PDA

View Full Version : My Revised Tyranids Codex Redux



CthulhuDalek
27-01-2009, 02:44
This is my "fandex" for 5th edition tyranids.

The most recent file includes the notes from Pink Horror and Straken(Thanks guys!)

There will be more revisions if I deem necessary, so any input is appreciated.

Still to come: Fluff and Pictures. I need to put more fluff onto the pages of the army lists. I might divide it up the same way as more recent dexes(Though that definitely takes up more space) but this copy so far is just to get rules down.

This is heavily influenced by the third edition nids(codex, models and fluff) but incorporates the good things from 4th ed(More upgrades, more units) with balancing for 5th ed(mainly vs. orks and marine dex).

The theme of these changes is to bring nids back into being a horde army scattered with larger more powerful creatures. I've tried not to invalidate most builds, and instead have made a wide range off possibilities for army types(Warrior heavy, monster heavy, stealershock, lightning quick, horde, and anything in between)allowing nid players greater flexibility when choosing their forces.

Hope you enjoy. And if not, you can tell me that too :D

EDIT.

Next version. using it in a game.

CthulhuDalek
27-01-2009, 04:52
Under Mycetic Spore:

Can carry "ten or less" wounds worth of models.
Does not count as part of the FOC Chart of the unit(Cannot score)

Pink Horror
27-01-2009, 06:57
If it seems too OP, please let me know instead of scoffing at it... maybe I'm in the wrong mind, or maybe I've hit it dead on?

I'm embarrassed, because I do not know know what OP means. Anyway, I do not think I could let you know something bad, with a little scoffing going on. That is hard to control.

CthulhuDalek
27-01-2009, 07:06
I'm embarrassed, because I do not know know what OP means. Anyway, I do not think I could let you know something bad, with a little scoffing going on. That is hard to control.

Overpowered.

lol.

Fine, scoff as you like!

I mean-- I don't care if you scoff as long as you're specific about WHY you're scoffing.

Straker
27-01-2009, 17:28
Hey...I like your idea of updating the nid codex (and I really like most of it, ESPECIALLY the gargs/genes as troops, and Broodlord fleet)...but there definitely are a few OP things...

Ahem a squad of MCs? Tyrant guard cannot (ever ever ever) count as MCs...that is just...mean. And they can shield carnies like the hive tyrant? I dunno...their name becomes a misnomer then. And fleet? Really? No MCs should ever have fleet...

Also, units in Myscetic Spores should probably not even have WoN; it doesn't make much sense. Neither does having to wait for the spore t die for them to come back (a smart opponent will never kill the spore).

I dunno there is a lot here, and I need to re-read more carefully, but all in all its pretty awesome, just...it is definitely OP hahaha.

CthulhuDalek
28-01-2009, 04:50
Hey...I like your idea of updating the nid codex (and I really like most of it, ESPECIALLY the gargs/genes as troops, and Broodlord fleet)...but there definitely are a few OP things...

Ahem a squad of MCs? Tyrant guard cannot (ever ever ever) count as MCs...that is just...mean. And they can shield carnies like the hive tyrant? I dunno...their name becomes a misnomer then. And fleet? Really? No MCs should ever have fleet...

Also, units in Myscetic Spores should probably not even have WoN; it doesn't make much sense. Neither does having to wait for the spore t die for them to come back (a smart opponent will never kill the spore).

I dunno there is a lot here, and I need to re-read more carefully, but all in all its pretty awesome, just...it is definitely OP hahaha.

Thanks! You'll notice I got rid of the broodlord's retinue(too many stealers already, as troops) but he's an indepdendent character ;)

I made the Tyrant Guard TMC's because I figured it would help in the "well I can shoot the tyrant because it's a MC!" argument. I gave them fleet because, for one thing, they cannot use fleet when with a TMC, which means the reason they'd have fleet is in case they have to relocate to another monster-- say a carnifex? The reason I gave them the ability to guard any MC was-- for some reason I thought in 3rd ed codex they could do that-- apparently it was wrong, but this idea kinda sticks-- they have to be bought with the tyrant, and are better off guarding him, but... just in case... aha.

After reexamining the Tyrant Guard I've changed a few things, and I'll incorporate that along with other notes I get. 50 pts per model, regeneration should be bought as a 5 pt upgrade, they count as Infantry, NO MORE fleet, and no more counting as a TMC.

I also upped the cost of the Tyrant to 120 points, and brought ravener body up to 40 points.

Gargoyle broods unit size should be... 8 to 24 gargoyles plus 1-3 warriors. Replace brood telepathy with "scout." That makes up for having t2, no save and no without number.

Raveners and Genestealers= leadership 8. Ravener bodied models may not take mycetic spores. ( They deepstrike anyway!)

In "absorb DNA" replace "they always have preferred enemy, even outside of synapse" with "however, after a round of close combat where they have consolidated they count as having gone to ground--but only for the purposes of enemy shooting."

EDIT. And thanks again! I'm glad you've liked it so far, despite the OP(but that's why I put it on here, to fix the problems and make a good 'dex!)

There's a tactical reason for mycetic spores. During objectives games, they provide a nice contesting ability, and can lay down a pretty good amount of firepower(note, they should have bs 1)because they also have spore cysts, which makes them the equivalent of a deathwind drop pod.

In killpoints the enemy has a choice-- they can try and destroy the gaunts down to the last model, in which case they have to destroy the spore and receive that killpoint(In other words, waste a LOT of firepower) or, they can avoid it, letting it shoot them whilst also preventing Without Number to work. The only way this would work is... if gaunts could give up without number for free spores.

Straker
29-01-2009, 05:28
Ahhhh ok your clarification helped make a lot more sense of things. Unfortunately I'm busy during the week until Friday, but I will be trying to give a good, more thorough readthrough of this and try and give some more advice/point out more stuff I think should NOT be changed.

Good work so far!!!

CthulhuDalek
29-01-2009, 07:42
Ahhhh ok your clarification helped make a lot more sense of things. Unfortunately I'm busy during the week until Friday, but I will be trying to give a good, more thorough readthrough of this and try and give some more advice/point out more stuff I think should NOT be changed.

Good work so far!!!

Thanks, dude!

I'll post the list with revisions "so far" tomorrow night, because I just had a playtest at 1k earlier, and they worked a little too well... though my opponent has only been playing for roughly a year...

I guess I'll be posting the fixed version when I'm more conscious...sorry!

Straker
01-02-2009, 08:10
OK so I want to go through things 1 by 1 to help give a really thorough examination...Everything here is a combination of a critique/comment/suggestion. Overall, what youve done is impressive, and this is not meant in way to suggest otherwise. They are only a new perspective on the rules and are trying to help achieve the final goal of a fair and awesome updated dex!!! So with that said, here goes:

1) I don't quite understand why Perils of the Warp would pin. I definitely agree though that it shouldnt be any of this silly roll 3 take the two highest nonsense, that rarely affects anything. I like how you kept it avoiding perils tests too (otherwise youre eldar) but I think pinning is OP (and lacks sense).

2) Mutable Genus is a cool idea...but I don't see how it isnt immensely OP. Those point costs are drastically undercosted...will probably end up being way less than 1pt/model for a ridiculously good rule. The problem with that kind of points system is that when playing high point games, the rule is just flat out OP. So either make it on a size of game basis (I suggest in the hundreds) or better yet either remove the rule or DO make it on a unit by unit basis (streamline them and make them new biomorphs) that cost appropriate points for certain units.

3) Your instinctive behavior is wayyyyy easier to understand and use than the current dex version and is very cool! I like it. I would be interested to see it in game though, because it does take control out of the hands of the player and it make actually be too ******...ie, the take the LD test or choose one of those 3 options may be more appropriate. Playtesting will resolve this.

4) Saying spore mines can contest objectives I think is a bit of a stretch. Not counting for KPs is good enough, but this means they shouldn't be able to run or contest objs (besides, 99% of the time they'll blow up, not contest). Also, why is each spore mine a separate target for shooting? No more FoC choices of 3 in a squad?

5) Synapse....where to being on the OPness of this. Preferred enemy and fearless.......for free?? It needs points, and preferred enemy is a bit...well, much. I think Synapse was fine as is. (Oh and no ignore ID? perhaps that was a bit ridiculous). EDIT: T2 gaunts justifies preferred enemy, although it may still be a stretch. T2 gaunts reallllllllly sucks...also it may justify the mutable genus thing too.

6) Warp Blast is pretty freaking cool, but auto hitting rear armour is also a bit much and doesnt make much sense to me...

7) My the bump in price to the horror? Its still a pretty ****** power.

8) In bonesword you directly contradict yourself...earlier you said no tyranids are ever psykers, but here you say a model with a bonesword is a psyker.

Just a note: crushing claws and warp field = A++++ awesome!!!!

9) Scything talons granting +1 WS as well may be a bit much (and makes no sense)...I guess it's replacing adrenal glands (which are missing), but my only question is why? I think it makes things way more confusing...Also lash whips giving +1 A is pushing it, although believable...EDIT: I am now starting to get why you made scytals +1 WS (gaunts). In fact, I do like it. Keep it!!!

STRANGLEWEB IS AWEOMSE TOO hahaha.

10) Hm...loss of pinning to barbed strangler? Perhaps makes sense, it may be a bit much the way it is but I would miss it :(

11) The spike rifle is a nice idea but im not sure how useful it is....snipers on nids seems kinda ****** always wound on 4? we have things like venom cannons which are immensely better...

12) If youre going to keep preferred enemy the way it is in synapse, feeder tendrils is cool. If not, go back to it the way it is just up the pts.

13) Is there a reason you got rid of acid maw and made implant attacks it?

14) You got mace and scythe tail mixed up, unless you want to switch em up.

spine banks defensive grenades = sweet. Thornback = amazing.

15) Toxic Miasma may be a bit OP with the cover save, although its awesome. On little guys it may make sense, but a little smoke cant really hide a carnifex...

Spore cysts no longer is retarded! Thank you! Same with symbiote rippers!
Phermone trail is also pretty sweet. I dunno if it may be too much, but having an effect on outflank could be pretty cool too.

16) Can you explain Anaphylactic Shock? Because its pretty freaking ridiculous, and in most armies they have something like this but it requires failing a LD test...

17) Ravener body may be a bit too fast...I'd perhaps tone it down from jetbike to just bike.

OK, your new Hive Tyrant is great. My only thing is I didnt really like the scytal rules, so if they are changed be sure to give him back his WS!!! Additionally, I lied. The way you set up guard is awesome. But no fleet, and no rending claws if MCs (still iffy on this, but it makes sense)....haha.

THANK GOD for brood lord fleet. Oh, and I forgot to mention, getting new troops in is great. But perhaps if you have a tyrant with a ravener body 1 squad of them could count as troops? Or maybe thats going too far... Covered with the return of the Red Terror :D

18) I think the BL is a bit small for crushing claws.

19) Old One Eye is a retarded amount of points....

20) At first I thought you didn't include leaping and you'd just refer to beasts, but warriors not allowed to leap = no fun :( . Granted they got fleet, but they were one of the few things that made hormies possible. EDIT: Actually after reading all the way through making all gaunts beasts and with your edits to synapse this may be ok. Also, warriors dont look like beasts...

21) No enhanced senses? Toxin Sacs (although this may be a good thing to get rid of the silly two point costs for weapons)? EDIT: By the end of reading the codex theyre not needed and I like your system better.

22) Warriors seem to have gotten quite a boost overall, something I think needed. Just be careful it wasnt too much.

23) Genes got scout and dropped a point? hm....not so sure about that one. They also get an extra attack for a point? Making these guys OP...but Elite makes sense.

The lictor rules are pretty damn cool!!!!!

24) Rending rippers is a bit of a joke....theyre puny! they should never be able to ignore terminator armor. And why are rippers tougher than gaunts? Just to reflect how damn many of them there are?

Your gargs with warriors is so sweet! Makes sense :D

Meotic spores are cool too!!!! but thats an expensive giveaway KP (although reiterating they are good as ****).

Your whole mycetic spore assault idea is great. ...Should they get some drop-pod type rules about protecting from mishap? Not all, but maybe some? Like dealing with dt? But if they hit a unit, they explode because of self destruct (rather than mishap)? And then effect models inside and out as described? Although phermone trails may well be enough.

Zoanthropes now live up to their name of living artillery with mandatory warp blast...nice idea.

Carnifex seems fixed. I am really starting to like the streamlining and getting rid of the +1 WS, +1 BS, +1I blah blah blah ****. Really, this makes things so much easier. Just include in the profile if it makes sense! (Like you did, thank you). The only thing I really dont lack is no possibility of I5 gaunts (with t2 this is almost a must and with hormies it was a popular option). Only thing is crushing claws are overpriced as scytals are wayyyy better for the points. Also, I like the MUST take two weaps over may...but im confused about a lot of the point costs in general on the weapons, they seem inbalanced and the guns seem VERY expensive...

So that's it! Nice work, I hope this is of some help!!

Pink Horror
01-02-2009, 10:27
I finally read it now. I couldn't help but scoff! :) There are a ton of issues - way too many special rules, min/max'ed stat lines (they seem designed for game effectiveness, rather than based on the model), many of the same problems as the official book, I haven't really figured out if it fixes anything... I'll get more specific if you ask, but if what you want is a book filled with special rules and the typical fan stuff, we'll probably just be wasting our time. And the whole thing is meant to be a waste of time, so I mean we'll really, really be wasting our time, like banging our heads against the wall.

CthulhuDalek
01-02-2009, 12:25
OK so I want to go through things 1 by 1 to help give a really thorough examination...Everything here is a combination of a critique/comment/suggestion. Overall, what youve done is impressive, and this is not meant in way to suggest otherwise. They are only a new perspective on the rules and are trying to help achieve the final goal of a fair and awesome updated dex!!! So with that said, here goes:

1) I don't quite understand why Perils of the Warp would pin. I definitely agree though that it shouldnt be any of this silly roll 3 take the two highest nonsense, that rarely affects anything. I like how you kept it avoiding perils tests too (otherwise youre eldar) but I think pinning is OP (and lacks sense).

2) Mutable Genus is a cool idea...but I don't see how it isnt immensely OP. Those point costs are drastically undercosted...will probably end up being way less than 1pt/model for a ridiculously good rule. The problem with that kind of points system is that when playing high point games, the rule is just flat out OP. So either make it on a size of game basis (I suggest in the hundreds) or better yet either remove the rule or DO make it on a unit by unit basis (streamline them and make them new biomorphs) that cost appropriate points for certain units.

