PDA

View Full Version : Are People crying about Rending rules because it's kills their armies?



Pages : [1] 2

HsojVvad
19-01-2008, 16:52
I am just asking a simple yes or no question. I don't know how to make this into a pole lol.

I am reading these posts about 5th edtion, rending rules, how Nids kill their armeis etc etc.

Why are people complaining? Mind you I am not a player yet, just a modler and love reading the fluff. I can be off base here.

All I read is that needs to be nerfed and that needs to be nerfed? Why is this? Just because your armies die, well they don't really die, read the rules, they are out of commision, like being knocked out, or die lol. Well isn't your army overpowered too? I mean, I am starting nids, and I am afraid to go to a GW store to play for someone might cry that it's not fair. My Nids don't have any vehicles. My carni will take forever to reach CC if I am reading the rules correctly. How come it's ok for Tau Player and SM to hide behine their tanks while us Nids have to rush them open to blaster fire? You guys have great advantegs while us Nids don't have much. Let us keep what we have.

Ok I am way off topic now, lol. Why do you guys have to cry about it? All the posts I keep reading no hardly no one ever takes the time to explain anything just one sentance answers like they suck, since it kills my tank. Well shouldn't you be deploying your tank better? Shouldn't you just stop crying and start playing to have fun? I mean if your tank dosn't get killed, how am I gonna have fun then? I don't really think that GW is really that lazy in making rules as people are suggesting or they wouldn't be having any custumers coming back.

Ok I guess I will have to start playing some games, so back to reading posts and hopefully finding answers and not just one sentence answers and modelling.

So my question I guess I wanted to ask, is why are you really complaing. Please no they just suck answer, explain why so I can fully understand.

Chaos and Evil
19-01-2008, 16:55
People are complaining because statistical analysis has proven that Rending weapons are currently over-performing as compared to their points cost.

Bloodknight
19-01-2008, 16:58
It has to be toned down in my opinion because it is a bad game mechanic which discards two dice rolls of a 3 (or 2) dice procedure, hitting, wounding and, if applicable, armour. It also discards relative ability of the model, ie WS. Ie it is purely based on how many 6s you roll.

Personally I have not had many problems with it because I usually play armies with very bad saves and low T anyway, but it freaks out the more Elite players who pay for a lot of features they do not get to use when Rending is in play.
My DeathGuard hates it, though.

Deadmanwade
19-01-2008, 17:00
People are complaining because other people take too many rending weapons.
A squad of genestealers and a Lictor arent going to make a huge difference. Its taking ALL rending that people dont like.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
19-01-2008, 17:03
Which is a problem lying squarely with the players, not the rule book.

Stuff statistics, take what appeals. I dread a Gaunt swarm a lot more than a Genestealer cult. Soooo many bodies, sooo many attacks...aieeee!

AmKhaibitu
19-01-2008, 17:06
The main issue with rending was as soon as it was applied to ranged weapons, at that point it became over-powered.

Deadmanwade
19-01-2008, 17:25
The new rules are still going to be pretty powerful though.
Now my genestealers will auto glance on a 6 rather than maybe penetrating, maybe glancing, maybe bouncing off the hull. It makes it better against AV14 land raiders and weaker againts AV 11 rhinos.
What'll happen when a Str 6 ass cannon rends an AV11 rhino should be interesting.

catbarf
19-01-2008, 17:43
Now my genestealers will auto glance on a 6 rather than maybe penetrating, maybe glancing, maybe bouncing off the hull. It makes it better against AV14 land raiders and weaker againts AV 11 rhinos.

It takes 36 to hit rolls for a Stealer to kill a Land Raider under the new rules. It's better now, which is pretty funny.

Ddraiglais
19-01-2008, 17:53
Rending should still be fairly tough, but not overpowered. Roll of 6 to wound auto wounds regardless of T. Roll of 6 on pen gives an extra d3 pen.

Bloodknight
19-01-2008, 17:59
Roll of 6 to wound auto wounds regardless of T

It should still ignore armour, or it would be basically useless because there are only 3 T8 models in the game and every unit that has rending at the moment can wound at least up to T7 (S6 creatures and guns up to T8) on a 6 anyway.

Spaceraider
19-01-2008, 18:04
The main issue with rending was as soon as it was applied to ranged weapons, at that point it became over-powered.

Not true, I recently witnessed massed Harlequins equipped with kisses in an apoc battle. A single squad took on and killed Abaddon and a termie retinue in two turns, meanwhile the other squads bounded through cover, un-shootable thanks to their shadow seers and took out most of the choas army... of course when faced with multiple harlequin squads the last of your worries is the fortuned seer council led by eldrad thats mind-warring four+ heavy weapons every turn.

The_Outsider
19-01-2008, 18:18
Not true, I recently witnessed massed Harlequins equipped with kisses in an apoc battle. A single squad took on and killed Abaddon and a termie retinue in two turns

While harlies would own the terminators the fact that they killed abaddon should be more luck than true overpoweredness.

BA and DA are fixing what was at best a minor problem - outside of terminators and LRC's what could take assault cannon weren't exactly that tough vs decent firepower.

Those that are tough with assault cannon (terminators and LRC) cost hundreds of points and should be tough as fitting said points cost.

Tyranids have always had rending, and the stuff that does it (stealers, lictors) aren't very tough unless they are punching something.

Harliequins and rending is a damn good combo, but thats only if they are on the offensive - harlies that suffer return fire die.

Considering outside of a few special pieces of gear all shooting rending is on a 24" high cost assault cannon (and thats jsut the gun, not the platform its on) and only available in limited numbers at 1500 it isn't too much of a problem.

CC rending in't a problem at all as well, its in CC and you have to get there first.

Spaceraider
19-01-2008, 18:29
not really, in a single round on the charge fours 6's isn't out of the question...

The_Outsider
19-01-2008, 18:39
not really, in a single round on the charge fours 6's isn't out of the question...

Then getting past his 4+ invulnerable save is unlikey with *just* four 6's.

max the dog
19-01-2008, 18:39
Not true, I recently witnessed massed Harlequins equipped with kisses in an apoc battle. A single squad took on and killed Abaddon and a termie retinue in two turns, meanwhile the other squads bounded through cover, un-shootable thanks to their shadow seers and took out most of the choas army... of course when faced with multiple harlequin squads the last of your worries is the fortuned seer council led by eldrad thats mind-warring four+ heavy weapons every turn.

At what range did you consider them "unshootable"? I've already had 6 point Termagaunts with their 12" range completely own much more expensive Harlequins in two different battles. The trick to shooting them down is that you have to get a lot of shots from very close range. Have your army use flamers, lots of flamers. If you're having a hard time getting around their fast initiative, charge them while they're in cover and use frag grenades.
Rending was never an issue when only Genestealers had it. It made them unique and special. As powerful as the ability was they were expensive and easy to kill troops with no ranged attack. It balanced itself out. When you saw Genestealers you adjusted your tactics and usually countered the threat they offered. Now that almost every army has some sort of rending attack it's become a huge issue especially when it's been given to ranged attacks. The assault cannon is what took it over the top. There was absolutely no reason to give that gun rending. It was plenty powerful enough with it's basic 4 St6 AP4 shots and to give it rending was just absurd.
Now I hear it's going to be given to Snipers. Thanks GW, you just made a bad problem worse.

Bloodknight
19-01-2008, 18:49
Well, Snipers should have had it before anything else, or a flat out AP2, not 6. They're made to shoot at the most vulnerable points (and in the "rumored" rules snipers do not get bonus penetration vs vehicles when rending, and they do not hit on 2+ anymore).

Ddraiglais
19-01-2008, 19:12
Snipers will be nice in 5th ed with rending, pinning, and wounding on a 4+ no matter what the toughness is. I don't believe that snipers get rending against vehicles though. I think they'e still AP 6 and get 2d6 for armor pen.

catbarf
19-01-2008, 19:21
Not true, I recently witnessed massed Harlequins equipped with kisses in an apoc battle. A single squad took on and killed Abaddon and a termie retinue in two turns, meanwhile the other squads bounded through cover, un-shootable thanks to their shadow seers and took out most of the choas army... of course when faced with multiple harlequin squads the last of your worries is the fortuned seer council led by eldrad thats mind-warring four+ heavy weapons every turn.

So, you're saying that Rending is overpowered, because the one unit using it was supported by the rest of his army? That makes no sense.

Spaceraider
19-01-2008, 20:30
Not at all, i'm saying that when faced with just a handful of units with rending they absolutely MUST be considered a priority threat as they can take out anything from troops to HQ's to vehicles. In the example I talked about the seer council was able to act with complete impunity removing any units/specialists that could pressure the Eldar advance whilst the Harlies posed the greatest "threat".

To my mind Eldrad mind warring heavy weapons and characters from distance (via augment) is not something I could ignore however with harlies on the board they had to be the priority, when a single rule determines target priority you have to question whether or not that rule is having more impact on the game than was originally intended when it was devised.

catbarf
19-01-2008, 20:32
Well then, it seems that Rending is not broken so much as the Harlequins using them, which I agree with.

lanrak
19-01-2008, 21:09
Hi all.
Rending was introduced in the Nid dex to get the game devs out of the corner they had painted themselves into.

And as they are happy just adding 'special needs rules'.
'Erm we cant realy get this army to play how we think it should, so we 'need to' add a rule that ignores/ contradicts how the rest of the game works. '
(And so the game of 40k becomes a counter intuative abstract mess.)

And when limited to certain units in the Nid dex it wasnt to bad...but guess what codex SM get rending on a ranged weapon ...everyone is up in arms about it, even some of the SM players.
A GW FAQ please ignore the 'rending ' rule on Assault cannons it was a typo.Would have sorted out this silly mess.
(I mean 4 shots at str 6 is good enough for what the Ass cannon was supposed to be, short ranged anti infantry and light armour.IMO.)

So rending was unnecissary, and just plain stupid when applied to ranged weapons, in terms of game play /ballance.
(Nids could be equipped with acid sacks that spue highly errosive acid that eats through armour, sort of melta bomb equivilents.)

However the sales of assault cannon armed SM units have improved conciderably!

Stingray_tm
19-01-2008, 21:14
People are crying about rending, because GW marketing department decided, that they need to sell a lot of Terminators and Harlequins.

Next question, please.

JimmyP0567
19-01-2008, 21:31
I have never complained about rending.

kdh88
19-01-2008, 21:37
Any rule that allows an ostensibly anti-infantry weapon to outpreform dedicated anti-tank weapons in their assigned role will be complained about.

JimmyP0567
19-01-2008, 21:39
Any rule that allows an ostensibly anti-infantry weapon to outpreform dedicated anti-tank weapons in their assigned role will be complained about.

That's why GW is changing the rules about rending.

Erazmus_M_Wattle
19-01-2008, 21:50
I am just asking a simple yes or no question. I don't know how to make this into a pole lol.

I am reading these posts about 5th edtion, rending rules, how Nids kill their armeis etc etc.

Why are people complaining? Mind you I am not a player yet, just a modler and love reading the fluff. I can be off base here.

All I read is that needs to be nerfed and that needs to be nerfed? Why is this? Just because your armies die, well they don't really die, read the rules, they are out of commision, like being knocked out, or die lol. Well isn't your army overpowered too? I mean, I am starting nids, and I am afraid to go to a GW store to play for someone might cry that it's not fair. My Nids don't have any vehicles. My carni will take forever to reach CC if I am reading the rules correctly. How come it's ok for Tau Player and SM to hide behine their tanks while us Nids have to rush them open to blaster fire? You guys have great advantegs while us Nids don't have much. Let us keep what we have.

Ok I am way off topic now, lol. Why do you guys have to cry about it? All the posts I keep reading no hardly no one ever takes the time to explain anything just one sentance answers like they suck, since it kills my tank. Well shouldn't you be deploying your tank better? Shouldn't you just stop crying and start playing to have fun? I mean if your tank dosn't get killed, how am I gonna have fun then? I don't really think that GW is really that lazy in making rules as people are suggesting or they wouldn't be having any custumers coming back.

Ok I guess I will have to start playing some games, so back to reading posts and hopefully finding answers and not just one sentence answers and modelling.

So my question I guess I wanted to ask, is why are you really complaing. Please no they just suck answer, explain why so I can fully understand.

I agree with you. It's all a load of bitching over nothing. I have sat in on too many conversations where people argued over the stats and odds of dice rolls. One guy even reckoned he could work out the end result of a game based on what the 2 army lists were. Simply, I think, it never works out that way. Statistically I would have won more games than I have. I have been playing for 20 years and played hundreds of games I have only won 2 games. few people roll as many 1s as I do. They say lucky at cards unlucky in love. I guess the same is true of wargames. I hardly ever win games but I am married to a woman 9 years younger than me.

People who moan about rending ought to just play more games and maybe change their tactics. When it all boils down to statistics (the accountacy stats not character stats) I switch off. I think rending was fine as it was.

Firaxin
19-01-2008, 22:09
That's why GW is changing the rules about rending.

Which is retarded. They should change/restrict the asscannon, not a USR which the asscannon is only one of many units using.

izandral
19-01-2008, 22:20
the coming new rending rule is probably the worst one from the new 5th edition rumours. Genestealer will really be overpriced if all they can do is wound anything on a roll of 6 to wound. I'd be happier if they had power weapons if that's the case

HsojVvad
19-01-2008, 22:29
You know when I first started WH40K i was laughed at when I said how come you roll to wound before armour saves. Now people complain that you can rend on a to hit roll.

You can't have it both ways.

WH40KAj
19-01-2008, 23:05
the coming new rending rule is probably the worst one from the new 5th edition rumours. Genestealer will really be overpriced if all they can do is wound anything on a roll of 6 to wound. I'd be happier if they had power weapons if that's the case

The irony is in the 3rd ed rulebook genestealers had power weapon claws instead of the rending rule, then the rending rule was given to them obviously to make them less powerful against infantry...now people don't like that either.

I don't know the answer, how about rather than moaning people think of ways to make genestealers and rending fair?

WH40KAj

Firaxin
20-01-2008, 01:48
how about rather than moaning people think of ways to make genestealers and rending fair?


...I thought the question was how about rather than moaning people think of ways to make asscannons and rending fair?

I'd like someone to step forward and say that genestealers with rending are more unfair than asscannons with rending.
Because those people don't exist.

AmKhaibitu
20-01-2008, 01:49
Genestealers were fair with Rending, they didn't get Armour Saves versus most weapons, so they had to struggle to get into combat.
It was deemed that improving their Armour Save would mean that more people would field them, resulting in them surviving against basic weapons and getting into combat more.

Daemonettes with Rending were fair due to low Toughness and Invulnerable Save, however the issue was due to the summoning rules where they could turn up near an Icon, move then assault, leading to them never getting shot and thus removing their main weakness.

Possessed/CSMs with Rending, well they were well armoured, access to transports, possibly their only weakness was the expense as most of these guys even had Invulnerable Saves.

What is the weakness of the Assault cannon? currently only it's 24" range on a weapon capable of moving 6 or sometimes more inches per turn, can land from drop-pods and so on.

Generally the problem with it being ranged is the platforms it's mounted on are far too resilient for too little cost.

catbarf
20-01-2008, 02:11
It boggles me to think that there are people who honestly want the Genestealers to remain slow, easy to kill, and more expensive than Marines while at the same time being horrible in combat.

Rending is not broken. The units using it are. The Asscan was a horrific idea.

Wikhed
20-01-2008, 03:59
People whine and complain about Assault Cannons and how unfair rending is in general. But look at how many actual units can use an AC and it's not that many. A C:SM unit can at most field 7 Assault Cannons. With those units being 2 terminators, 2 dreadnoughts, and 3 LRC. And those units that can use one are much like a machine gunner in the real world. They get a big bullseye painted on them the first time it fires.

Bloodknight
20-01-2008, 04:08
How come I had to deal with 12 assaultcannons in an 1850 point army during my last tournament? *counts* 3 squads of terminators: 6, 6 landspeeders, 6 => 12 . They could have taken at least 15.

I don't know, is there something like a Terminator retinue? If so, then it would be 19 maxed out. Oh, plus 3 LRC => 22.
You can buy Landspeeders with AssCannons in squadrons of up to 3.

Lord_Squinty
20-01-2008, 04:09
Rending is fine as is, its when its attached to ranged weapons its far from ok.

I've never heard anyone complain because stealers have rending,
Its the 24" range of SM rending that causes problems...
SERIOUSLY - whats wrong with A-Cannons not rending?

Wikhed
20-01-2008, 04:21
I could understand the complaint if bolters had rending.

Devil-Tears
20-01-2008, 05:10
Only on Asscannons.

Why?

Because when 1/8th of your opponents army just ripped through 80% of your army, its too overpowered.

Maggoth
20-01-2008, 06:04
Well I never really complained about rending but, it may be a bit overpowered. I tried to fight a unit of stealers against khorne beserkers, my zerks got charged and the entire unit was completely overkilled. Now i understand that stealers are 4 armed alien monstrosities, but that just seems a bit too much.

And they where the same price cost.

I take 2 asscannons in my army and it 2000 pts, is that too much?

sgtventris
20-01-2008, 06:55
I actually like the rending rules, even if they have carved through me. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the new books are so playtested and tweaked by GW I find it hard to call anything broken. Some things are powerful, but everything in the game can be countered. Second, and I will use the Assault Cannon, Rending has basis in reality. There are certain weapons that throw so many rounds downrange they negate the protection of strength and armor. The assault cannon is a wepaon like that. It would be able to hit targets with so many rounds that the target's toughness and armor would not be a factor. It is not a broken rule because it only happens on a roll of a 6 and invulnerable saves, which usually have a fantastical connotation. I play Space Wolves and I don't put alot of models on the table. My two dreads with assault cannons provide invaluable fire support and rending is apart of that. I, and all the people i play with, are happy with the rule.

azimaith
20-01-2008, 07:08
It takes 36 to hit rolls for a Stealer to kill a Land Raider under the new rules. It's better now, which is pretty funny.
In new rules its rumored you can't destroy tanks with glancing outright, you'd need to blow off all the weapons first, immobilize it, then hit with an immob or weapon destroyed. So its no easier.

