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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? I’m given to understand the Haruspex hasn’t changed stats wise, and is now 5 points cheaper.

If so? Every list of mine will include three, because I’m an adult and the only person that can stop me, is me, and even then I won’t take a telling.

Crusher Stampede may not be competitive, but it sure sounds FUN.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? I’m given to understand the Haruspex hasn’t changed stats wise, and is now 5 points cheaper.

If so? Every list of mine will include three, because I’m an adult and the only person that can stop me, is me, and even then I won’t take a telling.

Of course once points are adjusted based on sales data now that 10th is out(ie we have sold enough, push others instead) you risk having paper weighs.

Possibly in 2 days withdataslate.

Whatever... I have zero and find this detachment a bit narrow as is. ;-)

My assumption is also based on them not giving a list in the codex apparently. So you have to pick all the harvester keywords in the datasheets. This seems only wise if you plan to update the list of harvesters easily when introducing new units.

Besides I think in comparison to Necrons - who were the top enemy in last edition - the tyrandis are still lacking stuff comparable to the Silent King et al.

Not that every unit is expected to have that keyword. Rather some to buff the others who do the work.

Going all in doesn't likely give best result in any detachment

In any case new units would be 11th edition earliest.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also? I’m given to understand the Haruspex hasn’t changed stats wise, and is now 5 points cheaper.

If so? Every list of mine will include three, because I’m an adult and the only person that can stop me, is me, and even then I won’t take a telling.

Of course once points are adjusted based on sales data now that 10th is out(ie we have sold enough, push others instead) you risk having paper weighs.

Possibly in 2 days withdataslate.

Even if the points go up, they’re absolute killing machines. When they’re as cheap as they? Trio straight up a flank to demolish whatever they come across, and don’t worry too much about Synapse. Maybe a unit of little bugs to follow them up to seize cleared objectives. But just an absolute wrecking ball distraction, they’re plenty cheap enough, and will require a significant investment from my opponent to halt their rampage. Those guys can smash up pretty much anything in short order.

Main risk is lack of native Inv save, but there are ways and means, which might put them in the centre of my deployment?

I notice you keep using word cheap. Howabout on thursday dataslate they go to say 200?-)

Still potentially a bargain.

But at the current 125, soon to (allegedly) be 120? You can’t beat them for sheer value, because they’re such a small part of the army but can do so much damage.

200? I’d say maybe just the two then.

They wouldn't be worth 200. Not unless they got their 2+ save back and regen for eating things.

Gw is known for overcorrections. It matters less what it's worth and more what marketing department wants to sell.

Sooner or later marketing decides it has sold all haruspex it can for a while and can bring bigger profit by pushing something else. And they do it bluntly.

They do look very effective. They have a job (shoveling troops into their gullet) and they do it well. Right now they are both effective and efficient due to the low points. Even if they jack the points up, it’s still going to eat it’s way across the table. The question is if you could use the points better elsewhere. But unless you are playing at the top tables where you need to squeeze every drop of power out of a list, one or two should not gimp your chances of victory.

It’s more that once it’s in range to get stuck in, it does rapid damage. And as its Shovelling Claws are Extra Attacks, you can’t even chuck in a hefty character or Dreadnought with impunity.

It’s about as great a close combat monster as we could hope for. More than enough attacks to devour infantry, and enough extra clout to absolutely shred heavier stuff.

My proposed trio (i currently only own one, sad face) become a nasty thing for my opponent to deal with. Unless you can deal with them At Range? They’re going to take far more than their points cost to put down and keep down.

I’d be tempted to treat them as a “fire and forget” rampage of gribbly death. Set them on their way, and just do what I can to ensure they’re being a nuisance and gobbling stuff up as often as possible.

Though if there’s a way to get them to Fight First, you bet your bum I’ll be using that!

Imho Haruspex are for sure too cheap but they seem to be not so awesome at the moment, because they are not perfect for handling elite infantry or Monsters/Tanks.

Vs a Rogal Dorn it does around 6 damage in melee
Vs Custodians it certainly is better in melee than most tyranid stuff but will only kill 2-3 Custodian guard. So it will get killed immediately.

 Astmeister wrote:
Imho Haruspex are for sure too cheap but they seem to be not so awesome at the moment, because they are not perfect for handling elite infantry or Monsters/Tanks.

Vs a Rogal Dorn it does around 6 damage in melee
Vs Custodians it certainly is better in melee than most tyranid stuff but will only kill 2-3 Custodian guard. So it will get killed immediately.

3 custodian guard is basically a break even in points. 1:1 return is still good no matter what.

Also, never judge based purely on averages. Doesn’t take a great shift from mean to overperform.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, never judge based purely on averages. Doesn’t take a great shift from mean to overperform.

Or underperform. Which is why you should always judge based on averages. Outliers don't mean squat.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, never judge based purely on averages. Doesn’t take a great shift from mean to overperform.

Or underperform. Which is why you should always judge based on averages. Outliers don't mean squat.

Pure mathhammer sometimes neglects what happens on the tabletop. There are buffs/debuffs, situational events, etc. and out fickle little 6 sides friends have minds of their own.

It’s still a good benchmark, and a reasonably fair one. But sometimes you need to take a wider look.

It is better then the extreme cases people like to use. “Look how broken this thing when you layer these 5 things onto it”. Or “It sucks vs. <worst case scenario> so it’s trash”

When you’re a 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, the odds of over performing exceed those of underperforming.