3) Your instinctive behavior is wayyyyy easier to understand and use than the current dex version and is very cool! I like it. I would be interested to see it in game though, because it does take control out of the hands of the player and it make actually be too ******...ie, the take the LD test or choose one of those 3 options may be more appropriate. Playtesting will resolve this.

4) Saying spore mines can contest objectives I think is a bit of a stretch. Not counting for KPs is good enough, but this means they shouldn't be able to run or contest objs (besides, 99% of the time they'll blow up, not contest). Also, why is each spore mine a separate target for shooting? No more FoC choices of 3 in a squad?

5) Synapse....where to being on the OPness of this. Preferred enemy and fearless.......for free?? It needs points, and preferred enemy is a bit...well, much. I think Synapse was fine as is. (Oh and no ignore ID? perhaps that was a bit ridiculous). EDIT: T2 gaunts justifies preferred enemy, although it may still be a stretch. T2 gaunts reallllllllly sucks...also it may justify the mutable genus thing too.

6) Warp Blast is pretty freaking cool, but auto hitting rear armour is also a bit much and doesnt make much sense to me...

7) My the bump in price to the horror? Its still a pretty ****** power.

8) In bonesword you directly contradict yourself...earlier you said no tyranids are ever psykers, but here you say a model with a bonesword is a psyker.

Just a note: crushing claws and warp field = A++++ awesome!!!!

9) Scything talons granting +1 WS as well may be a bit much (and makes no sense)...I guess it's replacing adrenal glands (which are missing), but my only question is why? I think it makes things way more confusing...Also lash whips giving +1 A is pushing it, although believable...EDIT: I am now starting to get why you made scytals +1 WS (gaunts). In fact, I do like it. Keep it!!!

STRANGLEWEB IS AWEOMSE TOO hahaha.

10) Hm...loss of pinning to barbed strangler? Perhaps makes sense, it may be a bit much the way it is but I would miss it :(

11) The spike rifle is a nice idea but im not sure how useful it is....snipers on nids seems kinda ****** always wound on 4? we have things like venom cannons which are immensely better...

12) If youre going to keep preferred enemy the way it is in synapse, feeder tendrils is cool. If not, go back to it the way it is just up the pts.

13) Is there a reason you got rid of acid maw and made implant attacks it?

14) You got mace and scythe tail mixed up, unless you want to switch em up.

spine banks defensive grenades = sweet. Thornback = amazing.

15) Toxic Miasma may be a bit OP with the cover save, although its awesome. On little guys it may make sense, but a little smoke cant really hide a carnifex...

Spore cysts no longer is retarded! Thank you! Same with symbiote rippers!
Phermone trail is also pretty sweet. I dunno if it may be too much, but having an effect on outflank could be pretty cool too.

16) Can you explain Anaphylactic Shock? Because its pretty freaking ridiculous, and in most armies they have something like this but it requires failing a LD test...

17) Ravener body may be a bit too fast...I'd perhaps tone it down from jetbike to just bike.

OK, your new Hive Tyrant is great. My only thing is I didnt really like the scytal rules, so if they are changed be sure to give him back his WS!!! Additionally, I lied. The way you set up guard is awesome. But no fleet, and no rending claws if MCs (still iffy on this, but it makes sense)....haha.

THANK GOD for brood lord fleet. Oh, and I forgot to mention, getting new troops in is great. But perhaps if you have a tyrant with a ravener body 1 squad of them could count as troops? Or maybe thats going too far... Covered with the return of the Red Terror :D

18) I think the BL is a bit small for crushing claws.

19) Old One Eye is a retarded amount of points....

20) At first I thought you didn't include leaping and you'd just refer to beasts, but warriors not allowed to leap = no fun :( . Granted they got fleet, but they were one of the few things that made hormies possible. EDIT: Actually after reading all the way through making all gaunts beasts and with your edits to synapse this may be ok. Also, warriors dont look like beasts...

21) No enhanced senses? Toxin Sacs (although this may be a good thing to get rid of the silly two point costs for weapons)? EDIT: By the end of reading the codex theyre not needed and I like your system better.

22) Warriors seem to have gotten quite a boost overall, something I think needed. Just be careful it wasnt too much.

23) Genes got scout and dropped a point? hm....not so sure about that one. They also get an extra attack for a point? Making these guys OP...but Elite makes sense.

The lictor rules are pretty damn cool!!!!!

24) Rending rippers is a bit of a joke....theyre puny! they should never be able to ignore terminator armor. And why are rippers tougher than gaunts? Just to reflect how damn many of them there are?

Your gargs with warriors is so sweet! Makes sense :D

Meotic spores are cool too!!!! but thats an expensive giveaway KP (although reiterating they are good as ****).

Your whole mycetic spore assault idea is great. ...Should they get some drop-pod type rules about protecting from mishap? Not all, but maybe some? Like dealing with dt? But if they hit a unit, they explode because of self destruct (rather than mishap)? And then effect models inside and out as described? Although phermone trails may well be enough.

Zoanthropes now live up to their name of living artillery with mandatory warp blast...nice idea.

Carnifex seems fixed. I am really starting to like the streamlining and getting rid of the +1 WS, +1 BS, +1I blah blah blah ****. Really, this makes things so much easier. Just include in the profile if it makes sense! (Like you did, thank you). The only thing I really dont lack is no possibility of I5 gaunts (with t2 this is almost a must and with hormies it was a popular option). Only thing is crushing claws are overpriced as scytals are wayyyy better for the points. Also, I like the MUST take two weaps over may...but im confused about a lot of the point costs in general on the weapons, they seem inbalanced and the guns seem VERY expensive...

So that's it! Nice work, I hope this is of some help!!

Thank you so much for your notes! I actually had my second test game with my third revision. It's almost 5 am here, so I'll be able to answer your questions in a little bit. Not sure how to address preferred enemy/ Mutable genus, still.

I fixed implant attack -- it only allows you to reroll a failed wound dice on a result of 1. This helps the big creatures since that's all they'll fail on usually, and gives a slight boost to things like warriors.

The Genestealers are taking a major overhaul with my next revision. I'm tdropping their base profile to 1+1 because 5 attacks on a charge that reroll to hit was brutal in my game-- in fact I changed the rule to be weaker IN GAME.

Warp blast will be the same but now hits on a 4+, which kinda rendered it lame in this game particularly, but in the last game it killed like 2 or 3 squads.

Gaunts can still become s. 5 init 5 on a charge with furious charge!

The big balance issues I've seen so far:
-Genestealers.
-Gaunts with preferred enemy, furious charge and without number. This issue can probably be resolved by increasing the pts cost of furious charge... See, if I make mutable genus per unit it becomes way too expensive, but if I make it for the army it's too cheap...

I've got it!!!!!
Mutable Genus- Pick any of the following rules for for the unit --
-mycetic spores*/Without Number**. 35 pts per spore/per ten models.
-Furious Charge. 15 pts per 1-10models.
-Counter Attack. 10 pts per 1-10 models.
-Stealth. 5 pts per 1-10 models.
-Acute Senses 5 pts per 1-15 models.
*A unit that takes mycetic spores may not also take Without Number. This will make more sense when I post the revised dex. Models with Winged or Ravener bodies may not take mycetic spores. Other units will specify in their entries if they may select a mycetic spore, even if they are not mutable genus.
** This upgrade may only be taken by gaunt and ripper swarms.

That could work out. It allows gaunts to take multiple unit wide upgrades, but at that point you're really spending too much on the basic dudes.

Do you think the Old One Eye is too expensive or too cheap? And glad you liked the Red Terror.

The reason it pins is that in the fluff psykers that try to use powers when nids are around go insane falling to the floor in agony, so this is why it will pin them, they're on the floor going crazy from the Hive Mind rattling in their skull. In my test game only two psychic tests were made, and one failed, pinning the chaos sorcerer, but this had little effect in the game anyway since he was assaulted by my genestealer squad and broodlord.

Glad you like instinctive behavior! I actually feel that so far, the list has been too powerful(Though it needs to be tested against more seasoned players.) And instinctive behavior has not been too much of an issue, since synapse has been so difficult to kill. I feel that if I give the player too much choice, then synapse is not important enough(especially with pheromone trails being around, too!)

Warp Blast-- I'm making it that warp blast hits on BS(aka hits on 4s) and then works as normal. Haven't really used it against vehicles yet, but my nid playing friend made the suggestion that it hits rear armor just because it would make a very good anti-tank ranged weapon(Though arguably VC is now pretty good at that.)

Yeah, spore mines... There's an issue. See, I liked the idea that the enemy would not want to jump right onto an objective if they saw a mine sitting there. And it's not too difficult to blow it up. I figure, if a mine is lucky enough to be that close and isn't blown up by the end it could contest.

Actually, I think I just forgot to put pinning in the BS!!! aha. I had this crazy notion of making it a living ammo weapon, so I must have cut pinning when I cut that too.

I figured the addition of Acid Blood and making Implant Attack a more all encompassing kind of biomorphs would streamline things. What, one guy spits acid, and the other spits a tongue? Eh, now, if you cut that guy's lips he sprays acid! aha.

Broody it small, yeah but he's supposed to be inhumanly strong, and I figure if someone wants to model pincers on him they're welcome to it. It also will help a lot... I was going to upgrade mine to that today. The Broodlord is officially MVT(Most Valuable Tyranid). He took down the chaos sorcerer, 4 plague marines, a vindicator and 2 obliterators(And the ten genestealers he joined wrought a lot of havoc as well, plus captured the enemy objective.)

Whoops-- yeah the horror will be good, but I think if its cheaper people will take it instead of warp blast and warp field a little bit more.

Also, the reason for the bonesword to say that is that this way a Hive Tyrant will count as a psyker and be allowed to use the force weapon ability. But this way anti-pskyer powers don't affect Tyrants and other synapse that don't take the sword. I may just change the power as to saying "on a 4+" that model is removed outright. Like the GK Force weapon... aha

I think I'm going to reduce the toxic miasma save. It really came into play this game and works to making the Tyrant survivable. Actually, the real stars of the game, other than the Broodlord-- symbiote rippers. Most of the time they and the Tyrant Guard were in cover, meaning that they were essentially toughness 7 3 wound bases with 4+ cover saves(The way the toughness system works, combined with how cover saves worked out.)

Anaphylactic shock is I think the same as it is in the Forgeworld rules for malanthrope. The thing is, a malanthrope is not a *great* creature compared to the other HQs, so I figure that ability won't come into play too frequently, but when it does it will be a pleasant surprise.

I don't understand if you mean that Warriors are too good, almost, or on the brink of not being worth it. I fumbled around with their points in my revision. They're cheaper and I changed a bit about their guns and upgrades, as well.

Rippers are actually only tougher than gaunts because otherwise an entire base would be instant killed by bolters, which would NOT be fun. ahaha. The rending is actually because you used to be able to take it, and I think it'd be hilarious to see the reaction on your opponent's face. They're only str. 2 but...
12 points per model gets you rending clawed rippers with acid blood!

I kind of felt that there was enough of a chance for mycetic spores to make it to the board from their own pheromone trails, other pheromone trail creatures and synapse as well. If they scatter and mishap-- screw em! aha.

I was trying to make sure the guns were not abusable. I don't want to see too many 16 shot devourer fexes running around. My approach was that they could be armed for either, and be devastating or be armed for both and be GREAT. Basically, the optimum loadout imo would be a VC and scything talons-- the iconic build, really.

I'll probably drop the points on guns and the crushing claws. I figured d3 extra attacks and +1 to damge table should cost more, but maybe I'll make it twenty points, instead?

EDIT

Lmao, I guess I did answer all of the stuff at 5 am... I must have gotten carried away *snore*

CthulhuDalek
01-02-2009, 12:27
I finally read it now. I couldn't help but scoff! :) There are a ton of issues - way too many special rules, min/max'ed stat lines (they seem designed for game effectiveness, rather than based on the model), many of the same problems as the official book, I haven't really figured out if it fixes anything... I'll get more specific if you ask, but if what you want is a book filled with special rules and the typical fan stuff, we'll probably just be wasting our time. And the whole thing is meant to be a waste of time, so I mean we'll really, really be wasting our time, like banging our heads against the wall.

lol, well, I've done a bunch of revisions as well, so if you look at my above comment, as well as the revision as soon as I take into account Straken's ideas.

Not to mention, almost all of the "abilities" are organizational or they're abilities that reference a USR.

Pink Horror
01-02-2009, 14:00
Gaunts hitting harder than Orks on a charge makes no sense at all! I don't think Furious Charge or even S4 belongs. They look weak, so they should be weak.

Straker
01-02-2009, 15:57
Please do not bring orks into this. Their codex is ******** in general, and needs to be toned way down. It literally is a freaking easy button in 40k to play orks.

CthulhuDalek
01-02-2009, 20:31
Gaunts hitting harder than Orks on a charge makes no sense at all! I don't think Furious Charge or even S4 belongs. They look weak, so they should be weak.

Gaunts hitting harder than orks does make sense though, in the way my codex is set up.

The gaunts are meant to die like flies, and are wounded on 2s by almost everything in the game. But to be in hth with a gaunt(especially hormies) once they actually get close enough to engage should mean that orks are taken out easily. Most insects are stronger than they look, and reptiles as well -- this is the case with most tyranids. They all have high strength values, but gaunts are much better offensively.

It also gets rid of the need for toxin sacs, and makes fleshborers worth taking.

Also-- orks 6 pts per model.
s.4 on a charge, init 3, toughness 4, 6+ save, ws 4.

against 6 pt spinegaunts on a charge.
s.5 on a charge, init 5, toughness 2, no save, ws 3, preferred enemy.

EDIT -- idk they look like 12 foot long dinosaur bug aliens to me... that's probably a little stronger than a human being. Think "alien."

Pink Horror
02-02-2009, 19:13
Dying like flies also does not make sense. Nothing about the model suggests it should charge at S5 with preferred enemy, no less, and die like a grot.

I'm comparing them to Orks because they should be weaker than Orks. You're comparing to them because you think they need huge compensation for having less toughness. I wonder who Straker would agree with?

Edit: the gaunt is one of those cases of min/max thinking I scoffed at. They scream "game unit", and not simulation. They are designed thinking, what's the nastiest thing I can make and still say it is only worth 6 points?

Edit: one more thing: remember S3 is getting run through with a bayonet. S4 is getting your head bashed in by a guy wearing a hydraulic suit.

Edit (again...): If bugs are all brawn and no toughness, what's the deal with the high toughness of the rest of codex?

