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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:


No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.

Spoiler:

is that legit what people were considering a leak? It looks like an older edition's codex lol. This is obviously NOT a 9th edition codex picture

Yeah that's 100% a picture from either the 6th or 7th edition codex. BS10, WS10 and an Initiative value are a dead giveaway even if you were to assume that GW suddenly changed the codex layout from the existing 9th Ed codexes

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.

Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.

Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.

Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.


-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.

Breton wrote:

Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.

I suspect they plan to keep the current lot and not do new ones for aircraft, buff 1+ of the existing vehicles to have an AA and don't intend to do a Rhino equivalent (just stick with the existing 10 and 6 transport option floating boxes). I wonder if they are going to do jump packs for their assault marines. They might have though the relaxed looking chaps with packs were enough.

A quick gander at their options shows a full range. They don't need analogues of everything tiny marines had.

Ignoring forgeworld they 'merely' have
HQ
Captains
Librarians
Lieutenants
Chaplains
Techmarines

Troops
Assault Intercessor Squad
Heavy Intercessor Squad
Incursor Squad
Infiltrator Squad
Intercessor Squad

Dedicated Transport
Impulsor

Elites
Aggressor Squad
Bladeguards
Dreadnoughts
Invictor Tactical Warsuit
Judiciar?
Apothecary
Reiver Squad
Veteran Intercessor Squad
Honour Guard
Primaris Ancient

Fast Attack
Inceptor Squad
Mario cart
Outrider Squad
Storm Speeders
Suppressor Squad

Flyers
Stormhawk Interceptor
Stormtalon Gunship

Heavy Support
Eliminator Squad
Eradicator Squad
Firestrike Servo-turrets
Gladiators
Hellblaster Squad
Repulsors

Lords of War
Roboute Guilliman

Fortifications
Hammerfall Bunker

They almost certainly will given Space Marine 2 has a Primaris Jump Pack option (with a different design than the Suppressors?) for Lt. Titus to go ham in melee with.

Dudeface wrote:


Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.

Tervigons don't have weapon options like the Tyrant - it's either talons or claws. To represent some degree of power lost from not being able to fly or sport an HVC they got special talons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

Voss wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.

Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.

Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.

Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.


-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.

no, you said:

A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.

Implying they were different for no purpose, Insectum then stated they had no issue with the profiles being standardised across them all. As per usual this is 2 half conversations crossing paths.

Regards the rest, the scythes of tyran is a fair point, that's a decision that could be made.

Also a fun fact: You cannot however have a tyrant with 4 scything talons however, base loadout is sword, whip and 2 talons, you may replace the sword & whip with a gun and/or the talons with a gun, that's it.

Voss wrote:


Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.

Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.

Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.


-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.

You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?

And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That would be fine.

Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.

That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.

Wat?

Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?

You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?

Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

In this example the tyant gets ap-3 or ap-4 weapons baked in, so if you want to lower the talons to ap-1 I'm not sure how you'd tackle it. make the model base S6 instead of 7, make it a lot cheaper, make talons cheap then the bonesword and lashwhip a lot more expensive, then repeat across warriors etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?

For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:


Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.

Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.

Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.


-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.

You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?

And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.

I don't think the point is whether you should do it, just whether you should be able to for the sakes of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?

For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.

Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?

For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.

Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

Or we just have entries for small, medium, and large Talons and call it a day.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

Sure, but that was then. This now. We have W1/2/3/4/5 models now all of which are quite common. Mortals, transhuman, blast, -1D, swarming, artillery spotting, obsec removal, crossfire, nydus canals ( infestation node ), etc...

It isn't the same game it used to be.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

Sure, but that was then. This now. We have W1/2/3/4/5 models now all of which are quite common. Mortals, transhuman, blast, -1D, swarming, artillery spotting, obsec removal, crossfire, nydus canals ( infestation node ), etc...

It isn't the same game it used to be.

That's . . . Not really a counterpoint.

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's . . . Not really a counterpoint.

And always arguing that the game should just be what it used to be is....?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or we just have entries for small, medium, and large Talons and call it a day.

That coukd work too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's . . . Not really a counterpoint.

And always arguing that the game should just be what it used to be is....?

Am I? Did I make that argument?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

And simply adding some AP doesn't address how models interact in this edition.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

No.

And you're going to have to explain exactly why it wouldn't work.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

No.

And you're going to have to explain exactly why it wouldn't work.

