PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid players; can you see any use for Spinegaunts?



Shadowfax
03-01-2010, 22:04
I'm doing some stripping & repurposing in preparation for the new codex, mainly to keep me busy before all the new Tyranid creatures are released.

Right now I'm looking at a decent pile of Spinegaunts and wondering if there's any reason in the world not to pop their arms off and glue on some Fleshborers. I have 16x Spinegaunts made with Hormagaunt bodies, which I intend to leave alone (since the poses complement the new fluff about Spinegaunts being utilized by close assault creatures) but I also have a bunch of regular Spinegaunts that might begin to gather dust if I don't re-equip them as Termagants.

I did some quick and dirty math, and it seems like Spinefists are simultaneously *more expensive* and *less effective* than Fleshborers. Can anyone see any reason to keep using Spinegaunts?

RampagingRavener
03-01-2010, 22:11
Didn't someone (Catbarf, I think?) run the numbers and work out that Spinegaunts are better than Termagants against GEQ's, and no worse against MEQ's? Or am I misremembering?

Regardless, no, I don't really see a use for Spinegants. If you want mobs of cheap bodies, Termagants fill that role nicely, and if you want Gaunts which are actually competent at shooting, Devilgaunts do that rather well. The Spinegant pays an extra point per model but isn't shifted from the 'disposable bullet-catcher' role into the 'fire support' one.

Upgrading them to Snipergaunts on the other hand, does turn them into a fire support brood. Just a pretty terrible one. Which is a shame, as the old Gaunts with Spike Rifles are quite nice retro models. So I'd say stick with the Fleshborer or go the whole way and get a Devourer.

Vineas
03-01-2010, 22:12
Look cool perhaps?

The 1 point, unless you run 180 of them is not that prohibitive?

I dunno. I have 30 of them and so my unit got a whopping 30pts more expensive. Considering the points hikes to MC's 30pts more is like having to pay a single point for a bolt pistol. For me not worth crying over.

I could see if you want to spam Tervigons like so many want to do than 90 points more gets you 1/2 Tervigon but I wouldn't call them useless.

They are marginally better against GEQ and 40k is more than just Marines vs Nids.

But, I digress.

We all know it's a conspiracy by GW to make us buy more gants because we are forced to buy termigants now that they are the cheapest gant available. Can't **** off the min/maxers now can we?

Shadowfax
03-01-2010, 22:18
Didn't someone (Catbarf, I think?) run the numbers and work out that Spinegaunts are better than Termagants against GEQ's, and no worse against MEQ's? Or am I misremembering?

I distinctly recall his posts to that effect, but in hindsight I think his calculations may have been based on incorrect stats from earlier leaks. Or else he wasn't comparing them points-for-points against each other.



They are marginally better against GEQ and 40k is more than just Marines vs Nids.

Are they?

My calcs went something like:

12x Termagants: 60 pts
Versus GEqs
12 shots
6 hits
4 wounds

10x Spinegaunts: 60 pts
Versus GEqs
10 shots
7.5 hits (5 hits + 2.5 twinlinked hits)
3.75 wounds

I'm awful at anything involving numbers, so it's not at all unlikely that I messed something up.

Vepr
03-01-2010, 22:26
Terrifying grots maybe? :p

ArtificerArmour
03-01-2010, 22:44
What are the difference between the devourer/fleshborer and spines? arn't they all strength 4 and the same range now?

totgeboren
03-01-2010, 23:40
The math is right, but you can't really reason like that.

if we have 12 gaunts, and they have fleshborers, they kill 4 GEQs on average.
If we give them spinefists, they kill 4.5 GEQs on average.

Vs MEQs we get;
Fleshborers = 1 kill
Spinefists = 1 kill.

Vs stuff with T6, the spinefists cause 50% more wounds too, but on the other hand, they cant touch vehicles, something the fleshborers can.

So, what it does is increase their killyness by a whooping 12,5% vs GEQs, by quite alot vs Monsters, but lose their ability to glance light vehicles.

Is it worth something? The designers felt is was worth something to give them a gun that is better in many situations than their standard gun. 1 pt is the smallest amount they can charge for it.

oh, the spinefist is worse vs stuff with T5.

RampagingRavener
04-01-2010, 00:01
What are the difference between the devourer/fleshborer and spines? arn't they all strength 4 and the same range now?

The Devourer has two extra shots and 6" extra range over the Fleshborer, but loses its AP5. I've also heard people mentioning that if a Devourer forces a Moral Test, then it's at -1, but the set of rules I've got doesn't mention that. May be an oversight though.

Spinefists are the same range as Fleshborers, st3, ap5, twin-linked and are the only weapon to retain the Assault X rule.

PhalanxLord
04-01-2010, 00:01
What are the difference between the devourer/fleshborer and spines? arn't they all strength 4 and the same range now?

Devs are S4, 3 shots at 18", flesh borers are s4 at 12", and spinefists are s3 tl'd at 12".

Here's some efficiencies using the number of points worth of the model needed to kill something (PPK):

PPKMEQ:
Spinefists: 72pts
Fleshborers: 60pts
Devourers: 40pts

GEQ:
Spinefists: 16pts
Fleshborers: 15pts
Devourers: 15pts

DPEQ:
Spinefists: 144pts
Fleshborers: 90pts
Devourers: 60pts

TyrantEQ:
Spinefists: 144pts
Fleshborers: 180pts
Devourers: 120pts

So in the end, devourers are the most efficient weapon except against GEQ, where they tie fleshborers for efficiency. Between Spinefists and Fleshborers, fleshborers are more efficient except against T6.

Pretty much according to statistical analysis, spinefists are a waste of time and points.

@RR: MC devs cause a -1 to morale checks. Its not in the /tg/ summary, but if you read the German leak its pretty easy to spot.

Shadowfax
04-01-2010, 00:22
The math is right, but you can't really reason like that.

I disagree. I don't see the fairness of comparing them model-for-model when one unit is going to end up costing more than the other. Since they're units derived from the same codex entry, fulfilling the same battlefield role, the best approach is to compare them points-for-points...

...and once you do that, you quickly see that they are now the official Most Useless Unit in Warhammer 40K. I really can't believe how the designers could fail so epically here. Spinefists are more expensive, less effective. They don't merely have a small niche; they have NO niche!

The only thing that could change this is if there's an untranslated line in the codex that says they count as 2 CCWs. But if that's the case (99.9% unlikely) then they're suddenly undercosted, and the Spinegaunt will become the default spamgaunt again.

I just clipped the arms off 24 of the buggers, then poured them a nice brake fluid bath.

sayles78
04-01-2010, 00:30
The only thing that could change this is if there's an untranslated line in the codex that says they count as 2 CCWs.

Oh god please!!! *crosses fingers and toes*

That'd keep everyone quiet for a while. Well, nid players anyway.

catbarf
04-01-2010, 00:38
Didn't someone (Catbarf, I think?) run the numbers and work out that Spinegaunts are better than Termagants against GEQ's, and no worse against MEQ's? Or am I misremembering?

That would be me. Mathammer's my other game :p

10 Spinegaunts vs MEQs:
10 shots
7.5 hits
2.5 wounds
.83 kills

10 Termagants vs MEQs:
10 shots
5 hits
2.5 wounds
.83 kills

10 Spinegaunts vs GEQs:
10 shots
7.5 hits
3.75 kills

10 Termagants vs GEQs:
10 shots
5 hits
3.33 kills

They're equal against MEQs, and the Spinegaunts are 13% better in killing GEQs. But, this is for a 20% increase in cost.

So although there is technically no situation in which a Spinegaunt is worse than a Termagant, and against GEQs they are better, they're not worth the price of the upgrade.

I don't think vehicles and T6+ creatures are worth considering in this discussion. Both are remote, one-off circumstances that you'd be hard-pressed to build a battle plan around.

catbarf
04-01-2010, 00:43
Oh, and perhaps we can all agree that the Spike Rifle is a godawful waste of points?

Vepr
04-01-2010, 01:24
Oh, and perhaps we can all agree that the Spike Rifle is a godawful waste of points?