CthulhuDalek
02-02-2009, 19:31
Dying like flies also does not make sense. Nothing about the model suggests it should charge at S5 with preferred enemy, no less, and die like a grot.

I'm comparing them to Orks because they should be weaker than Orks. You're comparing to them because you think they need huge compensation for having less toughness. I wonder who Straker would agree with?

Edit: the gaunt is one of those cases of min/max thinking I scoffed at. They scream "game unit", and not simulation. They are designed thinking, what's the nastiest thing I can make and still say it is only worth 6 points?

Edit: one more thing: remember S3 is getting run through with a bayonet. S4 is getting your head bashed in by a guy wearing a hydraulic suit.

Edit (again...): If bugs are all brawn and no toughness, what's the deal with the high toughness of the rest of codex?

You're not thinking about the fact that in the fluff gaunts are designed specifically to expend enemy firepower and kill as much once they've engaged, to weaken the enemy.

So, gaunts are stronger than a guy with a bayonet. They should be tougher than a human, but in game gaunts need to be weaker so that lasguns and basic weapons can kill them easily enough. Sure you'll kill a lot, but they will do as much damage to you as possible before they die.

The rest of the army is high toughness because the Hive Mind designed them to be tough enough to control the lesser organisms and to take damage from the enemy. Things based on the "warrior" genus will be much tougher than creatures based on the gaunt genus.

Gaunts need a boost. In the last codex it was not a stretch for them to be upgraded to str. 4, so instead og just giving them all blanket init 5 like some people would want, I'd rather give them the easily accesible rule of Furious Charge. In game it will make sense... let's see the statistics...

hormagaunts with preferred enemy, furious charge. 7 pts.
24 hormagaunts charge a ten man tactical squad with basic upgrades.(170)
54 hits.
36 wounds.
24 dead marines.

However... if the marines shoot the hormagaunts first.
They can kill 11 of them with rapid fire!

ACTUALLY, those gaunts are slightly more expensive. I made mutable genus a squad by squad entry. It's 15 pts per ten models.

Pink Horror
02-02-2009, 19:49
Why should they be I5, other than people like having high stats? You said they were not meant to last in CC. So, they might as well strike with marines.

and if the primary purpose was soaking up bullets, T2 makes no sense at all!

Should one hormagaunt charging a marine have more relative killing power than a marine charging a guardsman?

And weren't marines designed by the Emperor to be the best soldiers ever? Of course, the hive mind is not going to say to itself: Warriors? Eh, they should suck.

CthulhuDalek
02-02-2009, 19:59
Why should they be I5, other than people like having high stats? You said they were not meant to last in CC. So, they might as well strike with marines.

and if the primary purpose was soaking up bullets, T2 makes no sense at all!

Should one hormagaunt charging a marine have more relative killing power than a marine charging a guardsman?

And weren't marines designed by the Emperor to be the best soldiers ever? Of course, the hive mind is not going to say to itself: Warriors? Eh, they should suck.

Well actually, they sound millions upon millions of termagants specifically to die. But when they get close they kill anything in sight...

Hormagaunts are designed to be great close combat killers. To balance that, they die easy to lasguns and bolters.

Warriors in the fluff are tougher and stronger than a marine...

Pink Horror
02-02-2009, 20:09
Well actually, they sound millions upon millions of termagants specifically to die. But when they get close they kill anything in sight...

I do not know where this, "But when they get close..." nonsense comes from. They die from guns. They die up close. Termagants are not made for CC. They carry guns! But they are not designed to die as easily as possible. And they have some sort of armour, too.

CthulhuDalek
02-02-2009, 21:03
I do not know where this, "But when they get close..." nonsense comes from. They die from guns. They die up close. Termagants are not made for CC. They carry guns! But they are not designed to die as easily as possible. And they have some sort of armour, too.

This allows the gaunts to be modified, though.

That way we don't need two entries for "gaunts and hormagaunts."

In the fluff when gaunts actually get into hand to hand the enemy is usually screwed.

In lieu of making ten points base gaunts with str. 4 t. 3 armor save 5+(as they should be if we tried to balance them exactly) however, making them more vulnerable balances them out with without number, allows them to be cheaper to make them a horde army, and means they're more effective once they engage.

Also, a hormagaunt brood with 30 gaunts in it, with scything talons, in synapse range and furious charge will cost...
8.5 points per model, which should be more than balanced compared to an ork or marine.

A termagant with furious charge will now cost...
9.5 points with the same upgrades.

CthulhuDalek
02-02-2009, 21:51
Here it is.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 01:56
You still haven't explained why they should have I5 on the charge. I prefer a S3, I3 Beast with Furious Charge standard (they're practically cavalry, so a good charge makes sense).

I think the guns have to change.

Your mutable rule is pretty silly, I believe. It's totally unnecessary. I like having the whole of the rules represented on the board, not on the list. If you're going to have that rule, let the army choose one for free, with no cost, and then cost it automatically into every unit.

You're still making decisions like: he should be fast, and strong, and mean, but only 6 points. What do I do? I do not like that. It is very artificial. Design the bug and let the points fall where they may. I think the big problem is your Synapse power is too good.

Powers that mention DNA or anaphylactic shock (sp?) just sound wrong. They are not scientific, so why pretend? Stick to how Heinlein does things: describe the power by what it does, in simple words. The Troopers fight the Bugs. Keep things simple.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 02:15
You still haven't explained why they should have I5 on the charge. I prefer a S3, I3 Beast with Furious Charge standard (they're practically cavalry, so a good charge makes sense).

I think the guns have to change.

Your mutable rule is pretty silly, I believe. It's totally unnecessary. I like having the whole of the rules represented on the board, not on the list. If you're going to have that rule, let the army choose one for free, with no cost, and then cost it automatically into every unit.

You're still making decisions like: he should be fast, and strong, and mean, but only 6 points. What do I do? I do not like that. It is very artificial. Design the bug and let the points fall where they may. I think the big problem is your Synapse power is too good.

Powers that mention DNA or anaphylactic shock (sp?) just sound wrong. They are not scientific, so why pretend? Stick to how Heinlein does things: describe the power by what it does, in simple words. The Troopers fight the Bugs. Keep things simple.

Anaphylactic shock is a power that exists already. I had to make it applicable to the bonesword as well, otherwise the bonesword would just have a lot of wording to allow instant death, so why not use a power we've established...

Absorb DNA is supposed to represent the fact that the models are hunching down to eat the dead bodies of the enemy(because rippers do this.)

The guns are basically the same as they are now. But the Tyrant and Carnifex using them make them better(more shots, better ap).

They shouldn't be the same as everyone else, though. Their profile should not look like a standard 40k human's because they aren't. The way they work in game needs to be changed. Gaunts currently are not worth taking in the current codex. Mine makes them cost efficient, and with the changes to mutable genus makes them balanced.

I wanted this codex to take the better things from 3rd and 4th edition's codex and blend it with 5th edition rules. Mutable genus hearkens back unto the 3rd edition, but this version is less confusing and is simple, per unit. If you buy more gaunts you get a better discount.

Synapse is only overpowered if you're the player that only shoots the gaunts and waits for the synapse to engage... Even then, a whole bunch of toughness 2 gaunts in synapse range will die fast enough. This gives the enemy two options, shoot the little swarmy stuff which will die, or hit the big scary stuff which -- will let the little swarms hit your front lines-- but you can try to speedbump them to prevent your entire line from dying.

These aren't 4th ed nids, they use a different strategy and require a different playstyle to beat them(AKA, you can;t just prepare for stealer/carnifex shock.)

EDIT.
Because if they're init. 4 base, like gaunts have been since 4th edition, it means they will still strike first when assaulted. Some people will still want to use counterattack and/or stealth etc abilities.

Also, points for point they'd be FAR worse than orks even WITH without number. My version breaks out of the ork/human/meq stereotypical profiles.

In the current codex.... Synapse is underpowered. It's not actually beneficial for gaunts to have fearless unless they have enough offensive capability to make up for their lost numbers in combat. Warriors are t5 now to partially represent the ability to not be insta-killed that was offered by synapse before, but does not make them just as powerful.

EDIT.

also, I can see why you'd think Preferred enemy could be powerful... how would this sound. Master Crafted instead of Preferred enemy? Same effect, slightly toned down.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 02:26
Why aren't gaunts taken? Isn't it because the shooting MCs were too good? How does giving them more shooting power help?

You've asked for it now. I'm going to go over the whole darn thing, and I'm not going to balance it to that awful Ork book, but to almost everything else! :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Warring edits:

Nah, it really should be a rule that sounds like the effect. This will require massive point changes, but... Feel No Pain!!!!!

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 02:43
Why aren't gaunts taken? Isn't it because the shooting MCs were too good? How does giving them more shooting power help?

You've asked for it now. I'm going to go over the whole darn thing, and I'm not going to balance it to that awful Ork book, but to almost everything else! :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Warring edits:

Nah, it really should be a rule that sounds like the effect. This will require massive point changes, but... Feel No Pain!!!!!

lolllllll.

It's because taking only MCs and Genestealers was more economical than the alternative amount of points in gaunts. In my dex it's actually a hard decision to use no monstrous creatures, but in my test games the monsters do just about as well as their similar amount of points in... just about everything else, really. The Hive Tyrant vs. Warriors as an HQ is now a *difficult* decision to make.

Choosing more troops over more Heavies is a *difficult* decision now.

Well, I was actually thinking originally it should be feel no pain, but that's what regenerate does now(Though on a 5+ instead of 4+).

Master crafting is balanced better, but so far, preferred enemy has made them just about worth their points, not too terribly expensive(In fact, without it, the Hive Tyrant in my last game would have been terribly overcosted.)

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 02:58
How can you base cost on one game? Statements like that are rubbish: so-and-so was killed 50 points of stuff, or so-and-so rolled two 1's, so he wasn't worth his points this game.

Some of the stuff in the army is too over-the-top (and also not the fun Tyranids all us old players like, but are instead machine-gunners...). You are fixing it by making the other stuff over-the-top. Units can be useful without killing a marine each on the charge! Yes, there should be hard choices, but c'mon. There is a better way.

And I have a better way - platoons! Every unit choice should have something that does not need Synapse: you purchase Warriors as Troops, as a command unit, and add on gaunt units. I would also make Synapse simpler. Creatures out of Synapse take a pinning test after they move, shoot, run, or assault (makes them act simpler, or take more pinning tests). Creatures in Synapse are Fearless. Do they need anything else?

How does master-crafting work for a whole unit? How do you mete out the re-rolls?

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 03:22
How can you base cost on one game? Statements like that are rubbish: so-and-so was killed 50 points of stuff, or so-and-so rolled two 1's, so he wasn't worth his points this game.

Some of the stuff in the army is too over-the-top (and also not the fun Tyranids all us old players like, but are instead machine-gunners...). You are fixing it by making the other stuff over-the-top. Units can be useful without killing a marine each on the charge! Yes, there should be hard choices, but c'mon. There is a better way.

And I have a better way - platoons! Every unit choice should have something that does not need Synapse: you purchase Warriors as Troops, as a command unit, and add on gaunt units. I would also make Synapse simpler. Creatures out of Synapse take a pinning test after they move, shoot, run, or assault (makes them act simpler, or take more pinning tests). Creatures in Synapse are Fearless. Do they need anything else?

How does master-crafting work for a whole unit? How do you mete out the re-rolls?

I've had 3 games with the list so far, and I've run the mathhammer as well, and that's my result so far...

I actually had an idea that you'd select warriors as part of a gaunt squad. Platoons is still much more like IG, though and is a great way to say "oh, hey look, cheap fodder, want some killpoints, buddy?!"

Synapse is pretty simple, if you start the movement phase out of synapse, you roll a d6 and apply that result.

Fearless is *not* a benefit, to models with low toughness(even t3) as evidence by the fact that no one is taking gaunts really(I'm basing this on the fact that nidzilla is so prominent, obviously some players still use gaunts, though they're outclassed by almost all infatry now). The last edition gave them fearless plus a benefit to make them more survivable. The reason for preferred enemy is that -- the tyranid race is not a a group of single creatures, it's a body stretching across multiple galaxies, that can see with all of its eyes-- what another part of the hive knows, the other knows.

Some warriors fought marines and said "oh yeah, aim for the neck..." and now all of them will.

I'm not sure how I'd do it for entire broods, which is why I opted for preferred enemy over it in this last revision. "count the number of models attacking. This is how many rerolls may be made." Perhaps? But even then... may as well be preferred enemy.

Also, which units do you think are particularly over the top?

One of my major goals was to make sure that a purely shooting or close combat list would be viable, but that shooting would be more expensive, so that if you wanted a good balance you'd take a mixture of the two.

I had the 3rd edition image of a hive tyrant with venom canon and scything talons as basically "the standard." Sure, you can now get 16 shots with twinlinked devourers, but then you're sacrificing close combat ability. I may think of upping the costs of the guns again, if you can point out specifically which guns you think are too expensive/which upgrades are too expensive as well.

EDIT.

Recall also, I wrote most of the costs before the game.

Had a second game.

Changed costs based on that.

Had third game.

Changed costs based on that.

This was too see what did dramatically well or dramatically underpowered. Obviously most things were overpowered, as they invariably are, but with some streamlining and rewording *most* of those issues were fixed.

For instance, I made bioplasma too expensive(Because I hadn't playtested that rule yet) on the broodlord, even though he only hit with it on a 6, so I upped his ballistic skill to two to make it more efficient, but not too overpowered. Another example was the fact that I gave stealers too many attacks so I cut them down in-game once I realized they were too OP.

EDIT

Also, thank you for your criticism.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 04:05
Some warriors fought marines and said "oh yeah, aim for the neck..." and now all of them will.

Guardsmen, Eldar, etc. never figure this out? Shouldn't preferred enemy be for one type of enemy? I know some other guys get it against everyone, but frankly that's just lazy rules.


One of my major goals was to make sure that a purely shooting or close combat list would be viable, but that shooting would be more expensive, so that if you wanted a good balance you'd take a mixture of the two.

If you make every basic, thoughtless type of army viable, then you make the thoughtful ones overpowered. That's the problem with the Orks. Combined arms is a very strong effect that you cannot ignore.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 04:28
Guardsmen, Eldar, etc. never figure this out? Shouldn't preferred enemy be for one type of enemy? I know some other guys get it against everyone, but frankly that's just lazy rules.



If you make every basic, thoughtless type of army viable, then you make the thoughtful ones overpowered. That's the problem with the Orks. Combined arms is a very strong effect that you cannot ignore.

