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.

No, it says”…while this unit is in range…”

 Souleater wrote:
No, it says”…while this unit is in range…”

Yeah - but once it's own models gained the synapse rule, they're forever in range of themselves, aren't they?

Also I like how WE have S5 chain weapons for no reason when SM and CSM still have S4 ones. Man, 10th didn't even started yet but Custodes lawyer sending all stat infringement C&D is already buried in cases. Less lethality? Where?

In 9th, not only are Berzerkers S5, they are also S6 if they charge or were charged and they have a native AP-2 on their chainblades and can go up to AP-3 with an Icon of Wrath (which is always taken because of how little it costs). Berzerker armed with Eviscerators also have 4 Attacks and AP-4 (or -5 with an Icon of Wrath).

They lost 2 points of AP (which is absolutely massive) and one Attack on their Eviscerators.

"buT LeThaLiTy dIdN't Go dOwN"

Also, Berzerkers have been quite constantly at S5.

I am truly amazed at how constantly wrong you can be about everything.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
No, it says”…while this unit is in range…”

Yeah - but once it's own models gained the synapse rule, they're forever in range of themselves, aren't they?

RAW i think so. Or you could have 2 units of them, prime the pump with an actual synape unit (which can then wander off) and they will keep the synapse alive.

Not RAI it think, might need a FAQ.

 Nevelon wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
No, it says”…while this unit is in range…”

Yeah - but once it's own models gained the synapse rule, they're forever in range of themselves, aren't they?

RAW i think so. Or you could have 2 units of them, prime the pump with an actual synape unit (which can then wander off) and they will keep the synapse alive.

Not RAI it think, might need a FAQ.

I agree that it is RAI that they only extend the Synapse and lose it once they move out of contact with a Synapse creature, but i see RAW problems as well.

The idea of Neurogaunts running around being a support network for each other is adorable! 😄

 Irbis wrote:
Less lethality? Where?

The chainblade lost 1 AP and the eviscerator 2AP.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

I... kinda dig that.

Kinda makes taking transports a little safer.

i assume you meant "a little less safe"?

No. Current rule is that you can lose models by rolling s.

It's why I don't take transports for key units.

If the only downside in being forcibly disembarked due to the ride being destroyed is that the unit is auto-battle shocked. I'd take that over current rules for sure. Especially, if there are mechanics that can unbattle shock units (CPs/auras/etc).

The Barbgaunt's ability makes me wonder if split fire is going to be more restrictive this edition. Otherwise it seems straightforward to just divide up the models to ensure every Infantry unit is getting targeted by at least one, and on even a single hit they get the debuff.

Also, super cool to see debuff abilities rather than raw damage.

 catbarf wrote:
The Barbgaunt's ability makes me wonder if split fire is going to be more restrictive this edition. Otherwise it seems straightforward to just divide up the models to ensure every Infantry unit is getting targeted by at least one, and on even a single hit they get the debuff.

Also, super cool to see debuff abilities rather than raw damage.

I had the same thought. If we can still split fire at will, I’m going to bury the opposing line in barbed mess until these guys get rightfully murdered.

Also love that debuffs, and meaningful ones, are back.

Tyel wrote:
Putting the Barbs down for the first unit to be nerfed. -2 M, -2 advance and -2 charge?

That's a crazy reduction for just getting a hit with a D6 BS4+ gun.

And with split shooting - yeesh, but WE can offset it pretty easily. Doesnt seem like they'll kill much overall. So more of a debuffer with good odds.

 whembly wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
New rule buried right at the end of the WE article. Units disembarking from destroyed transport are automatically battle shocked.

I... kinda dig that.

Kinda makes taking transports a little safer.

i assume you meant "a little less safe"?

No. Current rule is that you can lose models by rolling s.

It's why I don't take transports for key units.

If the only downside in being forcibly disembarked due to the ride being destroyed is that the unit is auto-battle shocked. I'd take that over current rules for sure. Especially, if there are mechanics that can unbattle shock units (CPs/auras/etc).

Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

 Nevelon wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The Barbgaunt's ability makes me wonder if split fire is going to be more restrictive this edition. Otherwise it seems straightforward to just divide up the models to ensure every Infantry unit is getting targeted by at least one, and on even a single hit they get the debuff.

Also, super cool to see debuff abilities rather than raw damage.

I had the same thought. If we can still split fire at will, I’m going to bury the opposing line in barbed mess until these guys get rightfully murdered.

Barbgaunts make a lot of sense now. They're Wi-Fi repeaters. That's kinda fun.