But it is an "option" to waste points we did not have before!!! ;) :D

Buddha777
04-01-2010, 01:42
I don't see where your getting that spinefists are less effective. The summary on warpshadow indicates they are the same as fleshboarers (Str 4 Ap 5) but are twin-linked. The only difference seems to be a point or two increase.

The twin-linking almost compensates for the lack of living ammunition and I know I will be running at least one large brood of them

catbarf
04-01-2010, 01:46
I don't see where your getting that spinefists are less effective. The summary on warpshadow indicates they are the same as fleshboarers (Str 4 Ap 5) but are twin-linked. The only difference seems to be a point or two increase.

The twin-linking almost compensates for the lack of living ammunition and I know I will be running at least one large brood of them

The codex states that they are S3 and Living Ammunition is gone.

RampagingRavener
04-01-2010, 01:47
The summary on warpshadow...

Is wrong. Several people have gotten their hands on a German copy of the Codex, or the fan-made English translation of it. That is what has sparked the upsurge in discussion regarding the Codex in the past few days - people actually have the rules instead of rumour summaries.

Vineas
04-01-2010, 01:49
German 'dex says S3 on spinefists twin-linked.

Shadowfax
04-01-2010, 02:13
Oh, and perhaps we can all agree that the Spike Rifle is a godawful waste of points?
Pretty much.

I'm trying to think of some sort of opponent/mission scenario where I would want to field them, and no matter how outlandish I allow myself to get it's just not happening...

...





...








Maybe if you're playing on a board bisected by a 12" wide impassable lava river?

itcamefromthedeep
04-01-2010, 02:28
I can't see a reason to take Spinegaunts in an all-comers list. Perhaps if I somehow knew that my opponent would bring an army of T6 models (lots of Wraithguard led by an Avatar, I guess), then Spinegaunts would start to make sense.

I also can't see a reason to take twin deathspitters over twin MC devourers on a Carnifex or Hive Tyrant. The deathspitters are strictly worse against both infantry and any vehicle that has ever existed. This wouldn't be problem if the twin deathspitters were cheaper.

Toxin sacs make no sense on any of the MCs, because they make it harder to hurt models with a T4 or less (so, most models). It's not something that a player would want to pay points for.

Genestealers can take adrenal glands, but that doesn't help them nearly as much as the identically-priced toxin sacs (rerolls to wound with rending weapons are pretty sweet).

Crushing claws don't net you much a profit in hits, particularly if you have to swing at a cruising vehicle. Combine this with the implication that you lose the benefit of Living Battering Ram when you take claws, and it looks like the "upgrade" should be free. Crushing Claws are far from free.

---

There are disturbing number of really, really badly priced upgrades in this codex. The number of options that make any sense at all is spectacularly limited. This starts to look really bad really fast when you can make that sort of no-brainer camparison between entire units (Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, for instance). Rippers are still what you might call a "blank entry" in the army list. Tyrannofexes may also turn out to be fool's gold.

Remove the Carnifex entry (and its 2-million plus possible options, hundreds of which saw play), and you have a lot less variety. Carnifexes had a lot of varietion in durability and weapons set. Making them terrible is like removing all the Rhino-chassis tanks from the Space Marine codex, including the Predator, Vindicator, and Whirlwind. Add to that the reduced biomorph lists on everything from Genestealers to Warriors to Tyrants. Add in the restricted equipment that comes with special characters and remove the pointless options (toxin on MCs and twin deathspitters on the Tyrant) and this codex looks to have quite a bit less variety to it.

This could have been mitigated by adding biomorph options for models like Gargoyles and Raveners (face it, we all have the bitz to give our Raveners Toxin Sacs). I'm sure many of the recent fandexes included biomorphs for these units. Not in this new codex, though.

There are so many internal balance issues in what I'm seeing that I can't help but hold out some conspiracy-theory style hope that the German codex is actually the misprint, with playtest stats in it.

Everything about this seems really, really shoddy. I've picked up on a number of clear issues with Spore Mines that anyone would pick up if they were actually playtested. Really, as soon as you're about to deploy a Spore Mine Cluster in Capture and Control, you need to know whether they go down before or after objectives. That one in particular is glaring.

catbarf
04-01-2010, 02:47
One thought, actually- Poison is actually good if you have Rending. The re-roll makes you more likely to get a Rending kill.

In fact, this makes Toxin Sacs better than Adrenal Glands on Warriors with Rending Claws, even against T3.

CthulhuDalek
04-01-2010, 03:29
One thought, actually- Poison is actually good if you have Rending. The re-roll makes you more likely to get a Rending kill.

In fact, this makes Toxin Sacs better than Adrenal Glands on Warriors with Rending Claws, even against T3.

At least we have one good biomorph option!

I, luckily, have a bunch of warriors with rending claws and scything talons... I assume it will be a semi nasty build to give them a toxin sacs and adrenal glands -- plenty of rerolls there!

This is one of the few things I'm excited about for the codex (The other being Genestealers -- I'd be more excited about Trygons if they weren't basically, mandatory...)

catbarf
04-01-2010, 03:31
I wouldn't give them Adrenal Glands if you're already taking Toxin Sacs. The S increase only makes a difference against T5 and the I increase is small compensation for the price tag.

CthulhuDalek
04-01-2010, 03:47
I wouldn't give them Adrenal Glands if you're already taking Toxin Sacs. The S increase only makes a difference against T5 and the I increase is small compensation for the price tag.

Well I don't know the prices for biomorphs yet (I have to find out with all the *other* plebes when the book comes out :P) but I think it might make the warriors more well rounded for taking out the heavier hitting targets? Things like enemy monsters, nob bikers, etc? Or.... plague marines! :D

Also, I might get some usage out of spinegaunts -- my primary opponent uses wraithguard, an avatar, and dire avengers! aha

PhalanxLord
04-01-2010, 04:26
That would be me. Mathammer's my other game :p

10 Spinegaunts vs MEQs:
10 shots
7.5 hits
2.5 wounds
.83 kills

10 Termagants vs MEQs:
10 shots
5 hits
2.5 wounds
.83 kills

10 Spinegaunts vs GEQs:
10 shots
7.5 hits
3.75 kills

10 Termagants vs GEQs:
10 shots
5 hits
3.33 kills

They're equal against MEQs, and the Spinegaunts are 13% better in killing GEQs. But, this is for a 20% increase in cost.

So although there is technically no situation in which a Spinegaunt is worse than a Termagant, and against GEQs they are better, they're not worth the price of the upgrade.

I don't think vehicles and T6+ creatures are worth considering in this discussion. Both are remote, one-off circumstances that you'd be hard-pressed to build a battle plan around.

Spinegaunts seem better in your calcs because you fail to take into account points in them by using equal numbers of each.

Once you take calcs into account then the only time spinefists are better is against T6, and if you're fighting T6 then you probably aren't going to do much either way.


But it is an "option" to waste points we did not have before!!! ;) :D

And thats useful.... how?


I can't see a reason to take Spinegaunts in an all-comers list. Perhaps if I somehow knew that my opponent would bring an army of T6 models (lots of Wraithguard led by an Avatar, I guess), then Spinegaunts would start to make sense.

Devilgaunts are still more effective point for point, though they die a lot easier.



I also can't see a reason to take twin deathspitters over twin MC devourers on a Carnifex or Hive Tyrant. The deathspitters are strictly worse against both infantry and any vehicle that has ever existed. This wouldn't be problem if the twin deathspitters were cheaper.

Its true. It really makes no sense. What was RC on when he did this codex?



Toxin sacs make no sense on any of the MCs, because they make it harder to hurt models with a T4 or less (so, most models). It's not something that a player would want to pay points for.

Actually it makes sense with Tervigons as they're only S5 so it makes them better against T4.



Genestealers can take adrenal glands, but that doesn't help them nearly as much as the identically-priced toxin sacs (rerolls to wound with rending weapons are pretty sweet).

Don't forget that scything talons are mathematically insignificant so you might as well take a couple more stealers over scy-tals on them. Scything talons only matter if you have 14 or more stealers in combat, and even then its a rather insignificant increase.

But yeah, for for toxin sacs unless you plan on charging lots of dreads.