Sure, Eldar do, but they don't get date uploaded into their head by a million( year old psychic presence that is controlling the entire assault at the same time, that can also min/max DNA sequences to get the most out of their race...

Well, I don't think wanting an army that is close combat or shooting oriented should be considered particularly thoughtful... Going heavy shooting in this nid list will prove effective, if that's your cup of tea, but it will cost a lot to represent this, and even then your firepower will be most effective up close and personal. Tyranids are a highly varied force, they've been like that for a while, but in 5th edition(With current dex) the only effective build due to restrictive points costs is the creatures that cost more with more crap on them, whereas in this list, the dividing factor is not "well, gargoyles suck more than hormagaunts, so I'm going to use them..."

I want the list to be like Orks where you kinda feel pained to not be able to field all the various cool units-- this is the limiting factor, everything is worth their points, which means the only thing you should really worry about is "what can I use that is suitable for my playstyle?" There should be weaknesses to any force, but that doesn't mean that you cannot try to make a good list that does not build around what everyone wants.

Sure you can take a Hive Tyrant with Twin-linked Venom canon, or the 16 shot variant, but he and his tyrant guard are going to be a biiiig unit that draws a lot of firepower.

The "built in" weakness of the tyranids is the-- low toughness of their basic troops, the negative effects of being out of synapse, the high cost of firepower.

The way you make your army list will try to work around these to make sure you have a strong list.

Think of orks-- there are maybe one or two units that aren't as well thought out as the rest, but most of them are worth taking. So why take a battlewagon instead of killkanz? Because they do different things, and different people want to play differently. I see no reason to punish someone with a ripper/genestealer fetish, but I'd like to reward them for choosing their units wisely(a mixture of various things.)

EDIT.

Just to make sure the point was clearer....
When I say "some warriors said," I meant telepathically communicated that to the Hive Mind, thus the entire race has that experience. Preferred enemy is a silly name for a rule that no longer really applies to a specific foe.

EDIT.

Though, you did give me a good idea for instinctive behavior. 1 should be fallback, 2-5 should be go to ground and 6 should be rage.

At this point hormagaunts on a charge are as good as khorne berzerkers(when in synapse with FC) but they have less toughness and do not have power armor. Though they have without number and move faster...

So, for one thing, I guess I'll up the points cost of the mutable genus abilities by 5 pts per ten(and also making it very expensive to take counterattack and furious charge...)... that means a hormie unit with this(scything talons, furious charge, flesh hooks, without number)profile would cost... 10 pts per model. I'd say that's balanced compared to the 21 pt berzerker when you take into account that hormagaunts will die faster/cannot shoot/cannot take power weapons etc. Offensively they are identical, but one can take more damage than the other, and one is limited by the fact that it must stay a certain distance away from another model to be as effective.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 06:04
If (A) any combination is good, then (B) the right combination is overpowered. That's what happens. It's some sort of physics law or something.

If the shooting units are "worth their points" and expensive, and a whole army of them is pretty good, does it matter if they are expensive? I don't see why it would. Making them expensive is not a balance factor, if you go ahead and increase their power, too.

There is a fundamental concept to the 4th edition Tyranids that most gaunts and such crappy: diminishing returns. Loading up a gaunt with all that extra junk was meant to be a waste. You were supposed to pick a few things at most. Tyranids with a bunch of tooled-up warriors and gaunts would not have enough wounds, and a bunch of often wasted things like WS and I for those points, so they were not good. Some other things, like the guns, were undercosted and easier to use on the field, so that's what people used. The end lesson: you cannot keep a 40k player out of the candy store.

I have a friend who plays Sisters of Battle. There is value in an extra body, a simple wound without any great killing power, that should be appreciated. You're writing this like the typical GW codex writer, except with more over-the-top special rules. You're trying to beat the latest codex you like: the Orks. That'll make no one want to play against these guys. People will scoff. They scoff at the Orks, and they're official! Please try to avoid the Ork problem: yes, the Ork player can choose his fluffy army, but then the other player can't, because he's up against Orks, and the fluffy Ork army is just as good as a boring, tournament-style list from another book. You steal the fun from everyone else. I don't care about tournament results, but I do care if the Orks are no fun in a just-for-fun game.

Instead of making sure any build is good (and leaving a high possibility for an OP combination), figure out your core, strong build first. Make that match up to the other tournament lists. Then, just make sure alternative lists are not too much worse. I hope you do not decide to balance an all gun army, and balance an all claw army, and then say anyone who actually mixes the two in a non-idiotic way then deserves to have an advantage!

Edit: what, the Eldar and Guard don't have faster-than-light communcation, archives, and training facilities? You say hive mind, I say radio. The difference is whole creatures become pawns (Fearless). So what if it makes them worse in the game? You were looking for some reason to keep them cheap, right?

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 06:29
If (A) any combination is good, then (B) the right combination is overpowered. That's what happens. It's some sort of physics law or something.

If the shooting units are "worth their points" and expensive, does it matter if they are expensive? I don't see why it would. Making them expensive is not a balance factor, if you go ahead and increase their power, too.

It matters if you want to have a theme for the army.

The value pts wise is not solely based on what that option can do, but based on what it can do in relation to other units and other options for the same model.

I want it to be effective to do this:
A. Have an even balance of shooting and close combat. This will be of medium expense and be effective.
B. Have all close combat be cheaper than A but less effective to make up for this.
C. Have all shooting and be better than A or B but cost more to balance it out.

CC is cheaper and Shooting is more expensive.

so ideally you'd go with A. That was the "encouraged" play style I had in mind with the codex. Also, in 40k there is no absolutely "right" combination.

Yeah, you can make an army of 200 rippers and malanthrope, and it will do well against some things, and worse against others(namely landraiders...) but I'm not gonna can my codex because some builds are better than others.

This is why shooting costs more, because shooting is less dangerous for the creatures, and their guns are good close range and usually allow them to assault right after. Close combat weapons are cheaper because of that... I don't see the problem...

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 06:42
There is a fundamental concept to the 4th edition Tyranids that most gaunts and such crappy: diminishing returns. Loading up a gaunt with all that extra junk was meant to be a waste. You were supposed to pick a few things at most. Tyranids with a bunch of tooled-up warriors and gaunts would not have enough wounds, and a bunch of often wasted things like WS and I for those points, so they were not good. Some other things, like the guns, were undercosted and easier to use on the field, so that's what people used. The end lesson: you cannot keep a 40k player out of the candy store.

I have a friend who plays Sisters of Battle. There is value in an extra body, a simple wound without any great killing power, that should be appreciated. You're writing this like the typical GW codex writer, except with more over-the-top special rules. You're trying to beat the latest codex you like: the Orks. That'll make no one want to play against these guys. People will scoff. They scoff at the Orks, and they're official! Please try to avoid the Ork problem: yes, the Ork player can choose his fluffy army, but then the other player can't, because he's up against Orks, and the fluffy Ork army is just as good as a boring, tournament-style list from another book. You steal the fun from everyone else. I don't care about tournament results, but I do care if the Orks are no fun in a just-for-fun game.

Instead of making sure any build is good (and leaving a high possibility for an OP combination), figure out your core, strong build first. Make that match up to the other tournament lists. Then, just make sure alternative lists are not too much worse. I hope you do not decide to balance an all gun army, and balance an all claw army, and then say anyone who actually mixes the two in a non-idiotic way then deserves to have an advantage!

Edit: what, the Eldar and Guard don't have faster-than-light communcation, archives, and training facilities? You say hive mind, I say radio. The difference is whole creatures become pawns (Fearless). So what if it makes them worse in the game? You were looking for some reason to keep them cheap, right?

In 5th edition most codices do not have many "wasteful" upgrades... this is also inline with what I'm trying to accomplish.

Acid blood is a cool upgrade, if you have the points for it. Its worth those 3 pts, but perhaps not enough compared to that zoanthrope you want to buy ... "the temptation!"

Look to my changes for mutable genus etc up in my previous post.

I'm not trying to "beat" orks, I'm trying to make this list __not__ underpowered when fighting orks. I'm also trying to balance against marines, old nids, my new dex itself, and space marines...

My codex is... fluffy. Most of the options in there allow you to take something reminiscent of a fluffy list.

I tried to make sure fluffy lists had as many cool options as just standard lists.

I did identify a core, as well. "Most lists" imo, from a design standpoint, when looking at a typical 5th ed game should have...

1 hive tyrant preferably with gun and cc weapons.
Some Warriors.
2-4 broods of gaunts. 50/50 close combat and shooting.
some sort of FA.
one Heavy.

This is the core of the army. It *should* have a heavy gaunt basis with a hive tyrant and/or warriors leading it with an even match of cc to shooting.

Then there are some fluffy lists....

broodlord
6 squads of gs.
6 lictors.

Red Terror
Winged Tyrant
3 ravener broods
gargoyles.

Old One Eye
Malanthrope
6 carnifexes
rippers

I don't think any of these fluffy lists are much more or less powerful than one another... though the Old One Eye list could be nasty.

I think all of these lists can be equally nasty, and will each have their downfalls. Every codex has the possibility for one trick pony lists and if people want to try them, be my guest, but it can get expensive fast.

EDIT.

In your opinion what is more overpowered-- 6 carnifexes total or 4 carnifexes with 1 scoring?(plus old one eye himself, but he's an HQ)

EDIT.

And the difference is that the Hive Mind makes them do what it wants exactly like it says, with no disagreement, and they don't have to learn anything, it just becomes hardwired into their fight...

Sure, sending a message through the warp over might be a good way to learn about the enemy, but it's a little easier when that information comes to you directly into your head during the battle...

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 07:12
I'm going to read your list before I comment any more. I should worry about the rules more than my own arbitrary theories. I think you're right about the core. It's good to keep that list in mind.

Edit:

How can all CC be cheaper? Let's say you're given 1750 points. Armies A, B, and C all cost 1750 points. It's like comparing a ton of bricks versus a ton of feathers.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 07:34
I'm going to read your list before I comment any more. I should worry about the rules more than my own arbitrary theories. I think you're right about the core. It's good to keep that list in mind.

Edit:

How can all CC be cheaper? Let's say you're given 1750 points. Armies A, B, and C all cost 1750 points. It's like comparing a ton of bricks versus a ton of feathers.

I meant that the upgrades to make them close combat oriented on most models will be cheaper than shooting upgrades :P

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 07:40
I mentioned Gaunts already, so...

Second unit report: Tyranid Warrior Brood

10 points each and better stats??? Different biomorphs and weapons on everybody? SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!

S5 T5 W2 A2 LD10 Sv4+, all for 10 points? Are you joking?

I can equip them naked, because you say may, or just add one gun or something along those lines. You let someone have a brood of all the same weapon, such as a venom cannon, and put various 1 - 4 point biomorph combos on everyone to abuse the wound thing? C'mon.

For 20 points, I can have a creature with a 24", S7 Assault 2 weapon, with T5 and W2. I cannot take the rest of the list seriously now. 8 of those costs 160, for 16 S7 small blasts. 24 points gives me enough extra junk to make them all slightly different, for allocation purposes.

How do you explain that?

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 07:42
I meant that the upgrades to make them close combat oriented on most models will be cheaper than shooting upgrades :P

You can't just cost upgrades. That's part of the old list's problem. You have to cost the entire combos.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 08:13
I mentioned Gaunts already, so...

Second unit report: Tyranid Warrior Brood

10 points each and better stats??? Different biomorphs and weapons on everybody? SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!

S5 T5 W2 A2 LD10 Sv4+, all for 10 points? Are you joking?

I can equip them naked, because you say may, or just add one gun or something along those lines. You let someone have a brood of all the same weapon, such as a venom cannon, and put various 1 - 4 point biomorph combos on everyone to abuse the wound thing? C'mon.

For 20 points, I can have a creature with a 24", S7 Assault 2 weapon, with T5 and W2. I cannot take the rest of the list seriously now. 8 of those costs 160, for 16 S7 small blasts. 24 points gives me enough extra junk to make them all slightly different, for allocation purposes.

How do you explain that?

That's actually something I've been trying to iron out.

I have been trying to come up with a good base cost of warriors, and it's been ranging between 10-16. If it's too expensive base then why take warriors instead of a hive tyrant or genestealers, if it's too cheap it's unfair.

Obviously since you pointed it out, though, warriors will have a "must" choose any two of the following since "may" is a little ambiguous(which is why I want more people to read it.)

Actually, I had a different reason for making biomorphs able to be different, but i think it was because I thought there would be upgrades that conflict with each other. I'll make it that they should all take the same biomorphs.

The Weapon combos will stay though, because it allows customization.

What do you suggest as the base cost? 14-15? Consider that they will all have mandatory weaponry because I'll change it to "must" and that all biomorphs must be the same for all models.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 08:20
You can't just cost upgrades. That's part of the old list's problem. You have to cost the entire combos.

Yeah, which is why on genestealers purchasing your second set of rending claws is only 1 pt(for the extra attack).

I'm saying that close combat weapon symbiotes are cheaper than shooting symbiotes. Taking a combo of the two is slightly more expensive than going full CC. Full CC will obviously be more rewarding than this mixture if you get into close combat, and it's cheaper, but the other is more effective either way.

I don't see anything wrong with the cost of most of the upgrades at the moment. I've increased the cost of guns on the tyrant and fex by a few points to balance more.

The issue was definitely on base cost of warriors especially if you thought they didn't need to buy two weapons.

I'm also thinking of upping the base cost of the Broodlord to 130-150, what do you think?

I'm also making mieotic spores only have two wounds as well. Also, putting in a provision that if they're reduced to zero wounds they will self destruct.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 09:29
I'll get to the others, once I think I can move past these warriors.

You should do this 5th-edition style. Design the basic warrior. Rending claws and spine fists, probably. Then add options to exchange out each set separately.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 09:35
I'll get to the others, once I think I can move past these warriors.

You should do this 5th-edition style. Design the basic warrior. Rending claws and spine fists, probably. Then add options to exchange out each set separately.

Hmm... interesting idea that...

It was so interesting that I incorporated it into the entire list.

Most models standard weapons are now either rending claws or spinefists or both, and can be upgraded from there.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 10:58
An interesting list at 1750 is...

broodlord
crushing claws
carpace
regeneration
feeder tendrils

60 genestealers(6 broods of ten) no other upgrades, all with stealth and furious charge.

Then use 6 lictors.

This is called the "infiltration force" if you use this "formation"(it's like this, but it's requirement is no monstrous creatures are used, a broodlord is needed and there must be one lictor per troop choice used) you need a 4+ on seize the initiative instead of 6.

