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.

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:

Have any special character from past editions been retconned into not being special character in the current edition?

The nearest example for Nids is the Neurothrope being spiritual successor to the Doom of Malantai. It even has special rules named the same as the old unit entry.

One of the upsides of Tyranid fluff is that special characters aren't really that special; if they want to the hive fleets can just spawn as many as they like.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Can't say I'm too enthused by the Carnifex's Strength though. I mean, sure, if it can't be T8 because the T8 monsters are the really big ones*, then T7 will do. But S6? Come on!

Memories of days when Carnie had S9 or 10 with an upgrade. Maybe in 10th?

I find it odd how people get hung up on individual unit stats like this. It's like trying to claim that out a T9 Gorgon Hive Tyrant is harder to kill than a Reaver titan, while ignoring the other stats & rules that factor into things.

Why does it matter what their basic strength is, when there are so many rules and upgrades to buff their overall output to crazy levels? Some builds put out over 30 potential damage from a single fight phase, which is substantially higher than the old unit.

A single charge can drop a crazy number of mortal wounds - potentially up to 12 if Crusher Stampede remains as-is.

Crushing Claw Carnifexes are S10. Behemoth Carnifexes can have S8 scything talons, alongside +1 to wound. There's loads of options for auto-wound or exploding hits in the codex.

I'd argue if Carnifexes were S9 or even S10 basic, you'd need a bunch of nerfs to either points or other parts of the codex to help keep them sane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ryushi wrote:
No flame, just asking to see i'f i'm reading this right or if i'm missing something. In a crusher stampede leviathan army the tyranid warriors can be a T5 3W 5++ permatranshuman obsec troop for 25 points/model?

Mostly yes, but I'm not sure where the 5++ is coming from there.

The invuln save from Crusher Stampede can't be used alongside the Levi transhuman rule. There is a way to give an armywide 4++ to Synapse models, but only once per game.

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:

 Overread wrote:

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:
So, the Red Terror got axed and the Parasite of Mortrex is not a unique character..? Okay. Everything about this "leak" is so questionable that I honestly can't believe any of it. I think this is the finest attempt at trolling ever attempted by a Tyranid fanboy.

Nice try GW, but we're not going to fall for your attempt to throw us off the legitimacy of this. Maybe try using an account with a longer post history next time.

Curses, I've been foiled.

Darn it now he knows we know!!

Now how are we going to catch and present him to the Inquisition to get the next 12 months of releases out of him? Or corrupt him our cause to be a spy, mole and instigator of customer-driven change in GW?!

Regardless of how much you torture me, I shall never reveal my secrets!

Really, though... can anyone explain why the Parasite of Mortrex is not a unique character..? Or is this going to be a first-day FAQ because the proof-readers at GW are actually feral chimps?

I don't think it will be. It's got a synaptic imperative as well, which no other unique characters have. Feels like this was just a nice way to throw a generic synapse character unit that didn't need to be unique.

Works for me, means I can outfit it with WLTs and Relics.

The Parasite of Mortrex was a special character in 5th edition when it was introduced. Not that the Warhammer Community articles are cannon for anything, but even they say, "...the legendary Parasite of Mortrex..." and "...soon be able to add a Parasite of Mortrex to your..." I point this out because "legendary" and "a" are the words they used which, in my mind, dictate that it is a singular, unique entity.

Alternatively, "Legendary" doesn't specifically imply there's only 1 in existence, just that it's the stuff of legends. There are many legends about dragons, afterall. Furthermore, if there was only a single Parasite in existance, you'd think they'd refer to it as "the Parasite of Mortrex" not "a Parasite of Mortrex" like they do with the Swarmlord, even if technically speaking there's more than 1 Swarmlord in existance because GW wants to justify a faction like the Tyranids having unique leaders.

It does feel a bit odd, and I am of the opinion that no one should rush out to buy more than one in case GW does FAQ it, but there's plenty of evidence that GW possibly intended for it to now be generic.

Also while not a character, there's been Tau relics and unique wargear that have been made into normal wargear (such as the Iridium Battlesuit, used to be a character-only relic that gave a 2+ sv, now you can have them in every Crisis squad, multiples per army).

Mostly yes, but I'm not sure where the 5++ is coming from there.

The invuln save from Crusher Stampede can't be used alongside the Levi transhuman rule. There is a way to give an armywide 4++ to Synapse models, but only once per game.

Ok it was from the crusher stampede, so i was reading this wrong.

Ryushi wrote:
No flame, just asking to see i'f i'm reading this right or if i'm missing something. In a crusher stampede leviathan army the tyranid warriors can be a T5 3W 5++ permatranshuman obsec troop for 25 points/model?