Rending was overperforming, definately, the thing that made it overperform was however, the stupid new units they put it on. Units that can't be shot at, units with FNP and jetbacks, units that deliver it from 24" away. When it was just things like tyranids that had to run at you with a 4+ or 5+ save rending was something you could handle, it was dangerous, but it was thinned out.

Now genestealers won't do much to tanks, which is fine I suppose because we get running carnifex, which should be awesome. I can't wait to flip a tank or two over.

Genestealers will overall be weaker against normal troops too, which is unfortunate, but it means in a new codex we're probably looking at cheaper genestealers by a couple points.

But no, its not because it kills peoples armies. Some things in 40k are overpowered, its just that some people like to stick their head in a hole and scream "I'm not listening!" when anyone presents a reasoned argument to why.

Imperial Dragon
20-01-2008, 09:10
i don't see anything wrong with rending, you shouldn't let the unit(s) that have it attack you in the first place simple, a few heavy bolters will take out most things and when you have a assault cannon coming up shoot at it, simple!

how hard a land speeders to take down? not that hard, a LRC maybe harder but unless you haven't come prepared to kill a take like that then don't complain about it!

but i guess if you lose a game you have to say something like this Liek OmG that guys army was OVERPOWERED it shouldn't have blah blah blah or my army is poor etc etc etc, it also can mean you ain't lucky, or maybe your tactics were just so ****en s*** that you lost, not that the other army is overpowered.

If you don't like the rules then make up your own?! don't play at GW and stuff like that and get people who think like you you won't have this problem any more!

Huw_Dawson
20-01-2008, 09:12
Anywho, they are only a problem in the SM codex, right? Nids and Harlies are the ONLY OTHER things that have them. So that leaves Terminators and Land Speeders. LRC don't really count. ;)

Terminators are a lot of points more than the average SM for a 2+ and a 5+, and argueably the assault cannon makes up for that in a large amount of ways. So, lets reduce the price of Cyclone's by 15pts, and stick a 0-2 restriction in there (that including command squads).

Land speeders are only ever really used by people addicted to the assault cannon, but they are a large problem. Hence, increase it to 100pts for a Tornado, and limit to 0-3 for the entire army.

This means your opponent can only take 10 assault cannons at most, 3 of them on very expensive LRC.

Three are on Skimmers, that are getting toned down next edition (probably).
Four are on 2+ 5+ T4 infantry. Just turn around your heavy infantry killing stuff and fire at the damn things...

- Huw

WH40KAj
20-01-2008, 11:12
Anywho, they are only a problem in the SM codex, right? Nids and Harlies are the ONLY OTHER things that have them. So that leaves Terminators and Land Speeders. LRC don't really count. ;)

Terminators are a lot of points more than the average SM for a 2+ and a 5+, and argueably the assault cannon makes up for that in a large amount of ways. So, lets reduce the price of Cyclone's by 15pts, and stick a 0-2 restriction in there (that including command squads).

Land speeders are only ever really used by people addicted to the assault cannon, but they are a large problem. Hence, increase it to 100pts for a Tornado, and limit to 0-3 for the entire army.

This means your opponent can only take 10 assault cannons at most, 3 of them on very expensive LRC.

Three are on Skimmers, that are getting toned down next edition (probably).
Four are on 2+ 5+ T4 infantry. Just turn around your heavy infantry killing stuff and fire at the damn things...

- Huw

Which makes me feel sorry for SM players, as I can't help but feel the asscannon will change again, meaning that all those nice models people bought may never be used.
I must admit though if I thought of doing an SM army landspeeders with assault cannons and heavy bolters were the most obvious choice. Oh and on the dreadnought. Termies not so much, just because from the outside their other options seem much better IMHO.

Back to the topic at hand however.
The other post about rending floating about someone said how does speed have anything to do with rending- I think that this is pretty crucial.
By speed I mean the point of which the rule comes into effect (used) stealers, have to get into CC as do harlies, possessed etc. This means the rules effect is used later in the game, maybe turns 2/3. With assault cannons, Maugan-Ra (whom strangely no-one has mentioned) the rule comes into effect earlier, this is why many people are getting upset. I understand both sides but maybe this point is very important...
Marine players whom want it to keep rending may well be afraid of what the change to the assault cannon may bring. They were pretty poor before, now they're too strong IMO, but I don't want them to be poor again either and I genuinely believe most SM players just want a fluffly weapon thats balanced. Drop them to assault 3, or make them jam for a turn if they roll more than one rending hit that shooting phase, or severly the amount of assault cannons available.

In essence of this whole post, people get upset because on ranged rending because of the effect is too soon, with too many options available for it. The rest is about ass-cannons pretty much.
Thats all for now guys n gals,
WH40KAj

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-01-2008, 11:36
Any rule that allows an ostensibly anti-infantry weapon to outpreform dedicated anti-tank weapons in their assigned role will be complained about.

I'm sorry, have people fogotten the Assault Cannon in 2nd Ed?

It was more or less a rapid fire Krak Missile Launcher......

Stingray_tm
20-01-2008, 11:50
I'm sorry, have people fogotten the Assault Cannon in 2nd Ed?

It was more or less a rapid fire Krak Missile Launcher......

And a ratling gun in WFB does not need to-hit rolls.

Who cares?

This is about 4th edition (or maybe 5th edition) and how a certain weapon affects game balance NOW, not how unbalanced or balanced previous editions were. For that matter i can draw comparisons to Flames of War, it is exactly as (in)valid, especially since 2nd edition can be considered a completely different game, compared to 4th edition.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-01-2008, 11:54
Simply pointing out that the Assault Cannon is *not* a primarily anti-infantry weapon. It is, and always has been, an anti-everything weapon

Stingray_tm
20-01-2008, 12:18
Well, in 3rd edition it wasn't.

The_Outsider
20-01-2008, 12:18
Except 3rd ed - which is what most people compare it to.

Corax
20-01-2008, 13:50
I've always thought that the biggest problem with Rending, and the Asscannon in particular, was the distorting effect it has on the general play environment. Rending is one of the big (but not the only) reasons for vehicles seeing relatively little play. The sheer prevalence of Rending units makes vehicles sitting ducks. The only vehicle that can confidently be used is the Monolith, because it ignores Rending and the various other anti-armour rules.

More recently, Rending has been applied to a number of units in various armies, seemingly on the basis that if one army has it, then the rest need to have a unit with it also. Nids start with Rending, so the SM's get the Asscannon. The SM's have the Asscannon, so the Eldar get Harlequins. The Eldar get Harlequins, so the BA get Death Company. And so it goes until just about everyone and his dog has Rending and every game is a battle of footsloggers.

The issue with the Asscannon itself is that it is a bit too good at everything. Its great for hosing troops, but its also great for cracking armour. It has almost no downside (except 24" range). The result is that using the Asscannon is a no-brainer. If you have the option, why would you use anything else when it offers maximum utility for your points investment?

OTOH, it could also be argued that the prevalence of Rending units is a consequence of the ubiquity of MEQs in the gaming environment and the need to find ways of cracking the 3+ and 2+ saves. Although personally, I've always been of the view that if you sling enough mud, some of it will stick...

xibo
20-01-2008, 13:54
Rending is fine. Originally only stealers and a Tau special character had it, but now each and everyone is getting it.
It's not a problem that there are ranged rending attacks in the game. E.g. noone would complain if the broadside railguns or multimelters would rend, right?
The cause of everyone complaining about rending is that everything with rending has a ton of attacks, invisibility ( harlequins ), feel no pain ( death company ), or is a ranged weapon with the next-to-most amount of shots in the current edition which ignores the fact it's a heavy weapon completely on all of it's platforms, making lictors look stupid with their lowly 3 attacks and 80 points...

...and in the second edition the assault cannon had rarely survived two turns of being used due to jamming/ammo fails.

black seer
20-01-2008, 14:16
how do rending work on tank

Wikhed
20-01-2008, 15:18
how do rending work on tank

If you roll a 6 for penetration you get to roll another D6 and add it to the original number.
Example: Str6 + 6 + 4 = 16 which would be a penetrating hit on a Land Raider.

catbarf
20-01-2008, 15:22
Well I never really complained about rending but, it may be a bit overpowered. I tried to fight a unit of stealers against khorne beserkers, my zerks got charged and the entire unit was completely overkilled. Now i understand that stealers are 4 armed alien monstrosities, but that just seems a bit too much.

And they where the same price cost.

Zerkers have a 3+ save. 'Nuff said. They're tougher than Stealers, at the price of being a little less killy. Since Stealers can effectively negate the armor, it means that melee is not where you want to be. Shoot 'em.

xibo
20-01-2008, 19:25
Zerkers ... it means that melee is not where you want to be. Shoot 'em.
It's not khorny to avoid close combat with ANYTHING...

bassmasterliam
20-01-2008, 21:00
yes but i think its more realistic the way it is i mean its perfectly fine for a minigun look alike to tear through flesh and armour alike and who cares about the points cost i mean if people are going to take ten assult cannons let them it would be more of a challagne to players. an giant aliens with even more giant claws is fine to and i think its stupid to complain about that. anyway like the starter of this thread said nids really only have speed to protect themselves from incoming fire.

p.s this is not a troll attempt.

AngryAngel
20-01-2008, 21:29
Any of the problems you'd have with the assault cannon and rending, would be if people cheesed it out. With the new DA, BA dexes its not possible to cheese theme out. They are not only more expensive, but also there is less of them. Every platform that could take it, got raised some to near uselessness, like the Dread in DA.

As is to have any real chance to survive in a game. You can most likely end up seeing 3 or 4 of them in a DA list. Most of their upgrades went up across the board as well. Leaving very little points to spam AC even if you would wish to. Considering each AC fires about as many rending shots, as one stealer on the charge. That really isn't that much coming at someones army.

If the stealers attacks aren't that amazing, neither are the shots from 3 or 4 AC's. Yes, they can fire from 24 inches. However the vehicles they are on aren't that surviveable, and easy to shake. Leaving the only infantry platform 1 in a term squad. They dealt with the issue for the marine AC when they put that to every codex.

I wouldn't care one bit if they gave stealers power weapons instead, but in my mind they should be elites. Then they would actually cut into the nid zilla some. Hell let them keep rending then, or give them super rending then. At least it would be max 3 squads, eating up all the elite slots to field them.

Battōsai
20-01-2008, 22:12
i think the problem(as so many of u have already stated) is the asscannon is effective against everything, making it a better choice than most of the other weapons available to units able to take it. I would say simply make it less powerful against vehicles, like a roll of a 6 for armour penetration results in a glancing hit regardless of the vehicles armour value(unless of course that would normally result in a penetrating hit, in which case this would b ignored). DA being restricted to one asscannon per termi squad seems more balanced, and the increase in points for the a landspeeder to have an assault cannon certainly has an impact too, just apply those restrictions to all marines and ur good. decreasing the availability of the asscannon and its effectiveness against vehicles seems an obvious solution. i would hope that a roll of a 6 to hit still results in an auto wound w/ no armour save, i don't think that would b too overpowered and it would make sense considering what the weapons purpose is.

lord_blackfang
20-01-2008, 22:21
I just hope the rending change doesn't render rending units useless.

The_Outsider
21-01-2008, 08:19
I just hope the rending change doesn't render rending units useless.

How do I shot web?

All joking aside there is a valid point there - the units that need rending to kill stuff (ref: genestealers) shouldn't suffer because of things like the assault cannon (which people do complain about).

Corax
21-01-2008, 13:02
I think that Rending is fine in and of itself as a rule. The problem comes in is in the units/weapons that it is applied to. The thing that makes the Asscannon so uber is not the Rending itself, but the combination of 4 shots with Rending. The number of shots means that you are a better than even chance to roll at least one 6 every time you shoot at something. When targeting a vehicle, you are almost guaranteed at least one glancing hit, possibly more. With the current vehicle damage tables, that spells doom for vehicles. Weapons that fire many shots, or models that have many attacks, are able to roll the largest number of dice and maximize their chances of rolling a 6. If weapons/units with Rending did not get to roll as many dice, it would not be a problem.

GW created the problem for themselves when they started to apply Rending to units that could use it too effectively. It was alright on the 'nids (who needed it, if anything) because they had to get into CC to use it. Applying it to ranged attacks was asking for trouble, because it didn't require the attacker to get as close to use it. Giving it to the Asscannon was prizewinning mistake, combining Rending with many shots as I pointed out above. Since then, they have compounded their mistake by handing Rending out like mixed lollies to the various armies that have come along for a Codex re-write. With all the crazy stuff they already have, why on earth did Harlequins need Rending?! They didn't but something had to get it, and GW wanted it to be something that people would buy a lot of! It probably would have made more sense if it had been the Striking Scorpions, but thats beside the point. Only recently has GW decided to do anything about it, having failed to act decisively on the Rending abuse when it first emerged as a problem. Having shut the gate well after the horse bolted (and after publishing several Codexes in the meantime), they then decide to introduce some restrictions on subsequently releases. The restrictions introduced in the DA codex are probably sufficient, but have been added too late for it to make any difference to anyone else, and left the DA fans feeling rightly aggrieved. This brings us to 5th Ed. which is reportedly in the latter stages of development. One can't help but wonder if 5th Ed. has been pushed forward in order to rectify the misapplication of the Rending rule and other glaring problems in the game that could have been dealt with had GW shown more good sense from the get-go.

Wolflord Havoc
21-01-2008, 13:47
In answer to the OP:

In my gaming group we tend not to abuse the lists and all have armies that can change from game to game - therefore this issue of assault cannon etc becoming over powered rarely happens as we would be unlikely to come up against more than a couple or 3 in a given 1500 - 2000 pt game.

The problems happen however when someone shoe horns 9 LS Tornado's into a 1500 point list ala the tournament style player.

This is generally reffered to as a Nemesis army (if you are being polite). When this happens then yes rending weapon suddenly can become wayyyy over powered and seem undercosted.

It is not the fault of the rules.

azimaith
21-01-2008, 14:59
Rumors are that 5th edition changes will make alot of stealer upgrades more powerful though.

The supposed return of hiding units behind other units means melee rending can be delivered more reliably. I've also heard that preferred enemy makes your close combat attacks essentially twin-linked. So for like 1 point you can re-roll hits with super cheap stealers. Throw in a couple more points for implant attack or scuttlers and you've got some really mean tyranids.

Keichi246
21-01-2008, 15:51
My point of view.

The problem with rending is twofold. One - I think the person who tagged it as a math issue was utterly correct. With "rending" hits on the Tohit roll - it distorted the math of the unit significantly - and ignored the effect of two rolls. I don't miind it ignoring the Armor save in CC - but ignoring the towound AND armor save always struck me as odd.

When it was a close combat attack - it worked acceptably well. The moment they attached it to a high rate of fire ranged weapon - the rate of fire distorted the value of the gun.

It was also slightly too powerful in my eyes. For whatever reason - I just can't see - no matter HOW sharp your weapons are, genestealer claws or Death company chainswords cuting through INCHS of adamantium and steel on a Land Raider. Lighter vehicles? Sure - no sweat. But things that are AV13/14? For whatever reason - it just doesn't ring true to me.

For me - rending should probably be broken down into two rules: "Rending" and "Reaping"
Rending similar to as it is now - but only on a 6 to wound or armor penetrate. That makes the rules consistent. Frankly - this would probably fix the Assault cannon issue by itself, because instead of averaging a rend every two turns - it drops to every three. Genestealers take a slight nerf - fixable by a points reduction or stat change in the next codex (or by increasing their armor to 4 base)

The second version - reaping (or whatever equally corny name you can come up with) is a lesser version - that ONLY has the antipersonell effects. It doesn't modify Armor Penetration on vehicles at all. Basically - it would make the weapon a power weapon on 6's to wound. This makes FAR more sense for things like the Death Company, Assault cannons (which is supposed to be an excellent Antipersonel weapons), etc.

But hey - those are only my thoughts.

AmBlam
21-01-2008, 16:36
"Are People crying about Rending rules because it's kills their armies?"

Are you trying to make people think that people who don't like Rending are "crying"

Rending is overpowered and bad for gameplay because of its one-size-fits-all nature.

This doesn't deserve much discussion.

catbarf
21-01-2008, 17:30
It was also slightly too powerful in my eyes. For whatever reason - I just can't see - no matter HOW sharp your weapons are, genestealer claws or Death company chainswords cuting through INCHS of adamantium and steel on a Land Raider. Lighter vehicles? Sure - no sweat. But things that are AV13/14? For whatever reason - it just doesn't ring true to me.

It's not tearing through the side of the tank, it's ripping off a hatch, vent, or duct, climbing through, mulching the crew, hitting something vital and then legging it before the whole thing goes up. Ranged weapons should not have Rending, but as a melee ability it's fine to me.

Ignoring two rolls is basically representing that 1 out of every 6 swipes is going to be just right so that it's going straight through armor, flesh, and bone. Might not kill them outright if they're big enough, but the whole point of Rending is that it only comes into play when it's an attack that IS going to do a ton of damage.

catbarf
21-01-2008, 17:32
Rending is overpowered and bad for gameplay because of its one-size-fits-all nature.

Only in how it's been applied. It's less powerful than a power weapon, and still requires 108 attacks to kill an AV14 vehicle. Giving it to guns is bad. Leaving it with a race that does not have power weapons or power fists is fine.

Dark Seraphs
21-01-2008, 17:34
one of few rules I like in the new 5th ed.