EDIT.

These changes are in the latest updating I've done(They cost more than in the current version you've downloaded).

Straker
03-02-2009, 14:04
OK...after reading that long debate, I am deciding to leave it between you two as I see two valid sides. However, just in general, be careful of OP. Gaunts should not hit as hard as berzerkers, whatsoever. There should, however, be a **** ton more gaunts than berserkers to make up for this. I think s5 gaunts is not right. They just aren't that strong...however, making them s3 w/ furious charge is too similar to orks. So, you're the author, I'll leave it up to your creative genious to solve the problem. IMO, mutable genus is a cool idea that may have to be dropped...it's too confusing and brings up too much controversy.

I am currently in class, but what I intend to do is what I did before with your new edition.

Straker
03-02-2009, 14:37
OK...the beginning of my critique:

1) Shadows in the warp: This sentence is grammitcally incorrect: " These models (Including synapse creatures) are not affected by perils of the warp." When you say "these" you are referring to the units pinned...I am very confused as to what you even mean here. Also, how the hell is this worked out: "Additionally, a “hit” on the deepstrike dice will always result in a scatter, using the small arrow"? You just reroll until you get a miss? Why would synapse have this effect on a drop pod, for instance?

2) WoN: Why do you no longer specify the new unit is a new kill point?

3) Mutable Genus: You don't want to say per 1-10 wounds, etc. Just say per 10, as that is more correct. If you're worried about the grot/runtherd interpretation, just say per 10 and give a for instance.

I live that troops not in synapse can't nab objectives!!! Great fluff rule!

4) Getting even more technical here, but people freak out over RAW (and although this is for fun, I think you want to be as professional as possible). In Brood Telapathy, when you say "They are affected when in Synapse Range." I know what you mean but make this crystal clear...

5) Spore Mines has grammatical errors. First thing I noticed is when you say: "Spore Mines within synapse range RAGE" and you previously said "Spore
Mines move like regular infantry except that they are always gripped by RAGE..." they make no sense why the second sentence is needed. Do you mean S&P is dropped? Clarify. Also, when you say "(Use the Template for Bioacid, using the Mine’s base as the source of the Template)" I know what you mean but the way you used it it refers to all spore mines generally, meaning every spore mine uses the template. Clarify. Also, what if by some rare occurrence rage makes them run into your own units? Clarify what happens in this case. (Synapse don't explode, not in synapse explode?).

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 15:11
Leaping: Gaunts have Rending Claws on their feet which they use during the charge, giving them Rending and +1 attack (for a total of +2 attacks) on the charge.

- That makes them nasty on the charge without Furious charge. I think they should just all be S3. S3 T2 might grow on me, with an armour save and Synapse Fearless. Fearless makes total fluff sense for gaunts - they march forward and die in CC. The author just doesn't like the detriment it causes.

Straker
03-02-2009, 15:39
I think S3 T2 is fine, no furious charge any of that stuff but make them cheap as dirt as they are garbage. But that's kind of what they're supposed to be...

I don't think gaunts should have rending, etc (I still don't get how the hell a gaunt would EVER pierce power/termie armour).

I would do things a bit differently. I really think in the current dex the only thing wrong with them is they need 2 attacks base, other than that drop the silly toxin sacs points difference for guns as you pay for it with toxin sacs anyways (or incorporate the cost into TS) and keep them the same points. Arm them with spinefists standard for free as well. So in the end everything is the same but you get +1A and a crap-ass gun for free at 5 pts (and remain t3) and if you want +1s pay for it by the model with toxin sacs?? I think that S5 should be possible for gaunt shooting but not cc.

I like the idea to combine gaunts and hormagaunts into one entry but it's causing a lot of trouble...

I'll continue my critique soon as I did above. Pink, it sounds like you should almost try and make your own version and compare :D Granted that takes time (which is why I don't do just that) but it would be interesting to see.

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 15:53
Leaping: Gaunts have Rending Claws on their feet which they use during the charge, giving them Rending and +1 attack (for a total of +2 attacks) on the charge.

- That makes them nasty on the charge without Furious charge. I think they should just all be S3. S3 T2 might grow on me, with an armour save and Synapse Fearless. Fearless makes total fluff sense for gaunts - they march forward and die in CC. The author just doesn't like the detriment it causes.

Hmmm. I actually like that idea, kinda... it's interesting and I'll test that out in the next game. Or maybe I'll make it...

All gaunts are s.4 init. base cost 4 pts.
Then instead of taking furious charge they can take counter attack or "leaping" leaping would then be 30 points per ten models?

Leaping: the model counts as a beast and counts as having rending claws on the turn it charges(This will give them +2 attacks on a turn they charge)

And to Straken...

the reason why they have "per 1-10" wounds prevents someone from saying "I have 29 gaunts so I only have to pay 30 points for blah upgrade..." instead of 45, for example.

Well, of course Fearless makes fluff sense for gaunts, but hormagaunts should also be the killing machines they're known for.

I'll have to find the page number for the deepstrike thing in the rulebook. I was trying to say you use the small arrow on the hit side of the dice.

Whoops, it also should say "lose" rage. Also, I'm adding a rule to spore mines that allows them to move through their own squads.

Also, don't bother reading this edition Straken, I'm working on the revised one from Pink Horror and your comments at the moment.

Whoops, that was mainly an error because of the fact that I used to have the bonesword count as making a psychic test... just cut out the appropriate chunk and placed the sentence before the pinning clause.

EDIT.

Maybe "leaping" could either give them implant attack, rending, or just +2 attacks on a charg.e.. jury's still out on that...

Still keeping s4 t 2 base though, with no more furious charge. I'm thinking of making leaping back into an option, dropping em to 4 pts base.

Pink Horror
03-02-2009, 17:32
Fearless would represent that trait of expending themselves all at once. They can kill, but they don't last in CC. That fits your fluff goals, right?

CthulhuDalek
03-02-2009, 22:57
Fearless would represent that trait of expending themselves all at once. They can kill, but they don't last in CC. That fits your fluff goals, right?

Yeah. As it stands here are my changes to gaunts...

4 pts per model.
ws. 3 bs. 3 s. 4 t.2 w. 1 I.4 A.1 ld. 5 sv.-

unit type: infantry
Special Rules: Fleet, without number, mutable genus.
Weapons: Spinefists.
weapon options: fleshborer or devourer 2 pts.
scything talons - 1 pt.
Biomorph options: flesh hooks. 1 pt.
acid blood - 3 pts.
Leaping - 3 pts.
Transport: same as now.

without number-- same as is.
Mutable Genus-- now its linked to the army's leader. If two HQs both have mutable genus, you must choose which one's effects apply to the army.

Alternatively, mutable genus will allow units to add a +/- 1 modifier to their instinctive behavior tests.

Hive Tyrant's Mutable Genus: Broods may take Counter-Attack for two points per model.

Broodlord: Allows units to take Stealth for 2 pts. Genestealers are troops.

Malanthrope: rippers as scoring(same as current rule)

Old One Eye: Carnifexes may be taken as elites. The most expensive counts as a scoring unit(not including old one eye himself).

Leaping-- 12 inch charge, counts as tusked, implant attack.

Pink Horror
05-02-2009, 02:45
Downloading rules...

I should write my own Tyranids. God darn-it, I'm so full of myself, I should write my own 40k! I think some member of the community needs to get that started. But with my schedule, with my need to save ideas for my own use, and with my politics, I'm probably not the best guy.

I'll edit in comments here:

Oh, I couldn't find a version that had the 5th edition style.

I like Leaping as standard for gaunts. But I'm thinking Beasts is unnecessary. I would like to keep things simple.

Meanwhile, you are still holding onto that S4! Is that needed? A bunch of attacks on the charge should be good. A regular gaunt does not look like it hits that hard. Those little arms that they have now used to look more like legs on the models, I believe. I imagined them clawing away with all 6 limbs as what "Leaping" should mean.

Alright, so here is the problem:

Scything Talons look really big and nasty.
Razor Claws look more insidious. (I think "Rending" needs to be removed from the name, for clarity.)
Flesh Hooks certainly are not grenades.
Models holding guns should not be too good in close combat.
Hormagaunts are that all-offense thing we've talked about.

I do not like "counts as Tusked" as a rule, because then someone who forgets has to look up Tusked! It's like when the phonebook or dictionary sends you poking around all over.

First off, a side note which should help out with this conundrum:

Tyranid Multiple Weapons: sometimes a creature carries more than one of the same weapon. These are not "twin-linked". Tyranids prefer a less predictable stream of fire. When a Tyranid has two of the same ranged weapon, the weapons count as one, except the Tyranid counts as having +1 attack when determining its profile. This becomes +2 attacks when the model has four of the same weapon. Similarly, a model with two close combat weapons (and practically all tyranid CCWs come in pairs) gets +1 attack in close combat. A model with four CCWs gets +2 attacks.

Note: that lets dual gun models on the field without making them insane machine guns. It also takes care of all pairs of weapons, like Spinefists and Scything Talons.

I still do not like Preferred Enemy or any other power that grants huge numbers of re-rolls to huge numbers of attacks. "Preferred Enemy" is especially bad because they have no preferred enemy. The power is misnamed for how you are using it. Synapse could grant some bonus. Why not introduce a new (old) concept to the game: the modifier. Synapse adds 1 to your hit rolls. All of them, not just CC. You can then scale back the BS to cheaper-looking levels, as a side bonus.

I'm going to think about what the weapons should do.

CthulhuDalek
05-02-2009, 05:43
Downloading rules...

Oh, I couldn't find a version that had the 5th edition style.

I like Leaping as standard for gaunts. But I'm thinking Beasts is unnecessary. I would like to keep things simple.

Meanwhile, you are still holding onto that S4! Is that needed? A bunch of attacks on the charge should be good. A regular gaunt does not look like it hits that hard. Those little arms that they have now used to look more like legs on the models, I believe. I imagined them clawing away with all 6 limbs as what "Leaping" should mean.

Alright, so here is the problem:

Scything Talons look really big and nasty.
Razor Claws look more insidious. (I think "Rending" needs to be removed from the name, for clarity.)
Flesh Hooks certainly are not grenades.
Models holding guns should not be too good in close combat.
Hormagaunts are that all-offense thing we've talked about.

I do not like "counts as Tusked" as a rule, because then someone who forgets has to look up Tusked! It's like when the phonebook or dictionary sends you poking around all over.

First off, a side note which should help out with this conundrum:

Tyranid Multiple Weapons: sometimes a creature carries more than one of the same weapon. These are not "twin-linked". Tyranids prefer a less predictable stream of fire. When a Tyranid has two of the same ranged weapon, the weapons count as one, except the Tyranid counts as having +1 attack when determining its profile. This becomes +2 attacks when the model has four of the same weapon. Similarly, a model with two close combat weapons (and practically all tyranid CCWs come in pairs) gets +1 attack in close combat. A model with four CCWs gets +2 attacks.

Note: that lets dual gun models on the field without making them insane machine guns. It also takes care of all pairs of weapons, like Spinefists and Scything Talons.

I still do not like Preferred Enemy or any other power that grants huge numbers of re-rolls to huge numbers of attacks. "Preferred Enemy" is especially bad because they have no preferred enemy. The power is misnamed for how you are using it. Synapse could grant some bonus. Why not introduce a new (old) concept to the game: the modifier. Synapse adds 1 to your hit rolls. All of them, not just CC. You can then scale back the BS to cheaper-looking levels, as a side bonus.

I'm going to think about what the weapons should do.

I haven't added in the latest revision yet, since I'm still incorporating ideas(been reading the 3rd ed codex for inspiration, since it had the whole mutability and some more original fluff going on). For instance, I realized it makes no sense for a broodlord to take bioplasma since that would not allow him to kill things silently(screeching noises=not good.)

Leaping is going to be an upgrade, this way you can take waaay cheapo termagants or spinegaunts with less offensive capabilities. I'll just say "these models receive +2 attacks on a charge, with implant attack."

After re-reading about Tyranid Physiology, even basic gaunts are basically ALL muscle and bone, and considering they're all larger than a human s.4 would not be too difficult to imagine. Now the toughness and save thing... if you listen to their descriptions they should all really come with base armor of 5+ with toughness 3.5(somewhere between a marine and a human) the issue is that they cannot really act as a horde army with those kind of stats when you compare them to orks, guard and marines. So I had to consider that while they're described as having the equivalent of flak armor, "really" in the fluff a lasgun will still kill them with an accurate hit. This is to balance out their higher strength plus without number and to also to break up the "human" outline.

Sacrifices must be made for efficiency!

Heck, rending claws aren't gonna change names --that's where rending is from!

Flesh hooks "count as" having the effect of frag grenades. The rulebook states that certain rules will have equivalents to grenades even though they function differently. Flesh hooks fire barbed hooks into terrain and allow the gaunts to engage in init order.

Well, a termagant will be good in close combat if you upgrade it for leaping and have it within synapse range, of course. But that's a...9 pt gaunt 10 pts with fleshhooks.

I think the whole dual weapons thing that you've come up with waaaaay unbalance guns(for good and bad, but still not balanced). For example, you could take two venom canons, which is extreeeeemely wasteful for plus 1 attack.

I like the idea of getting bonus attacks for guns, but then that means regular cc weapons would have to be even cheaper. Spinegaunts would then be as expensive as hormagaunts at least and there would be basically no reason to use them.

Also, +1 to hit with synapse is more overpowered than preferred enemy! Overall, plus one to your hit modifier means you will hit foes with a higher weapon skill far more frequently. It means that a weapon skill 3 gaunt... hits models up to weapon skill 6 on 3s...

Also, preferred enemy makes sense in this case. There's a quote in third edition codex something like: When a tyranid sees something, the entire race becomes aware of it at once. EDIT. Actually that is was in a warhammer40kwiki article. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Tyranids

Hence, they share all of their knowledge as an entire race, hundreds of years of fighting skill built into each creature.

I also decided to change how the venom canon works a bit... also getting rid of the ap increase due to being a monstrous creature(THat will lower the points costs of weapons a bit.) Venom Canon now has no AP value, but counts as a rending weapon(But rends on a 4+ when given to a MC, or just 4+?). This prevents it from being TOO op vs. vehicles, but not as bad as before(especially with mutiple shots.)

Pink Horror
05-02-2009, 23:20
I think the whole dual weapons thing that you've come up with waaaaay unbalance guns(for good and bad, but still not balanced). For example, you could take two venom canons, which is extreeeeemely wasteful for plus 1 attack.

