacks per talon pair

You would lose that wager. Note the wargear wording, scything talons sets are no longer a thing, each scything talon is its own weapon.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
I guess these new datsheets also all but confirm that dakkdarants and x4 dakkafexas are dead now.

Hope you magnetized those...

Dakkatyrants are dead, but I fail to see why dakkafexes would be, specially when the warrior datasheet allows things like quad boneswords.

The warrior kit has enough swords to put quad swords on one model, so it's "legal" in GW's eyes.

But the Fex kit only comes with one pair of Devourers if i remember right.

To be honest I never liked the look of the Dakkafex. Just so damn goofy with those 4 dinky little arms on such a huge body.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

The warrior kit has enough swords to put quad swords on one model, so it's "legal" in GW's eyes.

But the Fex kit only comes with one pair of Devourers if i remember right.

To be honest I never liked the look of the Dakkafex. Just so damn goofy with those 4 dinky little arms on such a huge body.

Fexes got repacked a while ago to a box of two. Technically you can build one with four devourers and another with four deathspitters from one box.

 Sasori wrote:
Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Warriors are looking like they are going to be the way to go. Deathspitters and Dual Boneswords ahoy!

Or a Lash Whip if you fancy some rerolls. And people mocked my bonesword Warriors. 'Go Scytals' they all said.

Mine have rending claws T-T

 Sasori wrote:
Gargoyles seem a little expensive at 8 PPM if that power is accurate.

Its a pretty crazy price for that gun. I wonder if fleshborer termagants are going to be 6 or 7?
With an 18" range, I don't know that the gargoyles are useful over the basic 'gant.
Maybe as mid-game reinforcements to steal objectives and strip off wounds.

Bitharne wrote:
Doubt it. The rule has, literally, nothing to do with pairs of talons. In the equip part you can only take them n pairs, but that’s different.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Also, contrast the “pair of boneswords” profile which is explicit that you only get one extra attack for each pair.

 Overread wrote:
Haven't we had this whole scything talon thing before with "is it 1 per set or 1 per pair or 1 per model". I don't seem to recall it ever being one per talon when talons are bought in pairs. If it were 2 attacks per talon set I'd expect GW to say 2 attacks rather than 1 per part of the model.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's the same wording as Lightning Claws. It's an additional attack per each talon.

 Tyran wrote:
You would lose that wager. Note the wargear wording, scything talons sets are no longer a thing, each scything talon is its own weapon.

And, like I said, this is all well and good until GW FAQ it to a single attack no matter how many pairs of talons - or perhaps just individual talons - you have.

Remember, they FAQ'd out gaining extra attacks from multiple pairs in the past:

Q: If a model has more than one pair of scything/monstrous scything/massive scything talons, does it make 1 additional attack with one of those pairs, or 1 additional attack with each of those pairs?
A: 1 additional attack with one of those pairs.

Took an already bad weapon and made it worse. What's that? You have 3 pairs of Talons? Too bad. The second and third count for nothing.

You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical doom posting.

I'm showing what GW have done in the past. You're making personal attacks. And somehow I'm the donkey-cave?

Look: Someone posted the new ScyTal rule, and pointed out the sheer wealth of attacks it would grant. I mentioned that GW, in the past, FAQ'd ScyTals to reduce their attacks. The response was basically "Nah! They'd never do that!", so I decided to reply and quote the whole damned FAQ where they did so. Call it "constant negativity". I call it managing expectations, and learning to recognise that GW takes more away than it gives.

HBMC; is there any ambiguity about the number of attacks that Deff Dreads have? I've never heard about it, as an Ork player; just the short-lived VERY CLEAR two attacks for a pair of Killsaws (that was FAQed away).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical doom posting.

I'm showing what GW have done in the past.

You're making personal attacks.

And somehow I'm the donkey-cave?

Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Yeah, I'm as willing to criticize GW as the next guy but presenting the old wording & eratta as analogous to the new is a stretch at best. Yeah there is a chance they will do something dumb but not more than the baseline level for everything.