Crushing claws don't net you much a profit in hits, particularly if you have to swing at a cruising vehicle. Combine this with the implication that you lose the benefit of Living Battering Ram when you take claws, and it looks like the "upgrade" should be free. Crushing Claws are far from free.

Tervigons can also take crushing claws. It increases their crappy number of attacks to a reasonable amount and they're I1 with the only way of increasing it being AG. Its worthless on fexes, though. I've already tried that and its not worth it. Fexes die too easily for their points now.



---

There are disturbing number of really, really badly priced upgrades in this codex. The number of options that make any sense at all is spectacularly limited. This starts to look really bad really fast when you can make that sort of no-brainer camparison between entire units (Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes, for instance). Rippers are still what you might call a "blank entry" in the army list. Tyrannofexes may also turn out to be fool's gold.

Remove the Carnifex entry (and its 2-million plus possible options, hundreds of which saw play), and you have a lot less variety. Carnifexes had a lot of varietion in durability and weapons set. Making them terrible is like removing all the Rhino-chassis tanks from the Space Marine codex, including the Predator, Vindicator, and Whirlwind. Add to that the reduced biomorph lists on everything from Genestealers to Warriors to Tyrants. Add in the restricted equipment that comes with special characters and remove the pointless options (toxin on MCs and twin deathspitters on the Tyrant) and this codex looks to have quite a bit less variety to it.

This could have been mitigated by adding biomorph options for models like Gargoyles and Raveners (face it, we all have the bitz to give our Raveners Toxin Sacs). I'm sure many of the recent fandexes included biomorphs for these units. Not in this new codex, though.

There are so many internal balance issues in what I'm seeing that I can't help but hold out some conspiracy-theory style hope that the German codex is actually the misprint, with playtest stats in it.

Everything about this seems really, really shoddy. I've picked up on a number of clear issues with Spore Mines that anyone would pick up if they were actually playtested. Really, as soon as you're about to deploy a Spore Mine Cluster in Capture and Control, you need to know whether they go down before or after objectives. That one in particular is glaring.

I can't really disagree with this part (unless I skipped something that I do disagree with, but I doubt that).


Well I don't know the prices for biomorphs yet (I have to find out with all the *other* plebes when the book comes out :P) but I think it might make the warriors more well rounded for taking out the heavier hitting targets? Things like enemy monsters, nob bikers, etc? Or.... plague marines! :D

Also, I might get some usage out of spinegaunts -- my primary opponent uses wraithguard, an avatar, and dire avengers! aha

If you want to take out tough monsters then you might as well go for boneswords and their awesome instant death abilities for a very small amount of points more than RC (aka: same price as AG)./

Also, would near negligible increases in efficiency against T6 with spinegaunts vs termagants really be worth it considering that the difference between 60 spinegaunts and 60 termagants is 60pts? You could get 12 more termagants or buy catalyst on 4 tervigons, or get a pair of boneswords on 6 warriors or boneswords and lash whips on 4 for that price. I'd rather take the same numbers of gaunts and instead of taking spinegaunts (who probably won't do much with the very small increase in efficiency) and take one of those other, more useful upgrades because I make all comers lists.

itcamefromthedeep
04-01-2010, 05:05
Devilgaunts are still more effective point for point, though they die a lot easier.
I'm sure you meant that they die easier for their price. It's not as if they have less Toughness or anything.:p Best not to confuse anyone.

I predict that Devilgaunts will find their way into many a list, pending experience. They just hadn't come up in this thread yet, as the idea was intended to compare the Spinegaunt to the Termagant.

That comparison really does look bad for the Spinegaunt. It's far worse for the new Spinegaunt than it was for the old Termagant. That point used to buy a noticeable chunk of firepower. While the Termagant may not have been optimal, it wasn't by a large margin.


Actually (Toxin) makes sense with Tervigons as they're only S5 so it makes them better against T4.

Tervigons can also take crushing claws. It increases their crappy number of attacks to a reasonable amount and they're I1 with the only way of increasing it being AG.
Right you are, sir. I had forgotten about the Tervigon's lesser Strength. I also hear that they can share their toxin (and adrenal glands) with nearby Termagants, which means that the upgrade could be useful for a Tervigon. I stand corrected.

As for the crushing claws, again I had forgotten about the Tervigon's ability to take them. While I'm not sure if I'd take that upgrade, bringing crushing claws on a Tervigon is not a braindead decision.


Don't forget that scything talons are mathematically insignificant
I'll add them to the roster of "blanks".:(

---

Feel free to dispute my hypothesis that the effective options in this codex will be more restricted than that of the 4e codex. I base that assertion on the wide variety of upgrades on models like Carnifexes that, while not optimal, were close enough that hundreds of variants saw play across the world metagame. Even the much-vaunted flyrant had variation based on whether the player thought it necessary to buy Adrenal Glands, Toxic Miasma, and implant attack.

The relative lack of options and the disappointing balance work on those options that remain give me the impression that optimal model configurations will be "solved" very quickly. I also expect that the difference in quality between optimal and sub-optimal will be large enough that you will see a very few "cookie-cutter" builds (often just one) for any given entry.

In the case of Gaunts, what I'm seeing is that Devilgaunts and Termagants will both see play, but neither will see upgrades with any regularity. They may yet both be displaced by Hormagaunts, who can definitely cause casualties and remain cheap despite it. The presence of Termagants in many Tyranid lists may depend on how the Tervigon fares.

Shadowfax
04-01-2010, 05:55
In the case of Gaunts, what I'm seeing is that Devilgaunts and Termagants will both see play, but neither will see upgrades with any regularity. They may yet both be displaced by Hormagaunts, who can definitely cause casualties and remain cheap despite it. The presence of Termagants in many Tyranid lists may depend on how the Tervigon fares.
Bingo.

An additional factor is that Gargoyles can shoot just as well as Termagants while getting better movement and CC ability for 1 point more. It's not as though the other fast attack options are mindblowingly great, so there won't be extreme competition in that category. It will boil down to what the player plans to use for objective grabbing; if Warriors and Genestealers do well for that then Termagants will be no contest next to Gargoyles.

Angelwing
04-01-2010, 09:18
And thats useful.... how?



Having the option for spike rifles is useful for people who own the models. People scream blue murder whenever a new army book takes stuff away. Here, we are getting something back.
People who theme their armies or own models with certain equipment like the options.
As for whether the option is any good in a competitive fashion is a different and valid argument. It shouldn't be confused with 'why is this option in the codex?'

catbarf
04-01-2010, 11:59
Spinegaunts seem better in your calcs because you fail to take into account points in them by using equal numbers of each.


Uh, yeah, I even said as much in my post.


They're equal against MEQs, and the Spinegaunts are 13% better in killing GEQs. But, this is for a 20% increase in cost.

So although there is technically no situation in which a Spinegaunt is worse than a Termagant, and against GEQs they are better, they're not worth the price of the upgrade.

The Phazer
04-01-2010, 13:36
There are so many internal balance issues in what I'm seeing that I can't help but hold out some conspiracy-theory style hope that the German codex is actually the misprint, with playtest stats in it.

Everything about this seems really, really shoddy. I've picked up on a number of clear issues with Spore Mines that anyone would pick up if they were actually playtested. Really, as soon as you're about to deploy a Spore Mine Cluster in Capture and Control, you need to know whether they go down before or after objectives. That one in particular is glaring.

Hard to disagree with this. I just don't understand why there's not someone in the studio running numbers on the likes of things like this and working it out beforehand.

Well, other than the seemingly only remaining explanation that it's broken on purpose to try and make everyone have to buy different unit selections than the last edition.

Phazer

Abaddonshand
04-01-2010, 14:26
There are so many internal balance issues in what I'm seeing that I can't help but hold out some conspiracy-theory style hope that the German codex is actually the misprint, with playtest stats in it.


God I hope so!



In the case of Gaunts, what I'm seeing is that Devilgaunts and Termagants will both see play, but neither will see upgrades with any regularity. They may yet both be displaced by Hormagaunts, who can definitely cause casualties and remain cheap despite it. The presence of Termagants in many Tyranid lists may depend on how the Tervigon fares.