You are writing the rules. It does not have to be expensive to have 2 venom cannons. The point is that there should be a limit on how effectively these things should shoot, and the current book seems to go beyond that.

Anyway, what's the average comparing twin-linked (current rules, right?) and +1 shot?

If you have two shots, you tend to miss one, so you get +1 roll.
If you have three shots, well, that's +1 roll compared to 2, all the time! The twin-linked is only better when you get bad rolls.

And I like the hit modifier for synapse, which makes them shoot better to compensate.

And, simply because it looks really silly and was abused so many times, 4 devourers needs to suck now. One creature should not get all those shots.

You keep thinking like a fan instead of a designer: the Tyranids are not underpowered. You keep making stuff better and better.

What's a guardsman made out of? Muscle and armor and bone. They're not blubber-butts. I can accept the T2, thinking they're soft crab meat on the inside instead of steak. They need an armour save, though. Strength can be 3. As you say, you can't match the pro-Tyranid fluff (no army can - the fluff hypes the army!). You sacrifice other stats for min/maxing. Why not that one? (I know - it's what you want to max.)

A lot of that muscle for the gaunt is in its back and legs. It has teeny little arms, holding a gun. It can bite you, that's it. You want a Bite rule for +0.5 Strength? I'll give you one:

After rolling for wounds for models with "Vicious Bite", you may add +1 to the results of a number of dice equal to the number of models that attacked.

CthulhuDalek
06-02-2009, 00:18
You are writing the rules. It does not have to be expensive to have 2 venom cannons. The point is that there should be a limit on how effectively these things should shoot, and the current book seems to go beyond that.

Anyway, what's the average comparing twin-linked (current rules, right?) and +1 shot?

If you have two shots, you tend to miss one, so you get +1 roll.
If you have three shots, well, that's +1 roll compared to 2, all the time! The twin-linked is only better when you get bad rolls.

And I like the hit modifier for synapse, which makes them shoot better to compensate.

And, simply because it looks really silly and was abused so many times, 4 devourers needs to suck now. One creature should not get all those shots.

You keep thinking like a fan instead of a designer: the Tyranids are not underpowered. You keep making stuff better and better.

What's a guardsman made out of? Muscle and armor and bone. They're not blubber-butts. I can accept the T2, thinking they're soft crab meat on the inside instead of steak. They need an armour save, though. Strength can be 3. As you say, you can't match the pro-Tyranid fluff (no army can - the fluff hypes the army!). You sacrifice other stats for min/maxing. Why not that one? (I know - it's what you want to max.)

A lot of that muscle for the gaunt is in its back and legs. It has teeny little arms, holding a gun. It can bite you, that's it. You want a Bite rule for +0.5 Strength? I'll give you one:

After rolling for wounds for models with "Vicious Bite", you may add +1 to the results of a number of dice equal to the number of models that attacked.

I thought you were saying that you wanted the guns to confer a plus one attack bonus to the creature.

A Venom Canon does not need to be expensive, but if you make it cheap enough, then taking one venom canon and a different weapon becomes much better than if it costs a lot to take a twinlinked one. Sure you can take a twinlinked venom canon if you *want* to.

Hitting on 3s for tyranids in synapse is waaaay too good for their shooting, though. That's more fanlike.

Okay, you don't understand the physiology of tyranids to an extent... humans are filled with organs and have weak muscle and thin flesh. Tyranids are made with two sets of skeletons for support, have virtually no organs other than a brain, so they don't waste room for digestive and respiratory systems. Their entire physiology is designed to be efficient.

To make the quad devourers option less op -- i got rid of the MC ap modifier, and also made that option more expensive than other options. Sure, now a carnie can take the two sets, and get 16 shots, but they also cost more thAN venom canons etc.

Unless gaunts cost 2 pts per model, their strength stat is the only thing that will keep them competitive against other armies. In-game I don't want leaping guardsmen, which is what they basically are now, but much more expensive...

The effect of their t2 with no save makes up for having without nukmber AND for the bonus strength. There have to be sacrifices if you want to keep a theme. Gaunts die like flies but if they get in range the enemy will be given a run for their money, while the bigger nids are overall better in toughness and combat, but still relatively expensive.

The bite ability is included in the attacks/strength and leaping characteristics, now. That's included in the "balance." Think of Alien when you're thinking of how nids strength works. Not to mention they attack with every part of their body. I'd make them t3 with 5+ save, but that's spending extra points on useless abilities, when having no save is the same as spending it for armor 5+ for shooting.

EDIT.

And honestly, if someone wants to pay the points for an expensive gun, instead of twinlinking it, I'd rather just give em two...but that's not in-line with how GW would probably want it done.

The 4 devourer fex will cost almost 40 points+ more than a fex with two sets of devourers anyway.

Pink Horror
06-02-2009, 01:28
How is "two sets of devourers" not "4 devourers"? Aren't there 2 in a set? That's what I was talking about. The model has 4 of them, right? (I'm forgetful enough to have messed this up.) I'm saying that one MC should not have huge amounts of shots. It's over-the-top. A creature does not need 12 re-roll shots to be worth its points, when it has high toughness, a good save, several wounds, good CC, etc. Giving 1 Attack worth of extra shots (so 2 shots for a devourer) for each gun beyond the first is acceptable. That's still 12 shots, but without the re-rolls. The points can reflect the change. I'm wondering if each gun should get get +1 shot, instead of +1 A for the purposes of shooting. That would mean 9 shots - still a lot. Of course the points would reflect the difference. 9 shot models would still could in handy, but people should be motivated to keep the 7 shot version (2 devourers) + a killer CC combo.

You blasted my idea because 2 venom cannons would not be worth it. Now you're saying people can take 2 venom cannons if they want: it doesn't have to be good. Which statement do you agree with more?

What so bad about a 3+ roll? Hive Tyrant + Senses = BS4! It's in the book now.

Your honest opinion comes from misunderstanding the way effectiveness adds up in a wargame. It's non-linear. A carnifex with a venom cannon and something cheap to go with it is maybe 130 points for a S10 gun built on top of a very tough, mobile platform. Adding another 2 shots for only 35 points makes the thing practically twice as good for only 35 more points. There's a reason GW designs things the way it does. GW figured out, back in the beginning of 3rd edition, that a heavy weapon on a tough mount is worth a ton of points. If you take a creature like a shooty carnifex and double its firepower, it better be expensive to do so! It's still useful. Most good upgrades in this game are about +50% attack power for +25% cost. The upgrades should be a tough decision, like the troops themselves. It's a no-brainer to slap another huge gun onto a big bad creature for only 35 points.

CthulhuDalek
06-02-2009, 06:31
How is "two sets of devourers" not "4 devourers"? Aren't there 2 in a set? That's what I was talking about. The model has 4 of them, right? (I'm forgetful enough to have messed this up.) I'm saying that one MC should not have huge amounts of shots. It's over-the-top. A creature does not need 12 re-roll shots to be worth its points, when it has high toughness, a good save, several wounds, good CC, etc. Giving 1 Attack worth of extra shots (so 2 shots for a devourer) for each gun beyond the first is acceptable. That's still 12 shots, but without the re-rolls. The points can reflect the change. I'm wondering if each gun should get get +1 shot, instead of +1 A for the purposes of shooting. That would mean 9 shots - still a lot. Of course the points would reflect the difference. 9 shot models would still could in handy, but people should be motivated to keep the 7 shot version (2 devourers) + a killer CC combo.

You blasted my idea because 2 venom cannons would not be worth it. Now you're saying people can take 2 venom cannons if they want: it doesn't have to be good. Which statement do you agree with more?

What so bad about a 3+ roll? Hive Tyrant + Senses = BS4! It's in the book now.

Your honest opinion comes from misunderstanding the way effectiveness adds up in a wargame. It's non-linear. A carnifex with a venom cannon and something cheap to go with it is maybe 130 points for a S10 gun built on top of a very tough, mobile platform. Adding another 2 shots for only 35 points makes the thing practically twice as good for only 35 more points. There's a reason GW designs things the way it does. GW figured out, back in the beginning of 3rd edition, that a heavy weapon on a tough mount is worth a ton of points. If you take a creature like a shooty carnifex and double its firepower, it better be expensive to do so! It's still useful. Most good upgrades in this game are about +50% attack power for +25% cost. The upgrades should be a tough decision, like the troops themselves. It's a no-brainer to slap another huge gun onto a big bad creature for only 35 points.

There's no precedent in the game for the weapon to have this sort of effect though. That's why it allows re-rolls in the first place. That's also why I didn't make it that both guns count as separate weapons. I lowered their prices somewhat, gave them no effect on their attacks, and kept twinlinking for choosing two of the same gun.

Also. 4 devourers is not actually an option. For tmcs you can only purchase two "twinlinked devourers" which from a modular standpoint looks like 4 devourers.

I was saying that it would not be "worth" it to take two venom canons if the only difference was 5 shots vs. 4 shots that reroll to hit. This will give the model too many base attacks, and the requirement for a bonus attack and the cost of the gun would have to be too much. However, I wouldn't limit the option of making it twin-linked if players really wanted to take that option.

Stupid combinations should be possible, but that doesn't mean you have to choose that combo. For instance, you could theoretically take two sets of rending claws... but the only effect is another attack, where you'd be better off taking scything talons.

Pink Horror
06-02-2009, 07:40
If the model can have 4 devourers on it, and there are rules that represent that, it is an option. It does not matter if the rules call it two sets of two. 2 X 2 = 4 !

The extra attacks only count as base attacks for the purposes of firing the gun. And by the way, why did you increase the attacks on the most popular models in the army? I wanted to avoid that until I got there, but I'm waiting to see what happened to the warrior and the gaunt in the new book.

I think a 4-devourer (that is what is on the model, right?) tyrant model should still be able to go on the board and have a decent cost, and be effective. I do not like making current models unusable. But I think the most efficient option should have CC weapons on one side and a gun on the other, like the old metal model. Also, 2 sets of rending claws should not be a waste: that's a real genestealer!

CthulhuDalek
06-02-2009, 08:23
If the model can have 4 devourers on it, and there are rules that represent that, it is an option. It does not matter if the rules call it two sets of two. 2 X 2 = 4 !

The extra attacks only count as base attacks for the purposes of firing the gun. And by the way, why did you increase the attacks on the most popular models in the army? I wanted to avoid that until I got there, but I'm waiting to see what happened to the warrior and the gaunt in the new book.

I think a 4-devourer (that is what is on the model, right?) tyrant model should still be able to go on the board and have a decent cost, and be effective. I do not like making current models unusable. But I think the most efficient option should have CC weapons on one side and a gun on the other, like the old metal model. Also, 2 sets of rending claws should not be a waste: that's a real genestealer!

Well, the original option I had written for stealers was they could take two sets for 1 pt, or one set plus scytals for 3 pts(one set came standard, the other would be a weapon of choice.) With your suggestion of adding 5th ed formatting(which consequently in GS case was just reverting back to the 4th ed wording...) the stealers now come with two sets of rending claws(Thus giving them +2 attacks. BUT if you take scytal you get +1 ws.

Lol, well it's 4 literal devourers, but you purchase it as a twinlinked devourer. The same way your landraider comes with a twinlinked lascanon.

However, the old hive tyrant model(Which I love!) does not have twin-linked venom canon, instead of having the two arm slots for a venom canon be on opposite sides of the body, it just uses the right two. It looks awesome, and isn't conflicting with the rules.

If I take a Hive Tyrant with...
2 sets of twinlinked devourers
counterattack(From the new way mutable genus works)

That's without biomorphs etc... will cost... 194 pts.

The Tyrants in my book are way expensive, they have synapse, and are better than before(more attacks, more options, mutable genus, their tyrant guard make them far more survivable, etc.)

Whereas a tyrant only taking...
two sets of scything talons
counter attack
winged
194 pts.

One is insane in HTH, the other gets 16 shots that hit on 3s wound most things on 2s or 3s, rerolling all.

The close combat tyrant gets 6+d3 attacks +1 on a charge.

So yeah, two twinlinked devourers isn't unusable. In fact, it allows you more shots, but this is as costly as a hive tyrant which can engage much faster and damage in HTH quickly.

A tyrant with
Barbed Strangler or venom canon
Scything Talons or rending claws.
counter attack.
169 points.

EDIT. Whoops!

The reason why Tyrants and Fexes were upped in attacks... well I kinda felt that from what I've seen them do in hth(both playing with and against them) that a carnifex player will be more likely to equip them with hand to hand weapons if a carnifex's profile was better at CC in general. Hence the points bump and the extra attacks etc.

The Tyrant, well I couldn't think why it would have less attacks than an ork boy. ahaha. I think 150 points balances that out. Tyrants get really expensive if they're tooled up too heavily -- this is hopefully going to inspire some other hq choices, like using warriors and malanthropes. The Tyrant is still probably the best just because well... it's the iconic HQ and is still hardcore.

The Broodlord could definitely be abused though... but I like the idea of how specialized the force has to be for his powers to be used, so I'll probably be keeping him how he is. A list could use a broodlord, genestealers, lictors and winged tyrant with gargoyle broods as troops as well... believe me that list is a VERY nasty combo, but I realized gargoyles are still pretty expensive with warriors in their squads, so it isn't super terrible.

The Broodlord will usually get a first turn charge(or get charged in first turn).

Pink Horror
06-02-2009, 13:54
Less than an Ork boy? Wouldn't that be one attack? The Tyrant gets weapons, too, you know. And by increasing the base attacks, you made the shooting better. And you insist on making the guns better, too.

By the way, what is the difference between a "VERY nasty combo" and an overpowered codex? That's the problem with these things. You boost everything so a regular army can stand toe-to-toe with a tournament army, and then there are nasty combos... anyone can write nasty combos into the rules. People usually do it by mistake. You're supposed to be trying to make sure they're balanced with what other armies can do - not just Orks. Why do the Orks keep coming up? It sounds like you're doing the same thing the designers do with New Codex Syndrome. It keeps coming back to that 6 point Ork Boy. The one thing everyone seems to agree is too good for the points is now the standard. So, because an Ork Boy feels like he's too good for the points, that means everything has to get the same treatment, so we get OP Troops and OP Elites and HQ to go with them. It might be just fine if all the books were rewritten together, but that's not how this syndrome works. As the books get "balanced" together during their existence, each one gets pumped up. Then, the writers get sick of that and the odd, weak army shows up (probably Guard of course). But then you are back to the codex war. If it consumes the pros, why not the amateurs?

Oh well.

