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:
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.

I maged my 2 fex’s and my flyrant. Didn’t clean up any bonesword arms, but they are in the bitz box. For melee, I think they are probably going to be the go-to build. My my heart rests with the classic Screamer-Killer and all the talons, But I kinda want to see what a carnafex can do with the blades. I’m guessing blend MEQ like there is no tomorrow.

I'm attempting to figure out the point of multiple rending claws. That should have been a design factor to include some advantage for having multiples of them as well as bone swords or scything talons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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!

Mchagen wrote:
I'm attempting to figure out the point of multiple rending claws. That should have been a design factor to include some advantage for having multiples of them as well as bone swords or scything talons.

Multiple claws have no use as far as I can tell.

Claws + paired boneswords gives you one extra attack with them
Claws + paired scything talons gets you 2 extra swings with them
Claws + bonesword/whip lets you choose what to use for your base attacks, and lets you re-roll ones.
Claws + gun lets you shoot

When I wrote "...as well as bone swords or scything talons," I didn't mean claws + other melee weapons. But rather claws + claws should give a bonus the same way bone swords + bone swords, or talons + talons give a bonus for having multiples.

It's bad design to have options that penalize for no reason. This shouldn't be an excuse for GW to remove the option altogether, but to give benefits for taking it.

Presumably some of these weapons will transfer over to Raveners. I wonder if it'll be worthwhile giving them Rending Claws?

Voss wrote:

 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.

I'm guessing 7. It's an interesting delta. 6 PPM and I think Termagants are very usable. 7 PPM is very likely just too much (With the info we have now) and I'd rather just take warriors.

Mchagen wrote:
When I wrote "...as well as bone swords or scything talons," I didn't mean claws + other melee weapons. But rather claws + claws should give a bonus the same way bone swords + bone swords, or talons + talons give a bonus for having multiples.

It's bad design to have options that penalize for no reason. This shouldn't be an excuse for GW to remove the option altogether, but to give benefits for taking it.

Yeah, agreed. The current setup definitely incentivizes players to filed either 2 dual boneswords or 4 scything talons. The Claws have obvious value in their AP-4 characteristic, but taking them with either scything talons or dual boneswords is a huge tradeoff in damage output for that weapon in order to gain the flexibility that comes from having claws. I think the only real value the claws might have is when paired with a ranged weapon or paired with bonesword + lashwhip, but both options seem relatively sub-optimal vs taking dual boneswords or 2 scything talons instead.

I'd much rather have a gun (specifically: deathspitters) than quad swords or talons.
9 S5 AP2 shots for the basic unit at 24" is pretty nice, and gives flexibility that can't really be matched in slot (or in the list as a whole). Meanwhile there are lots of faster, heavier hitting melee units that can easily match the loss of 1 attack each. (or 2 scytal attacks)

Same; I was toying with starting Tyranids a few years back and wanted to lean into their presence in all three phases of the game.

Basically my list I wanted back then is just better for all the buffs. I can’t see why you’d double up melee weapons when you can push through so much more threat-of-damage and actual damage with a set of guns.

Same on Fexes with double guns and an acid maw (in current codex) just seemed awesome to me.

See, I'm all about cc nids, not interested in shooting capabilities, would gladly forego all ranged weapons they have access to in order to focus on melee capability. Thats the nid army I ran in 4th/5th ed which didn't do too well, but now with the ability to advance in the shooting phase instead of shooting and the smaller table sizes, etc. the whole "three phase" play concept is less relevant as you can get to melee a lot faster (and in doing so limit your opponents units to play a "three phase game" by denying or limiting the ability for them to shoot).

Quite the opposite of my experience. 9th is an utter gak-show if you can’t threaten people with range firepower…if they’re army is quite well constructed. My oft attempts at melee lists show this time and time…and time…again.

Madjob wrote:

 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.

A very different GW? LOL

It isn't a different GW.