Couldn't agree more. I see dirt cheap hormagaunts filling the roll of spinegaunts in the last codex. Afterall, how many of us actually experienced spinegaunt shooting regularly? Their job was to fleet towards the enemy and tie them up in combat. By removing fleet from gaunts, and dropping the cost of hormagaunts to gaunt-level prices (albeit taking away leaping, which could have been left on despite the removal of the beasts rule, which is one of the few things I applaud at this momenet in the new book), hormagaunts not fill the role of cheap, fast, bullet-catchers, who can actually perform at a reasonable level in close combat.

Scythe
04-01-2010, 14:36
Couldn't agree more. I see dirt cheap hormagaunts filling the roll of spinegaunts in the last codex. Afterall, how many of us actually experienced spinegaunt shooting regularly? Their job was to fleet towards the enemy and tie them up in combat. By removing fleet from gaunts, and dropping the cost of hormagaunts to gaunt-level prices (albeit taking away leaping, which could have been left on despite the removal of the beasts rule, which is one of the few things I applaud at this momenet in the new book), hormagaunts not fill the role of cheap, fast, bullet-catchers, who can actually perform at a reasonable level in close combat.

This. It is a mistake to take the new spinegaunts (or termas, for that matter), and try to use them in the way the old spinegaunts were used. Hormagaunts take that role now. For a point more than the old spinegaunts, they lose the seldomly used spinefist, but gain a more reliable fleet, 2 attacks with reroll 1s in combat, better WS, better I, better synapse rules, and better upgrade options. All in all an increase imho. As I see it in the new codex:

Hormagaunts - throwaway assault units to tie up enemies, as spinegaunts were used before
Gargoyles - fast throwaway assault units, as hormagaunts should have been before
Termagants - cheap scoring units, not much more really
Wormgaunts (or devilgaunts, whatever you want) - scoring fire support. Not cheap at all, but an 18" 3 shot S4 gun is rather neat. They come close to bladestorming dire avengers in terms of seer destructive power, for a cheaper price tag.

Badger[Fr]
04-01-2010, 14:47
Not cheap at all, but an 18" 3 shot S4 gun is rather neat. They come close to bladestorming dire avengers in terms of seer destructive power, for a cheaper price tag.
And can still be quite resilient if they manage to get a cover save and a Tervigon grants them FNP.

Vepr
04-01-2010, 14:52
And thats useful.... how?

I was parroting what you always hear about new codices. "Look at all the new options!" Even if 75% of them suck this will still be trumpeted. :)

Here are your options...

1) Sharp stick in the eye
2) Dull stick in the eye
3) Kick in the twig and berries
4) A beer and a steak

Hmmmmm....

Plus this is GW. Useful is often a happy mistake that slipped by the editors. :p

Abaddonshand
04-01-2010, 14:55
This. It is a mistake to take the new spinegaunts (or termas, for that matter), and try to use them in the way the old spinegaunts were used. Hormagaunts take that role now. For a point more than the old spinegaunts, they lose the seldomly used spinefist, but gain a more reliable fleet, 2 attacks with reroll 1s in combat, better WS, better I, better synapse rules, and better upgrade options. All in all an increase imho.


One thing, do Hormies actually have WS4 in the new codex? I hope so, but most of the rumours I've heard/ read say they got reduced to WS3 same as gaunts. I still don't see WS3 as taking awar from their role as we've both said of throw-away assaulters who might do some damage, but WS4 would be good!

Scythe
04-01-2010, 15:00
One thing, do Hormies actually have WS4 in the new codex? I hope so, but most of the rumours I've heard/ read say they got reduced to WS3 same as gaunts. I still don't see WS3 as taking awar from their role as we've both said of throw-away assaulters who might do some damage, but WS4 would be good!

Not sure to be honest. Still, even without the WS increase (compared to old spinegaunts, that is), they would be worth it for the 1 extra point you would pay for them.

Shadowfax
04-01-2010, 15:58
They're WS 3 now. They also have no option for grenades, so the spiffy new I will go to waste against an enemy canny enough to take cover.

I'm still undecided on the new Hormies. They look alright, but we all know how fast Troops starts to fill up when you play nids.

itcamefromthedeep
04-01-2010, 16:10
I'm hearing WS3 on the Hormagaunts with rerolls from the scything talons. The talons, combined with the increase to Initiative, roughly makes up for the drop in WS. Your milage may vary.


I was parroting what you always hear about new codices. "Look at all the new options!" Even if 75% of them suck this will still be trumpeted. :)

Here are your options...

1) Sharp stick in the eye
2) Dull stick in the eye
3) Kick in the twig and berries
4) A beer and a steak

Hmmmmm....

Plus this is GW. Useful is often a happy mistake that slipped by the editors. :p
A lot of the 5e drop-down option selections aren't so clear. This was largely true in 4e, but with Marines and Guard you can make a good argument for or against most of the options in the codex, depending on the points, theme, chapter tactics and metagame. Even the Lighting Claw Terminators aren't that much worse than hammer and shield Terminators. There are definitely times when you'll want the Claws (say, chillin' with Khan in a Redeemer).

In the 4e Tyranid codex, most people wouldn't call someone an idiot for taking Crushing Claws. It's something like half an Attack on average for 17 points, but that isn't all that bad. Similarly, most top-tier Tyranid lists never brought a Scythe Tail. I wouldn't laugh at someone for bringing it, though. It's the same with Spine Banks. You weren't an idiot for bringing any of the defensive upgrades (except maybe regeneration), and you weren't an idiot for leaving any of them at home. There were a lot of good options for a Carnifex. Now, there seems to be a about a dozen upgrades (including weapons), half of which you'd be braindead to bring.

That's rediculous, and I'll continue to ridicule it.

Vepr
04-01-2010, 16:21
Yeah. After looking at the leak (if it is complete) many of the "upgrades" are actually "downgrades" or a lateral move at best when you take into consideration their point costs and actual abilities in game. Spinefists and more than a few of the fex upgrades are like that.

oCoYoRoAoKo
04-01-2010, 16:35
Hormagaunts - throwaway assault units to tie up enemies, as spinegaunts were used before
Gargoyles - fast throwaway assault units, as hormagaunts should have been before
Termagants - cheap scoring units, not much more really
Wormgaunts (or devilgaunts, whatever you want) - scoring fire support. Not cheap at all, but an 18" 3 shot S4 gun is rather neat. They come close to bladestorming dire avengers in terms of seer destructive power, for a cheaper price tag.

I agree with you on all accounts here. I cant really see a use for spinegaunts actually. For throwaway units Gargs and Horms are far better. And with reference to devourer gaunts, i am expecting to have one unit of 20 in a pod for use in most of my games. On average you can get the following:

5 kills vs MEQs
13.3 Kills vs GEQs

and more importantly...5 glancing hits on rear armor 10 vehicles if you can get to it. This is rather pricey (well, pricey as you can get with a deepstriking, 20 wound unit) but very powerful short ranged forepower.

Cy.

Egaeus
04-01-2010, 20:04
Hormagaunts - throwaway assault units to tie up enemies, as spinegaunts were used before
Gargoyles - fast throwaway assault units, as hormagaunts should have been before
Termagants - cheap scoring units, not much more really
Wormgaunts (or devilgaunts, whatever you want) - scoring fire support. Not cheap at all, but an 18" 3 shot S4 gun is rather neat. They come close to bladestorming dire avengers in terms of seer destructive power, for a cheaper price tag.

I suppose one of the fundamental issue I have with this is that Termagants have always been the "waves of bodies" troops for the 'Nids (well, until Spinegaunts came along)...If they're the same cost as Hormies then I can see the potential for both units to fit slightly seperate roles...Hormies as the cheapo assault troops and Termies as the close fire support.

One of the things I always championed when wishlisting was making the shooty gaunts' weapons roughly equal and just charging a flat cost for a gaunt with a gun. Problem was that did require some fudging to make things work just right, and that seems to be something GW just can't quite do right.

PhalanxLord
04-01-2010, 21:58
I'm sure you meant that they die easier for their price. It's not as if they have less Toughness or anything.:p Best not to confuse anyone.

True. I was thinking more of in terms of how you get half as many devilgaunts as termagants so overall the brood is easier to kill for the same amount of points.