CthulhuDalek
06-02-2009, 19:57
Less than an Ork boy? Wouldn't that be one attack? The Tyrant gets weapons, too, you know. And by increasing the base attacks, you made the shooting better. And you insist on making the guns better, too.

By the way, what is the difference between a "VERY nasty combo" and an overpowered codex? That's the problem with these things. You boost everything so a regular army can stand toe-to-toe with a tournament army, and then there are nasty combos... anyone can write nasty combos into the rules. People usually do it by mistake. You're supposed to be trying to make sure they're balanced with what other armies can do - not just Orks. Why do the Orks keep coming up? It sounds like you're doing the same thing the designers do with New Codex Syndrome. It keeps coming back to that 6 point Ork Boy. The one thing everyone seems to agree is too good for the points is now the standard. So, because an Ork Boy feels like he's too good for the points, that means everything has to get the same treatment, so we get OP Troops and OP Elites and HQ to go with them. It might be just fine if all the books were rewritten together, but that's not how this syndrome works. As the books get "balanced" together during their existence, each one gets pumped up. Then, the writers get sick of that and the odd, weak army shows up (probably Guard of course). But then you are back to the codex war. If it consumes the pros, why not the amateurs?

Oh well.

Because then you have a codex that's weaker than its predecessors?

In every codex certain things work together more synergistically than in others. Drop Pods work very well with scout bikers, does that mean that combo shouldn't be allowed? The thing with the broodlord is-- he's still only one character that doesn't have an invulnerable save. His power comes from the influence he has over the army. It is a powerful combination, but that combo has weaknesses to be exploited by the enemy as well. A Hive Tyrant with Wings plus gargoyles as troops would be a nasty combo... and its there as an option for the people who want fluffy armies(like using an all biker space marine or ork force.)

Overpowered codices would be where nasty combos aren't expensive enough.

Unfortunately unless someone suddenly says "oh yeah ork boys are now 8-9 points" all codices after the fact will indeed be affected, since Orks are one of the most prominent armies out there now. Space Marines are also very good, and seeing as how this nids codex follows the marines and orks codices in a very similar fashion, I don't think that makes it any more OP than the last two. Other codices obviously have to be brought into 5th edition but this codex wasn't "let me balance against 3rd and 4th edition codices..." its intention was to make a competitive nids list to work in 5th, with 5th ed style.

Not to mention, I don't think there should be tourney lists vs. "regular lists", why not have a bunch of cool and effective lists?

EDIT.

I dropped the Tyrant and Carnifex to 3 attacks each. Venom Canon works as follows--
range. 36 str. S+2 Ap - Type. Assault A, Rending on 4+.

CthulhuDalek
07-02-2009, 03:25
K, newest version available, took down the older copy, it was waaaay out of date. aha.

Pink Horror
07-02-2009, 03:43
You just gave an explanation for why you are doing what I thought. At least you did not deny it. You are engaging in the codex wars.


Not to mention, I don't think there should be tourney lists vs. "regular lists", why not have a bunch of cool and effective lists?


It would be nice if that were possible, but it's like saying "I don't think there should be rules lawyers." You cannot write the rules to prevent it, unless you just make all the stats the same. If people have the freedom to make real decisions, they can make really bad decisions. As a corollary, if someone researches the best decision every time, that's a tourney list. Not everything in a list works together well, so some things work together better than others. If any old combo in your new codex is as good as the best list you can extract from the current Necron book, then it is better than the average Necron army already: you just forced your Necron friend to use a "tourney list". Also, chances are that list that can make a bunch of cool, effective lists still has tourney lists hidden it in somewhere. The professional writers haven't been able to avoid it. When there are a bunch of cool, effective lists, there is almost always a less cool, but even more effective army hiding in there somewhere! That's why it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, GW has several writers who all have different ideas on the subject, so it is frustrating. The Ork and Eldar books say, pick a unit, just buy all the upgrades, and put it on the table. It is min/max'ed for you. But some of those Space Marine units have the tough choices that tend to doom codices. Those elite squads let you buy way too many toys than you need (like some of the less popular choices in 4th edition Tyranids). To release this right after Deamons and Orks shows that GW is going to keep switching point strategies. Each army will be corrected independently. They'll draw a line, and then cross it 9 months later.

I think people should deal with the Orks by not fighting them on their terms. Give the boys tons of gaunts to slaughter - they can only shoot and assault one thing a turn. The gaunts should just have pea-shooters and take up space. Make the big boys deal with hordes by using speed, toughness, templates, special rules, and various other goodies. It doesn't take a lot of firepower to kill an Ork.

I think Platoons with Warriors and Gaunts can help beat the Orks without being the Orks. The Gaunts should not count for holding an objective or KPs. Make them suck and let them die.

Let the tyrants and fexes get some sort of benefit out of facing many models.

Let flesh hooks allocate wounds a better way...

With Rending on a 4+, who needs +2 S?

And who cares about precedents? Think if it's playable, not if it has been done.

CthulhuDalek
07-02-2009, 08:54
You just gave an explanation for why you are doing what I thought. At least you did not deny it. You are engaging in the codex wars.



It would be nice if that were possible, but it's like saying "I don't think there should be rules lawyers." You cannot write the rules to prevent it, unless you just make all the stats the same. If people have the freedom to make real decisions, they can make really bad decisions. As a corollary, if someone researches the best decision every time, that's a tourney list. Not everything in a list works together well, so some things work together better than others. If any old combo in your new codex is as good as the best list you can extract from the current Necron book, then it is better than the average Necron army already: you just forced your Necron friend to use a "tourney list". Also, chances are that list that can make a bunch of cool, effective lists still has tourney lists hidden it in somewhere. The professional writers haven't been able to avoid it. When there are a bunch of cool, effective lists, there is almost always a less cool, but even more effective army hiding in there somewhere! That's why it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, GW has several writers who all have different ideas on the subject, so it is frustrating. The Ork and Eldar books say, pick a unit, just buy all the upgrades, and put it on the table. It is min/max'ed for you. But some of those Space Marine units have the tough choices that tend to doom codices. Those elite squads let you buy way too many toys than you need (like some of the less popular choices in 4th edition Tyranids). To release this right after Deamons and Orks shows that GW is going to keep switching point strategies. Each army will be corrected independently. They'll draw a line, and then cross it 9 months later.

I think people should deal with the Orks by not fighting them on their terms. Give the boys tons of gaunts to slaughter - they can only shoot and assault one thing a turn. The gaunts should just have pea-shooters and take up space. Make the big boys deal with hordes by using speed, toughness, templates, special rules, and various other goodies. It doesn't take a lot of firepower to kill an Ork.

I think Platoons with Warriors and Gaunts can help beat the Orks without being the Orks. The Gaunts should not count for holding an objective or KPs. Make them suck and let them die.

Let the tyrants and fexes get some sort of benefit out of facing many models.

Let flesh hooks allocate wounds a better way...

With Rending on a 4+, who needs +2 S?

And who cares about precedents? Think if it's playable, not if it has been done.

The 4+ rending is so that it doesn't need an armor penetration value in order to hurt more heavily armored infantry/non-vehicles. It should work well-enough. The +2 strength means that it can still pop landraiders without the crappy d3, but suffers a minus one on the chart for having no ap value. It would need a 6 to get a vehicle destroyed result in other words.

But yeah, there's no way to avoid tourney lists, but I give enough interesting variations that people can make a list the way they want to. Sure, certain combinations of units are meant to work more effectively with one another. I'm not saying you can use a Hive Tyrant and 3 squads of genestealers as effectively as a Broodlord and 3 squads... but that you can do so many combinations that finding a particular list that is the only "tourney" list will be more difficult.

Idk, I never actually go to tourneys but my friends and I usually like to play to win, but we'll definitely "test out" interesting units and do whacky scenarios sometimes. We usually do not like to use models which would put us at a major disadvantage(chaos spawn, possessed) but I'm hoping that there will be very few lists like that in my codex.

Well, I was thinking that only synapse could count as being able to score, but right now only units that are in synapse can score, which fits in fine with all of the scenarios now.

EDIT. The Tyrants and Fexes can take thornback which is good against horde, and they can each get up to 13 attacks on a lucky day!

Pink Horror
08-02-2009, 07:19
The most recent file includes the notes from Pink Horror and Straken(Thanks guys!)

Your welcome. Sometimes I read my posts and think they are just rants against the fandex concept. I'm glad there was something useful buried in there.

CthulhuDalek
08-02-2009, 08:38
Your welcome. Sometimes I read my posts and think they are just rants against the fandex concept. I'm glad there was something useful buried in there.

No worries, obviously some things may be controversial, but I needed people to read through and point out what seems ridiculous(And we wonder why GW takes forever releasing codices that aren't completely balanced) aha

Straker
09-02-2009, 01:04
Hey am I missing something or where is the newest version? No problem with the help, glad to keep doing so!

CthulhuDalek
09-02-2009, 02:49
Hey am I missing something or where is the newest version? No problem with the help, glad to keep doing so!

The newest version is in the main post, I got rid of the older versions, so it's the only downloadable one.

My friend and I are setting up a 2500 point game actually as I type. I'll let you all know how it goes!

CthulhuDalek
10-02-2009, 04:17
Holmcross on another thread thought it may be good to make synapse work like this:

"All Tyranids have fearless, but when in synapse range have the same leadership as the synapse creature AND stubborn."

That might be interesting. I'd have to see how it would affect other rules, but that idea is intriguing most definitely.

Straker
10-02-2009, 17:09
OK, definitely getting better...but still I have some things to point out...

In instinctive behavior, "The unit will make an automatic fallback move towards the closest Synapse Creature, Pheromone Trail Creature or nearest table edge." indicates the player gets to chose where to go out of those 3 things...is that what you mean, or do you have to go in that order? If there is a synapse creature, go there, if not, then phermone, then table edge if there is no phermone creature either...

I still think warp blast auto-hitting rear armor is OP considering the average roll is 10.5...(also specify it caps at S10)

I'm not sure if I like that living ammunition also gets to reroll against armor; I'm not sure if the fluff supports this...

Deathspitters are crazyyyyy OP. Assault A and S+2???? They were already a weapon of choice, just leave them as they were...

I think making the venom cannon rending on a 4+ makes it way too good at anti-tank. Also, something that is ap- but rending on a 4+ is just weird. How about just the normal 6+? Or make it poisoned instead...

Why the loss of implant attack? The re-rolling 1s is kinda cool too but implant attack was also a fun and sometimes extremely awesome upgrade.

Scythe tail, specify whether to round up or down.

Toxic Miasma may be a bit OP for carnies...Having so many carnifexes with 5+ cover saves is insane. At least make it a 6+ save...

As cool as symbiote rippers are, they are way too OP. It's basically really, really cheap wounds for a squad...perhaps they should just subtract the number of no retreat wounds?

I still think a ravener body should only move like a bike, not a jetbike? Does it get a turbo boost save? That's just a bit weird...also, the dangerous terrain tests is really weird. Why not just count dangerous terrain as difficult? Make it easier...Also weird to see them lose the abilty to deep strike while everyone else gains it.

Why does twin-linking a Venom cannon or barbed strangler cost more than having 2? Bump up the cost of VCs/BSs/CCs to 20 or 25 pts...With carnies I always thought a 5 pt decrease in TL over exact double cost would actually encourage their use...

Hive Tyrants with a Ravener Body is weird. I think they should maybe just be winged, and also ravener bodies are better than wings so should be different points.

MUTABLE GENUS IS FIXED!!! Kinda hahahaha made it like the marines it is SO much better. Not perfect though. Doing the +1 pt per model is reallllly annoying; just include the cost in the Tyrant.

Why does the tyrant get 3+1+d3 attacks? this is not explained (esp. because the d3 is at half strength...its just confusing because it looks like it would be crushing claws over scythe tail). Also, I dont like not having the option of enhanced senses...and I think the tyrant should still be base WS 5...Scything talons giving +1 WS in addition to attacks starts to get very confusing once you're really trying to build a solid list...I'm really iffy on it.

Hm....if Guard are going to be roaming free, then I take back what I said earlier and I think they should be able to join to Carnies...I keep switching I know haha.

That's as far as I've gotten for now, I will continue when I can

EDIT: Continuation:

Why can't a broodlord take flesh hooks (or hardly any biomorphs)?

The way you worded infiltration force is a bit confusing...I think I get it, but it could be easier.

The Red Terror's Swallow Hole...should that ignore invul saves? Maybe (because of BS like Old Zog) but it's close (although getting 4 hits is hard too, is that the old rule verbatim?)...

For Old One Eye, make sure you say extended carapace is included in profile or people may think you mean he gets a 1+ save!

I realized the weapons you chose for warriors standard is weird (as with carnies)...considering each box only comes with 1 set of rending claws, should it be standard they get scytals? Also, if you're going to bump them up in points why WS3? I would prefer WS 4 and 5+ save as extended carapace is still there...dunno, warriors I think are the hardest unit to do right.

"Warp Blast and Catalyst only apply to a single model; this is decided at the beginning of the turn." Instead of turn do you mean game? You can't always just make it so the last model is the one with the power...I'm confused by the wording of this whole section in general

I still don't think rippers should be able to rend. I also don't get how a ripper is tougher than a gaunt...perhaps t2 but eternal warrior? Except name it something else and say it has the same effect as eternal warrior (like endless swarm or something)...

So meotic spores count as KPs? As they seem very effective but for that, although maybe that will just curb how many to use not their use entirely.

Still no spore mines deepstriking as a choice? Always loved the fluff behind that...

I like what you did with Zoanthropes. Terrible in cc and anything but defense and powers. However, should a cap of 2 psychic powers still be enforced? Otherwise it may be ridiculous...I'm also not sure how having a brood would work out, it may be to much protection for synapse zos, etc...let me know how playtesting works out on this one.


So that is about it...realize that anything I didn't mention (like gaunts, etc) means they're good; props!

CthulhuDalek
11-02-2009, 07:11
OK, definitely getting better...but still I have some things to point out...

In instinctive behavior, "The unit will make an automatic fallback move towards the closest Synapse Creature, Pheromone Trail Creature or nearest table edge." indicates the player gets to chose where to go out of those 3 things...is that what you mean, or do you have to go in that order? If there is a synapse creature, go there, if not, then phermone, then table edge if there is no phermone creature either...

I still think warp blast auto-hitting rear armor is OP considering the average roll is 10.5...(also specify it caps at S10)

I'm not sure if I like that living ammunition also gets to reroll against armor; I'm not sure if the fluff supports this...