Its a good idea to tone down abit rending, Though still I think it should still be scary, its part of the fun of playing against a rending army is knowing that every single guy with rending might be able to eat you up if the player is lucky :p

Stingray_tm
21-01-2008, 17:54
To all the "rending should be nerfed"-players:

What do you suggest should Nids have in order to take out tanks instead? (Please don't say MCs... It would be the same like saying Space Marine armys should only have Lascannons for taking out tanks)

ReveredChaplainDrake
21-01-2008, 18:35
The problem with the Rending Assault Cannon was that GW came up with the idea of giving Rending to ranged guns to the AC first. They didn't forsee such a game-breaking effect until people started using it. Personally, I wouldn't mind Assault Cannons losing Rending entirely (but having the restrictions pulled up; DA's have it hard enough), or if they keep it, let's see a revival of the Jamming rules. If you want a Land Speeder to kill a Land Raider, that's not too unreasonable to do anyway, and for cheaper to boot. Why not just... y'know... possibly... using a Multi-Melta? Using an anti-tank weapon to kill a tank. Fancy that. ;)

I remember when Genestealers first got rending. Anyone remember the Genestealers from the 3rd ed BGB? Howling Banshees on steroids. 22 pts / model, 5-20 in a unit, 6+ sv, no special movement modes, same old Marine bodies with Dark Eldar reflexes that we have today, but they had Power Weapons on everybody. While they couldn't hit combat to save their life without a Malefactor Bio-titan or some kind of tunneling rule, if they did hit then you could kiss your pretty 42-pt Terminators goodbye. (Hence GW came around with the Crux Terminatus rule.) If anything, giving Genestealers Rending in the 3rd edition Tyranid codex was a nerf, specifically so that Stealers wouldn't mow through Space Marines like a plasma weed whacker anymore. (There they go, helping out their babies again...) Now Genestealers only ignore armor on every 6th roll, but in exchange they also ignore Toughness.

But now, just because of some bad-apple Space Marine players, Genestealers are gonna' get nerfed again. Why not just rip off their arms and give 'em butter knives for weapons while they're at it? Genestealers are supposed to kill anything they get their hands on. That was the whole point of Space Hulk.

Incidentally, what made Genestealers uberkiller in 4th ed wasn't anything to do with rending at all, but with a combo of Fleet, Scuttling, and a potential 4+ sv. I think I see a trend here. Genestealers in 5th ed will be reduced to a single non-rending attack, but they'll be T5 with a 4+ save (not including EC) and have Beast movement. And folks will still cry :cheese: about those advantages.

catbarf
21-01-2008, 18:40
Its a good idea to tone down abit rending, Though still I think it should still be scary, its part of the fun of playing against a rending army is knowing that every single guy with rending might be able to eat you up if the player is lucky :p

Perfectly fair. He has to be lucky in order to deploy without getting shot. He has to be lucky to get to you without getting killed. He has to be lucky to have enough time left in the game to do damage before it ends. He has to be lucky to survive with his T4 5+ very expensive troops. And on top of that, you want him to have to be lucky to do damage. Yeah, real fair.

CannedLaughter
21-01-2008, 20:10
In my experiences, most instances of my genestealers killing stuff like terminators were preventable. If these people are so concerned about the genestealers ripping through their units just keep their stuff away from them and shoot them up as much as you can.

The_Outsider
21-01-2008, 20:15
In my experiences, most instances of my genestealers killing stuff like terminators were preventable. If these people are so concerned about the genestealers ripping through their units just keep their stuff away from them and shoot them up as much as you can.

Thing is, thats what genestealers do - rend through infantry.

The only problem the AC has with rending is number of shots - its S is decent, its range is low and its cost high.

You don't complain abotu rending on terminators or dreads - you complain about it on speeders as they are much much harder to avoid.

BrainFireBob
21-01-2008, 20:18
Perfectly fair. He has to be lucky in order to deploy without getting shot. He has to be lucky to get to you without getting killed. He has to be lucky to have enough time left in the game to do damage before it ends. He has to be lucky to survive with his T4 5+ very expensive troops. And on top of that, you want him to have to be lucky to do damage. Yeah, real fair.

If you're relying on luck for most of those things, then rending is a crutch. Most of those are player skill on the tabletop, or should be, in place of luck.

catbarf
21-01-2008, 20:41
If you're relying on luck for most of those things, then rending is a crutch. Most of those are player skill on the tabletop, or should be, in place of luck.

All of the examples I gave were of things that are not guaranteed. If Stealers were Jump Troops with 3+ saves for half the cost then yes, we'd have a problem. As it stands, it's already difficult enough to get them into combat within a decent amount of time and survive in combat without getting smeared across the most easily-available wall. Making it so that not even their melee ability can be relied upon would make them completely useless. They don't have the armor of Marines, the numbers of Guard, or the speed of Jump Troops or mechanized units. So, what do they have? Melee ability. And hamstringing that is absolutely idiotic.

Or do you suggest that I should make up for that with player skill? Maybe, ya know, they could be balanced, and thus half-decent without requiring player skill in order to be even slightly useful?

How does having a 3+ save all the time require skill?

How does moving across the board 24" per turn require skill?

How does having two hundred men at once require skill?

So why should Genestealers have to be entirely reliant on skill to be useful, when so much else is not?

BrainFireBob
21-01-2008, 20:47
Strawman. You were claiming the Nid player had to be lucky to use his Stealers. I maintain that it should be skill, not luck, that determines whether they make it into combat.

Further, rending changing in 5th Edition needs to be looked at in context with the other rules- for instance, Stealers can now hide behind Gaunt units. Means they don't need their carapace nor are they auto-targets anymore.

As to your other points- please. You know those are histrionic. A 3+ save all the time only comes on expensive basic troops that really can't get by by relying on it- a 3+ alone is not enough.

Same with moving 24", since nothing can move 24" and *do* anything.

And the armies that can take 200+ men at a time have crappy individual models.

Keichi246
21-01-2008, 21:01
To all the "rending should be nerfed"-players:

What do you suggest should Nids have in order to take out tanks instead? (Please don't say MCs... It would be the same like saying Space Marine armys should only have Lascannons for taking out tanks)

Gee - I don't know... :rolleyes:

Other armies have to rely on small numbers of antitank to do the job on high Armor vehicles.

Tau have the railgun - available on two platforms, and the fusion blaster - available on two platforms - to do the job. They need a minor miracle with a very expensive item to have a hope of doing it in HTH.

Tyranids have a few high strength weapons available a a couple platforms, and a psychic power avaialble on a couple platforms, and the monstrous creature rules...

I *play* Tyranids... the rending genestealers were NEVER what killed the tanks for me....


Perfectly fair. He has to be lucky in order to deploy without getting shot. He has to be lucky to get to you without getting killed. He has to be lucky to have enough time left in the game to do damage before it ends. He has to be lucky to survive with his T4 5+ very expensive troops. And on top of that, you want him to have to be lucky to do damage. Yeah, real fair.

Everyone ELSE has the exact same problem though, with different units...
Terminators have to be lucky not to be killed to death before they can use their Powerfists. How is that any different?

The new screening and LOS rules promise to let genestealers close faster, under less fire. That implies more survive. If that's the case - they no longer need the benefit of the extra rends they get by hitting on 6s...

Sorry - your logic seems to escape me...

Stingray_tm
21-01-2008, 21:06
@Keichi246: What weapons in the Tyranid arsenal besides Warpblasts have the ability to penetrate Av13? With 5th edition it will be extremely hard to kill a vehicle with glancing hits...

BrainFireBob
21-01-2008, 21:07
And in fifth only troops will count as scoring, so complete annihilation of the opponent isn't as necessary to achieve local battlefield dominance.

AllisterCaine
21-01-2008, 21:15
No, its because its braindead, overpowered, and doesnt make any sense. If you loved reading the fluff so much than you most certainly enjoy seeing genestealers rip apart squads of terminators, or an assault cannon blowing holes in a land raider?

Keichi246
21-01-2008, 21:17
@Keichi246: What weapons in the Tyranid arsenal besides Warpblasts have the ability to penetrate Av13? With 5th edition it will be extremely hard to kill a vehicle with glancing hits...

Carnifex Barbed Strangler can still do it.
Venon cannons can still glance handily.

Yes - you said "don't say monstrous creatures".
But *my* point is - Other armies have similar limitations. The tau railguns exist on the moderately fragile Hammerhead (compared to the survivability of the Carnifex.) or the Broadside... puhleeze.

Or look at the Sisters of Battle? They have the Exorcists... and the meltas... and that pretty much does it for them.

Grey Knights - um... Lascannon Dreadnought, land Raider... and that taps them out...

Get my drift?

Gaftra
21-01-2008, 21:36
the thing is rending still WORKS! in fantasy its called killing blow and people enjoy it just fine. I have a ravenwing army with a bunch of speeders and im not changing them out or crying that theyre broken and useless. rending is still potent anti infantry and if you relied on assaulting vehicles to kill them then i dont know how you ever dealt with a skimmer.

ReveredChaplainDrake
21-01-2008, 21:52
... and if you relied on assaulting vehicles to kill them then i dont know how you ever dealt with a skimmer.

That's the point: Tyranids never deal with Skimmers competently, short of shooting Fex guns at them and praying for a good glance. Really, all bugs can do to skimmers is ignore them, praying that we shake them every other turn and hope that when they can shoot they miss. Destroying skimmers is just a happy delusion that we harbor but that only seems to work on Land Speeders and DE Raiders. Which is why Tyranids particularly hate Eldar McFalcons so much.

Tyranids don't have "Tank Hunters". They have "Tank Suppressors".

Stingray_tm
21-01-2008, 21:57
Carnifex Barbed Strangler can still do it.
Venon cannons can still glance handily.

Yes - you said "don't say monstrous creatures".
But *my* point is - Other armies have similar limitations. The tau railguns exist on the moderately fragile Hammerhead (compared to the survivability of the Carnifex.) or the Broadside... puhleeze.

Or look at the Sisters of Battle? They have the Exorcists... and the meltas... and that pretty much does it for them.

Grey Knights - um... Lascannon Dreadnought, land Raider... and that taps them out...

Get my drift?

Glancing won't do it anymore in 5th. Also, yes i said no monstrous creatures.

Tau: Railguns, Fusion Blaster (on a variety of plattforms), EMP grenades

Witchhunters (the list not only consists of Sisters, it's like you telling me, MCs have only their strength...): Melta, Multimelta, Exorcist, Eviscerator, Land Raider with Lascannons, Penitent Engine, Orbital Strike and that's not even counting in Guard or Space Marines

Similiar with Daemonhunters. And if you want to count only Grey Knights: Dreadnaught, Land Raider, Chainfist. That's three and youself decided to only take a small subset of the official list, so don't complain if you are missing something. The army is called "Daemonhunters" not "Grey Knights". You want to limit yourself, fine. But the army wasn't designed that way.

Also note, that these usually are weapon systems, that can be taken on different slots in the FOC (e.g. Stealth Suits, Battlesuits, Piranhas), while MCs are, well MCs.

Stingray_tm
21-01-2008, 22:11
About skimmers: So when cc rending doesn't work against skimmers, maybe it's not that omnipotent and overpowered like some players think...?

catbarf
21-01-2008, 22:19
Carnifex Barbed Strangler can still do it.
Venon cannons can still glance handily.

Yes - you said "don't say monstrous creatures".
But *my* point is - Other armies have similar limitations. The tau railguns exist on the moderately fragile Hammerhead (compared to the survivability of the Carnifex.) or the Broadside... puhleeze.

Or look at the Sisters of Battle? They have the Exorcists... and the meltas... and that pretty much does it for them.

Grey Knights - um... Lascannon Dreadnought, land Raider... and that taps them out...

Get my drift?

All those examples you gave have more than one type of unit able to carry anti-tank. Tau have battlesuits and vehicles. SoBs have tanks and infantry weapons. Grey Knights have both a walker and a tank. Whereas with nids, it's just a tank-equivalent and Rending infantry. Remove the latter, and Monstrous Creatures are the only remaining way to deal with tanks.


Everyone ELSE has the exact same problem though, with different units...
Terminators have to be lucky not to be killed to death before they can use their Powerfists. How is that any different?

Terminators don't have to worry about anything short of a Lascannon, but that's beside the point. Sure, so let's say there is no difference. Oh, your Terminators can survive my tank rounds, that doesn't make any sense! Do Terminators thus deserve a nerf? Having a 2+ save is too good, let's bump it to 3+ without lowering their price. Is that fair? Of course it is, with 5th Ed. you can screen them with your other troops! Genestealers have no redeeming feature save Rending and are lackluster in all other regards. It is not a matter of using an unkillable transport to drop them right into combat, like Eldar can. Rather, it requires a high degree of skill or luck to keep them alive. Once they get into combat, they need to be able to do significant damage to justify their cost. Even in combat, there are some units that can kill them with relative ease. The only reason they're seen as overpowered is because when conditions permit, they can do a ton of damage. This is all reliant on them being able to get into combat unharmed, and your opponent being stupid enough to send Terminators at them instead of a tarpit unit. So yes, in certain situations they are extremely good. The problem is that those situations are difficult at best to achieve.

Corax
22-01-2008, 01:28
As far as I am concerned, the only army that needs Rending is the 'nids. Their limited number of tank killing units means that their normal units need something to have a chance against armour. Most other units in the game can at least have grenades of some sort to give them a slight chance of damaging a tank. Combined with the fact that 'nids don't get any other save-ignoring attacks, they need it. None of the other armies in the game have these limitations, so they don't need Rending, as they have Power Fists, Melta, Lance, Gauss, etc.

Personally, I would be fine if Rending was restricted to Tyranids (where it actually makes some sense), and taken away from everyone else. Rending is not a problem in the 'nid context, because they have to make it into CC in order to use it, which means surviving several turns of being shot at to get there. The power of Rending in CC balances out against the challenge of getting enough models into CC to use it.

Rending is a problem when it is applied to ranged weapons, where the need to get close is negated. In the case of the Assault Cannon, it would still be an awesome weapon without Rending. S6 and 4 shots is still amazingly good by any reckoning, and it will still be able to damage light vehicles. The bottom line is that the Asscannon really doesn't need Rending at all. Mind you, neither do the Death Company, the Harlequins, and whatever else has it this week...

Regarding the issue of 'nids versus skimmers, perhaps the Leaping trait could negate the 'only hit on a 6' in CC ability of skimmers, allowing 'nids with Leaping (or wings for that matter) to attack normally?

Captain Micha
22-01-2008, 01:37
Rending, whether or not it is overpowered is an example of a bad rule, now what constitutes a bad rule then you may be asking?

A bad rule is one that mitigates, or negates critical phases of the game, rending does three in close combat. It negates Ws, woundsave, and armor save.

Rending in shooting, mitigates the point of having melta weapons.

Bad balance tends to be a side effect of a bad rule but not always the case. As with genestealers.

Also a bad rule, for a game based on suspended disbelief shatters that perception of suspended disbelief. I hope that helps.

Bunnahabhain
22-01-2008, 01:39
As far as I am concerned, the only army that needs Rending is the 'nids. The bottom line is that the Asscannon really doesn't need Rending at all. Mind you, neither do the Death Company, the Harlequins, and whatever else has it this week...

I agree totally. Places where it's justified are 'nids and Maugan Ra. A 200ish pt special charcater demi-god of shooting can have rending at range.



Regarding the issue of 'nids versus skimmers, perhaps the Leaping trait could negate the 'only hit on a 6' in CC ability of skimmers, allowing 'nids with Leaping (or wings for that matter) to attack normally?

Won't 99% of skimmers still be moving fast enough to be only hit on a 6 anyway, even without the skimmer part of their rules....

ReveredChaplainDrake
22-01-2008, 02:03
Corax really hit the nail on the head.

To take Rending, as we know it today, away from Tyranids is wrong because Rending Claws are the Tyranids' race-unique CCW. It's like saying that Marines shouldn't get Powerfists, or Tau shouldn't get Markerlights, or Dark Eldar shouldn't get Eviscerators, Orks shouldn't get Powerklawz, or Eldar shouldn't get Witchblades or the myriads of specialist / aspect gear.

Every race has some similar fill-in-the-blank weapon which they simply couldn't do half as well without. (Except Necrons; they're the only ones who have it as bad as the Tyranids, give or take.) The difference is that, because Tyranids don't get squad-mutants anymore, we have to take all our CCW-specialists into one giant unit. Ain't our fault that's how our codex was designed, or how our army is played.

Now if Tyranids actually could take Powerfists, Meltaguns (Bio-Acid mines don't count), competent amounts of Krak Warp Blasts, and Meltabombs, the anti-rending complaints would have justification.

AngryAngel
22-01-2008, 02:03
Glancing won't do it anymore in 5th. Also, yes i said no monstrous creatures.

Tau: Railguns, Fusion Blaster (on a variety of plattforms), EMP grenades

Witchhunters (the list not only consists of Sisters, it's like you telling me, MCs have only their strength...): Melta, Multimelta, Exorcist, Eviscerator, Land Raider with Lascannons, Penitent Engine, Orbital Strike and that's not even counting in Guard or Space Marines

Similiar with Daemonhunters. And if you want to count only Grey Knights: Dreadnaught, Land Raider, Chainfist. That's three and youself decided to only take a small subset of the official list, so don't complain if you are missing something. The army is called "Daemonhunters" not "Grey Knights". You want to limit yourself, fine. But the army wasn't designed that way.

Also note, that these usually are weapon systems, that can be taken on different slots in the FOC (e.g. Stealth Suits, Battlesuits, Piranhas), while MCs are, well MCs.


Ok for the Tau the fusion blasters will only have a small showing. As one of the only things they'd risk them on to go tank hunting would be a piranaha ( sp? ) Emp grenades are only on firewarriors, and since when do you ever see firewarriors charge a tank exactly ?

Witchhunters meltas and exorcists are the only reliable things that can take oput tanks. Landraiders are point sinks, eviscerators are only str 6 might as well give them some krak grenades. Orbital strike, unreliable, and penetint engines are ok, if they can get there alive.

Landraider still a point sink, chainfists with running will be fine. The Dread would be the only reliable option there.

To get your suits into fusion range, your risking them out there in front of the whole other army. Unless they are a suicide squad. MC's take up 2 slot areas as well heavy and elite.

Captain Micha
22-01-2008, 02:12
Piranha are the only thing a Tau would put fusion on. Even then, it can be questionable.