I predict that Devilgaunts will find their way into many a list, pending experience. They just hadn't come up in this thread yet, as the idea was intended to compare the Spinegaunt to the Termagant.

That comparison really does look bad for the Spinegaunt. It's far worse for the new Spinegaunt than it was for the old Termagant. That point used to buy a noticeable chunk of firepower. While the Termagant may not have been optimal, it wasn't by a large margin.

I would be surprised if devilgaunts didn't find their way into different lists. Point for point, they are the most efficient anti-infantry model in the army list. At least until the enemy starts shooting back...

Yeah, the old termagants and spinegaunts were pretty close in efficiency. Personally I had always preferred termagants due to being s4 and able to tap rear AV10. Besides, I tend to fight MEQ and old termagants were better against MEQ while old spinegaunts wrecked GEQ.



Right you are, sir. I had forgotten about the Tervigon's lesser Strength. I also hear that they can share their toxin (and adrenal glands) with nearby Termagants, which means that the upgrade could be useful for a Tervigon. I stand corrected.

As for the crushing claws, again I had forgotten about the Tervigon's ability to take them. While I'm not sure if I'd take that upgrade, bringing crushing claws on a Tervigon is not a braindead decision.


Tervigons can so between becoming better in CC and giving them to gaunts toxin sacs are generally a good idea for them (and adrenaline glands sorta are if you plan on kamikazing your gaunts into tanks, though I doubt we'll be seeing them as often).

Crushing claws isn't a hopeless choice for tervigons (especially as they're only I1 and they don't start with scy-tals), but its a lot of points though it will make opponents think twice about charging it.



I'll add them to the roster of "blanks".:(

Yeah, I was also pretty disappointed.

In case anyone is curious, here a comparison: it takes 29.314pts of ST+TS stealers to average one dead MEQ compared to 30.6pts of TS stealers on average to kill one MEQ. 17 ST+TS stealers will kill on average 11.018 MEQ without a charge while for the same points 19 TS stealers will kill 10.556 MEQ without a charge. So pretty much by getting ST you're trading in two stealers for an extra half a kill at 323pts per unit.



---

Feel free to dispute my hypothesis that the effective options in this codex will be more restricted than that of the 4e codex. I base that assertion on the wide variety of upgrades on models like Carnifexes that, while not optimal, were close enough that hundreds of variants saw play across the world metagame. Even the much-vaunted flyrant had variation based on whether the player thought it necessary to buy Adrenal Glands, Toxic Miasma, and implant attack.

The relative lack of options and the disappointing balance work on those options that remain give me the impression that optimal model configurations will be "solved" very quickly. I also expect that the difference in quality between optimal and sub-optimal will be large enough that you will see a very few "cookie-cutter" builds (often just one) for any given entry.

For the most part there isn't really enough different upgrades to have much variation on things. Take warriors for example: You can pick any combination of AG and TS, and other than that you can pick between a couple of weapons, which mostly do the same thing except some cost a bit more to be statistically better.

With fexes, a unit that you could make tons of different guys out of, now there are only 5 non-weapon changes you can make (with two being essentially non-options, and a third pretty damn close to being a non-option if not one), and 5 weapons, one of which is very expensive for nearly no advantage, another of which is the same price as an obviously better weapon (hmmm... should I take a gun with 3 twin linked s5 ap5 shots or a gun with 6 twin linked s6 ap- shots that cause a -1 to morale checks for the same price? Hard choice), and of the last two we get a s6 pinning weapon with crap AP and the other weapon is an "anti-tank" blast weapon that has a -1 modifier to damage.

The thing that pisses me off the most about the new dex is as far as individual creatures go, there isn't a lot of room for variation as most have an obviously superior build or two and they don't have anything you can really add to that to personalize it (such as perhaps adding +T or +W to a sniperfex in the old book).



In the case of Gaunts, what I'm seeing is that Devilgaunts and Termagants will both see play, but neither will see upgrades with any regularity. They may yet both be displaced by Hormagaunts, who can definitely cause casualties and remain cheap despite it. The presence of Termagants in many Tyranid lists may depend on how the Tervigon fares.

In the one game I played with the new book my devilgaunts performed quite well. I can see them being used at least until your opponents realize how deadly they are, at which point they start dying in droves and just start not being worth the loss of an extra gaunt.


Having the option for spike rifles is useful for people who own the models. People scream blue murder whenever a new army book takes stuff away. Here, we are getting something back.
People who theme their armies or own models with certain equipment like the options.
As for whether the option is any good in a competitive fashion is a different and valid argument. It shouldn't be confused with 'why is this option in the codex?'

Touche, but on the other hand with spike rifles people wouldn't have more than a couple because they weren't a "everyone has one" weapon IIRC. They can easily just be added to a unit of termagants, much like they have been for the last 12 years or so.

Shadowfax
04-01-2010, 23:02
Conspiracy Theory #478: Maybe the "printing error" was forgetting to include the stats for the MC-sized version of the Deathspitter...

Hicks
04-01-2010, 23:12
I won't be using them. The sad thing is that I ripped the talons of my hormies to make my spinegaunts, now I have to resculpt shoulders for everyone of them to turn them back into hormies again.

Tips for new nid players: If you can't magnetize the arms of a miniature, use just a tiny bit of superglue on them. It's better to have to reglue an arm once in a while, than having to rip off the arms and bore a hole through the remaining shoulder because you used plastic glue. It's especially important since nids suffer from rules change the worse out of all the armies to remain effective and WYSIWYG.

Shadowfax
05-01-2010, 00:02
Tips for new nid players: If you can't magnetize the arms of a miniature, use just a tiny bit of superglue on them. It's better to have to reglue an arm once in a while, than having to rip off the arms and bore a hole through the remaining shoulder because you used plastic glue. .
Yeah, this is a pain in the ass. I have to do it to the 20+ Spinegaunts I'm reclaiming for 5th edition. Although, since I have so many Termagants/Devilgaunts already built, I might leave these ones armless for a while... I don't need them except to serve as proxies in the rare games where I will field 100+ Gaunts as a lark, or whatever.

On a sidenote, part of me is glad for this change, because I've always hated the way Spinegaunts look. It's hard enough acclimating yourself to Tyranids carrying Bio-rifles... and akimbo Bio-pistols are even stupider.

catbarf
05-01-2010, 00:12
Forgive me if this is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm running the math here and it seems that Tyranid Warriors with Rending Claws and Toxin Sacs are actually better than Warriors with twin Boneswords against MEQs by 13% and GEQs by 34%, for the same price. While the Boneswords do have their nifty ID ability, it's not going to be terribly effective against most enemies (as multi-wounders tend to be Ld9 or Ld10), the Rending Claws compensate with the ability to severely damage light vehicles and the toxin sacs let them hurt high-T enemies.

Just some food for thought.

Shadowfax
05-01-2010, 00:20
I haven't given much thought to using the dual Boneswords. It's the Bonesword/Lash Whip combo that's looking worthwhile.

Also, Ld 9 or 10 on 3D6 still seems like a respectably tough roll.

catbarf
05-01-2010, 00:37
I haven't given much thought to using the dual Boneswords. It's the Bonesword/Lash Whip combo that's looking worthwhile.

Well, that's even more expensive for a rather minor benefit. I can't see it being that useful as for the cost over an entire unit you could probably afford another Warrior to make up for the one you might lose due to equal I.


Also, Ld 9 or 10 on 3D6 still seems like a respectably tough roll.

38% or 50% chance of success respectively, and if you take the lash whip, it's 2d6, meaning it's 83% and 92% respectively.

Basically, if you use the BS+LW, you get a slight improvement over Rending Claws and the ability to lower enemies to I1- for a 29% increase in cost. It's definitely powerful, but I can't see it being worth the price, especially since adding Toxin Sacs to the Rending Warriors gives them more killing power for a lower cost.

Dexter099
05-01-2010, 01:12
I distinctly recall his posts to that effect, but in hindsight I think his calculations may have been based on incorrect stats from earlier leaks. Or else he wasn't comparing them points-for-points against each other.


Are they?