Deathspitters are crazyyyyy OP. Assault A and S+2???? They were already a weapon of choice, just leave them as they were...

I think making the venom cannon rending on a 4+ makes it way too good at anti-tank. Also, something that is ap- but rending on a 4+ is just weird. How about just the normal 6+? Or make it poisoned instead...

Why the loss of implant attack? The re-rolling 1s is kinda cool too but implant attack was also a fun and sometimes extremely awesome upgrade.

Scythe tail, specify whether to round up or down.

Toxic Miasma may be a bit OP for carnies...Having so many carnifexes with 5+ cover saves is insane. At least make it a 6+ save...

As cool as symbiote rippers are, they are way too OP. It's basically really, really cheap wounds for a squad...perhaps they should just subtract the number of no retreat wounds?

I still think a ravener body should only move like a bike, not a jetbike? Does it get a turbo boost save? That's just a bit weird...also, the dangerous terrain tests is really weird. Why not just count dangerous terrain as difficult? Make it easier...Also weird to see them lose the abilty to deep strike while everyone else gains it.

Why does twin-linking a Venom cannon or barbed strangler cost more than having 2? Bump up the cost of VCs/BSs/CCs to 20 or 25 pts...With carnies I always thought a 5 pt decrease in TL over exact double cost would actually encourage their use...

Hive Tyrants with a Ravener Body is weird. I think they should maybe just be winged, and also ravener bodies are better than wings so should be different points.

MUTABLE GENUS IS FIXED!!! Kinda hahahaha made it like the marines it is SO much better. Not perfect though. Doing the +1 pt per model is reallllly annoying; just include the cost in the Tyrant.

Why does the tyrant get 3+1+d3 attacks? this is not explained (esp. because the d3 is at half strength...its just confusing because it looks like it would be crushing claws over scythe tail). Also, I dont like not having the option of enhanced senses...and I think the tyrant should still be base WS 5...Scything talons giving +1 WS in addition to attacks starts to get very confusing once you're really trying to build a solid list...I'm really iffy on it.

Hm....if Guard are going to be roaming free, then I take back what I said earlier and I think they should be able to join to Carnies...I keep switching I know haha.

That's as far as I've gotten for now, I will continue when I can

EDIT: Continuation:

Why can't a broodlord take flesh hooks (or hardly any biomorphs)?

The way you worded infiltration force is a bit confusing...I think I get it, but it could be easier.

The Red Terror's Swallow Hole...should that ignore invul saves? Maybe (because of BS like Old Zog) but it's close (although getting 4 hits is hard too, is that the old rule verbatim?)...

For Old One Eye, make sure you say extended carapace is included in profile or people may think you mean he gets a 1+ save!

I realized the weapons you chose for warriors standard is weird (as with carnies)...considering each box only comes with 1 set of rending claws, should it be standard they get scytals? Also, if you're going to bump them up in points why WS3? I would prefer WS 4 and 5+ save as extended carapace is still there...dunno, warriors I think are the hardest unit to do right.

"Warp Blast and Catalyst only apply to a single model; this is decided at the beginning of the turn." Instead of turn do you mean game? You can't always just make it so the last model is the one with the power...I'm confused by the wording of this whole section in general

I still don't think rippers should be able to rend. I also don't get how a ripper is tougher than a gaunt...perhaps t2 but eternal warrior? Except name it something else and say it has the same effect as eternal warrior (like endless swarm or something)...

So meotic spores count as KPs? As they seem very effective but for that, although maybe that will just curb how many to use not their use entirely.

Still no spore mines deepstriking as a choice? Always loved the fluff behind that...

I like what you did with Zoanthropes. Terrible in cc and anything but defense and powers. However, should a cap of 2 psychic powers still be enforced? Otherwise it may be ridiculous...I'm also not sure how having a brood would work out, it may be to much protection for synapse zos, etc...let me know how playtesting works out on this one.


So that is about it...realize that anything I didn't mention (like gaunts, etc) means they're good; props!

The way fall back will work is "synapse or pheromones" and then if not possible, towards nearest table edge.

If warp blast was capped at ten(the armor penetration roll is combined with the strength as there is no base strength value) it could never penetrate anything. I think I'll take away the hitting rear armor I guess.

Deathspitters I suppose should drop in strength. I just want them to also be taken vs. devourers in this dex... I like the dual blasts though, since it's so effective on grotzookas.

The Venom Vanon's dynamic imo makes sense in that, if it hits a vulnerable point it's going to tear through with chunks of crystal, but if not, it won't do as much damage. The ap- means it still loses a point on the chart for vehicles, meaning a 6 is required for vehicle destroyed even on penetration. I think the rending allows more likely to *get* a penetrating hit, but the lack of a standard AP value balances the likelihood of mass devastation. I might lower it to rending on 5 or 6 though(I wanted it to be able to avoid a few infantry armor saves, seeing as otherwise it's a strength ten gun with no ap value.)

I think the living ammo's ability to find weak points in terminator's armor could easily apply to the enemy's vehicles. The issue is balanced by the fact that most living ammo weapons have a strength and AP cap.

I think Implant Attack will work better this way, it will be more useful in general, and is not too overpowered.

No creatures that have a Scythe Tail have an uneven strength value though. :)

Symbiote rippers... I think the fact that most stuff instant-kills them will balance them somewhat. They worked very well in my last few games, but they are a tad imbalanced... I'll think about what to do. Test em out a little more.

After facing daemons, 5+ cover saves will not be too much of an issue on carnifexes... though I think it would be best if it's a 6+. I'm trying to think of how it will also affect lictors... hmmm...

Ravener Body: Ya know, for some reason I was under the impression jetbikes could deepstrike, too! I'll add that back in. Also, jetbikes-- nids already have so much jump infantry, and I can't see Raveners zooming through terrain like a regular bike. Jetbikes fits because they're supposed to tunnel through the ground and pop up behind the enemy, and if they move fast enough they're more difficult to hit, but cannot use their real CC strength. Also, my friend made an awesome conversion of a Hive Tyrant with a Ravener's tail and it really just... struck me, ya know? The reason they cost the same is that while the Ravener's body is faster and has several advantages -- the wings allow a Tyrant to use Gargoyles as troops. May add some other benefit to winged or make them separate costs.

Hmmm... well if it's included in the Tyrant's cost, the more models you use the more its an unfair advantage. Though, since EVERY HQ allows you to use it, I'm better off just upping the point values by one pt per wound for each mutable genus creature.

Broodlord comes with flesh hooks base.

--Bioplasma. Now that was tricky. He used to have it, but I realized-- why would this infiltrating monster use a high pitched shrieking bioplasma attack. I imagine the broodlord as a master of stealth. Also, feeder tendrils are much better on him either way!

Warriors... that's a difficult one, aye. I think the standard weapons on all of these units may not be the most effective combos, but they're the cheapest weapons to come with standard and have some semblance of effectiveness. I think warriors will be slightly OP if they get ws 5 rerolling to hit and str 5 with implant attack. ws. 3 base means they can choose to upgrade to higher weapon skill, for the replacement of one of their other options.

Rippers could rend in 3rd ed :P It's kinda like --get enough rippers on top of you and they'll eat you alive. Remember, rippers are used to eat anything in sight to break it down. Also, t3 is simply so they don't get instant-killed from str. 4 which is terribly lame for what they'd cost for that. There are supposed to be plenty of little buggers dodging and whatnot through the ground, making it difficult to diminish easily.

Thing is, you get 3 mieotic spores for a killpoint, and it's probably worth it for "directed" bombs, ya know? Plus, in killpoints nids will already be at somewhat of a disadvantage-- but imo nids will be more likely to get an annihilation result than actually losing due to killpoints(if used correctly.)

I think an overexpensive killpoint(zoanthropes) should be allowed to use multiple powers. Maybe I'll limit how many more they can select though.

The way warp blast and catalyst are supposed to work is that they are an ability being used by the whole unit, but I was trying to show that the unit as a whole uses the power, not every model in the squad.

I'll look at all your points to try and solve issues of "clarity" as well.

EDIT--

Swallow whole has the same effect. I don't think I copied it word for word though. However, I think we have a precedence for that ability if we look at the Gift of Chaos special rules especially in Codex: Daemons.

I'm thinking of just upping the Tyrant's BS to standard 4. I might bring back enhanced senses, which could allow nasty BS 4 carnis and hives... hmm... idk.

Pink Horror
11-02-2009, 07:43
Make Rippers T2(3).

The symbiote thing is to advantageous with the current rules. Throwing extra models in the squad for allocation purposes, which get to use the higher toughness, is absurd. Anyway, the rippers are modeled on the base. Those rippers should mean something - not just an extra base of them.

CthulhuDalek
11-02-2009, 08:18
Make Rippers T2(3).

The symbiote thing is to advantageous with the current rules. Throwing extra models in the squad for allocation purposes, which get to use the higher toughness, is absurd. Anyway, the rippers are modeled on the base. Those rippers should mean something - not just an extra base of them.

Yeah, I think some people might get ticked off if the benefit is by "the amount of rippers on the base" though...

Mmm. I think it could be... "A model with this biomorph ignores its first unsaved wound." Similar to the old way apothecaries worked. I could up the points a bit maybe.

The thing with regular ripper swarms is that t3 works perfectly fine in game mechanics, and 2/3 still means they suffer instant death to bolters. Rippers get a lot of negative things from being swarms(though they get the cover benefit) so I think that still negates the need for a lower toughness.It'll keep them alive long enough to engage.

Though I'm having a thought of making them 2 wounds per model, but increasing maximum squad size...

Some other changes I've been toying with(I got this idea from another thread) that maybe all Tyranid broods are Fearless Standard and that they become Stubborn with a Synapse Creature's leadership when in synapse range. Thought that might be interesting. Also, Catalyst, instead of +1 init, maybe it EXTENDS the range of synapse?

If I did this, I'd lower the leadership value of warriors to 8 or 9, the other synapse creatures would be leadership 9 or so, the Tyrant would be ten. With catalyst synapse could either be doubled, or extended to 18 inches perhaps? There could perhaps be a bonus for a certain number of MCs in range? This could then make Thornback changed so that it can either make more attacks, or work similarly to Acid Blood.

Pink Horror
12-02-2009, 01:06
You read the 2(3) backwards. The number in parentheses is for Instant Death. Bikers are 5(4).

Honestly, it seems like you keep trying to cover weaknesses rather than make the army fun for both players. If I read this new idea correctly, you want them to lose No Retreat when they should be most Fearless, just because No Retreat is negative (even though it fits the tyranids perfectly).

And you keep using the kill point thing as an excuse - as if a unit should get to be very strong, just for being small, while other units in the game do not work that way, and that only applies to 1/3 of the games. Without Number is still a bonus - nothing forces you to march them to their death. You might as well claim that getting extra units for free is a penalty. In an objective-based game, those extra troops can compete for the back objective while you hurl the originals against the far objective. It can be a huge bonus. Your army has huge bonus after huge bonus, though you throw in easy-to-cover weaknesses to justify point costs that are too low. Like I mentioned before, you're min/maxing the book, which doesn't make sense. You're supposed to try to improve the system, not game the system.

Straker
12-02-2009, 03:50
If warp blast was capped at ten(the armor penetration roll is combined with the strength as there is no base strength value) it could never penetrate anything. I think I'll take away the hitting rear armor I guess.

OHHHHH. Gotcha. Did not realize that, OK maybe hitting rear armour is fine then.

I have a lot to say, just not the time at the moment. I will when I can.

CthulhuDalek
12-02-2009, 16:16
You read the 2(3) backwards. The number in parentheses is for Instant Death. Bikers are 5(4).

Honestly, it seems like you keep trying to cover weaknesses rather than make the army fun for both players. If I read this new idea correctly, you want them to lose No Retreat when they should be most Fearless, just because No Retreat is negative (even though it fits the tyranids perfectly).

And you keep using the kill point thing as an excuse - as if a unit should get to be very strong, just for being small, while other units in the game do not work that way, and that only applies to 1/3 of the games. Without Number is still a bonus - nothing forces you to march them to their death. You might as well claim that getting extra units for free is a penalty. In an objective-based game, those extra troops can compete for the back objective while you hurl the originals against the far objective. It can be a huge bonus. Your army has huge bonus after huge bonus, though you throw in easy-to-cover weaknesses to justify point costs that are too low. Like I mentioned before, you're min/maxing the book, which doesn't make sense. You're supposed to try to improve the system, not game the system.

Actually most forces use "4(5)" a la plague marines to denote that the first one is used for instant death, meaning these should be "3/2."

I didn't say without number wasn't an advantage in objectives, but on rippers it's kinda of ludicrous that they'd literally die from one round of rapid fire bolters, entirely, because they suffer instant death.

Actually, my idea for No Retreat was inspired from another thread, where someone suggested that. If I do go to the newer No Retreat system I'd probably up most units by a pt(or several for multiwounds).

Also, most of the "min/max" things you speak of are rooted in fluff. The Tyranids are described in a certain way during a planetary assault, but just like marines, they cannot be completely as powerful as they "really would be", but I've tried to simulate several things as to a level I think makes sense:
Hordes of little creatures: cheap units, without number.
Powerful larger creatures: synapse, higher toughness.
Importance of synapse: preferred enemy, become stubborn, when out of range fearless but cannot capture objectives. Models with instinctive behavior(now a separate rule that only applies to a few important units) will cause models to act differently when out of synapse, despite fearlessness(which will affect them in combat)

EDIT. So I just had a game using my most revised version. The Stubborn and Fearless changes *seemed* OP towards the beginning, but in fact, that very change also cost me two objectives on the last turn. My hormagaunts were able to tie my space marine opponent up in close combat for several turns, and then when they were wiped out "without number'ed" back onto the table, ran forward and grabbed two objectives (while in synapse range). My opponent then tank shocked them -- they failed their test on turn 6! The enemy captured that objective, while I could not hold the objective I fell back onto because I was falling back!!

I'm going to change it again slightly.

CthulhuDalek
15-02-2009, 21:42
Made changes to catalyst, warp field and synapse. Basically, all Tyranid Hive Mind powers are "area of effect" except for The Horror, which remains an ability used when assaulted.

Synapse acts like how I posted originally: fearless and preferred enemy. Got rid of that Stubborn thing, mechanically during my test game it didn't work at all how it should have(it made hormagaunts last very long in hand to hand, but they were able to fall back, which turned out both good and bad in the long run, so back to the original way.)

Catalyst is probably the most useful power to buy now, since it increases the range of psychic powers, making warp blast and warp field more powerful.