I'd hoped for a bit more info about how charging and the assault phase will work during the WE profile, but I like the battle-shocked when your transport is destroyed that they snuck in.

The new tyranid rules are fun though!

As much as the faction profiles are interesting, what I'd really like to see is some more detail on the core rules and game mechanics. Its hard to gauge the efficacy of the faction rules previewed without a little more about the the way the base game works.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Barbgaunts make a lot of sense now. They're Wi-Fi repeaters. That's kinda fun.

My initial thought was “so what? They is all squishy”.

Then…I thought about it. Their very squishiness may be their secret strength.

If they’re super cheap points wise, you get an actually useful bullet magnet. As in something my opponent is going to want to target to try to disrupt my synaptic web.

Hmmm.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Barbgaunts make a lot of sense now. They're Wi-Fi repeaters. That's kinda fun.

My initial thought was “so what? They is all squishy”.

Then…I thought about it. Their very squishiness may be their secret strength.

If they’re super cheap points wise, you get an actually useful bullet magnet. As in something my opponent is going to want to target to try to disrupt my synaptic web.

Hmmm.

You can also presumably replenish them with stratagems and/or Tervigons, or even bring a new unit back once they have been squished, so that may be rather deceptive. The individual gaunt may be weak, but there are always more where it came from.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

Saying nothing about it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

Saying nothing about it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood.

Yes, but the odds you battleshock AND lose models would make transports way worse. An automatic shock is punishment enough.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Barbgaunts make a lot of sense now. They're Wi-Fi repeaters. That's kinda fun.

My initial thought was “so what? They is all squishy”.

Then…I thought about it. Their very squishiness may be their secret strength.

If they’re super cheap points wise, you get an actually useful bullet magnet. As in something my opponent is going to want to target to try to disrupt my synaptic web.

Hmmm.

Whilst I know what you're talking about, I think the wrong unit name has been used.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

Saying nothing about it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood.

Yes, but the odds you battleshock AND lose models would make transports way worse. An automatic shock is punishment enough.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, to be honest (though I don't particularly like the lose models mechanic)

Consider what battleshock actually does, and when its happening.
Battleshock does 3 things-
OC goes to zero... But a unit in a transport was probably in route to an objective, not on one, so who cares. While in a transport, their OC probably doesn't even count, so this is a net loss of nothing.
if you fall back, you have to make desperate escape rolls. So... don't fall back and it doesn't come up. (Can you even fall back on an opponents turn?)
No strats- this can matter, admittedly, but...

However, battleshock only lasts until the start of YOUR next command phase. You're probably getting blown out in your opponents shooting phase. You have to weather maybe part of their shooting phase and the fight phase, and then the effects are over. You've got an entire rest of an army to play reactive strats on, so while it can hurt, it doesn't hurt that much. (And if you're sending units inside transports close enough to the enemy to be charged, you're both aware of this and have a reason to do so, right...?)


There are honestly a lot of situations where I won't give two figs about a unit failing battleshock. They can still shoot and fight, and if they aren't objective holders or gimmick units waiting to have their power level jumped up by the right strat, it doesn't matter at all if they fail.

I just love how they prevented people from using a transport to soak attacks for an embarked unit just to have a higher total OC dumped on an objective when the transport dies.

To me Neurogaunts seem like a solution looking for a problem. I guess if you run light on Synapse creatures (assuming the list hasn't been stripped down) and want to run wide and are worried about battleshock tests, then it might be useful. But that feels like a lot of ifs.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

Saying nothing about it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood.

Yes, but the odds you battleshock AND lose models would make transports way worse. An automatic shock is punishment enough.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, to be honest (though I don't particularly like the lose models mechanic)

Consider what battleshock actually does, and when its happening.
Battleshock does 3 things-
OC goes to zero... But a unit in a transport was probably in route to an objective, not on one, so who cares. While in a transport, their OC probably doesn't even count, so this is a net loss of nothing.
if you fall back, you have to make desperate escape rolls. So... don't fall back and it doesn't come up. (Can you even fall back on an opponents turn?)
No strats- this can matter, admittedly, but...

However, battleshock only lasts until the start of YOUR next command phase. You're probably getting blown out in your opponents shooting phase. You have to weather maybe part of their shooting phase and the fight phase, and then the effects are over. You've got an entire rest of an army to play reactive strats on, so while it can hurt, it doesn't hurt that much. (And if you're sending units inside transports close enough to the enemy to be charged, you're both aware of this and have a reason to do so, right...?)