AngryAngel
22-01-2008, 02:14
I actually agree with you there Captain. The fusion blaster is just too close a range gun for alot of units that can carry it.

Captain Micha
22-01-2008, 02:21
Yeah, I would much rather rely on str10 ap1 shots to bring a target down while being up to 72" away. And if I am really phobic of vehicles (or want to punish min maxed squads) I'd just take 6 or more broadsides and be done with it.

catbarf
22-01-2008, 02:25
See, what I don't understand is that 'But it ignores stuff and that doesn't make sense!' viewpoint.

If anything, it makes MORE sense than other weapons.

Like this: How is it that my power fist will get an attack that crashes right through your armor, yet doesn't hurt you at all?

All Rending does is say 'Okay, you rolled a lucky six, so that attack was good enough to hurt them, guaranteed'. It means that the attack you just made was perfect such that my razor-sharp claws could shred your armor and flesh. None of this 'You got hit in the chest by a frag rocket, yet he rolled a one so you're not chunky salsa' nonsense.

Sure, it ignores two rolls, but since a powerfist ignores saves and most of the time is a 2+ wound anyway (not to mention Rending is 1/6 times, not all the time like a PFist), the power fist is more or less the same- or even worse, when you consider that there is the randomness of whether or not you'll rend.

Captain Micha
22-01-2008, 02:27
Not standing from a realism standpoint here catbarf, from a rules standpoint, it's almost never a good thing to have a rule that negates three other rules in the process. The randomness is also part of a problem as well, given it's the only type of thing that can 'crit' for lack of a better term.

Wikhed
22-01-2008, 02:37
All I see is people who are complaining because they don't have a grasp of tactics. How many time shave y'all said ignore a unit or avoid it. If you can't tackle a unit with ranged rending then go around it or utilize a ton of firepower at range. So what if you're a nid player and only get rending with 'stealers. Just because you hate terminators and other SM units that have Assault Cannons doesn't mean you need to whine about it. If GW honestly thought rending in it's current format was so broken they wouldn't have made the rule in the first place and assigned it to weapon systems. With 'stealers it's been said their claws can go through adamantite and Assault Cannons are essentially mini-guns that fire high velocity ammo at 6000 rounds per minute. You can't honestly say that without knowing the caliber of the ammo that 6000 rounds can't turn almost anything into swiss cheese. it would seem to me that a nid player would screen his 'stealers with gaunts and support them with fexes. Let the gaunts get chewed up while fleeting with the 'stealers.

blackroyal
22-01-2008, 02:55
it would seem to me that a nid player would screen his 'stealers with gaunts and support them with fexes. Let the gaunts get chewed up while fleeting with the 'stealers.

Those "screened" Genestealers are far too easy to target since "everyone" has LD 10.

Firaxin
22-01-2008, 03:04
My brother puts fusion guns on his battlesuits all the time...


Regardless, you're kicking yourself in the foot. Your argument is basically:

Armies a through y all have multiple anti-tank options. BUT, most of them never use half those options anyways. So, it should be ok to limit army z to only 1 anti-tank option, right?

Who cares what people take on a player by player basis? That shouldn't be what balance is built around. Balance should be built around each of the codeci having the same number of options of dealing with things.

By your definition, IG have zero anti-tank options, because everything in the guard codex is over-priced and thus no one smart would try to take any of those options. Well, guess what, people still take them, and do well with them. The same way people still put fusion guns on battlesuits and can be successful with them.

RexTalon
22-01-2008, 03:31
Not true, I recently witnessed massed Harlequins equipped with kisses in an apoc battle. A single squad took on and killed Abaddon and a termie retinue in two turns, meanwhile the other squads bounded through cover, un-shootable thanks to their shadow seers and took out most of the choas army... of course when faced with multiple harlequin squads the last of your worries is the fortuned seer council led by eldrad thats mind-warring four+ heavy weapons every turn.

So, you're saying it's Eldar that are broken, not rending. I agree.;):D

Lord Raneus
22-01-2008, 03:49
Rending has a problem, but I wouldn't classify it as overly broken-against vehicles.
The chances of actually penetrating any tank with a decent amount of armor is slim, especially since you're throwing away either over two hundreds points or under eighty to have that small chance. Either way, it's inefficient and generally a waste of points.

Against infantry/monstrous creatures/light vehicles, I can see where complaints are coming from.

This is in regards to assualt cannons, of course. Genestealrs need and should keep the rending they have, as they're fragile and already function perfectly, true to their fluff and make for a fun unit in games.

hush88
22-01-2008, 05:26
Rending is only as good as your dice rolls. 8 assault cannons the other night, 6 turns, only 2 rending hits. Rending is only good if you roll 6s all night long.

Corax
22-01-2008, 05:31
All I see is people who are complaining because they don't have a grasp of tactics. How many time shave y'all said ignore a unit or avoid it. If you can't tackle a unit with ranged rending then go around it or utilize a ton of firepower at range. So what if you're a nid player and only get rending with 'stealers. Just because you hate terminators and other SM units that have Assault Cannons doesn't mean you need to whine about it.

There is a big difference between pointing out an imbalance in the game and whining about it. I'm a SM player, so you could say that I have an interest in the Asscannon not being altered. But I feel that the Asscannon is too good because it has no downside to balance all its advantages. As I said in an earlier post, taking them is a total no-brainer for anyone who does not have a strong sense of fairness. Anyone who cares about the game being as fair as possible for all players and all armies should be concerned about a mechanic that is open to abuse by the unscrupulous.

Your 'suggestions' about how to deal with Assault Cannons fail to account for some of the big problems with the Asscannon. If you have a CC oriented army (like, say, Tyranids) you can't 'utilize a ton of firepower at range' as Nids have very few guns to start with. Similarly, your 'go around it' theory is equally impractical, as it is possible to have a large number of Assault Cannons in the one army without spending a hell of a lot of points on them. If they are equipped with Landspeeder Tornadoes, they are all but impossible to avoid. It is the ubiquity of the Asscannon that is part of the problem. If they weren't so readily available at relatively low cost, there would not be such a problem with them. The Assault Cannon either needs to be made more expensive, limited to one per unit, the Rending mechanic removed from it (my preference), or the Rending mechanic altered generally.


If GW honestly thought rending in it's current format was so broken they wouldn't have made the rule in the first place and assigned it to weapon systems.

The logic of this argument is dependent on the assumption that the design team aren't ******. History would tend to disprove this theory. In addition, while the design team might have not seen major problems during 'testing' (presumably done around the same time as they do 'editing'), they probably failed (as usual) to anticipate that people would conclude that the Asscannon was rather good and take as many of them as possible, which brings us back to the question of the competence of the design team...

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Rending mechanic in and of itself. What bothers me is the weapons it has been applied to, and the number of those weapons that can be put into one army. At the heart of the matter is not Rending as such, but the min-maxing of Rending weapons in some armies.

azimaith
22-01-2008, 05:39
I think its important to take the context of proposed 5th ed rules to rending.

Rending gets nerfed? Yes. But units blocking LOS come back. That means more genestealers survive because they can hide behind other units. Hormagaunts for example would be tall enough (by model LOS) to block genestealers.

Since they get shot less you can spare points for more stealers or more upgrades. For a single point(in 5th ed) you could change a rending stealer into a rending stealer that re-rolls failed to hit rolls on non-IC/vehicle models and confers that to units within 2" (in CC)

Granted tyranids are going to take a rather massive nerf to killing tanks. Glancing is supposedly -2 and killing vehicles now only occurs on a 5+ thus you can't outright drop a tank with a glancing hit, you need to bust all its guns and immobilize it first. So much for the venom cannon.

Add onto that the supposed change where your only allowed one extra CCW, which makes tyranids only use one pair of talons you get even weaker in assault.

Theres alot of proposed changes, the tyranid army is going to come out a little, if not alot worse for wear because of it, but rending will be the least of the problems.

Your going to see tyranids saving a bunch of points but needing alot more to do anything at all.

Rending in and of itself, was badly designed, it ignores the wounding role (still does) which was bad, and it ignores the armor save (which is good). As for their AV role, it makes them fill too many shoes.

We'll see how nid anti tank goes with the introduction of more static tanks and fleeting carnifex. (At least fleeting the turn before they charge.)

Battōsai
22-01-2008, 05:42
wow...
so what im getting is that the nid ppl don't want rending tuned down cause it nerfs their stealers and most ppl want ranged rending to b weaker, especially against tanks.

First off i have a friend that runs a mean nid list w/ plenty of stealers and those little buggers tear me apart every game, unless im using mech tau. just wanted to get that out of the way, i think they could do w/ a bit of toning down but that might just cause i typically play against a really nasty list and an opponent who knows how to use it, so im a little biased.

anywho simple solution is make rending ignore armor on a 6 to wound and maybs make it wound regardless of toughness. problem solved. and if the nid players cant handle tanks w/ out rending as is(who hunts tanks w/ units of stealers?) then they can keep it the way it is and there can b 2 seperate rules.

problems w/ that?

azimaith
22-01-2008, 05:49
One, capitilize and spell out words. Your not on AOL instant messenger. Don't act like it.

Second, what you proposed is what everyones looking at as 5th ed rending. Thats also what rumors have claimed.

BrainFireBob
22-01-2008, 08:01
Yes, and while it does reduce the efficacy of 'Stealers vs vehicles, it does not completely remove it, and 'Stealers benefit from a couple of rules that greatly enhance their survivability and deliverability. Despite the way some carry on, rending is not being removed.

Stingray_tm
22-01-2008, 09:17
The only reason, Tau aren't using a lot of fusion guns on their battlesuit is, that railguns are so much better. That doesn't mean, that fusion guns are bad...

catbarf
22-01-2008, 11:06
First off i have a friend that runs a mean nid list w/ plenty of stealers and those little buggers tear me apart every game, unless im using mech tau. just wanted to get that out of the way, i think they could do w/ a bit of toning down but that might just cause i typically play against a really nasty list and an opponent who knows how to use it, so im a little biased.

So you want Genestealers to be slow, expensive, easy to kill AND weak in melee?

The_Outsider
22-01-2008, 11:13
So you want Genestealers to be slow, expensive, easy to kill AND weak in melee?

Otherwise known as grotesques!

Stingray_tm
22-01-2008, 11:23
First off i have a friend that runs a mean nid list w/ plenty of stealers and those little buggers tear me apart every game, unless im using mech tau. just wanted to get that out of the way, i think they could do w/ a bit of toning down but that might just cause i typically play against a really nasty list and an opponent who knows how to use it, so im a little biased.


So your friend is running an extreme Nid list, that owns you, when you use your usual list, unless you use another extrem list like mech tau. Now you want the rules to be changed?
Makes sense.
With my list i have no chance against skimmer heavy lists, so maybe skimmers should automatically explode in turn 2 in order to compensate my unwillingness to use an appropriate list. Sure.
Some lists are more useful against other lists and vice versa. That's what happens, when people take extreme lists. But those lists usually suck at something else. It doesn't make the units themselves unbalanced.

alphastealer
22-01-2008, 11:26
I would be happy if rending happened on the to-wound roll not the to-hit roll, that way it would only apply to a smaller percentage of the actual hits.

Then against vehicles it could be similar to a grenade, 1-3 nothing, 4-5 glancing, 6 penetrating.

While I agree the assault cannon has no business being rending, the genestealer is all about rending and taming him will make him near useless.

Tyranids don't really shoot so we need all the cc help we can get. If they took off the glance-only aspect of the venom cannon then I would consider that a fair trade for dum-down rending.

Still I have to wonder why people are so worried about assault cannons. They are only available on speeders, dreads and termies. If a guy plays lots of those then he is asking for a thrashing since he will have little of anything else. So wow he can take out multiple tanks, that is little help against another infantry heavy army.

Also speeders die like flies, dreads drop to medium power and termies just need to get shot with lots of weak fire to do the trick.

Stingray_tm
22-01-2008, 11:52
To all the people out there, that don't like rending to work on the to-hit roll:

Would you accept an increase of Genestealer base attacks from 2 to 3 in combination with the new rending?

Arkturas
22-01-2008, 13:06
Another factor to take into consideration is the up/down performance of particular weapons/units over different codicies. I'm sure a good few people remember the older AC and Genestealer rules in context with the whole game rules at the time. The AC and Genestealer in this edition are not as powerful as they were in 2nd Ed but better than 3rd Ed where they were hit too hard. For that I don't think they are that bad now (assuming DA AC modifications)

Somewhere along the line (2nd to 3rd) the assault cannon was downgraded from the multi-krak missile launcher (above autocannon) and it hasn't (even with current rending) come even close to what it was. Everyone seems to agree that it would be a bad idea to go back to that version (something along the lines of Heavy 3, S8, AP3). A 5th Ed downgrade of rending is fundamentally a good decision (the new rending is a better rule) but the timing is poor. DA and BA have had the AC limit and points hike across the board that will surely cause it to be overpriced with the new rending.

The genestealer is not the genestealer of the past but it is on the whole a solid choice. Rending downgrade may be balanced at a cost by now effectively undercosted biomorphs but who actually has enough of those biomorphs to model a unit (Feeder tendrils mainly). The genestealer problem though is a fundamental tyranid problem in that tanks are going to be a massive problem to destroy short of MC's hitting CC without the current rending.

Ironhand
22-01-2008, 13:13
Arguing points cost is, I think, pointless. :) Any points system is arbitrary, and every points system has things that are too cheap and too expensive. It's something you just have to live with.

catbarf
22-01-2008, 19:49
To all the people out there, that don't like rending to work on the to-hit roll:

Would you accept an increase of Genestealer base attacks from 2 to 3 in combination with the new rending?

I'd accept it any day. This change is bad for Stealers, but 3 attacks far outweighs such penalty.


Arguing points cost is, I think, pointless. Any points system is arbitrary, and every points system has things that are too cheap and too expensive. It's something you just have to live with.

So, would you not care if every single option in the codex of your army was doubled in cost? After all, it's something you just have to live with...

In fact, I don't have to live with it. I don't see the point of competitive games, so my usual opponents probably won't have a problem with me using old rules.

Battōsai
22-01-2008, 20:25
So your friend is running an extreme Nid list, that owns you, when you use your usual list, unless you use another extrem list like mech tau. Now you want the rules to be changed?

That is not at all what i was saying. Well i suppose the getting owned by an extreme Nid list part is true, but I recognise that my view on the subject of genstealer rending may be biased due to the type of list that i typically play against. The situation with assualt cannons is somewhat similar, when there are only a few in an army then they are effective, but not overpowered. The problem is when players take as many as they can fit. Of course there will be drawbacks to fielding an army list that maximizes one aspect, there are simply more when it comes to Nids because they have to reach combat in order for rending to come into effect, where as the versatility of the assault cannon and its range allow Space Marines to overcome these drawbacks much more easily. I also think that as you suggested an additional attack for genestealers would compensate for the 5th edition of rending, good idea.

HsojVvad
22-01-2008, 21:20
So from reading what people are telling me, now if rending is nerfed, and you can hide behind other units, are people going to cry now that they can't hit the units because they can hide now?

I guess no matter what GW does, someone will cry about something, no matter what happens. You can't please everyone, but they are trying to make a fun game that can be applied to most people.

azimaith
22-01-2008, 22:30
The bigger problem is the nerf to glancing hits is rather extreme leaving nids without competent long range anti-tank.

Stingray_tm
22-01-2008, 23:31
Screens won't help, if the things behind screens are not able to kill, what they are supposed to.

azimaith
22-01-2008, 23:35
I don't see how genestealers can't still tear apart troops, especially since you can go without the extended carapace and go with preferred enemy which supposedly lets you re-roll all your misses in close combat. Thats alot of re-rolls and alot of death. You could throw in toxin sacs or implant attack with that and manage S5 re-roll all misses assault troops or character hunters.

True, nids are going to suck pretty hard against tanks if we lose the running close combat carnifex, but once they get there they should be able to do their job of flipping over enemy tanks like tin cans.

onnotangu
22-01-2008, 23:47
I find it simply funny that people are complaining about stuff that isn't even out yet.

Firaxin
23-01-2008, 00:09
Why do people keep talking about the effectiveness of stealers against infantry or the fact that they can hide behind a screen of gaunts? This has nothing to do with the reason nid players are complaining. They are complaining because the nid army, as a whole, will have practically no anti-tank options aside from Nidzilla. Which will certainly garner us alot of friends.

That being said, I wouldn't mind the anti-infantry rending portion being moved to the to wound rule, but I think genestealers should get an extra attack to compensate.

Also, whoever suggested the 1-3 nothing 4-5 glance 6 penetrate for against tanks is a genius. I wish my stealers could do that. Unfortunately, I feel it will be much more powerful against vehicles than the previous rending rules, and thus will be labelled 'the cheese.'

Captain Micha
23-01-2008, 00:12
Like Tau suck at close combat? Maybe an army is supposed to have a weakness of some kind?

Aside from that, if fexes can run....

azimaith
23-01-2008, 00:15
Thats what I was thinking too. With running fex's i'd leave venom cannons to shaken duty. I'd much rather have a fex flip tanks over than shoot them, much more tyranid like.

Its unfortunate the PDF restricts us to one extra CCW (meaning we can't go dual talons for 2 extra attacks if that stays).

catbarf
23-01-2008, 00:22
Like Tau suck at close combat? Maybe an army is supposed to have a weakness of some kind?

Tau can avoid close combat. Tyranids cannot simply avoid tanks.

It's not a matter of having no way to kill them, it's a matter of needing Nidzilla to do so.

Captain Micha
23-01-2008, 00:23
see above about running fexes.

Tau can not necessarily always avoid cc. only slow cc units are easily evaded with tau, especially under the coming rule changes.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 00:29
I can see what your saying catbarf but theres not much to say. I'd love to see a tyranid unit with like a bio-acid flamer (S5 AP4, 2D6 pen) or something similar but theres just nothing of that sort now.

We have basically warp blast, rending, and monstrous close combat. And if you want to count the extreme off chance of it working, bio-acid mines.

