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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
gimme carnifex datasheets damnit

+1

RIP Twin Bonesword Tyrants. Guess that puts the Synaptic Hive Blades into the ground for Flyrants.

Unless of course they just go Bonesword and then my Twin-Sword Flyrant is just going to have to treat the second bonesword as a Lash Whip with a BS fluff logic of it being used in a similar manner to parry and probe attacks.

'BuT tHe KiT DIdN'T CoMe WiTh TWo BoNeSWoRdS.' - it did. Nothing stopping you from using a pair of the Swarmlords sabres as a pair of Monstrous Boneswords. Guess GW forgot that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

No, they originally existed to turn 2nd ed Lictors into batman. They could scale vertical surfaces and then 'GET OVER HERE' their prey straight towards them.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
RIP Twin Bonesword Tyrants. Guess that puts the Synaptic Hive Blades into the ground for Flyrants.

Unless of course they just go Bonesword and then my Twin-Sword Flyrant is just going to have to treat the second bonesword as a Lash Whip with a BS fluff logic of it being used in a similar manner to parry and probe attacks.

'BuT tHe KiT DIdN'T CoMe WiTh TWo BoNeSWoRdS.' - it did. Nothing stopping you from using a pair of the Swarmlords sabres as a pair of Monstrous Boneswords. Guess GW forgot that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

No, they originally existed to turn 2nd ed Lictors into batman. They could scale vertical surfaces and then 'GET OVER HERE' their prey straight towards them.

GW didn't forget, those are Bonesabres, not Boneswords. Gotta keep it WYSIWYG, duh

Death Throes not being an explode anymore, but only targeted to the closest enemy unit with 6" instead is somewhat interesting. Can't "blow up" on your own units anymore at least.

Losing Devourers and Deathspitters was expected but why are the melee options for flyrants cut back so dramatically? They can't get double boneswords, they can't get two pairs of proper monstrous scything talons. These guys better have point parity with the walkrant because it seems like on top of the durability tradeoff for the wings, they lose build flexibility too.

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

If I were a betting person, I'd say +1A on charges, and being charged.

 obsidianaura wrote:

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

If I were a betting person, I'd say +1A on charges, and being charged.

That'd be an army-wide rule, listed in the abilities part of the datasheet and not keywords. Since it's a keyword, as mentioned it's most likely for unlocking the use of a stratagem, like Tankbusta Bombs on Ork Boyz and Tankbustas.

Hmm. The flyrant's datasheet is oddly complicated for how few options it really has.
Plus two different sources of rerolls (technically 3 with Will, if you want) for the same model seems... excessive. They didn't have any better ideas?

The Haruspex seems deliberately mathematically calculated to be just shy of good. As a switch hitter for anti-infantry and anti-tank its... fine. But it seems precisely tuned to gobble GEQ or tanks and choke on anything else. Not quite fast enough, not quite strong enough, and will likely get worse as it gets in close enough to do it thing.

Maybe there is a niche for it, but it innately seems an 'also ran' unless the other MCs are much worse.

15 D2 attacks in CC isn't anti-GEQ.

There's a rumor floating around that the Endless Multitude units regain 1d3 models in the command phase. But I would expect it to be an ability instead of a keyword if that was the case. Another stratagem perhaps.

Voss wrote:
The Haruspex seems deliberately mathematically calculated to be just shy of good. As a switch hitter for anti-infantry and anti-tank its... fine. But it seems precisely tuned to gobble GEQ or tanks and choke on anything else. Not quite fast enough, not quite strong enough, and will likely get worse as it gets in close enough to do it thing.

Maybe there is a niche for it, but it innately seems an 'also ran' unless the other MCs are much worse.

Well, it does have the ability to regain up to 7 wounds per round (1 from shooting, 3 in the fight phase and 3 in the opponent's fight phase) as long as it keeps eating. And it has a T8 2+ W15 statline now, so it doesn't look like it's completely made of glass. If other rumored abilities like the 4++ to Monsters from a Zoanthrope's synaptic link or Hive Fleet Leviathan's Trans-Nid pan out, it might become reasonably tough.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
15 D2 attacks in CC isn't anti-GEQ.

Yes it is. They're strength 7, so they wound on 2+ against guard. At WS 3+, ~10 will hit, wound on 2+, killing about 8.XX, and leadership penalty and morale casualty roll kills off the remaining model of the 10 man squad.
Armor and luck might leave 2 survivors, but essentially they gobble a 10 man squad if they can make combat, especially if you toss in the tongue before charging.