I don't think we've seen exactly how to rally units yet, do they automatically regroup in their next Command Phase? Or do you test again to try to rally or see if they are still battle-shocked? And I wouldn't be surprised if there are Leadership modifiers that could make rallying harder.

On a side not, have any units been pre-viewed with OC 0?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
To me Neurogaunts seem like a solution looking for a problem. I guess if you run light on Synapse creatures (assuming the list hasn't been stripped down) and want to run wide and are worried about battleshock tests, then it might be useful. But that feels like a lot of ifs.

It seems to me like it could be used as a way to bring in some of the flavour form the 9th edition Synaptic Link rules if other things can key off being in Synapse range.

Tyel wrote:
To me Neurogaunts seem like a solution looking for a problem. I guess if you run light on Synapse creatures (assuming the list hasn't been stripped down) and want to run wide and are worried about battleshock tests, then it might be useful. But that feels like a lot of ifs.

I feel the same way. It feels like a dedicated support unit that doesn't actually provide useful support.
You can stretch your synapse so your artillery nids (or whatever) are in synapse, but... ok? Is that worth spending points on?

 alextroy wrote:
I just love how they prevented people from using a transport to soak attacks for an embarked unit just to have a higher total OC dumped on an objective when the transport dies.

That aspect is nice, yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Khahandran wrote:
Nothing saying they don't still take losses based on rolls.

It's highly unlikely.

Saying nothing about it doesn't increase or decrease the likelihood.

Yes, but the odds you battleshock AND lose models would make transports way worse. An automatic shock is punishment enough.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, to be honest (though I don't particularly like the lose models mechanic)

Consider what battleshock actually does, and when its happening.
Battleshock does 3 things-
OC goes to zero... But a unit in a transport was probably in route to an objective, not on one, so who cares. While in a transport, their OC probably doesn't even count, so this is a net loss of nothing.
if you fall back, you have to make desperate escape rolls. So... don't fall back and it doesn't come up. (Can you even fall back on an opponents turn?)
No strats- this can matter, admittedly, but...

However, battleshock only lasts until the start of YOUR next command phase. You're probably getting blown out in your opponents shooting phase. You have to weather maybe part of their shooting phase and the fight phase, and then the effects are over. You've got an entire rest of an army to play reactive strats on, so while it can hurt, it doesn't hurt that much. (And if you're sending units inside transports close enough to the enemy to be charged, you're both aware of this and have a reason to do so, right...?)

I don't think we've seen exactly how to rally units yet, do they automatically regroup in their next Command Phase? Or do you test again to try to rally or see if they are still battle-shocked? And I wouldn't be surprised if there are Leadership modifiers that could make rallying harder.

If you fail, the unit is battleshocked until the start of your next command phase. If the unit is below half-strength, you have to test every command phase.
You're basically testing their resolve every turn. Its more a recovery of and maintaining command and control than routing and rallying (at least, the way warhammer editions past did routing and rallying prior to the 'lose more' morale system).

Regarding Barbgaunts, does anyone else think 'Disrupted' should be a defined term in the same way that Battleshocked is?

Seems like that (and a few others) would be much better as universal rules that other weapons could use.

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding Barbgaunts, does anyone else think 'Disrupted' should be a defined term in the same way that Battleshocked is?

Seems like that (and a few others) would be much better as universal rules that other weapons could use.

It should be on a scale, and be noted with blast markers

 vipoid wrote:
Regarding Barbgaunts, does anyone else think 'Disrupted' should be a defined term in the same way that Battleshocked is?

Seems like that (and a few others) would be much better as universal rules that other weapons could use.

Yeah, probably.

Also 'Bloodied' (or something similar if they want to avoid the 'but D&D used it first' crowd) for the 'blah blah Starting Strength, blah blah, a unit with a starting strength of 1 is considered to be below starting strength while it has lost one one or more wounds.' Because that particular boiler plate is already annoying, and I'm already skipping it with the assumption that I know what it says.

The neurogaunts are pure board control. All they do is take up space, act as wounds to chew through, and echo synapse.

If they are cheep, they will work well.

Take them as a backfield screen to keep things from DSing behind the lines
Act as a speed-bump to keep assault units off the brain bugs.
They let you space things out and still stay in synapse. So the fact that you have a bubble of space around/between things doesn’t hurt.

I think if they are priced like chaff (5-7ppm) it might be worth having a sqaud or two in a list to help flesh out the swarm. If they get too expensive, might as well take another sysapse bug or a units with teeth/guns worth having.