My calcs went something like:

12x Termagants: 60 pts
Versus GEqs
12 shots
6 hits
4 wounds

10x Spinegaunts: 60 pts
Versus GEqs
10 shots
7.5 hits (5 hits + 2.5 twinlinked hits)
3.75 wounds

I'm awful at anything involving numbers, so it's not at all unlikely that I messed something up.

Always do 1 on 1, since people aren't necessarily going to always buy 12 termagants for every 10 spinegaunts.

Spinegaunt against MEQs:
1 x .75 x (1/3) x (1/3) = .08 kills

Termagant against MEQs:
1 x .5 x .5 x (1/3) = .08 kills

Against Guardsmen:

Spinegaunt= .38 kills

Termagant= .33 kills

So, if you're playing marines, no point in taking spinegaunts since they're more expensive and have a shorter range.

Against guardsmen, you get a higher volume of fire with termagants anyways for your points.

Yep, Spinegaunts are completely and utterly worthless unless you want to squish grots. It's really quite idiotic, you know, unless we're all wrong about them.

itcamefromthedeep
05-01-2010, 02:07
Forgive me if this is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm running the math here and it seems that Tyranid Warriors with Rending Claws and Toxin Sacs are actually better than Warriors with twin Boneswords against MEQs by 13% and GEQs by 34%, for the same price. While the Boneswords do have their nifty ID ability, it's not going to be terribly effective against most enemies (as multi-wounders tend to be Ld9 or Ld10), the Rending Claws compensate with the ability to severely damage light vehicles and the toxin sacs let them hurt high-T enemies.

Just some food for thought.
I tried the numbers, and mine say that that bone swords are up by a bit against both MEQ and GEQ.

MEQ
bone swords: 36 hits -> 18 wounds -> 18 kills
claws+poison: 36 hits -> 12+6 wounds -> 18+9 wounds -> 15 kills

GEQ
bone swords: 36 hits -> 24 wounds -> 24 kills
claws+poison: 36 hits -> 12+6 wounds -> 18+9 wounds -> 21 kills

---

I have an apocalypse game coming up in a couple weeks, which will likely be the last hurrah for my 4e force. I'll consider doing something else with my Spinegaunts after that's done.

CthulhuDalek
05-01-2010, 02:43
But don't the rending claws make up for killing like 3 less meq and geq, for the fact that they can inflict more damage against vehicles and monstrous creatures?

itcamefromthedeep
05-01-2010, 02:55
But don't the rending claws make up for killing like 3 less meq and geq, for the fact that they can inflict more damage against vehicles and monstrous creatures?
Yes, in my humble opinion. However, you don't get to eat your cake and still have a cake. There's a compromise in killing power against many infantry (not all, but many).

PhalanxLord
05-01-2010, 03:26
Forgive me if this is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm running the math here and it seems that Tyranid Warriors with Rending Claws and Toxin Sacs are actually better than Warriors with twin Boneswords against MEQs by 13% and GEQs by 34%, for the same price. While the Boneswords do have their nifty ID ability, it's not going to be terribly effective against most enemies (as multi-wounders tend to be Ld9 or Ld10), the Rending Claws compensate with the ability to severely damage light vehicles and the toxin sacs let them hurt high-T enemies.

Just some food for thought.

My numbers say differently.

VS MEQ:
Kills by a bonesword warrior: 1
Kills by a RC+TS warrior: 0.833

VS GEQ:
Kills by a bonesword warrior: 1.333
Kills by a RC+TS warrior: 1.333

So against GEQ they're equal and against MEQ boneswords are better. Against multi-wound models, boneswords are significantly better.


But don't the rending claws make up for killing like 3 less meq and geq, for the fact that they can inflict more damage against vehicles and monstrous creatures?

VS T6:
Bonesword: 0.333 (but with at least a 50% chance to kill)
RC+TS: 0.556

VS T5:
Bonesword: 0.667 (with at least a 50% chance to kill)
RC+TS: 0.556

So pretty much RC+TS is better against vehicles and T6+, but when you consider that boneswords have at least a 50% chance of killing a non-EW model after wounding it I think it really pushes its effectiveness over that of RC+TS. Personally I would be using MCs, zoans, and hive guard to kill vehicles so I don't think I would really need to worry about those with my warriors. I'd much rather have my warriors able to tear apart nobz and TWC (who would give my other units trouble) rather than have them be able to destroy a rhino (of which other units can easily handle).

Vepr
05-01-2010, 03:57
I guess it would come down to costs again. If I remember right the RC's end up costing a gant and the boneswords 2 gants or was it 2 gants each? I cannot remember what toxin costs on them.

Anyways what type of point savings if any are we looking at for RC warriors with RC and TS over warriors with dual boneswords?

Angelwing
05-01-2010, 08:28
Touche, but on the other hand with spike rifles people wouldn't have more than a couple because they weren't a "everyone has one" weapon IIRC. They can easily just be added to a unit of termagants, much like they have been for the last 12 years or so.

Not quite. 2nd ed allowed any number of gaunts to have them. The 3rd ed chapter approved rules allowed them to be taken as either a special weapon slot upgrade or in full units.
However, they were expensive metal models in comparison to the cheap plastic generic gaunts available at the time, so you are right in that people didn't own too many of them. I have 8 myself and 6 strangleweb guys. I hope they are still legal unit sizes!

we now return you to the topic!

Egaeus
05-01-2010, 09:06
On a sidenote, part of me is glad for this change, because I've always hated the way Spinegaunts look. It's hard enough acclimating yourself to Tyranids carrying Bio-rifles... and akimbo Bio-pistols are even stupider.

This is the sort of statement that always confuses me as even going back to 2nd edition Termagants have always been a staple of the army and had guns (as did/do many of the other units in the army). I'm not sure where this idea that Tyranids are meant to be uniquely close-combat originated, but it's just wrong. The key with the Tyranids is that it's all living bio-tech.



Not quite. 2nd ed allowed any number of gaunts to have them. The 3rd ed chapter approved rules allowed them to be taken as either a special weapon slot upgrade or in full units.
However, they were expensive metal models in comparison to the cheap plastic generic gaunts available at the time, so you are right in that people didn't own too many of them. I have 8 myself and 6 strangleweb guys. I hope they are still legal unit sizes!

we now return you to the topic!

IIRC those "full units" were limited to about 8 Gaunts total, which made them very specialist units. Gaunts never really had a "special weapon upgrade" but the third edition's "Create Your Own Hive Fleet" rules did allow for Mutations and again IIRC these mutations could be these weapons.

It seems to me more an attempt to be "nostalgic" rather than "thorough" with the rules...although as I haven't seen the new Codex yet I can't say that with any certainty.

Scythe
05-01-2010, 10:17
IIRC those "full units" were limited to about 8 Gaunts total, which made them very specialist units. Gaunts never really had a "special weapon upgrade" but the third edition's "Create Your Own Hive Fleet" rules did allow for Mutations and again IIRC these mutations could be these weapons.


Nah, the 3rd edition rules did indeed allow you to mutate weapons in broods, but only to weapons other which appeared in the codex. Stranglewebs and spike rifles were not included in the first place. You could have a gaunt with a barbed strangler though, or a ripper swarm with a venom cannon. Amusing times ;). The webs and rifles did receive an online update somewhere during 3rd edition though, when white dwarf variant lists trived.

Abaddonshand
05-01-2010, 14:00
Perhaps we've all just got the wrong idea of spinefist stats - highly improbable, but not impossible. Spinefists are rumoured to be Assault X, the only remaining weapon of this type in the codex. Could it be that we just haven't seen the actual value? Perhaps they are actually Assault 2 (and probably not twinlinked if they are). Think about it, as assault X weapons, they make spinegaunts overcosted and useless compared to termagants, and they are a complete steal for raveners, giving each one 4 shots on the way to combat and then 5 attacks on the charge.

Assault 2 would therefore make a lot more sense.

itcamefromthedeep
05-01-2010, 14:19
Assault 2 would therefore make a lot more sense.
It would still make no sense for Warriors, and at assault 2 it wouldn't make sense for Raveners either. It's no match at all for a Devourer.

Abaddonshand
05-01-2010, 14:32
It would still make no sense for Warriors, and at assault 2 it wouldn't make sense for Raveners either. It's no match at all for a Devourer.