Captain Micha
23-01-2008, 00:31
I like that idea, azimaith. though I think it should be ap3. why? because there is more than enough ap4 in this game to the point where, I seriously wonder why we should pay points for a 4+ save *L* gives space marines something to fear as well.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 00:37
AP3 would make it too good against standard troops which in turn would make it very expensive, in turn making whatever was carrying it a doomed unit thus negating its prime purpose.

A heavy flamer is scary, but only by so much, a AP3 heavy flamer is terrifying to just about any army, throw that on a 5+ save model with wings or a 4+ save model walking and your going to have a model sized crater very quickly.

An acid maw or acid spit style abilty adding in 2d6 penetration might be neat too. I could totally see a warrior spewing acid over the side of a vehicle then trying to rip its way in.

Captain Micha
23-01-2008, 00:43
why would it make it too good? at ap4 it rips open 'standard' troops anyway.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 01:01
Cause AP3 will vape things like stealth suits, crisis suits, all forms of marines, necrons and heavy eldar aspects.

AP4 will kill most line troops, but won't gut heavy infantry.

For an AP3 flamer to be paid for it would cost an assload which is not good for a tyranid army who really wants it for killing tanks.

I'm thinking of it as a warrior style weapons.

moral_crisis
23-01-2008, 04:12
Genestealers can very much still fulfill a small but potent anti-tank role if you take the right stuff.

Take any amount of Genestealers, give them Scuttlers, put them in reserve. Next have them come in from a board edge, fleet and charge a tank in the rear/side. where rending will shine a lot more. You can also get them into close combat super fast as well. so really new Genestealers = scary.

Also there's a point to taking the stupid Feeder Tendrils which before i was going to take just to be fluffy, but now all of a sudden is a scary thing.

5th Edition Genestealers > 4th Edition Genestealers

blackroyal
23-01-2008, 05:24
Take any amount of Genestealers, give them Scuttlers, put them in reserve.

Is scuttlers changing? ...if not... :wtf:

onnotangu
23-01-2008, 05:25
Genestealers can very much still fulfill a small but potent anti-tank role if you take the right stuff.

Take any amount of Genestealers, give them Scuttlers, put them in reserve. Next have them come in from a board edge, fleet and charge a tank in the rear/side. where rending will shine a lot more. You can also get them into close combat super fast as well. so really new Genestealers = scary.

Also there's a point to taking the stupid Feeder Tendrils which before i was going to take just to be fluffy, but now all of a sudden is a scary thing.

5th Edition Genestealers > 4th Edition Genestealers

tell you what. I have 54 stealers in my tyranid list. IF and when 5th edtion comes out and if this tactic does or doesn't work you will get a nice post about it in the battle reports section.

BladeWolf
23-01-2008, 07:30
I can comment on the power of the Assault Cannon.
As a Marine player myself i have about 2 in my army (Terminator Command Squad)

In a Apocalypse game (a few weeks ago) i flank marched behind my Guard opponents main force, unfortunately my command squad was staring down the barrel of a Baneblade. i thought, why the hell not and unloaded both Assault cannons,

some hideous rending later (Armour pen roll=6 then another 6 to penetrate) i got through his Armour on the front, i then preceded to roll two more 6's and a 5, equaling a 522pt tank defeated in the first turn to a 20pt special weapon (it then went apocalyptic and destroyed about 3/4 of his Armoured Company and artillery.) i think they need nerfing slightly... maybe remove the tank-busting clause (have a steel fury myself, i now dread assault cannons... bad news against my friends 22 assault cannon army!)

catbarf
23-01-2008, 11:14
I can see what your saying catbarf but theres not much to say. I'd love to see a tyranid unit with like a bio-acid flamer (S5 AP4, 2D6 pen) or something similar but theres just nothing of that sort now.

We have basically warp blast, rending, and monstrous close combat. And if you want to count the extreme off chance of it working, bio-acid mines.

The 2nd Tyrannic War campaign oack has the Tankerfex. It's a fex that shoots acid a la Starship Troopers.


see above about running fexes.

See above about not wanting Nidzilla.


Tau can not necessarily always avoid cc. only slow cc units are easily evaded with tau, especially under the coming rule changes.

They can kill them with their obscene level of firepower and in doing so remove all threat of melee attack. Without Rending Claws, the only way to kill tanks will be Nidzilla. And even then- three Sniperfexes cost a boatload of points, yet are far less effective than a IG Support Squad with 3 Lascannons.

Mad Larkin UK
23-01-2008, 11:18
Yes i am crying, when a landspeeder which is worth 80 points flys out, and blasts my armour 14 russ to pieces with a chaingun. Rending makes assault cannons too good against vehicles. And theres not much i can do about it since they can fly 12 and still shoot it.

It needs toning down against vehicles..And given to snipers i agree with. BOOM HEADSHOT!
Not sure about the roll against troops going to the wound roll. Since its not that bad in combat.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 11:44
Okay, please everyone read this sentence very slowly, because this thread is running in circles.

Nid players are complaining, that with the new rules, Nids will have almost nothing besides close combat MCs that can deal with tanks. That is an unfair disadvantage without any reason for it and even with the new missions Nid's can't afford to ignore tanks. Even if they could, why should they have to, while every other army doesn't have to. Nids are gaining nothing to compensate for that drawback. Nobody wants more Godzilla, so there is a need for something else in the list, that can take out tanks.

So these suggestions are not relevant.

A. "Then just take MCs"
Please read the initial complaint very carefully.

B. "But Genestealers still will be good against troops".
Please read the initial complaint very carefully.

C. "But army X only has a couple of weapons (which by the way several units in the army list can take) for AT."
Please read the initial complaint very carefully.

D. "Then just ignore tanks."
Please read the initial complaint very carefully.

Thank you for your cooperation.

azimaith
23-01-2008, 11:56
Tyranids are basically between a rock and a hard place. All I could suggest until they actually A: Change to differntiate between tyranid rending and rending, B: Update the codex with new anti tank options.

With 5th ed rending, it won't kill many tanks, with 5th ed glancing it won't kill many tanks (the venom cannon)

With practically 5th ed everything tyranids are losing anti-tank ability. You'll need a ridiculous amount of sniper fex to do much of anything to a tank with the glancing chart as is(in pdf).

All I can say is use close assault MC's in close combat with running or other movement modes (which is still hard because of the CCW nerf). Other than that we've got warp blast.

I don't see 5th ed rending changing by much as vehicle damage was its number one complaint, which basically means that tyranids will get kicked in the ass because of other armies and ranged/impossible to get at rending. I'd personally probably start running a CC elite fex, a trygon, and a sniper fex with the 5th ed rules to get by. At least things won't get obscured from CC.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 12:10
A way of solving the problem would be to make VCs penetrating with a FAQ. It would work, but on the other hand it's even more unNiddy than the current situation.

Mad Larkin UK
23-01-2008, 12:27
Whats wrong with warp blasts, Venom cannons, MC's in CC, deathspitters, your genestealers will always be assaulting the back armour of none WS vehicles anyway.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 12:45
Whats wrong with warp blasts, Venom cannons, MC's in CC, deathspitters, your genestealers will always be assaulting the back armour of none WS vehicles anyway.

Warp blasts are unreliable, have low range and you can only have 3, unless you take... MCs.
MCs in CC is okay, unless it's the only thing you can take. 2 units in the codex out of more then 12, that can reliably kill tanks (and only if you specialice them for cc). Yay...
Venom Cannons can only glance --> That will not be enough in 5th
Deathspitters have a strength cap of 7 and thus will glance most of the time --> Not enough in 5th edition
Where does it say, that Genestealers will always asault the back armour of none WS vehicles? I haven't found a reliable rumour, that the back armour will be used in cc. It wasn't in the leaked document.

If in fact the back armour is used in cc, than i won't complain, because rending will work against most of the tanks, even better than before.

Mr Stu
23-01-2008, 13:02
I spent last Saturday afternoon playing my Chaos army against an Apoc army of 'quins. I learnt alot about the way in which the 'quiins work. These guys rend like a badass, especially when they are charging and in squads of eight with a shadow seer. (I did take out all of the Phoenix lords and the super seer dude though!!)

Fortunately, I had an answer to packed squads of 'quins in the form of a Defiler and the orbital bombard stratergy.

Despite all this and some shoddy dice rolls, the 'quins still got into charge range and butchered me.

I believe that rending makes alot of sense as is, if people don't plan for the inevitable rending aspects of some armies, then more fool them. You cannot expect your opponent to not take what are some of the most powerfull weapons in the game just because you think they suck for being too powerfull.

If people can agree a comprimise prior to a game then more power to them.:)

azimaith
23-01-2008, 13:39
Whats wrong with warp blasts, Venom cannons, MC's in CC, deathspitters, your genestealers will always be assaulting the back armour of none WS vehicles anyway.
Warp blasts requier a psychic test, 18" range, then a B3 single shot followed by an armor pen roll followed by a 33% chance to destroy a vehicle outright (in new pdf rules).

MC"s in CC, looks good to me.

Venomcannons only glance which in new PDF rules means they can't outright kill vehicles, they need to bust every single weapon off the vehicle then immobilize it twice to destroya vehicle.

Deathspitters strength is too low.

PDF rules say nothing about always assaulting the rear of non-WS vehicles.

Mad Larkin UK
23-01-2008, 16:25
The Assaulting the rear of vehicles is in the rumour roundup on this site i believe, and yes rending needs toning down against vehicles, it really does. Maybe not in CC, to save nids, but shooting, it really does. Or vehicles need buffing which is what i think is happening in 5th edition.

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 18:00
Moreover, the only tanks that are serious problems with reduced rending are Land Raiders and Monoliths, and since those are relatively rare, they can square off with the ideally relatively rare TMCs- since you shouldn't exclusively assault the front anyway (and no, you don't always have a choice- but then, with anti-tank guns you don't either).

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 18:35
Nope, every AV13 vehicles is a problem now. I mean in real gaming situations, not in hypothetical situations, where the enemy happened to be stupid enough to park his vehicle with it's rear toward charging Genestealers...

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 19:29
And it's what, an extra 4" to the side of the tank? That's Fleet roll.

'Stealers aren't restricted to only attacking the front arc of vehicles, that's deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

blackroyal
23-01-2008, 19:50
And it's what, an extra 4" to the side of the tank? That's Fleet roll.

'Stealers aren't restricted to only attacking the front arc of vehicles, that's deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

It seems to me that whenever I get within 8" of an enemy tank, my opponent moves it BACK.

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 20:12
Yes, and he has how much room to do so? One more round of shooting, because your stealers can assault 12"+ and most tanks can move at most 12"- which renders them unable to shoot, so they're only moving 6" to shoot you . . .so now you're 14" away

Upshot, most tanks should only be able to squeeze out on extra turn at most of shooting that way, and that shouldn't be game-breaking by itself.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 20:12
Or he stands besides impassable or difficult terrain Or i roll bad for fleet. Or there are other units at the side of the tank. Or i need fleet in order to even get to the front armour (this is usually the case in these situations)!!!

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 20:15
All specific tactical considerations, none of which are given. Everything always looks like the worst idea ever if you only ever evaluate it from the worst case perspective instead of considering the full range.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 20:45
Well i happen to play Nids and i certainly know when and how my Genestealers came into contact with enemy tanks. It is never side or rear armour. Please don't tell me, that then i just should fleet another turn, getting shot to pieces, while the tank just drives away.

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 20:48
How much room does that tank have to run?

And how often have you tried for sides or rear, instead of just shrugging and saying "Rending means I can take the front?"

It'll be a whole new game with different tactics in 5th. Don't apply 4th Ed logic to 5th Ed situations.

Stingray_tm
23-01-2008, 20:53
I needed all the fleet i could get, in order to get into combat with that damned thing. You can't just run at the tank from front and then charge into side armour. You have to draw a direct line in order to get into combat. And the direct line is into front armour. Every other solution means, that you waste an additional turn to position your stealers in a way, that you have the right angle for a side attack. But then he will just turn on the spot and drive backwards.

BrainFireBob
23-01-2008, 20:56
Which requires two assumptions:

1) That a direct line attack will be the best tactic in 5th.

2) That your stealers are the only thing that tank cares about shooting/cares about charging it.

onnotangu
23-01-2008, 21:09
Broodlord+ tank=dead tank
hmm running broodlord and squad

Kelderaith
23-01-2008, 22:23
Most of the opinions shared here can be resumed in a few short sentences:

Rending is considered overpowered by many for anti-vehicule purpose (let's remove it then, and let the tyranids stay as they are, for they lack other proper response to such threat while all other army sporting rending have other choices of unit to field for such a role).

Rending is sometimes considered overpowered when used by some melee units, but then, giving these said units power weapons instead always make them even more powerful, and removing the rending altogether make them overpriced or simply very bad/useless at their fixed roles, so melee rending units are rarely overpowered since they either cost lots of points or are vulnerable.

Assault Canons don't need rending, and it was one of the most colourful error GW made in adding that to the profile. While I think it wasn't truely necessary, pointing out what some, brilliant if I might add, people said: a weapon that can fire mid/high caliber rounds at such speed shouldn't be AP4 either, so the rending rule isn't that much of a problem, it's the fact that it also wreck tanks that is... thus removing the anti-tank capability of the assault canon (like every other rending weapons except for Tyranids) would pretty much balance things out. While I think removing the anti-vehicule part of the rending rule for assault canons is a good start, I would either restrict, augment the point cost, or add the old jam rule to it, since as it is, it's still a very (and more than needed) potent weapon vs both light and heavy infantry, and at a low point cost that is.

I think I have pretty much summed it up, if anyone want to add anything, feel free to do so but I think that's pretty much all that was needed to say, even more so after a 8 pages thread on the subject.

Guy Fawkes
24-01-2008, 00:47
I believe rending has gotten a little out of control. I would have preferred if a 6 to hit caused an auto-wound and if a 6 to would would cause no armor saves.

Problem is, if you nerf rending, you nerf 'Nids, which I think really need rending in order to deal with vehicles and actually have relatively fair rending.

catbarf
24-01-2008, 01:09
I believe rending has gotten a little out of control.

Problem is, if you nerf rending, you nerf 'Nids, which I think really need rending in order to deal with vehicles and actually have relatively fair rending.

And with that, you have summed up the issue perfectly.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-01-2008, 01:25
Yes. Yes, a thousand times yes.

Mostly it's nid players, if you notice -- who, in my experience, tend to be pretty tactically inept. Marching genestealers in front of AP4 rending assault cannons and wondering why they die so easily, marching MCs with no invul in front of powerfists and wondering why they die so easily, etc.

I'm still relatively new (only about two years into the game), but I find that probably 3/5 of the complaining that I've seen is done by Tyranid players.

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 01:31
can't forget the gunline marines who have 6 man las plas, that complain because parts of their army gets picked on and picked apart by a ton of force put down in a small area while being unable to return fire because said parts were out of los to other parts.

or 6 manners that play against tau on a board that is as flat as a pancake.

or people that play on a board that is as flat as a pancake.

whether rending is balanced or not, I don't feel it is a good enough rule. A unit with rending is like that annoying kid that jumps up and down screaming "I can do that too! see see see!" be that anti vehicle, or anti infantry. I don't like that it feels like it negates three parts of the game, (just roll a 6 to hit... oh skip the wound roll, skip armor save. remove model) seems almost like saying "here is a ws1 troop but when he rolls a six he auto wounds with no armor save"

or when applied to a gun which is good enough without it. It makes the awesomeness of the other weapons in the game seem craptastic by comparison.

most people though will find anything to complain about, to justify their losses. I find terrain to be the biggest balancing factor in 40k.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-01-2008, 01:41
Let me turn on my marine hate shield...ahh, that's better.

I agree that it negates too many parts of the game but in all honesty what besides the lascannon and the power fist do the SMs carry that is really that destructive? I say it's better to limit the numbers of the gun then to change it. Let's face it -- 1-3 assault cannons is very different then 9. Even I'll admit that.

That way it solves the problem both ways. Current rules rumors point to it being moved onto the to-wound roll, which is decent but still somewhat stupid. A 6 to wound always inflicts a wound...and yes, you get no armor save, but in the case of the assault cannon that is going to be maybe 1 rend per assault cannon volley, figuring 3 out of the 4 shots hit. Even then...how often have you thrown three or even two dice and gotten a 6? The odds are not as failproof as everyone mathhammers them out to be...even before the nerf I rarely got a rend and usually, against an intelligent enemy, they would have a cover save anyhow.

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 01:54
Heavy bolters, demolisher cannons (when they hit I know.) plasma cannons, melta, plasma guns, multimeltas (in the case of bts.. they can use those to pretty good effect) whirlwinds, autocannons, lightning claws, cyclone missile launchers, hurricane bolters, missile launchers. plenty of death dealing power.

It is different but those 3 seems alot like 4-5 of any other weapon.

I don't suffer too many rending shots anymore. everyone agreed to asscannon arms reduction when I started fielding 9 broadsides and multiple fireknife teams.

as a bt player I voluntarily do not field many asscannons actually none at all. Mainly because if there is one thing bt are good at it's throwing a dose of beatdown on someone. if I had the money I might have some pony carriers in the form of LRCs, just because how -many- Lrcs someone can field.

Battōsai
24-01-2008, 04:45
Most of the opinions shared here can be resumed in a few short sentences:

Rending is considered overpowered by many for anti-vehicule purpose (let's remove it then, and let the tyranids stay as they are, for they lack other proper response to such threat while all other army sporting rending have other choices of unit to field for such a role).



This seems a suitable solution and avoids the issue of finding alternative ways for Nids to deal w/ tougher tanks in the new addition. The restrictions can be based upon the changes in the DA codex which limit the number of assault cannons available to a unit and increase the points to take them. Great idea imo :)

dark-hamish
24-01-2008, 06:19
I play rending weapons, I face rending weapons. The only way I think they are broken, is against vehicles. The way it is now, a lucy bug with rending could take down a baneblade. Or a lucky harlie, assault canon ect.... Against troops, sure but not vehicles. For vehicles, the strength of the hit should be enough.

azimaith
24-01-2008, 06:57
Yes. Yes, a thousand times yes.