Which is what makes the Haruspex so nasty. That, and once I’m stuck into combat, there’s no one particular answer to it. You can feed it chaff, but it’ll chew through them pretty quickly. You can throw in something capable of killing it, and risk losing that unit. If there’s a character in the unit? Its ranged take has a not great, but still ultimately feasible, chance of gobbling that troublesome model, removing it from the equation.

Find a way to boost its accuracy or to wound? And it becomes a lawnmower of a beast.

And because they’re so cheap? I really don’t mind losing them, because in taking them out I’ve still tied up a big chunk of your available resources in the effort.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know size-wise how the Norns compare to the old Hierodule models?

My take is simply: It is not obvious to play 2-3 of them in every list. And I think they very well might do nothing, because they get shot off the board.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When you’re a 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, the odds of over performing exceed those of underperforming.

What does this mean? I don't think it means anything

Find a way to boost its accuracy or to wound? And it becomes a lawnmower of a beast.

...I mean, is there a way to boost those things? I think the assimilation swarm may have some synergistic tools but I'm not convinced.

Look, don't get me wrong, I've always loved the Haruspex and have had 3 of them since 2015 when they were total pants. They are pretty good now. But loving the Haruspex doesn't give one license to ignore mathhammer. Against tough targets, their average performance isn't amazing. They could power up... or they could power down. It's all based on a uniform probability distribution.

If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.

We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".

From a modeling POV, how hard do you think it would be to model the nerolictor with no legs? Just lean in hard to his snake like tail?

Looks like the feet are the contact point with the base, but the tail could be pinned. And the spot where the legs normally would be could have some small claws added to ensure we stay at 6 limbs.

Looking at the sprue pic I think it could happen with minimal work

Inquiring trygon fans want to know…

 Tyran wrote:
If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.

We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".

Well….I’d have thought it was clear enough as it is.

The easier your success roll? The more likely you are to roll an above average batch, than a below average batch?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Well….I’d have thought it was clear enough as it is.

The easier your success roll? The more likely you are to roll an above average batch, than a below average batch?

That may be true in each individual batch roll. But remember that we have to succeed in at least 2 consecutive rolls: to hit and to wound.

And with 3+ in both, the probably of success is actually below 50% (it is 4/9 or 44.444%)

So I don't think rolling above average is more likely.

 Tyran wrote:
If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.

We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".

What targets do you want to kill with the Haruspex? I calculated against the Rogal Dorn tank and it is around 11.6 (same for Leman Russ) Wound, which is actually pretty good. It does not kill it and I just fear that he will not arrive at the target.

The spread in damge it does is also quite high, because its major weapon has D6+1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I think we can stop the discussion because the point adjustment on thursday might change everything.
Even with this super cheap Haruspexes I find them good but not overwhelmingly so.
Zoantrophes are more No-Brainers in most lists tbh.

But on that? Why would I ever set it on a Rogal Dorn?

It’s primarily an infantry deleter. Its Shovelling Claws allow it to be effective against….pretty much any size of infantry, including Dreadnoughts and equivalent.

Their job, in my army at least, is to rampage across a single flank, devouring anything that looks like it might be trying to get an objective, following up with something cheap to camp the objective.

Against bigger things? The Maw isn’t brilliant - but still has enough attacks and oomph that my opponent is only a botched save or two away from suffering some nasty damage.

Get me +1 to hit, and it becomes an absolute horror show for an opponent to combat.

Either way, they’re still not something my opponent can ignore. But they’re currently tough and cheap enough to require a significant effort to remove from the board. All of which is firepower, effort and even opponent attention the rest of my army doesn’t have to deal with.

Used well (which is always a caveat, and not guaranteed from me!) I can “rock and a hard place” my opponent. Three cheapo horrors bounding up the board, perfectly capable of handling themselves, or…..everything else I’m up to at the same time. You can’t effectively deal with all of it at the same time. If you focus on X, I need to capitalise with Y, and vice versa.

Haruspex are absolutely ideal for that. But looking at the Datacards on WarCom? I think they’ve dropped its AP?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But on that? Why would I ever set it on a Rogal Dorn?

It’s primarily an infantry deleter. Its Shovelling Claws allow it to be effective against….pretty much any size of infantry, including Dreadnoughts and equivalent.

Problem is, deleting infantry is not that interesting for Nids. We have lots of tools for infantry, but melee anti-tank is actually super limited. I'd definitely like to see it hit a little harder against tanks.

Not News or Rumors, take it to General Discussion please

Although Assimilation can help with that with that "you killed a ripper, now my entire army gets +1 to wound against you" stratagem.

Assimilation basically requires spamming harvester units, but I can see it being actually quite strong if you do have the units it requires.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
If you are going to make a mathhammer argument then you need to provide the math and analysis.

We might not get a licence to ignore mathhammer but we can ignore "trust me bro, I did the math".

Well….I’d have thought it was clear enough as it is.

The easier your success roll? The more likely you are to roll an above average batch, than a below average batch?

Horses for courses, crap chances to succeed means you never worry about whiffing massively, and that is a pretty good understanding to go in with. In most cases I would rather deal with wild variation on the plus side than the negative side.

Lets say my average is 8 in 9. So in this case I have after 9 rolls a 34.6% chance of getting better than 8 successes, and only a 26.3% chance of less than 8. But my better than average can only be 1 better, whilst my worse than average can be a lot lot worse than average.