A Crusher Stampede can't benefit from any Hive Fleet Adaptation, so no benefiting from Leviathan's trans-nid.

I would also expect Crusher Stampede to be simply invalidated when the codex comes out.

Same. Theres an adaptive physiology trait in the codex that gives monsters ObSec, the Zoanthropes synaptic link gives monsters a 4++ (granted for 1 turn vs the entire game), and a few other things that somewhat overlap with the benefits that Crusher Stampede offers. I have a hard time seeing Crusher Stampede remaining valid when the codex essentially has a number of those features built into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

r34dy5t34dydr4w wrote:
Anyone else notice that a bunch of entries in the back don't have points cost attributed to pieces of equipment?

Tyranid Prime has no cost for a Venom Cannon or Barbed Strangler, for example. Tyranid Warriors have no cost for most of their weapons, for another example.

Tyrant Guard pay 10 points for a Crushing Claw. Are we supposed to infer that a pair of Crushing Claws is a 20 point option, then? Because in no reality ever is that even remotely worth it. A Carnifex pays 5 points for a Carnifex Crushing Claw, so... 10 ponits for the pair? A Tervigon pays nothing for Massive Crushing Claws? What?

I'm just assuming the missing costs are actually baked into the unit entry and you're supposed to just have to the freedom to pick-n'-choose, but it seems odd, overall.

yeah, that appears to be the design they've gone with, is most options are free and baked into the base unit cost.

Great for Warriors.

Except for wargear (especially adrenals). The per unit cost is weird and really only affects warriors, tyrant guard, and randomly rippers for their terrible guns.
It makes no sense for S8 bonesword attacks to be 5/pts per model in small units but 1.667 pts per model in large units. Even less sense for 7 S6 attacks per model with double scytal.

It makes plenty of sense from a game design perspective. You're incentivizing larger units to seek greater points efficiency rather than catering to small unit spam.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re the "its fake" debate, its worth mentioning that the formatting of the stat blocks/datasheets matches the formatting in the parasite preview article (i.e. colorscheme, background art, etc.).

Doesn't necessarily mean much as they could have ripped that off the article and duped it, but its a pretty high quality fake if it is.

Then again gw has been going on a crusade against death stars. So encouraging suddenly big units is weird.

tneva82 wrote:
Then again gw has been going on a crusade against death stars. So encouraging suddenly big units is weird.

Hordes look cool, so they've never been against those. It's the nigh-unkillable super units that are the issue.

Voss wrote:

Why can lictors arm wrestle carnifexes now, and win? Actually, what the feth is this unit now?
+1 move, S, T, W and double attacks, Ap3, 5++, -1 to hit (always), can't be targeted if 12"+ away and in cover, always fight first (if it wants?) and hidden hunter can be 6" away from enemies if its in your deployment zone and rerolls charges when it comes out of hiding. What?

Anyone who claims GW makes better rules for new units, from now on I'm just going to point at the lictors and pyrovores and laugh.

I don't see Lictors as being any good at all. 70 points for 4-6 damage in melee on average against T4-6 3+ save models with no invulns. Drops to 4 or worse if they have at least a 5++. No mortal wound mechanic for what is meant to be an assassin model. Single model infantry units are far less valuable in the current objective game, and they can't even do primary grabbing well because their deep strike got reamed out.

Now if you do manage to get them on an objective then the untargetable to shooting rule is really nice. Not impossible to kill them if you can get into 12" though, which means you are probably leaving them on the closest objective to your deployment zone all game.

 Ordana wrote:
I would also expect Crusher Stampede to be simply invalidated when the codex comes out.

I actually was thinking about this.

Considering ALL the Crusade books just...seemed to go to Last Chance, I'm wondering if the future balance update will see Armies of Renown (which includes the Crusher Stampede) go the way of Specialist Detachments - poof. Opponent's permission only.

It's also starting to seem...very redundant. The normal Codex has Adaptations to allow monsters to score, Carnifexes have inherent -Damage, Transnid can be army wide....

Still, Leviathan supplement....still likely to be valid? Who knows. We're gonna need a FAQ. And if it is, looks like Synaptic Hive Blades is going to Primes only (as Monstrous Boneswords is no longer a thing unless we kick off half as much as the Eldar players do and get them to give all our existing options back which have been in existence since the 3rd ed Codex!! Seriously flabbergasted by the no Twin-Talon option for Tyrants...)

That and we're also going through/just pass the mid-edition shift where all the established paradigms of the edition to date get turned on their head as they begin working towards compatibility with early drafts for the next edition. I have no doubt that the next edition of the game will see a shift towards larger squads again.