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

or like when they FAQ'd tyranid primes couldn't ride in a mycetic spore for...no reason whatsoever. GW has a long history of weird and inconsistent rulings, especially with tyranids. pointing that out isn't being an donkey-cave.

it does look like they're going out of their way to un-feth the faction though, so kudos to them if they keep it up.

 gigasnail wrote:
it does look like they're going out of their way to un-feth the faction though, so kudos to them if they keep it up.

I personally like the glimmer of hope for the Dakkafex because the kit does technically contain enough parts for the build, because you get two kits. That's good news. Got two of those things.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

"Everyone".

v0iddrgn wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Discussing ScyTals in a discussion about ScyTals is a "derail" now? Ok chief...

 xttz wrote:
Other posts have already clearly explained why the old FAQ was ruled that way, and how the new rule is different. Conveniently you left those quotes out in order to try and continue another weird tangent that's unrelated to the thread topic.

My point is that GW can do whatever they want. They can FAQ it away at a moments notice. What about that don't you get?

I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

One-upping hyperbole with even more hyperbole doesn't improve the conversation.

TBH, if the rumor I saw that all Warriors are 25PPM unless they have Venom Cannons is true, then this debate is pretty much academic- even if Scything Talons do allow 7 attacks, at S6/AP-1/D1 that's roughly equivalent to 5 attacks at S7/AP-2/D2 against most W1 models, and against multi-wound models without DR it isn't even close.

I'm hoping that rumor is false because the internal balance is going to be pretty out of whack otherwise.

That's the norm, though.

Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

And before I learned to use superglue instead of plastic glue.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 xttz wrote:

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

Then perhaps "everyone" made a mistake by entering a forum instead of an echo chamber?

Ever since the move from 3rd to 4th edition I've always said - for Tyranids if its a Warrior or bigger, magnetize the arms/weapons. Because a codex change can mess SOOO many things up.

Smaller than a warrior and I think the cost-benefit isn't there (just buy and build more swarmy gaunts). But for Warriors and up the weapon range and potential changes are great enough to keep things flexible.

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

I'm in a weird situation where I have a whole stack of quad-ScyTal Warriors, but also a whole bunch of double Bonesword/Rending Claw Warriors. Why? Because I have oodles of OG plastic Tyranid Warriors, and Scything Talons didn't exist then!

So I can use old Warriors for the better equipment, or take worse equipment with better models. I have 3 or 4 of the current Warrior kit, but mostly used them to build Devourer Warriors, 3 (or 5?) Primes with all sorts of weapon combos, and a few more heavy weapons.

Maybe I should have built Boneswords?

I should rebase them though. So many of them are on the original tiny Warhammer fantasy square bases that they came with - not even 40mm ones!

 vipoid wrote:
Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

It's a weird phenomena. Some people on this board seem more interested in discussing me than the topic. I can't explain why. I want to talk about Tyranids. They want to talk about me talking about Tyranids. So weird!

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at these rules, I can't help but feel sad that I bought my warriors in the days before Boneswords even had models.

And before I learned to use superglue instead of plastic glue.

 Tyran wrote:
You know HBMC, sometimes it is very fething hard to deal with your constant negativity.

There isn't even a point in answering to you, because you are only going to go into another hypothetical downer posting.

 xttz wrote:

You have contributed nothing to this thread aside from snarky or passive-aggressive comments, and now pivot to playing the victim as soon as it's pointed out.

Please feel free to go derail someone else's thread instead.

Regardless of whether HBMC's prediction comes true or not, this seems an excessive level of hostility.

v0iddrgn wrote:
I guess everyone is just saying they don't want to have your commentary apart of this thread anymore.

Then perhaps "everyone" made a mistake by entering a forum instead of an echo chamber?

His first entry into this discussion was a one sentence assumption of the worst possible scenario, later backed by a FAQ ruling on a completely different rules wording from very early in 8th edition, which we can agree was made by a very different GW. It's clear he's arguing in bad faith.

And yet I was the one accused of derailing the thread.

But no, by all means, keep discussing me rather than the actual topic. That's far more worthwhile.