Mostly it's nid players, if you notice -- who, in my experience, tend to be pretty tactically inept. Marching genestealers in front of AP4 rending assault cannons and wondering why they die so easily, marching MCs with no invul in front of powerfists and wondering why they die so easily, etc.

I generally find its marine players who are too self absorbed to understand not every army can pick up a 5+ or 4+ invulnerable save for a handful of points or that fail to realize that armies have moving AP4 weaponry say things like that. Funny how that works.


I'm still relatively new (only about two years into the game), but I find that probably 3/5 of the complaining that I've seen is done by Tyranid players.
On rending, because rending is a huge part of the tyranid army.

Combine new rending with new vehicle damage tables and new glance rules and you make tyranid anti-tank an even bigger joke.

Rending is fine against troops in either iteration, but marines and eldar don't suffer any sizeable loss of anti-tank power by its loss, while tyranids lose a huge amount of it.


I play rending weapons, I face rending weapons. The only way I think they are broken, is against vehicles. The way it is now, a lucy bug with rending could take down a baneblade. Or a lucky harlie, assault canon ect.... Against troops, sure but not vehicles. For vehicles, the strength of the hit should be enough.

Hows that any different than any other weapon system that can damage the tank. A lucky guard player could destroy a bane blade with a single krak missile to side armor.

Rending doesn't give you a magical "luck" bonus and the possibility of something killing something else is not even useful as an indicator of power.

A grot can kill a terminator? Obviously grots are broken right?

A heavy bolter can kill any non-vehicle model in the game with luck. Is that broken too?

The issue with rending arises from putting in stupidly tough, ranged, or extremely hard to target units.

With new LOS blocking supposedly being in 5th every units going to get at least somewhat harder to target. With that theres no issue with reducing rending, but to reduce rendings effect on vehicles while at the same time increasing global vehicle survivability is too much. One or the other would be perfectly fine. Keeping rending with its current damage but changing the damage tables to the new variant would result in survivable vehicles, especially with hull down, while keeping a measure of variation in army choices.

Units with rending that shouldn't have rending or shouldn't be quite so invioble can be fixed in codex publishes.

sabreu
24-01-2008, 07:06
Tyranids are getting a swift kick in the implant attack. Not a good thing, but definitely hoping they'll make it up in their next incarnation.

byteboy
24-01-2008, 08:15
I see my DW army will be even more challenging to play.

Sgt Biffo
24-01-2008, 09:50
Currently, Rending weapons "Rend" skip the wounding stage of attacks and deny armour saves. This is a fairly new occurrence as far as 40k is concerned (With the exception of, say, the Daemon Weapon Drach'nyen).

Back in the days of yor, even Defence Lasers had to roll to wound... but a Genestealer Claw can forgo this tedious process 12% of the time!?!:wtf:

Rending in the wounding process is still fair! A genestealer, for example, can still wound a Wraithlord (which its strength would normally be insufficient for) and deny its armour save: Albeit less of the time.

Son of Makuta
24-01-2008, 10:06
The problem with Rending is that it was *designed* for Tyranids. Then GW started giving it to daemonettes, then Space Marines, and then Eldar. Now it's everywhere.

If we have to roll to hit first in CC, ignoring saves on 6s to wound is going to be a nasty knockdown for Genestealers. Suddenly they got a lot worse at killing elite units like Wyches, and lose a third of their rending attacks each turn. And they - and Tyranids in general - rely on those rending attacks. My Raveners and Lictors don't kill much to begin with...

The 5th ed rules in general seem set to change just about everything to do with the Tyranid army. LOS blocking, forced march, troops capturing, rending, glancing hits can't kill tanks...

Yeah, thanks GW. Now I have no way whatsoever to kill tanks except for trying to hit them on 6s with flying Tyrants, of which we get one in an army...

azimaith
24-01-2008, 10:38
I dunno, I think rending against troops will still be ok in 5th since they added in LOS blocking troops. You'll probably do more damage thanks to points saved on carapace (or even more with a single point on feeder tendrils).

Its against tanks where no matter how many you have your effectiveness is curtailed to only killing AV12 vehicles outright. AV13 would require it to lose all its weapons and be immobilized before suffering another weapon destroyed or immobilized result to finally kill it, and those results would only show up on a 5-6. AV14 they can't even dent. Add in venom cannons suffering the same non-instant kills for all of their shots and your looking at a very much weakened tyranid anti-tank.

For other armies using rending its not a huge problem. Space marines have ranged weapons like meltas, multi-meltas, lascannons, missile launchers, and will be getting base penetration 12 on a rending assault cannon shot (meaning its a 5-6 to penetrate after that)

Eldar have their various grenades, lances, pulse lasers, fire prisms, wraith cannons, D-cannons, and fire dragons to handle them.

Tyranids will end up with Close combat from MCs (Not bad with run), warp blast (unreliable, lots of rolls, short ranged), barbed stranglers (One shot, S8 Lg blast, but with a scatter die in 5th) or bio acid(Base strength 3. You'd need 2 6's to penetrate av 14.

Its the combo of glancing losing a large amount of its stopping power combined rending losing half its extra penetration.

If they just changed the vehicle table and left glancing -1 or -0 this wouldn't be an issue as we'd still have a chance on glances.

boogle
24-01-2008, 10:42
I don't think it needs nerfing as such, it just need curtailing in terms of the number of units that had it (i loved the fact that Stealers were one of the few things that had it and it made sense, after all they regularly carve through Terminator Armour and Bulkheads in Space Hulk), but then we got Rending Assualt cannons etc etc, to the point where quite a few armies had something that was rending, and it lost it's uniqueness

catbarf
24-01-2008, 11:11
Albeit less of the time.

And this is why it is not fair. Under the new rules, 24pts of Genestealers will do the same damage as 16pts of Stealers would under the current rules. Blocking, feeder tendrils, none of the options or tactics can make up for the fact that my unit of 12 does as much as a unit of 8 used to.

Sgt Biffo
24-01-2008, 11:26
And this is why it is not fair. Under the new rules, 24pts of Genestealers will do the same damage as 16pts of Stealers would under the current rules. Blocking, feeder tendrils, none of the options or tactics can make up for the fact that my unit of 12 does as much as a unit of 8 used to.

The way I see it 16 points of Genestealers we currently have are capable of taking on twice their points value and not just winning, but absolutely wiping the floor with their opponents.

Perhaps now they are only 66% as effective they will only flog the be-jeebus out of twice their points in opponents instead of the farce we are lumped with presently.

azimaith
24-01-2008, 11:34
I want your dice Sgt Biffo because thats not how it plays out for me. Put a genestealer up against a space marine and it doesn't come out quite amazingly. For the most part rending is a hit or miss prospect where you either do alot of damage or you don't do much of anything.

Its all very dependent on what they attack. Personally I was never a fan of the whole ignore wounding rolls" more than anything else.

Vault-Dweller
24-01-2008, 11:44
Strawman. You were claiming the Nid player had to be lucky to use his Stealers. I maintain that it should be skill, not luck, that determines whether they make it into combat.

Luck or skill. The problem is that the other units that has rending don't need it.

Stingray_tm
24-01-2008, 12:15
The way I see it 16 points of Genestealers we currently have are capable of taking on twice their points value and not just winning, but absolutely wiping the floor with their opponents.


1. They don't. In extreme cases maybe, but usually they don't.
2. They HAVE TO rock in cc, because they have to make up for the fact, that the whole Tyranid army is on the losing side for the first 3 turns. Now they must be able to do enough damage to reverse that trend and get Nids into the winning zone.

Sgt Biffo
25-01-2008, 00:35
I want your dice Sgt Biffo because thats not how it plays out for me.

Not my dice... my opponents. One opponent in particular seems to go through my army like a dodgey curry!:eyebrows:

catbarf
25-01-2008, 01:23
Not my dice... my opponents. One opponent in particular seems to go through my army like a dodgey curry!:eyebrows:

Seeing as almost all evidence and personal anecdotes so far are against you, perhaps it's a player factor? Maybe he's good, or you're not, or both? Don't blame the unit when it's the generals at work.

Although they are powerful, they have severe weaknesses. Their extreme ability in melee is balanced by their cost, speed, and fragility.

Guy Fawkes
25-01-2008, 01:37
Tyranids will end up with Close combat from MCs (Not bad with run), warp blast (unreliable, lots of rolls, short ranged), barbed stranglers (One shot, S8 Lg blast, but with a scatter die in 5th) or bio acid(Base strength 3. You'd need 2 6's to penetrate av 14.


But that's the problem really. A Carnifex with a Barbed Strangler is going to out you at least 140 points with decent upgrades and then you're stuck with a slow beast that can be targeted by just about everything and really isn't that hard to kill if you have an Anti-Tank squad. If you're facing off against any Mech force, well you have a potential three heavy support choices that can maybe deal with it (Scatter Dice hurt) at a mere 36" range. Venom Cannons are good, but really, you're still only limited to 3 Carnifexes that can get a Str 10 always glance weapon and a Str 8 Blast Weapon at BS 3.

Then what? It is pretty audacious to claim with run a Carnifex or Hive Tyrant is ever going to get into Close Combat with anything that is a Skimmer or against any player that is somewhat intelligent. Plus, even then, you can't deal with vehicles first turn, and by the time to go through the forest to get to the Basilisk that has been raining molten death on you for 4 turns, it's a little late. And in any case you're limiting the number of models in the army that can hurt a vehicle.

By doing this, you make Dreadnoughts and the like stronger. Genestealers will have a hard time even bringing down Sentinels without Rending. Also, you pigeon-hole Tyranid players into taking three Carnifexes and two Hivetyrants in every game. I like Broodlords and Zoanthropes and the like, but by limiting reliable vehicle control to two models in the army you also limit viable army builds. Is that what you want, less variety in lists then there already are? Currently I really like my Swarm Nid Army and it performs very well, but I only run two Carnifexes with weapons that can damage a tank and really rely on Warriors, Genestealers, and Raveners to deal with vehicles. This also keeps opponents wary of putting their vehicles anywhere nearby as with Move through Cover and Fleet of Foot (Maybe Scutters or Fast Charge/Leaping), Tyranids can move pretty fast and get vehicles that try to escape, and this tones down the effect vehicles have on 'Nids in an army with no vehicles of its own, no weapons that can be placed in Squads and do damage to a tank, and can only glance vehicles at range with its few ranged weapons.

The fact of the matter is that Tyranids need Rending. It defines a lot of the army's capabilities, and say what you will, Genestealer Broods die instantly to anything that shoots them (5+ Save, puh-lease), and cost more than a Space Marine (with no awesome Bolters), all for the ability to Rend and have a little more punch in CC thanks to their decent statline (in all honesty, Gaunts can move as fast as Genestealers, so their speed is a negligible part of their points cost.) And, Space Marines can hide a Power Fist-armed Sergeant that gets two Str 8 Attacks on anything for less than a sizable Genestealer Brood that will survive the long trek across the board. I'd take Str 8 over Str 4 with Rending any day of the week.

Tyranids need Rending - It isn't overpowered in the army it was designed for. It was all the ranged and tough Rending weapons that really made it overpowered. I wouldn't mind if Tyranids didn't exclusively get Rending like they once did, but I already stated how I would tone it down against Troops in an above post, and I firmly believe it should be reduced to Close Combat only.

shakespear
25-01-2008, 04:12
Every change like this produces the same effect. It KILLS these people who only run the same list all the time.

Marius Xerxes
25-01-2008, 04:15
Man.. how many "Rending has changed and now my army is useless" threads are there on here. Seriously, how many different ways and sections does it have to be posted in before everyone knows your upset.

We get it.. it sucks for the way you currently play the army. Play it differently perhaps? Or don't play at all?

And remember the key component.. everything is just rumors at this point. Don't burn yourself out while its still 7 Months away from the rumored release.

azimaith
25-01-2008, 04:17
Well then i'll need to start giving my enemies laxitives to bless my dice to go through their armies in that fashion.

Stingray_tm
25-01-2008, 08:37
Man.. how many "Rending has changed and now my army is useless" threads are there on here. Seriously, how many different ways and sections does it have to be posted in before everyone knows your upset.


Until people stop trying to convince us, that we are wrong. Which won't work. Accept, that we don't like it and are concerned and leave it to that.

"Okay, that could turn out to be a problem, giving GWs history of screwing up, but wait until all changes are known, maybe it works out fine in the end." --> No need for any more discussion.

"Hey dude, you just suck. Your current army sucks, you are a bad tactician and i know your army better than you do, even though i don't play them. I also know how your battles worked out, even though i wasn't there. Just use more cover, or use tactics/combinations that are illegal (but hey, it is your codex, why should i know it, when i take part in this discussion). Rending in Nids is overpowered anyway. lolzor!!!!" --> I am pissed and respond accordingly.

WH40KAj
25-01-2008, 10:59
"Hey dude, you just suck. Your current army sucks, you are a bad tactician and i know your army better than you do, even though i don't play them. I also know how your battles worked out, even though i wasn't there. Just use more cover, or use tactics/combinations that are illegal (but hey, it is your codex, why should i know it, when i take part in this discussion). Rending in Nids is overpowered anyway. lolzor!!!!" --> I am pissed and respond accordingly.

I totally understand this stingray, being a tyranid player of 10years- but it really doesn't help our cause. What people need to understand is that rending plays a factor in our army, to a tyranid player losing rending is a bit like a marine getting a 4+ save for power armour, eldar losing fleet, or chaos losing daemons and being just renegade marines.
Our biovores got nerfed badly, lictors are hit and miss, raveners are fragile units, spore mines are one trick ponies, now a rending change just doesn't help us frankly. Granted we have warp blast, but this is unreliable being BS3. Our weapons (bar biovores) are max 36" range, yet another handicap. We have to go forward thats what we do; so when we are in cc thats how we roll accept this fact that you should die.

I personally didn't like the stealer army build. It isn't fluffly frankly but i still use a squad or two. People should use more gaunts in my opinion as thats what we do. For veichles, we now have problems which I believe can be resolved with a nice change to the venom cannon- it should be changed to penetrate closed tanks, skimmers etc. Thats the single most effective change that can be applied frankly and it seems fair from where i'm sitting.

GW, change the venom cannon with 5th ed or you'll see tyranid sales dip- I guarantee it.


One more point i'd like to make, tyranids play different from every other army out there and most people collect but don't continue to play after a while. The reason is due to lack of patience people have with the army and now this will make them harder to play it will put more people off sticking with them. You can play tyranids for a few months, but it takes about half a year to know them...
Thats my say for now,
WH40KAj

Mercer
25-01-2008, 11:13
TBH I don't really care for rending, only a few of my tyranids use the rule and minor SM and CSM forces. And only works if roll a 6, so don't always get to use the rule all the time:o.

Mercer

Sgt Biffo
25-01-2008, 12:00
Seeing as almost all evidence and personal anecdotes so far are against you, perhaps it's a player factor? Maybe he's good, or you're not, or both? Don't blame the unit when it's the generals at work.

You've tried this exact bait on me on a few different threads now.:o Repeating yourself seems to be a bit of a habit of yours, or is it just the "catch-all" rhetoric of a last resort?


Although they are powerful, they have severe weaknesses. Their extreme ability in melee is balanced by their cost, speed, and fragility.

From the other perspective: At least AV 14 will be worth a pinch of dirt now...

...not that it will do most vehicles (barring the Landraider and Walkers) any favours as they will all be hit in the rear armour in C-C- or is that another hamstring for the "Nid player?:D

Arkturas
25-01-2008, 14:07
You've tried this exact bait on me on a few different threads now.:o Repeating yourself seems to be a bit of a habit of yours, or is it just the "catch-all" rhetoric of a last resort?



From the other perspective: At least AV 14 will be worth a pinch of dirt now...

...not that it will do most vehicles (barring the Landraider and Walkers) any favours as they will all be hit in the rear armour in C-C- or is that another hamstring for the "Nid player?:D

Hit in rear armour will be a bonus if the rumour is true, however depending on which rending rule vs vehicles gets implemented (glance on 6 (more likely) or +D3) makes a huge difference. Assuming it's true, rending vs vehicles will still require 3-4 times as many hits to get a kill as all the weapons need to be destroyed and 2 immobilisation results if penetrating hits aren't possible.

Tyranids of all the armies will be hit the hardest by a rending reduction and you can't ignore the many Tyranid players saying that the most likely change that can be made to negate it is to use more MC's. A stopgap measure would be a FAQ to remove the Venom Cannon glancing only rule but it's still mainly an MC weapon.

There is a pretty consistant prediction from Tyranid players that there will be an increase in MC's across most lists. If Nidzilla is so hated then this surely can't be a good thing.

Stingray_tm
25-01-2008, 14:11
I totally agree with Arkturas, while i feel the need to add, that if rear armour CAN be hit in CC, than toned down rending will probably work fine. The only thing, that troubles me then, are AV12 walkers and AV14 all around vehicles. But those can be dealt with.

catbarf
25-01-2008, 14:44
You've tried this exact bait on me on a few different threads now.:o Repeating yourself seems to be a bit of a habit of yours, or is it just the "catch-all" rhetoric of a last resort?

Almost all evidence here says that your experiences are very strange, and completely improbable. There is no bait involved. It seems that the dice somehow grant you or your opponent magical powers that defy all logic and probability, and that the bizarre, near-impossible results you get are sufficient proof that you're correct. Right.

As for repetition... 'Dodgey Curry'?


From the other perspective: At least AV 14 will be worth a pinch of dirt now...

...not that it will do most vehicles (barring the Landraider and Walkers) any favours as they will all be hit in the rear armour in C-C- or is that another hamstring for the "Nid player?:D

Since it will require all weapons to be removed and the vehicle immobilized before it can be destroyed, getting rear armor isn't a huge bonus.

eyeslikethunder
25-01-2008, 15:00
Tyranids of all the armies will be hit the hardest by a rending reduction and you can't ignore the many Tyranid players saying that the most likely change that can be made to negate it is to use more MC's. A stopgap measure would be a FAQ to remove the Venom Cannon glancing only rule but it's still mainly an MC weapon.