9th has been mostly dominated by MSU spam as a result of a few factors (e.g. - blast weapons automatically maxing out the number of attacks if you have more than 5 models in a unit, combat coherency making it harder for larger units to maximize their capability in melee, etc.) and death stars have generally been less of a factor this edition due to balance changes made to unit/faction rules as well as caps on stacking buffs and penalties, etc. Now we are seeing GW taking actions to incentivize larger units (gaunts/gants getting a rule which expands their combat coherency, upgrades priced for entire units rather than per model in the unit, etc.) in an effort to counteract or counterbalance some of those factors that otherwise encourage MSU builds. Blast weapons, I think, are a key reason for this - the blast rule was basically added because blast weapons in 8th weren't very good at filling their intended role of crowd control, so they added this rule to make them more effective against their intended targets and give players more of a reason to field them, but instead that backfired by instead giving opposing players a reason to field smaller units. That no doubt throws off balance and intended playstyles a good amount relative to where they want things to be and renders a number of options across the game essentially pointless/underutilized as a result. By giving incentive to players to field larger units despite the risks associated with doing so vis-a-vis blast weapons, they could break MSU style builds being the norm and give new life and purpose to those blast weapons again and open up more valid playstyles, which in turn might correct some of the balance issues that certain factions suffer from.

Great point chaos0xomega

I'm looking forward to 2x9 warriors and some larger gaunt units instead of my 6x10 I was running prior

New WarCom article is up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/03/16/make-your-whole-army-dance-to-the-tune-of-powerful-new-synaptic-imperatives-in-codex-tyranids/

Completely matches the leaked codex, in case anyone still thought that was a elaborate hoax.

This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Magic Space Meat is my new custom hive fleet name

Madjob wrote:
I don't see Lictors as being any good at all. 70 points for 4-6 damage in melee on average against T4-6 3+ save models with no invulns. Drops to 4 or worse if they have at least a 5++. No mortal wound mechanic for what is meant to be an assassin model. Single model infantry units are far less valuable in the current objective game, and they can't even do primary grabbing well because their deep strike got reamed out.

Now if you do manage to get them on an objective then the untargetable to shooting rule is really nice. Not impossible to kill them if you can get into 12" though, which means you are probably leaving them on the closest objective to your deployment zone all game.

Really should have got infiltrate rather than deepstrike.

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Tyranid Hive Ships suck up every usable material on a world and use it to synthesize their invasion forces for optimal prowess and adaptation. Why would that not lead to big bugs who are as tough/armored as anything the Imperium has to offer?

 xttz wrote:
Magic Space Meat is my new custom hive fleet name

This is also my new favorite term.

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

If you go down that road, really nothing about the Tyranids makes any sense at all when we look at modern Biology.

Best to Smile and Nod when it comes to trying to match something like Statlines to fluff.

Tyel wrote:

Madjob wrote:
I don't see Lictors as being any good at all. 70 points for 4-6 damage in melee on average against T4-6 3+ save models with no invulns. Drops to 4 or worse if they have at least a 5++. No mortal wound mechanic for what is meant to be an assassin model. Single model infantry units are far less valuable in the current objective game, and they can't even do primary grabbing well because their deep strike got reamed out.

Now if you do manage to get them on an objective then the untargetable to shooting rule is really nice. Not impossible to kill them if you can get into 12" though, which means you are probably leaving them on the closest objective to your deployment zone all game.

Really should have got infiltrate rather than deepstrike.

I feel like that could have been problematic with Lictors giving out +2 to charge then you'd have Hormagaunts with M11 + 6 doing a 3D6 D1 +2 charge turn 1.

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Even in the real world there are animals with metal in them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod


Tyranids are so far more advanced that the idea that they could have armour of comparable strength to main battle tanks is - very easy to imagine.

 Overread wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Even in the real world there are animals with metal in them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod


Tyranids are so far more advanced that the idea that they could have armour of comparable strength to main battle tanks is - very easy to imagine.

Yeah, I know, Magic Space Meat. It just doesn't sit well with me for some reason. I would have just given them more wounds.

This doesn't have anything to do with balance or whatever, though, just my personal feelings.

 Overread wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Even in the real world there are animals with metal in them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod


Tyranids are so far more advanced that the idea that they could have armour of comparable strength to main battle tanks is - very easy to imagine.

Recall that the original venom cannon fluff was basically a biological railgun/coilgun hybrid. Also, MBT armour in 9e is appallingly thin.
But yeah, anything you can do with chemistry, you can do with biology but even better most of the time. Layered graphene mesh with microscopic titanium scales attached to each ring would be much easier to achieve biologically than with conventional manufacturing, for example. Add in specialised cells full of a non-Newtonian fluid for impact-stiffening and you have insane levels of protection in a sub-mm “cloth” all theoretically achievable with actual biochemistry, never mind magic space biology which has access to psychoreactive materials that literally respond to the bearer’s will.