You kinda just responded with the way back when machine:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?

For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.

Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

No.

And you're going to have to explain exactly why it wouldn't work.

Sure, but should Venom Cannons get the same treatment? Just more AP on bigger models?

Dudeface wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

No.

And you're going to have to explain exactly why it wouldn't work.

You kinda just responded with the way back when machine:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.

I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?

For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.

Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3

Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.

Standardize.

That's not "always arguing that the game should be what it used to be". That's pointing out that a past mechanic could be brought forward into the current paradigm. These are not the same.

Either way, I've still seen no counterpoint.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Am I? Did I make that argument?

....yes?

No.

And you're going to have to explain exactly why it wouldn't work.

Sure, but should Venom Cannons get the same treatment? Just more AP on bigger models?

I don't see any reason why that couldn't be investigated and implemented if meritable.

"Always with you what cannot be done."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:


Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.

Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.

Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.


-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.

You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?

And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.

Repeating myself: The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better,

I'm getting uncertain how many times people have to explain to you that the pile of 'bespoke' talons and different approaches to base attacks in the profiles rather than attacks as part of the weapons are the problem.
If all three monstrous characters were designed according to the same principles, it wouldn't be an issue. The trygon prime wouldn't be getting base 12 attacks with the relic, and the tervigon wouldn't be relying on multipliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


Also a fun fact: You cannot however have a tyrant with 4 scything talons however, base loadout is sword, whip and 2 talons, you may replace the sword & whip with a gun and/or the talons with a gun, that's it.

Right, of course. I didn't check to see if the Loss of Options Tyrant went that far.
Guess I have some work to do on my metal/plastic tyrants on foot if I ever want to use them again.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't see any reason why that couldn't be investigated and implemented if meritable.

"Always with you what cannot be done."

Just because I don't need to force something to be simpler like the good old days doesn't mean that I think it can't be done. I just think it's unnecessary and much less interesting.

AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.

It would be such a hamfisted change for little benefit.

Strats could use a tone down, but the stuff in this book is absolutely great -- especially exemplifying the mutability of tyranids through their traits -- and I welcome that "bloat".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Repeating myself: The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better,

I'm getting uncertain how many times people have to explain to you that the pile of 'bespoke' talons and different approaches to base attacks in the profiles rather than attacks as part of the weapons are the problem.
If all three monstrous characters were designed according to the same principles, it wouldn't be an issue. The trygon prime wouldn't be getting base 12 attacks with the relic, and the tervigon wouldn't be relying on multipliers.

*sigh*

So make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model and bring everything down to the lowest bar so that you don't break something. Sorry. Boring.

I much prefer units to interact with light/medium/heavy/super heavy infantry in different ways so that their battlefield role isn't homogenous.

To each their own, I guess.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.

Why not leverage the differences between units?

Set normal STs at S+1, AP-1, D1, and two attacks per Attack on the user's profile, and Monstrous STs at S+1, AP-2, D2, and still two attacks. Then the bearer's S and A drive the performance of the weapon.

Give Hormagaunts one attack on their profile, and that puts them at 2 attacks at S4 AP-1. Warriors meanwhile have 6 attacks at S6 AP-1. Give Hive Tyrants four attacks base, so that makes 8 attacks at S8 AP-2 D2.

That gives a grand total of two profiles to remember (as it was in 8th); not bespoke implementations for each type of monstrous creature. Is that really not enough differentiation?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model and bring everything down to the lowest bar so that you don't break something. Sorry. Boring.

I much prefer units to interact with light/medium/heavy/super heavy infantry in different ways so that their battlefield role isn't homogenous.

There comes a point where minor differences between units that don't actually affect how you use them add little to gameplay.

Construing the proposals that have been made so far as 'make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model' is quite the straw man.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or we just have entries for small, medium, and large Talons and call it a day.

That coukd work too.

The easiest solutions are sometimes ignored.

 catbarf wrote:

There comes a point where minor differences between units that don't actually affect how you use them add little to gameplay.

Construing the proposals that have been made so far as 'make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model' is quite the straw man.

That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember. Acting like AP3 hitting a 3+/4++ is better than AP1 when they're both the same damage?

It absolutely matters what your units can do and homogenizing them means it doesn't usually matter what I throw at them.

I dunno. We'll agree to disagree as we've spent entirely too much time on this super tiny part of a book.