Yeah, it would make no sense to take them on warriors or raveners, but they would be costed appropriately i.e. dirt cheap

Now, they seem undercosted for the boost they give to raveners, but overcosted on basic gaunts as they bring very little value.

Rirekon
05-01-2010, 15:50
Is it not possible that Raveners get a different type of Spine fist? That's what they've done with Venom Cannons and Barbed Stranglers after all

itcamefromthedeep
05-01-2010, 16:08
Is it not possible that Raveners get a different type of Spine fist? That's what they've done with Venom Cannons and Barbed Stranglers after all
If there is, nobody has seen or heard of it. It looks like that gun remained "Assault X". Why this happened is a mystery.

Shadowfax
05-01-2010, 16:09
This is the sort of statement that always confuses me as even going back to 2nd edition Termagants have always been a staple of the army and had guns (as did/do many of the other units in the army). I'm not sure where this idea that Tyranids are meant to be uniquely close-combat originated, but it's just wrong. The key with the Tyranids is that it's all living bio-tech.

You've completely misinterpreted me. In fact, if you were to do a search you'd find recent posts from me making fun of people who think that "Tyranids are a close combat army."

The problem isn't that they have ranged weapons, it's that the ranged weapons look like humanoid guns made out of a messy fusion of bone plates, spikes, and internal organs, instead of being incorporated into the Tyranids' bodies in a more elegant and convincing way.


Think about it, as assault X weapons, they make spinegaunts overcosted and useless compared to termagants, and they are a complete steal for raveners, giving each one 4 shots on the way to combat and then 5 attacks on the charge.

Spinefists are still crap on a Ravener. I would rather take 3 S4 shots than 4 TL S3 shots, even before looking at the math. Plus, with the looong charge range of Raveners, you will want the 18" range of a Devourer so that you can keep away from melta & rapid-firing. Spinefists puts you right there in the danger zone.

But Assault 2X might work. :evilgrin:

itcamefromthedeep
05-01-2010, 16:40
Spinefists are still crap on a Ravener. I would rather take 3 S4 shots than 4 TL S3 shots, even before looking at the math. Plus, with the looong charge range of Raveners, you will want the 18" range of a Devourer so that you can keep away from melta & rapid-firing. Spinefists puts you right there in the danger zone.

But Assault 2X might work. :evilgrin:
You might actually want to look at that math. The Spinefist does a little better against both T3 and T4, and the spinefist has some AP on it. It does lack range by comparison, misses out on the penalty to morale, and can't hurt vehicles of any kind.

I'd still take Devourers as a matter of personal preference, but I wouldn't mock anyone for taking spinefists.

The variable statlines made a lot more sense from a game balance perspective.

Egaeus
05-01-2010, 20:59
You've completely misinterpreted me. In fact, if you were to do a search you'd find recent posts from me making fun of people who think that "Tyranids are a close combat army."

The problem isn't that they have ranged weapons, it's that the ranged weapons look like humanoid guns made out of a messy fusion of bone plates, spikes, and internal organs, instead of being incorporated into the Tyranids' bodies in a more elegant and convincing way.

Apologies, it was the comment on "acclimating to Tyranids carrying Bio-rifles" since this is basically what they've been all along.

I've always figured that it's more an issue of what we as humans think of when we think of guns, so the designers want to make sure that people understand "these are guns". Heck, if you look at the whole bio-tech thing and the range of Tyranid organisms there's so many things that could be used rather than firearms in the conventional sense of a propelled projectile. When the 'Nids arrive and start blanketing a whole planet in toxic spores I've often wondered why they would even need a "conventional" type of force.

But I digress as this sort of discussion is really for it's own thread.

catbarf
05-01-2010, 21:16
I tried the numbers, and mine say that that bone swords are up by a bit against both MEQ and GEQ.

MEQ
bone swords: 36 hits -> 18 wounds -> 18 kills
claws+poison: 36 hits -> 12+6 wounds -> 18+9 wounds -> 15 kills

GEQ
bone swords: 36 hits -> 24 wounds -> 24 kills
claws+poison: 36 hits -> 12+6 wounds -> 18+9 wounds -> 21 kills

---

I have an apocalypse game coming up in a couple weeks, which will likely be the last hurrah for my 4e force. I'll consider doing something else with my Spinegaunts after that's done.

You are absolutely right, I identified a flaw in part of my program that dealt with power weapons. I would have responded sooner if my ISP didn't screw up my connection (for 16 hours) as I was replying.

Just wish there was an easy way to get suitable models...

Oh, and Adrenal Glands + Twin Boneswords really brings the pain. 3 Warriors on the charge get an average of 3.5 kills against MEQs- more than a third of their cost in one round of combat.

totgeboren
05-01-2010, 23:26
Oh, and Adrenal Glands + Twin Boneswords really brings the pain. 3 Warriors on the charge get an average of 3.5 kills against MEQs- more than a third of their cost in one round of combat.

ST, twin Boneswords and Adrenal glands get just over 6 kills when they assault, before the marines can even retaliate. 5.33 without ST, but then they have devourers, and they should give about one kill extra.

So, about 6 marines on the charge. Not bad at all. :)

Shadowfax
05-01-2010, 23:34
I go a little bit ADD during the sustained math gets broken out. Anyone want to try to sum up what the best (aka most cost effective) Warrior option is versus GEqs and versus MEqs?

PhalanxLord
05-01-2010, 23:52
I go a little bit ADD during the sustained math gets broken out. Anyone want to try to sum up what the best (aka most cost effective) Warrior option is versus GEqs and versus MEqs?

Boneswords are the best in CC hands down, statistically speaking, against anything thats not T8+. If you want the most efficient CC warrior then you can't beat a warrior with boneswords, scy-tals, and toxin sacs. If you want a warrior that will wreck things in CC, but will take more than one round to kill off 10 marines then you want boneswords+devs or boneswords and DS. If you want to fight orks then you want scy-tals and devs or scy-tals and DS.

Overall I think you get the best bang for your buck with boneswords unless you feel like trying to kill a couple of tanks.

catbarf
06-01-2010, 00:16
ST, twin Boneswords and Adrenal glands get just over 6 kills when they assault, before the marines can even retaliate. 5.33 without ST, but then they have devourers, and they should give about one kill extra.

So, about 6 marines on the charge. Not bad at all. :)

Maybe I'm missing something here.

3 Warriors, 4 attacks each (forgot charging bonus before)
12 attacks
7 hits
4.66 kills

And that's with Scything Talons factored in, where are you getting 5.33?

Edit: Oh, and I forgot that Rending Claws are free if they replace the Devourer, in which case the cost difference between a Rending + Poison Warrior and a Pair of Boneswords Warrior is about the same as the difference in damage.

Edit 2: Aaargh, forgot the WS of Warriors. You're right. Man, this is not my day.

Scythe
06-01-2010, 06:58
Spinefists are still crap on a Ravener. I would rather take 3 S4 shots than 4 TL S3 shots, even before looking at the math. Plus, with the looong charge range of Raveners, you will want the 18" range of a Devourer so that you can keep away from melta & rapid-firing. Spinefists puts you right there in the danger zone.


Assuming point costs are similar (of which I am not sure), the four twin-linked shots are better against most targets. Regarding the range issues: I usually won't be using my Raveners for any kind of fire support. They are fast assault troops, and should be used that way imho. Usually, the only time they will be shooting is just before they charge. Considering that, the spinefists 12" range matches their 12" assault nicely. Once you are within shooting range, you are within assault range. I can see some merits of having the 18" gun, but they are not as big as they might look at first. Both options are very valid imho, again assuming costs are similar.

Vineas
06-01-2010, 07:40
The spinefists and the Devourer are the same exact cost. The differences are relegated to the stats and their uses. 3S4 shots are better for glancing armor, the 4 TL shots are better against GEQ.

Depends on what role you want them to fill.

Marrak
06-01-2010, 09:06
The spinefists and the Devourer are the same exact cost. The differences are relegated to the stats and their uses. 3S4 shots are better for glancing armor, the 4 TL shots are better against GEQ.

Depends on what role you want them to fill.