Tyranids run on the Riddle of Steel.

"Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger!... What is steel compared to the hand the wields it."

Alcibiades wrote:
This elevation to 2+ saves everywhere doesn't sit will with me, not because of balance or anything important, but just because it doens't feel "right" that something made of meat, even Magic Space Meat, should be tougher than a main battle tank.

Out of interest, do you know just how tough and strong spider silk is?

Tyranid Norm Queens could take that and make some pretty amazing creatures with that laced throughout their structures.

2+ saves on the big critters is probably necessary from a balance perspective, given how lethal this edition is and how commonplace AP has become on even standard infantry weapons

Zachectomy wrote:
2+ saves on the big critters is probably necessary from a balance perspective, given how lethal this edition is and how commonplace AP has become on even standard infantry weapons

Meh. There's enough 5AP weaponry out there that it doesn't matter. If you really want to protect a tyranid monster in this codex, you go Leviathan, slap Synapse on it with Adaptive physiology (so it's only wounded on a 4+), and use Hive Nexus (leviathan psychic power) to use the Zoanthropes warp shield imperative and give it a 4++ every turn.

Zachectomy wrote:
2+ saves on the big critters is probably necessary from a balance perspective, given how lethal this edition is and how commonplace AP has become on even standard infantry weapons

Yeah. Though it does tie into a larger issue of GW remaining within artificial boundaries. Why could something like terminators, for example, not have a 1+ save? A 1 still fails (an abstraction needed for gameplay, if unfluffy) but it would be essentially ignoring a point of AP. I would like to see things like tanks have extremely high T and saves, but relatively few wounds because once a weapon does manage to get into the inner machinery it doesn't take much damage to significantly hamper the vehicle. Monstrous creatures could then have identity on the opposite end, with decent T and saves but mainly huge wound pools.

I think part of this perspective is me coming from AoS as my main game; AoS creates all the diversity in durability needed despite wound rolls being fixed values and S/T not existing at all. As much as I like that system for AoS I like S/T for 40k because it allows for what I described above, because 40k has a big demand for different 'types' of durability whereas AoS doesn't have that vehicle/monster divide bar niche exceptions. The problem is GW has eaten the drawback of complexity to put that mechanic in the game, then broadly avoided making use of it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Alternatively, "Legendary" doesn't specifically imply there's only 1 in existence, just that it's the stuff of legends. There are many legends about dragons, afterall. Furthermore, if there was only a single Parasite in existance, you'd think they'd refer to it as "the Parasite of Mortrex" not "a Parasite of Mortrex" like they do with the Swarmlord, even if technically speaking there's more than 1 Swarmlord in existance because GW wants to justify a faction like the Tyranids having unique leaders.

It does feel a bit odd, and I am of the opinion that no one should rush out to buy more than one in case GW does FAQ it, but there's plenty of evidence that GW possibly intended for it to now be generic.

Also while not a character, there's been Tau relics and unique wargear that have been made into normal wargear (such as the Iridium Battlesuit, used to be a character-only relic that gave a 2+ sv, now you can have them in every Crisis squad, multiples per army).

I agree with you and Sasori now. After the article today, I think I'm dead wrong about my previous assessment. I still can't shake the feeling of how weird it seems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:
2+ saves on the big critters is probably necessary from a balance perspective, given how lethal this edition is and how commonplace AP has become on even standard infantry weapons

Yeah. Though it does tie into a larger issue of GW remaining within artificial boundaries. Why could something like terminators, for example, not have a 1+ save? A 1 still fails (an abstraction needed for gameplay, if unfluffy) but it would be essentially ignoring a point of AP. I would like to see things like tanks have extremely high T and saves, but relatively few wounds because once a weapon does manage to get into the inner machinery it doesn't take much damage to significantly hamper the vehicle. Monstrous creatures could then have identity on the opposite end, with decent T and saves but mainly huge wound pools.

I think part of this perspective is me coming from AoS as my main game; AoS creates all the diversity in durability needed despite wound rolls being fixed values and S/T not existing at all. As much as I like that system for AoS I like S/T for 40k because it allows for what I described above, because 40k has a big demand for different 'types' of durability whereas AoS doesn't have that vehicle/monster divide bar niche exceptions. The problem is GW has eaten the drawback of complexity to put that mechanic in the game, then broadly avoided making use of it.

I like the idea of differentiating wound pool and toughness and/or save to distinguish "brittle" vs "meaty" targets and adding another dimension to durability. T9 tyrants might be the first example of something over T8 making its way onto tables