But it is a different rule, the same one you can find on lightning claws or dread klaws. And yet GW hasn't FAQed those.

Interesting how he completely ignored my question: being the wording is IDENTICAL (I checked before I clicked post); and not once have I seen someone say they don’t get four extra attacks for 4 klaws.

Lightning claws too, form what I hear, but don’t have to wording on hand to be 100% sure myself.

So anyway, how about some more datasheets:

 gigasnail wrote:
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.

I think my favorite WTF FAQ answer they have ever given for Tyranids came from (I believe) 4th edition. Instinctive Behavior was a leadership test back then, and people asked about Carnifexes needing to test. The FAQ answer was something like "Why would they test? Monstrous Creatures don't take Leadership Tests." Um.... What? That's not a rule in the game GW.

Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Arson Fire wrote:
So anyway, how about some more datasheets:

Spoiler:

Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane...

Also RIP Dakkarant, though I think we were all prepared for that.

Time to take the devourers of my flyrant then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane.

Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

 Redemption wrote:
Time to take the devourers of my flyrant then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Think the Tyrant Talons profiles confirms that ScyTals are indeed an extra attack per talon. Man that Trygon is gonna be insane.

Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

I would expect a lot of this happening throughout the book, actually.

Also: I do find it a tad hilarious that GW went full Chapterhouse on this codex, it seems, and gave the "Claws on the hands with the wings" their own specific profile to fight with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

Bitharne wrote:
Also: I do find it a tad hilarious that GW went full Chapterhouse on this codex, it seems, and gave the "Claws on the hands with the wings" their own specific profile to fight with.

I reckon the Tyrant talons are the scything talons-like feet.

Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

To be fair, in their old 3rd and 4th edition incarnations they were grapnels. Back then they let you treat impassible terrain as difficult terrain.

I remember in my first ever game of 40k back in 3rd ed I used flesh hooks to have a pair of carnifexes scale up the side of a building. Good times.

And considering they also grant the FLESH HOOKS keyword, I wouldn't be surprised to see a stratagem keying of that to do something extra. Although I also wouldn't be surprised to see it doing something unimaginative like simply doing some mortal wounds to an enemy in engagement range or something.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why are Flesh Hooks now Reiver Grapnels? They’re supposed to pull foes toward Warriors, not turn Warriors into Batman.

Whilst I completely agree that that's what they should do - as they originally did way back in 2nd Ed - they've been grapnel/climbing equipment for a while now.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Also RIP Dakkarant, though I think we were all prepared for that.

Don't care. I have a third winged HT, and I'm still going to give it the big spore arms from the Tyrannofex kit. GW be damned!

 Redemption wrote:
I'm guessing a keyword for a stratagem to do mortal wounds on a charge.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

It's probably the new version of the Thornback rule, only it's a strat, because all equipment and special rules are strats now, just to make things more needlessly complicated.

 Redemption wrote:
Cue it having "Trygon Talons" instead.

I mean, it's just as likely, isn't it?

Except for the 8th/9th so far where they’ve been (terrible) guns, hence my surprise. Never owned Nids in between 2nd and 8th so wasn’t aware they’d already had grapnels. So odd.

Still. nice to expand the toolbox.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

I doubt it, since the Swarmlord also has the HORNED CHITIN keyword, too.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wonder what 'Horned Chitin' is?

Probably a stratagem cue, possibly either a melee bonus or, hopefully, some sort of damage mitigation thing. Will suck if it’s a melee damage mitigation thing like the swarmlord’s parry.

I doubt it, since the Swarmlord also has the HORNED CHITIN keyword, too.

OK_E has been reliable for info so far:


If there are other charge bonus abilities to go alongside the built-in charge reroll on Flyrants that's gonna be pretty nuts. Assuming the Leviathan supplement stays, it can land MW on the charge then hit with an AP4 Monstrous Bonesword that rerolls 1's to hit and ignores invulns.

gimme carnifex datasheets damnit