There is a pretty consistant prediction from Tyranid players that there will be an increase in MC's across most lists. If Nidzilla is so hated then this surely can't be a good thing.

With MC 's no longer being scoring units this seems unlikely. As anyone playing them will know that killing all the non MC 's will mean victory which is quite easy in the standard nidzilla lists. If anything nidzilla lists will be forced to take much more troops so it is actually possible for them to win under the new victory conditions.

catbarf
25-01-2008, 15:14
With MC 's no longer being scoring units this seems unlikely. As anyone playing them will know that killing all the non MC 's will mean victory which is quite easy in the standard nidzilla lists. If anything nidzilla lists will be forced to take much more troops so it is actually possible for them to win under the new victory conditions.

So what it means is that Nidzilla is the only way to deal with tanks, yet you can't win with Nidzilla. Oh, this looks fun :rolleyes:

Stingray_tm
25-01-2008, 15:15
With MC 's no longer being scoring units this seems unlikely. As anyone playing them will know that killing all the non MC 's will mean victory which is quite easy in the standard nidzilla lists. If anything nidzilla lists will be forced to take much more troops so it is actually possible for them to win under the new victory conditions.

So Nids will have to decide
A. A Godzilla list, that can handle tanks, does well in Total Annihilation games and sucks at other missions
B. A swarmy list, that can not handle tanks, totally sucks in total annihilation and will get shot to pieces by enemy tanks in other missions.

Bookwrak
25-01-2008, 18:30
Almost all evidence here says that your experiences are very strange, and completely improbable. There is no bait involved. It seems that the dice somehow grant you or your opponent magical powers that defy all logic and probability, and that the bizarre, near-impossible results you get are sufficient proof that you're correct. Right.

He's the guy who had the invincible Ogryn squad, isn't he? Bleah.

Anyway, that's essentially how it seems the probability lies. Just about the only way to handle AV 14 will be in CC with MCs.

According to the 5th ed rumors, can you still destroy a tank va multiple immobilized results?

AmBlam
25-01-2008, 18:49
Genestealers will still be the best close combat unit per points in the game.

As for AV, I think GW will come up with something, its nids weakness already so I doubt it will go unnoticed.

azimaith
25-01-2008, 19:01
But that's the problem really. A Carnifex with a Barbed Strangler is going to out you at least 140 points with decent upgrades and then you're stuck with a slow beast that can be targeted by just about everything and really isn't that hard to kill if you have an Anti-Tank squad. If you're facing off against any Mech force, well you have a potential three heavy support choices that can maybe deal with it (Scatter Dice hurt) at a mere 36" range. Venom Cannons are good, but really, you're still only limited to 3 Carnifexes that can get a Str 10 always glance weapon and a Str 8 Blast Weapon at BS 3.

Yes but thats not in 5th edition which is what i'm talking about. Run is a D6 extra movement that any non vehicle (save for walkers) can make instead of shooting but can't assault afterward.



Then what? It is pretty audacious to claim with run a Carnifex or Hive Tyrant is ever going to get into Close Combat with anything that is a Skimmer or against any player that is somewhat intelligent.

Not with run in 5th ed.



Plus, even then, you can't deal with vehicles first turn, and by the time to go through the forest to get to the Basilisk that has been raining molten death on you for 4 turns, it's a little late. And in any case you're limiting the number of models in the army that can hurt a vehicle.

Well with run probably 3 turns (6+3, 6+3 6+6)



By doing this, you make Dreadnoughts and the like stronger. Genestealers will have a hard time even bringing down Sentinels without Rending.

Theres no rumor stating the removal of rending.



Also, you pigeon-hole Tyranid players into taking three Carnifexes and two Hivetyrants in every game.

This is my only problem with the 5th ed rending nerf.



I like Broodlords and Zoanthropes and the like, but by limiting reliable vehicle control to two models in the army you also limit viable army builds. Is that what you want, less variety in lists then there already are? Currently I really like my Swarm Nid Army and it performs very well, but I only run two Carnifexes with weapons that can damage a tank and really rely on Warriors, Genestealers, and Raveners to deal with vehicles. This also keeps opponents wary of putting their vehicles anywhere nearby as with Move through Cover and Fleet of Foot (Maybe Scutters or Fast Charge/Leaping), Tyranids can move pretty fast and get vehicles that try to escape, and this tones down the effect vehicles have on 'Nids in an army with no vehicles of its own, no weapons that can be placed in Squads and do damage to a tank, and can only glance vehicles at range with its few ranged weapons.

I'd love to see new tyranid weapons for anti tank like a bio acid flamer (S+1, template, AP4, 2d6 pen) for mounting on warriors or bigger critters.



The fact of the matter is that Tyranids need Rending. It defines a lot of the army's capabilities, and say what you will, Genestealer Broods die instantly to anything that shoots them (5+ Save, puh-lease), and cost more than a Space Marine (with no awesome Bolters), all for the ability to Rend and have a little more punch in CC thanks to their decent statline (in all honesty, Gaunts can move as fast as Genestealers, so their speed is a negligible part of their points cost.)

Yes, tyranids need rending, the 5th ed change will probably make rending about equivalent to standard troops and genestealers cheaper thanks to los screening changes.



And, Space Marines can hide a Power Fist-armed Sergeant that gets two Str 8 Attacks on anything for less than a sizable Genestealer Brood that will survive the long trek across the board. I'd take Str 8 over Str 4 with Rending any day of the week.

Well in 4th were talking 3, in 5th were talking 2.



Tyranids need Rending - It isn't overpowered in the army it was designed for. It was all the ranged and tough Rending weapons that really made it overpowered. I wouldn't mind if Tyranids didn't exclusively get Rending like they once did, but I already stated how I would tone it down against Troops in an above post, and I firmly believe it should be reduced to Close Combat only.
I think whats more important is that units with rending all be vulnerable to shooting like genestealers. Harlequins with VoT or falcons, deathwatch with 3+, FNP and jump packs, and assault cannons with range all make it too easy to deliver. Genestealers are the few units that do it how it should be.


As for Nidzilla. To be honest i'm pretty pumped about dumping one or both of my sniper fex for a crushing claws/talons or dual talon fex. Sounds like its gonna be awesome, might even think about using bio-plasma. I don't really mind MCs being used to kill tanks personally, lets face it, a land raider is a big vehicle thus you'd normally go after it with big guns.

I don't really like the limiting of tyranid anti-tank more than it is now but a couple MCs will probably do pretty well without going fully nidzilla. At least as long as running really works well enough to manage.

vejby
25-01-2008, 20:27
So we can basically split the rending issue in two: genestealers need it and it is fair on them vs. every ranged weapon with rending is bad.

I am only going to touch upon the genestealer part, since I don't know all the other weapons.

As many people have said, rending short circuits the wounding/save system. The reason, I believe, for this is to make the genestealer as capable as it was in 2nd ed and still keep its stat-line within the basic troop area, i.e. no more than S4/T4.

In 2nd ed. they were S6, enough to penetrate most vehicles fairly rarely, and the CC system gave massive advantages to larger groups vs. one or two models, so that the 7th stealer in a group had enough hits to really damage a vehicle. This is the situation that rending emulates on a genestealer.

You basically have a unit with stats comparable to troops with the ability to act like MC's with high strength 1/6th of the time.

Now, the reason why rending became really bad is because it is not tied to any of the statistics, which has also been mentioned before.
If rending for instance was so, that an attack would only rend on a roll that is lower than the relevant statistic, i.e. BS or WS, and still hits, it would become much more varied.

Marine ACs would only rend on a 3, i.e. as often as now, any BS3 AC would never rend, so go ahead and give the IG all the assault cannons they can carry, and genestealers would suddenly become massively dangerous. So dangerous in fact that they should be lowered to WS 4 or 5 instantly, bringing them even more in line with the basic troop statline. Incidentally, this would also make warriors with rending work differently than stealers with rending, because warriors have a different WS.

Finally, having a BS of as much as 7 would also suddenly make sense for rending weapons.

This would not solve all of the things that people complaint about, but at least it would streamline rending with the existing systems of to hit and make BS and WS mean more.

Phew, think that was my two dollars.

Sgt Biffo
26-01-2008, 14:50
He's the guy who had the invincible Ogryn squad, isn't he? Bleah.

Yup- Thats me! ...and still going strong (Medal Crimson on my B.O.N.E. Head has pulled my proverbial out of the fire once but; 1 standing keeps the record intact.:D)

Life is good in statistical anomaly land.:)


As for repetition... 'Dodgey Curry'?

It actually: "Go through you like a dodgey curry". There many a sore butt from 24 hours in the thunder box after a dodgey curry!

What can I say its classic Australiana, like: "As silly as a bum full of Smarties (M&Ms)", "There's a smell in here that will out last religion", "Dry as a dead dingo's donga"... (Oh yeah- thats all PG where I come from BTW:angel:)


Since it will require all weapons to be removed and the vehicle immobilized before it can be destroyed, getting rear armor isn't a huge bonus.

I see your point. As far as I'm aware (and feel free to correct me as there is conflicting rumours as to actual rules changes where I live at the moment) Rending still adds 6 to vehicle pen but only adds an additional D3 on top of that (as opposed to the current D6).

With that in mind: there a precious few vehicles in the 40k system with a rear armour higher than 10! (Even the mighty Leman Russ and Predator are in this category) That would mean that all S4 Rends would be automatic Penetrating hits, and not subject to glancing (and the need for weapon attrition coupled with Immobilization)...

Sgt Biffo
29-01-2008, 14:57
SFX: (Crickets chirping.)

Am I to assume that 96 hours of silence is the sound of victory then...?:D

TzeentchForPresident
29-01-2008, 15:11
SFX: (Crickets chirping.)

Am I to assume that 96 hours of silence is the sound of victory then...?:D

Nah, it means that topic is getting old, boring and better left to rot in piece. Victory is when people change opinions due to good arguing. And agree to disagree is the far most common end result of most debates here in Warseer.

<-- Neutral in this matter, mostly because the local Space Marine players ainīt going crazy with assault cannons.

catbarf
29-01-2008, 15:37
SFX: (Crickets chirping.)

Am I to assume that 96 hours of silence is the sound of victory then...?:D

Nobody's conceding the point, we've just gotten to the point of repetition, since your argument about 'always hits rear armor' was stated and rebutted several pages ago. Now, bumping this thread just because nobody posted seems to me like trolling, so can we just let this thread die?

Sgt Biffo
30-01-2008, 01:39
The only rebuttals I saw was 1) I can't find a reliable rumour for that, and 2) That does make sense (but since when has this gotten in the way of GW's rules).

I thought a large part of the argument was (Tyranids) Rending inefficiency against armour?

When the vast majority of Tyranid C-C attack are going to be against Armour 10 (which a Genestealer is going to be able to damage-with out Rending!) how is it a nerf for Tyranids?

As far as I'm aware this will be applicable to all but three vehicles in the entire range of vehicles available in the GW range (excluding Forge World of course). Of that hand full only 1 has an AV higher than 11!!!

Surely crying "foul play" is a bit of an over reaction...

catbarf
30-01-2008, 02:45
The only rebuttals I saw was 1) I can't find a reliable rumour for that, and 2) That does make sense (but since when has this gotten in the way of GW's rules).

I thought a large part of the argument was (Tyranids) Rending inefficiency against armour?

When the vast majority of Tyranid C-C attack are going to be against Armour 10 (which a Genestealer is going to be able to damage-with out Rending!) how is it a nerf for Tyranids?

As far as I'm aware this will be applicable to all but three vehicles in the entire range of vehicles available in the GW range (excluding Forge World of course). Of that hand full only 1 has an AV higher than 11!!!

Surely crying "foul play" is a bit of an over reaction...

It's a nerf because Rending will no longer be a real threat against tanks, even against AV10. All of the versions of Rending we've seen so far do not pose much of a threat when it requires 20+ Stealers just to kill one transport.

Mitheral
30-01-2008, 04:47
The bigger problem is the nerf to glancing hits is rather extreme leaving nids without competent long range anti-tank.

It's going to hurt Necrons big time too. I really hope it isn't as outlined in the pdf.


According to the 5th ed rumors, can you still destroy a tank va multiple immobilized results?

You've got to destroy all the weapons first. Finally a reason for sponsoon weapons. :)

Spleendokta
30-01-2008, 08:32
I play guard. Whats an armor save again?

Sgt Biffo
30-01-2008, 09:26
It's a nerf because Rending will no longer be a real threat against tanks, even against AV10.

I beg to differ. All Tyranids capable of Rending are capable of damaging AV10 with out Rending. Rending merely makes all Glances Pens.:skull: A far more lethal result!

The additional armour Pen is added in the Armour Pen phase (instead of the to-hit phase) exactly as it is presently, except the likely hood of encountering AV11, or above is, massively reduced. I would say that this makes rending as good if not better against vehicles than it currently is!:cheese:

I must agree on the arguments that follow the line of "Rending is far to prolific these days". One of the few ranged weapons who's fluff, I think, warrants Rending is the Splinter Canon; which doesn't have it...

Stingray_tm
30-01-2008, 10:45
I beg to differ. All Tyranids capable of Rending are capable of damaging AV10 with out Rending. Rending merely makes all Glances Pens.:skull: A far more lethal result!


As stated a gazillion times before: glancing will not be enough with 5th edition damage rules.

For the last time:

Current glancing:
You can completely destroy a vehicle by rolling a single 6 or two 5+.

New glancing:
You can no longer destroy a vehicle with one hit, but you have to hit about 5-6 times with a 5+ in a row in order to destroy the vehicle.

The survivability against glancing hits increased by what? Several hundred percents?!?

And don't give me "oh you don't have to kill the vehicle". Yes i have to. They are worth KP and if they aren't then they are worth VP, which are needed when there is a draw on objectives. Also i will waste ressources on the vehicle to continue shaking it, which i didn't need before.

LostTemplar
30-01-2008, 10:50
I don't think glancing hits should ever destroy a tank, unless it is especially frail.

Thats why it is a glancing hit.

Stingray_tm
30-01-2008, 11:18
I don't think glancing hits should ever destroy a tank, unless it is especially frail.

Thats why it is a glancing hit.

Maybe. But then an army, that only can glance in most cases, defenitely needs something, that can penetrate... Hence the outrage about the nerfing of rending. Thus this thread.

catbarf
30-01-2008, 11:23
I beg to differ. All Tyranids capable of Rending are capable of damaging AV10 with out Rending. Rending merely makes all Glances Pens.:skull: A far more lethal result!

The additional armour Pen is added in the Armour Pen phase (instead of the to-hit phase) exactly as it is presently, except the likely hood of encountering AV11, or above is, massively reduced. I would say that this makes rending as good if not better against vehicles than it currently is!:cheese:

I must agree on the arguments that follow the line of "Rending is far to prolific these days". One of the few ranged weapons who's fluff, I think, warrants Rending is the Splinter Canon; which doesn't have it...

1. The new Rending is glancing-only for units S5 or lower, it would still only glance.

2. Under the new rules, a glance cannot destroy unless a disproportionate number of hits is scored.

Varath- Lord Impaler
30-01-2008, 11:25
Maybe. But then an army, that only can glance in most cases, defenitely needs something, that can penetrate... Hence the outrage about the nerfing of rending. Thus this thread.

All hits against rear armour. I havnt seen it rebutted, i have seen it stated by a very reliable source though (Brimstone)

Stingray_tm
30-01-2008, 11:42
I will also quote Brimstone himself


Iíll add to the list as we hear more. Donít forget these are rumours and should not be treated as the truth.


What we have are some rumours by Brimstone, that could be already outdated by the authentic looking PDF.

Stella Cadente
30-01-2008, 11:59
I don't think glancing hits should ever destroy a tank, unless it is especially frail.

Thats why it is a glancing hit.
indeed, I've lost many a Leman russ to a glancing, and it just don't make sense

Varath- Lord Impaler
30-01-2008, 11:59
What we have are some rumours by Brimstone, that could be already outdated by the authentic looking PDF.

So the 1-2 month old rumours from Brim will be outdated by the rumours from last July

Stingray_tm
30-01-2008, 12:05
So the 1-2 month old rumours from Brim will be outdated by the rumours from last July

And how old are the rumours of Brimstones sources? The rumours from last july appeared a couple of days after Brimstones rumours. So who says, that his rumours aren't from say March?

You assume. But with the PDF at least we have something solid to work with (no offense Brimstone, we know you are very reliable, but the PDF is a bit more solid, because we can see it first hand)

Sgt Biffo
30-01-2008, 13:31
And don't give me "oh you don't have to kill the vehicle"...

Umm... Yeah... Sure! I don't remember saying that at all. Are you sure your on the right thread?!?:confused:


1. The new Rending is glancing-only for units S5 or lower, it would still only glance.

2. Under the new rules, a glance cannot destroy unless a disproportionate number of hits is scored.

Really? This is new to me! Could you please supply a link to this.:)

One thought on this is to make Warriors (with rending Claws and +1S) a more desirable choice:confused: . I've always found Warriors to be under-rated by many players.

Max Jet
30-01-2008, 15:50
One thought on this is to make Warriors (with rending Claws and +1S) a more desirable choice . I've always found Warriors to be under-rated by many players.

Because they cost sooo much and survive nothing?
I bet you'd all be happy if Tyranids would stuff warriors into the HQ chart instead of Hyve Tyrants, simply because they are much more easy to kill. (There is not really a good elite under 1500 points, but that should show you how worthless they are!... Well not complete worthless but too expensive for their survivability.)
We cannot be happy with rumours, we have to rely on facts. Fact is there is no rule about attacking the rear armour, so Tyranids are going to have some problems. I can run around and spread the rumour, that guard players wouldn't have to worry about the survivability of their troops with the new scoring unit rule, because there will be a rule, allowing the Leman Russ to hold an objective. Is that a valuable argument to tell you not fear the new rule? No it isn't because i have no supporting proof.
I can run around and tell you I have a friend who interiewed the GW Lead designers, but that isn't going to change anything.

bre10042696
31-01-2008, 01:07
from whot i can tell people are gellos of the rending rule. i mean if your army could take rending i know u would( i would). i enjoy receving rending assalters because i can clam a morel vitory against my opponent and i have in the past repeled rending haliqins with vet assalt marines in the past, lol let them have there rending

Captain Micha
31-01-2008, 01:26
At least you bug players are actually capable of scoring penetrating hits.

how do you think I feel about this hm? I don't have str10 mcs. best I can manage is a 3 man going to die in one turn squad that competes with a monolith or tombspyder on the foc.