Don't get caught up on the D2, the strength 7 is what matters. Against MEQ, they kill significantly less, wounding on 3s instead of 2s and armor saving half. Those 15 attacks will kill about 3. Assuming no transhuman or Death Guard shenanigans or whatever.

You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Good news!

Kraken static: When you charge, are charged, or heroically intervene get +1AP.
Kraken adaptive: Advance D3+3 inches.

Behemoth Static: When you charge, are charged, or heroically intervene get +1S.
Behemoth adaptive: reroll charges

Jorm static: non-monsters count as being in dense from >12" away, monsters count as being in dense from >18" away
Jorm adaptive trait: your units count as having half the number of models for blast

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.
It is not a tournament Custodes/DE/TAU killer unit true. None of those three armies field GEQ or MEQ, and if at all they should be reduced in power and not all other armies moved to their level

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit. Just that the 9th edition standard is multiple units will die.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

killing 3 marines is around a 33% return in points. Although I'm more interested in the claws, 2 Haruspexes should do quite a number on an Imperial Knight.

Dudeface wrote:

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

Eh? Compared to the guns on the field these days, it isn't at all. It will wither (or out right die) fast, and be much, much worse at its one job.

And I'm dubious that a critter with 15 attacks is 'not supposed to be a murder machine'

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You act as though theres no possibility for the Haruspex to somehow get a +1 Strength or +1 to wound rolls buff, which takes it from being innately anti-GEQ to being anti-MEQ.

Correct. I'm not assuming the existence of buffs. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.


Even if they do exist, armor is still a problem, cutting wound results flatly in half, to somewhere around 4. That's a significantly worse performance.

But then defensive buffs also do not count. Against MEQ that would still be 3,333 dead marines, which does not strike me as bad. 8 dead GEQ or 3 dead MEQ, both do not look to bad, points pending.

Lumbering a big MC across the table in hopes of bagging 3 marines? That does strike me as bad, regardless of points.
This is the edition of wiping out multiple whole units in a turn.

Differnent approaches and comunity i guess. I am not aware of an army where each and every unit they can but down destroyes 1 full unit of all oponents they can face.

I didn't say each and every unit can destroy a full unit. Just that the 9th edition standard is multiple units will die.
But a big MC that takes a turn to move up and on the 2nd turn kills... 3? That's not contributing much.

There are to many variables. If you go second you might be able to charge already. And true if you can focus with multiple units one enemy unit it can die, but that isn't different to any other edition since 3rd.
I think as mentioned we just play differently/have different experiences. I agree it is not the most OP unit I can think of, but I still see it as usefull even against MEQ.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The haruspex is a feeder creature, it's a walking bin, it's not supposed to be a murder machine just a big hefty block you can't move which its rules seem to match.

Eh? Compared to the guns on the field these days, it isn't at all. It will wither (or out right die) fast, and be much, much worse at its one job.

And I'm dubious that a critter with 15 attacks is 'not supposed to be a murder machine'

Well, it was you identifying they're not exactly clearing marines off the board, they're a melee quad autocannon if you like. Similar targets and purpose, also like autocannons, a bit out of favour in terms of output. But a cheap-ish t8 2+ creature who regenerates wounds when killing chaff/troops sounds good on an objective, if they're being blasted away immediately then they've served as a reasonable distraction. Again the vision/intent is clearly there for me, whether the execution is worth it... meh.

Edit: I'd go to add if it was meant to be killing more any more efficiently, then what niche are tyrants, toxicrenes, carnifex etc. meant to accomplish at that point since they're similar profiles assumingly and similar job.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

I'd prefer them to live up to their "Living Battering Ram" reputation than some lame moniker.

Well, based on the leaks - it's both!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'd love to live up to their "distraction-carnifex" namesake again.

I'd prefer them to live up to their "Living Battering Ram" reputation than some lame moniker.

Well, based on the leaks - it's both!

huh? was there a carnifex datasheet leak??

chaos0xomega wrote:
huh? was there a carnifex datasheet leak??

No datasheet - just the stuff from the first page. I'm just slow to the party.

Stanglethorn cannon is blander than I'd like, but the blast on it means it is always getting 6 shots against 6+ models, which is neat. Quite an improvement overall.

"Huge, tough, and very stupid"

Would it have killem them to just gove it a flat 8 shots? Although by giving it a random number and blast, you can’t just shoot it if engaged in CC.

Still, very tasty. That thing can cause some pain.

An exocrine is not a carnifex. Please beg the leaker (if you know where to find the source) for carnifex datasheets.