Considering the large numbers of transports in this edition, I'd say always go with the higher strength. You'll never hurt a transport anywhere with str 3, but you have a chance of doing something with str 4. Considering the difference is 1 shot and twin-linked, we also have to look at what they're charging. As has been said, the spinefists work great against GEQ... but when have raveners EVER had problems mauling GEQs? :)

Scythe
06-01-2010, 09:48
Considering the large numbers of transports in this edition, I'd say always go with the higher strength. You'll never hurt a transport anywhere with str 3, but you have a chance of doing something with str 4. Considering the difference is 1 shot and twin-linked, we also have to look at what they're charging. As has been said, the spinefists work great against GEQ... but when have raveners EVER had problems mauling GEQs? :)

Not only GEQs... there are targets out there which are more dangerous than GEQs, while still vulnerable to shooting. Things like Orks or Aspect Warriors for example. Getting an extra kill or two in before the charge can save you from some return wounds. That aside... S4 versus vehicles is kind of a desperate last effort, is it? I mean, nothing against it when you don't have anything better to do, but it is a very long shot, considering you need to be in the rear arc of most vehicles to have a chance, and you need 12 shots on average to cause a single glancing hit in that case.

Marrak
06-01-2010, 11:40
Not only GEQs... there are targets out there which are more dangerous than GEQs, while still vulnerable to shooting. Things like Orks or Aspect Warriors for example. Getting an extra kill or two in before the charge can save you from some return wounds. That aside... S4 versus vehicles is kind of a desperate last effort, is it? I mean, nothing against it when you don't have anything better to do, but it is a very long shot, considering you need to be in the rear arc of most vehicles to have a chance, and you need 12 shots on average to cause a single glancing hit in that case.

IMO, not any longer a shot then hoping to get a rend. And you can easily get that number with not many raveners.

Orks are always a tough nut to crack, and honestly I'd avoid sending the raveners into the mix unless I needed to hold up the squad or had already softened it up first. As for aspect warriors like Scorps or Banshees, both suffer from small unit sizes (to my knowledge) and poor armor.

Then again I've not been considering the AP from spinefists... that would make a rather large difference.

Scythe
06-01-2010, 11:58
Not against aspect warriors; those have 4+ (or 3+, in some cases) saves. Still, a Ravener with devourer would put 0.5 wounds on a T3, 4+ save model, while one with spinefists would put 0.75 wounds down.

On Orks; sure, you don't want to run into 30 sluggas unsupported. Raveners are pretty effective though. A unit of 4 Raveners with spinefists and dual talons would kill 4 with the spinefists, before charging and killing 7.4. Not bad for a small, relatively cheap unit. Of course, it is the powerclaw that really causes trouble... Still, good enough to finish slightly weakened units.

On the rending: remember you don't really need to maneuver to the rear to crack armour in this case, and that you actually cause penetrating hits instead of glancing ones. Two rather big differences, although I admit you will be hitting some vehicles on 6s.

Vineas
06-01-2010, 20:29
The comment regarding rear arc was from shooting. Not often an opponent is going to purposely (or accidentally) get a vehicles rear armor facing you. IG MIGHT since the only way out is through the rear hatch but most times I see our local IG players turn the ass end around to face their opponent is if the loss of the chimera is not going to be a huge factor (usually it's turned to allow the disembarking squad to make sure it's within double tap range against a target it can effectively weaken.

I don't face any DE players and I'd rather rely on other Nids and Nid weapons to destroy Ork trukks and tracks and buggies. I'd rather landspeeders NOT get within 12" as usually that puts them close enough to fire heavy flamers.

My spinegaunts will stay spinegaunts mainly for the reason I plastic glued them together and in my metagame I don't face many things with Av10 that I will trust my gun fodder to pop. I'll leave tank popping to hive guard, zoanthropes or anything I give a VC to.

winterman
06-01-2010, 20:59
My spinegaunts will stay spinegaunts mainly for the reason I plastic glued them together and in my metagame I don't face many things with Av10 that I will trust my gun fodder to pop.
I am in a similar boat, but I am considering replacing the fists with the plethora of stealer scytal I have collecting dust. A straight cut at the end of each of the arms and some plastic glue should do the trick.

Shadowfax
06-01-2010, 22:50
It's not insanely difficult to convert plastic-glued Spinegaunts to whatever other configuration you want if you have access to an electric drill and a variety of drillbits.

1. clip the arms off below the shoulder
2. trim the excess "shoulder stump" so that it is roughly flat
3. use your pin vise (with a fairly thick bit - 1mm-2mm) to create a guidehole for the drill
4. load a drillbit that's about the same diameter as the gaunt's arm socket was, and carefully drill out new sockets

It's tedious, but once you get in the flow of things it moves pretty fast. I reconfigured 20+ Spinegaunts in a couple of hours.

bluenova
07-01-2010, 11:11
It's not insanely difficult to convert plastic-glued Spinegaunts to whatever other configuration you want if you have access to an electric drill and a variety of drillbits.

1. clip the arms off below the shoulder
2. trim the excess "shoulder stump" so that it is roughly flat
3. use your pin vise (with a fairly thick bit - 1mm-2mm) to create a guidehole for the drill
4. load a drillbit that's about the same diameter as the gaunt's arm socket was, and carefully drill out new sockets

It's tedious, but once you get in the flow of things it moves pretty fast. I reconfigured 20+ Spinegaunts in a couple of hours.Great idea :)
If you don't have an electirc drill, or the right size drill bit, the modelling tool from GW (or other craft suppliers) works for this - follow pionts 1-3, then use the hole to guide the 'blade end' of the modelling tool, scraping in a rotating, circular motion, then use the 'round end' to expand it and tidy it up. It's actually quicker than it sounds as the plastic comes away really easily, although more likely to lead to hand-cramp than drilling ;)

I've only got 16 Spinegaunts, so it won't be too bad for me if I choose to do this, but I feel for you swarm guys :eek:

Angelwing
07-01-2010, 11:25
It's not insanely difficult to convert plastic-glued Spinegaunts to whatever other configuration you want if you have access to an electric drill and a variety of drillbits.


Good technique, but I still think it's a bit premature. I'd advise people to wait for the codex and get a few games under their belts, perhaps proxying the gaunt weapons before chopping anything up.

bluenova
07-01-2010, 11:36
Oh yeah, wait and see for sure, but it's a good tip for people to remember in general :-)

Scythe
07-01-2010, 11:52
I currently have 60 spinegaunts, along with 30 termagants and 24 devilgaunts (and the odd 90-100 hormagaunts I guess). No intention of cutting up my spinegaunts at the moment. My gaming group is easy enough to proxy, and I can just mix the termagants with spinegants in a unit. I might expand my termagants to 40, but probably won't be using much more in any normal army list, so no need to spend a lot of extra effort to rebuild my spinegaunts for the odd occasion I cannot use them as counts as fleshborers. Besides, they are bound to become usefull again next edition. ;)

itcamefromthedeep
07-01-2010, 14:25
Good technique, but I still think it's a bit premature. I'd advise people to wait for the codex and get a few games under their belts, perhaps proxying the gaunt weapons before chopping anything up.
If you're waiting for the day that S3 twin-linked is so much better than S4 that you pay 20% more for the model, don't hold your breath. It ain't gunna happen. I tend to think that those guns are a fair trade. Spinefists do better against T3 and T6, and Fleshborers can hurt T7 (if that ever comes up) and ARM10 vehicles (which do come up). Wait to see that Termagants cost XXX and Spinegaunts YYY with the noted profile on the guns, and then break out the drill. Really, games need not be played for that comparison.

That's almost like trading the Biovore's spore mine launcher for a heavy flamer.;)

SteelTitan
08-01-2010, 08:30
I currently have 60 spinegaunts, along with 30 termagants and 24 devilgaunts (and the odd 90-100 hormagaunts I guess). No intention of cutting up my spinegaunts at the moment. My gaming group is easy enough to proxy, and I can just mix the termagants with spinegants in a unit. [...] Besides, they are bound to become usefull again next edition. ;)

My idea exactly. I don't have as many as you but just mixing the two when they are all supposed to be termagaunts will not confuse anybody. Will not work in the tournament scene i guess but apart from that I will happily not play anybody who makes a problem out of this.