Necrons are going to be all but unplayable against vehicles more so than nids could ever be screwed against vehicles. Heck they could not include run and you would -still- be better off.

Sgt Biffo
31-01-2008, 03:10
Because they cost sooo much and survive nothing?

Which is why they need something to make them viable again...:rolleyes:


I bet you'd all be happy if Tyranids would stuff warriors into the HQ chart instead of Hyve Tyrants, simply because they are much more easy to kill...

My regular opponent (that I have eluded to above) uses 1 squad of 9 close support Warriors, 1 with 5 Death Spitters and a Venom Canon and 1 with 6 winged C-C Warriors.

I can tell you they are anything but soft!:skull:

As for replacing HQ- I found 9 Warriors are nastier than 1 Winged Hive Tyrant. The Warriors potential I5 makes all but specialist Eldar units and Space Marine Heroes strike after them, they have more than 4x the number of wounds and vastly more attacks that can inflict 2 wounds for each one scored.

This means that you really do have to put a comparable points value against them to have a chance, if not they plough through squad after squad with relative ease.

Give me a Winged Hive Tyrant to fight instead any day!


We cannot be happy with rumours, we have to rely on facts. Fact is there is no rule about attacking the rear armour...

Nor is there new rules about Rending either.:confused: Whats your point?

azimaith
31-01-2008, 07:45
Nor is there new rules about Rending either.:confused: Whats your point?

There is rules about it in the 5th ed PDF packet for playtesting. The rending is changed to a D3 extra penetration and there is no line about it striking rear armor on any vehicle automatically.

Max Jet
31-01-2008, 08:24
My regular opponent (that I have eluded to above) uses 1 squad of 9 close support Warriors, 1 with 5 Death Spitters and a Venom Canon and 1 with 6 winged C-C Warriors.

These cost roughly 700 Points. You cannot tell me you do not have any options within 700 Points to kill 40 4+ and 5+ Save wounds in 3 turns do you?

Stingray_tm
31-01-2008, 11:02
As for replacing HQ- I found 9 Warriors are nastier than 1 Winged Hive Tyrant. The Warriors potential I5 makes all but specialist Eldar units and Space Marine Heroes strike after them, they have more than 4x the number of wounds and vastly more attacks that can inflict 2 wounds for each one scored.


Well, 9 Warriors better should be nastier, than 1 Flyrant, because those 9 Warriors probably cost about 350 points, while the Flyrant costs about 200 points...

You better should compare those 9 Warriors to two Hive Tyrants (one winged, one foot slogging), suddenly it doesn't look that good anymore...

catbarf
31-01-2008, 11:20
what you ALWAYS fail to realise is that this game is a game of luck and chance, meaning that 6's can appear more than you actually make it to be

See my sig. Hello, math class.


I've heard it said elsewhere on this forum: If your reduced to cheap gutter sniping your losing your argument.:D

Not directed at you. Ogryns are generally regarded as being easy to kill, and being large, T4 5+, multiwound creatures they are the perfect comparison for Warriors. If you can think of a better comparison I'd love to hear it.

Even assuming that the version of D3 penetration is correct, that's still 12 hits in order to kill one vehicle. So, 4 Stealers. Not bad- but the question is getting them there. How often are you able to get Genestealers into melee with an enemy vehicle that can both move faster than them and shoot them into oblivion?

Sgt Biffo
31-01-2008, 16:16
See my sig. Hello, math class.

Knowing your maths is one thing. Applying them appropriately is another. I guess this is why sociologist don't by into empirialism too strongly.


Not directed at you..

I dunno the comments of Bookwrak and yourself (catbarf) seem to have a definite Ogryn axe to grind...

I'm not about to refer it to the moderators presently because you seem to be a smart guy who can add to the discourse productively! if it crops up again I will...


Even assuming that the version of D3 penetration is correct, that's still 12 hits in order to kill one vehicle. So, 4 Stealers. Not bad- but the question is getting them there. How often are you able to get Genestealers into melee with an enemy vehicle that can both move faster than them and shoot them into oblivion?

Perhaps GW does want to steer away from Genstealers peeling open Landraiders and feels its would best be left to elite choices like Warriors or MC's. You'd sure see a jump in survivability in your Genestealers if that was to be the case!

lookong forward to that S5 link too...:)

It would also be interesting to see how many forum members view the current Tyranid codex in terms of viability and rule equalibrium... I might start up a thread and PM it to you...

Max Jet
31-01-2008, 17:06
It would also be interesting to see how many forum members view the current Tyranid codex in terms of viability and rule equalibrium... I might start up a thread and PM it to you

Yeah, I know how that will end. There will be another guy crying: "Genestealers are the CHEESE!" until we find out, that he is playing Armoured company, using his points up for totally worthless doctrines (just because of the coolness factor) and absolutely refusing to play tactical in any given way, STILL demanding to nerf Genestealers.
I'm so looking forward to that.

azimaith
31-01-2008, 17:46
The new ruleset if it remains as is will definately hurt tyranids a great deal in their anti-tank department. The biggest loss is the ability to flat out kill vehicles on a lucky glance, which tended to be one of the few ways vehicles got killed at all.

Assaulting vehicles with flyrants tended to be a bad idea as then enemy gunfire would cut him down (being much taller than near any other vehicle he can harm) as he wasn't locked. Thus we saw lots of gunfexes going for lucky destroyed results.

Running is nice and it will definately make the anti-infantry role of tyranids easier for certain creatures. Single turn move creatures who can really blaze it will still be unassaultable for slow movers. (Basically anyone who can move 12" away will not be assaulted by running creatures unless they let it happen, which may very well occur)

Screening won't mean much, with models line of sight, unless you cheese out and model warriors on their bellies practically every other model will be larger than gaunts.

The loss of area terrain further hurts the ability to lose tyranids.

So pretty much unless you start hiding genestealers behind warriors (which strikes me as protecting a block of wood behind a solid gold wall) tyranids are going to be worse in most aspects save on slow moving MCs, basic movement warriors, and rippers. (Oh and the brood lord as he can run)

catbarf
31-01-2008, 19:57
Knowing your maths is one thing. Applying them appropriately is another. I guess this is why sociologist don't by into empirialism too strongly.

Well, yes, but to suggest that you do not in fact roll a 6 around 1/6 of the time is insane...


I dunno the comments of Bookwrak and yourself (catbarf) seem to have a definite Ogryn axe to grind...

I'm not about to refer it to the moderators presently because you seem to be a smart guy who can add to the discourse productively! if it crops up again I will...

I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm really not trying to bait you. Ogryns are the most valid comparison I could think of. They've got the same T and save, both are multi-wound models, and are quite expensive. The main difference is that while the Ogryns have 3 wounds, the Warriors have immunity to ID.


Perhaps GW does want to steer away from Genstealers peeling open Landraiders and feels its would best be left to elite choices like Warriors or MC's. You'd sure see a jump in survivability in your Genestealers if that was to be the case!

I hope this is what they're after. Currently, Warriors are too fragile to be a serious threat, but under the new rules they may have a chance if you can screen them from enemy fire.

But if not, and we're only left with Monstrous Creatures... bad thoughts.


lookong forward to that S5 link too...:)

Gah, I know I had it somewhere, let me dig it up...


It would also be interesting to see how many forum members view the current Tyranid codex in terms of viability and rule equalibrium... I might start up a thread and PM it to you...

Just start it, I go on Warseer enough that I'll find it ;)

I'd like to see as well.

azimaith
31-01-2008, 21:27
How will warriors kill any better than genestealers with the new rending. Both cap out at Strength 5.

catbarf
31-01-2008, 21:59
Well, they won't be better against tanks, but as a whole they'll be more useful since they can be screened. But yeah, Warriors are not the answer to tanks at all.

The Song of Spears
31-01-2008, 22:39
At least you bug players are actually capable of scoring penetrating hits.

how do you think I feel about this hm? I don't have str10 mcs. best I can manage is a 3 man going to die in one turn squad that competes with a monolith or tombspyder on the foc.

Necrons are going to be all but unplayable against vehicles more so than nids could ever be screwed against vehicles. Heck they could not include run and you would -still- be better off.

I dunno about 3 heavy destroyers dying turn 1... with the increasing removal of heavy weapons, they are fairly safe at 36", even more so if there is another unit of them within 6". Then you get WBB las cannons = not too bad a deal and far better than what the nids get.

Necrons wont change much as they still get copious amounts of glances, and with about 3 weapons per tank plus immobilized, they will chew through tanks only slightly slower, which is fine as at this current point in time necrons vs. tanks = joke/waste of time. So it will be nice to be able to field a tank against gauss flayers and watch as the flayer 'flays' the weapons and armour off a tank slowly until it is wrecked.

I cant count many times rending killed a tank, even less so with assaulting nids. So i am thinking that the rending rule is fine as it was kinda overpowered as it was. As with necrons, you might see less shooty fex's and more zoanthropes, or maybe more CC fex's which is both great if you ask me.

philbrad2
31-01-2008, 23:04
All, cease with the confrontation posting. Post in a civilised manner and ... play nice.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ WarSeer Mod Team +

azimaith
31-01-2008, 23:59
Well, they won't be better against tanks, but as a whole they'll be more useful since they can be screened. But yeah, Warriors are not the answer to tanks at all.

You can only screen targets that can't be shot at over the models blocking it. Genestealers and warriors are taller than gaunts, and you can draw LOS to a referenced point in the pdf (arms, torso, head, legs)

You'll need to model prone or crouching genestealers and prone warriors to block with gaunts, otherwise your either blocking genestealers with MCs/warriprs/raveners and so forth.


I dunno about 3 heavy destroyers dying turn 1... with the increasing removal of heavy weapons, they are fairly safe at 36", even more so if there is another unit of them within 6". Then you get WBB las cannons = not too bad a deal and far better than what the nids get.

I generally lose my HDs now on turn 2 or 3. They're just high priority targets.



Necrons wont change much as they still get copious amounts of glances, and with about 3 weapons per tank plus immobilized, they will chew through tanks only slightly slower, which is fine as at this current point in time necrons vs. tanks = joke/waste of time. So it will be nice to be able to field a tank against gauss flayers and watch as the flayer 'flays' the weapons and armour off a tank slowly until it is wrecked.

Wait let me get this straight. First we need to hit, then we need to roll a 6. Then we need to roll another 5 or 6, and then we need to repeat this 3-4 times for a tank. How is that slightly slower? Glancing hits are -2, that means anything from 4 and below is going to not damage the tank at all. Its going to be many times harder than it is now.

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 00:05
You can only screen targets that can't be shot at over the models blocking it. Genestealers and warriors are taller than gaunts, and you can draw LOS to a referenced point in the pdf (arms, torso, head, legs)

You'll need to model prone or crouching genestealers and prone warriors to block with gaunts, otherwise your either blocking genestealers with MCs/warriprs/raveners and so forth.


Actually...I looked at the PDF again, and unless it changed it says that you can draw LOS to Arms, Head, Ect. but if the model itself is even partially obscured by an interveneing model, then they are not an elligable target...so Guants can and will screen stealers and warriors...

azimaith
01-02-2008, 00:14
Actually...I looked at the PDF again, and unless it changed it says that you can draw LOS to Arms, Head, Ect. but if the model itself is even partially obscured by an interveneing model, then they are not an elligable target...so Guants can and will screen stealers and warriors...

Uh it says: "Line of sight must be drawn from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one model in the target unit (including the torso, head, arms and leg, but excluding tails, wings, ect.)"

Besides this opening a really stupid "space marine with a lascannon, tail, and googly eyes taped to said tail", it tells us we can see models where we can see a head, arm, leg, or torso of it. Later it tells us LOS is considered blocked unless you can shoot over intervening models and units if they are "tall enough"

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 00:29
I agree it's stupid. But it still says, in the section about interveneing models, that a model merely needs to be partially obscured by a friendly or enemy model. The model itself does not need to obscure your LoS to the enitre model, but as long as it's blocking some part of the model, it's making the enemy count as not visible.

What this creates is a situation where "I can see the Chaplain's Arm around the corner of the building!" So you coat him and his assault marines with palsma and HB rounds...but as soon as it's "Oh...there's a sniper scout who's pinned and obscuring the Chappy's right boot." you're boned.

Oddly enough this also creates the situation of
"You can't shoot at that squad, I've got another squad infront of it."
"But the squad is behind that building...I can see the chaplain's arm and no other part of his body...and since the scouts are not directly obscuring the chaplain in any way shape or form, I can coat him in plasma."

in conclusion, True LoS is dumb.

Captain Micha
01-02-2008, 00:45
True los makes no sense, given that do you think those people are standing just like the models all the time?

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 00:54
True los makes no sense, given that do you think those people are standing just like the models all the time?

Yes, Because my Warboss loves to stand around pointing things out with his PK and shuffling his feet so that he can move without appearing to move.:rolleyes: How Right you are GW!

But I Agree with you Micha...True LoS makes no sense.

Bunnahabhain
01-02-2008, 00:55
True los makes no sense, given that do you think those people are standing just like the models all the time?

This is GW. They have experince true LOS does not work, experience shows true LOS does not work, and yet they intorduce it, at least in some PDFs. If they run true to form, it will be phased in the most unclear language possible...

catbarf
01-02-2008, 02:03
Meh, not sophisticated enough in my salient opinion... But hey, to each his own.

Anyway, yes, true LOS makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Implementing it is a terrible idea.

RevenantX
01-02-2008, 02:22
No one should watch Carlos Mencia. It's 2 week old Taco Bell for your brain.

Oh, and Mathammer doesn't work and dice cannot be predicted.

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 02:38
No one should watch Carlos Mencia. It's 2 week old Taco Bell for your brain.

Oh, and Mathammer doesn't work and dice cannot be predicted.

While I agree about Mencia...

I think your understanding of what Mathammer is used for is flawed...we can not Accurately predict what dice will do, but we can determine trends and use probability to our advantage to try to estimate how something will perform. I can't use Mathammer to tell me when I'm going to roll Boxcars on my SAG, but I can use it to predict that it's not going to happen very often, and that my average SAG Strength is going to be 7. I can also use it to tell me how many wounds and hits I should expect on average with any given unit. If I get abysmally less, it happens, if I roll way above average, again, it happens...

Just the last game I saw 2 Hive Tyrants roll triple 1s trying to hit my Looted Wagon. The chances of that are Astronomically Low...but it happened, and it was a nice surprise...as was the fact that my Lootaz seem to have about a 50% hit rate despite being BS2.

I dunno...I'm not trying to say that Mathammer bashing is wrong or anything...just pointing out that it can be a useful tool.

azimaith
01-02-2008, 02:53
Well the answer on true LOS is clear then. Bend warrior tails/extend them so they stretch way above their head and attach googly eyes to them. Then you can shoot from behind terrain without getting shot at.

fragility issue solved :P

Captain Micha
01-02-2008, 02:58
you make my head hurt... but technically that would be legal... which makes my mind hurt more...

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 03:04
Well the answer on true LOS is clear then. Bend warrior tails/extend them so they stretch way above their head and attach googly eyes to them. Then you can shoot from behind terrain without getting shot at.

fragility issue solved :P

Yep. But this is a solution similar to a Carnifex on a 36" x 4" Base

Thylacine
01-02-2008, 03:10
Is the problem with Rending or just some units that use it, I play SW's it I take a HQ and a WGBG which you do as it is fluff and fits game wise. I will loose on comp because opponents will hate me for adding 2 assault cannons to the 4 man WGBG. Without AC's I would not take a WGBG as any other way they are too expensive. Cut back on rending and SW's miss out big time, however, other lists like Nids won't be too damaged by a reduction in rending.

The problem lies with [B]some[B] units and players who use it to excess.

Thylacine

azimaith
01-02-2008, 03:14
Actually it lies with units that deliver rending without the a real threat of being wiped out on the way in. Assault cannons are part of that group.

The worst part is the armies that need rending toned down would suffer the least from it being taken down, while nids who need it the most, will suffer the worse and have the most balanced rending variants.

Gensuke626
01-02-2008, 03:56
Is the problem with Rending or just some units that use it, I play SW's it I take a HQ and a WGBG which you do as it is fluff and fits game wise. I will loose on comp because opponents will hate me for adding 2 assault cannons to the 4 man WGBG. Without AC's I would not take a WGBG as any other way they are too expensive. Cut back on rending and SW's miss out big time, however, other lists like Nids won't be too damaged by a reduction in rending.

The problem lies with [B]some[B] units and players who use it to excess.

Thylacine

In the first place, Rending should have never been applied to a Gun.

If they had made rending attacks only affect armor or something of that nature, it would have been fine to make rending guns...but the full blown effect of rending on a 4 shot gun is a bit much. Granted only a select few units can have it, but for a gun like the Assault Cannon and it's intended role, it should have been a S6 AP4 Heavy 4, and if they wanted it to be good vs infantry and vehicles, it could have gotten a rule similar to Gauss. Rending was definately too much.

And as Azimaith said, Toning down rending actually hurts Tyranids more than it hurts SW because of the inherent Delivery Systems. The main ways to deliver rending with Nids is with Stealers, Raveners and Lictors. Stealers and Raveners can be shot down on the way in (Ravenors can DS, but that's unreliable at best) and Lictors get the hidden Deployment that is VERY unreliable...so...compared to the fast Skimming Land Speeder, Terminators who can Rend on the DS or the 3d6x2 Night fight of the harlequins (Not to mention Falcon Transported) Nids are pretty shafted...