PDA

View Full Version : poisoned attacks



Demoulius
12-02-2012, 18:34
hello gents,

this came up a while ago while talking to a friend of mine. basicly im contemplating a unit of sternguards, not solely but in part because of their 2+ poison bolts. and also got a small nid army that im slowly working on.

I noticed in the rulebook that you get a reroll if your strength is the same or better then your opponents toughness. so not against the MC's but you do get it versus warriors and the like. This is where the silly stuff happend though... he said that if you have the poisend special rule but there is no particular number between the brackets your wounding on 4's even if your strength would otherwise be better? So in short its pretty useless on nid MC's or anything with a S value higher then 4? :confused:

Seems abit silly, either an oversight or just bad wording on the rule but looking at the rulebook id be inclined to agree with him :wtf: basicly means that toxin sacs are in many cases are a bad idea :eyebrows:

While on the other hand its the most viable way that marine armies got to take care off nid MC's (massive amount of armour saves are bound to fail) whilst their blood is in part made up of poison....

-Loki-
12-02-2012, 18:58
If you're facing a lot of T5 enemies, like a Nurgle CSM army, toxin sacs on Tyranid MCs with S6 is actually worth it. You just need to figure out for yourself if your MCs will be hitting enough T5 models compared to T3/T4 to make it worth it. Outside of that, yeah, toxin sacs on MCs are there for comedic value.

Vipoid
12-02-2012, 19:08
hello gents,

this came up a while ago while talking to a friend of mine. basicly im contemplating a unit of sternguards, not solely but in part because of their 2+ poison bolts. and also got a small nid army that im slowly working on.

I noticed in the rulebook that you get a reroll if your strength is the same or better then your opponents toughness. so not against the MC's but you do get it versus warriors and the like. This is where the silly stuff happend though... he said that if you have the poisend special rule but there is no particular number between the brackets your wounding on 4's even if your strength would otherwise be better? So in short its pretty useless on nid MC's or anything with a S value higher then 4? :confused:

Seems abit silly, either an oversight or just bad wording on the rule but looking at the rulebook id be inclined to agree with him :wtf: basicly means that toxin sacs are in many cases are a bad idea :eyebrows:

While on the other hand its the most viable way that marine armies got to take care off nid MC's (massive amount of armour saves are bound to fail) whilst their blood is in part made up of poison....

If you're asking why Tyranid MCs can buy poison when it makes them *worse* in combat 90% of the time, it's because cruddace is a crap writer. He gave toxin sacs to everything, without sparing a thought for whether a rerollable 4+ is actually better than wounding most things on a 2+ (it isn't - you're basically paying 10 points to go from 5/6 to 3/4). IMO MCs (and perhaps anything with natural strength 5+) should have the option of poisoned (3+) weapons.

Demoulius
12-02-2012, 19:44
Hmmm ok seems we did understand how the rule works. Just a bit of the shame the codex writers dident :confused:

Vipoid
12-02-2012, 19:51
Hmmm ok seems we did understand how the rule works. Just a bit of the shame the codex writers dident :confused:

I think Poison was originally going to allow you to use the poison value (usually 4+) or your own strength - whichever was better. If your strength was equal to or greater than the target's toughness, you'd gett to reroll failed to-wound rolls. Basically, you'd always get some benefit from poison.

However, despite the rulebook being changed, I'd guess that no one bothered changing the Tyranid codex; despite poison being considerably less effective on several, and downright useless on others.

Lord Damocles
12-02-2012, 20:36
If you're asking why Tyranid MCs can buy poison when it makes them *worse* in combat 90% of the time, it's because cruddace is a crap writer
What if it was so that it makes them better in combat the other 10% of the time? :eyebrows:

Vipoid
12-02-2012, 20:58
What if it was so that it makes them better in combat the other 10% of the time? :eyebrows:

Would you really consider that a good trade-off? :eyebrows:

Baaltor
12-02-2012, 21:01
Personally, I think there should have been monstrous toxin sacs as another upgrade, which wound on 2+. Under the explaination that there's more poison, or the creature's sophisticated enough to manufacture more advanced toxins.

As a house rule though, my group rolls to wound normally, and then rerolls to wound on the poison value. E.G: DE attacks marine with a venom blade, rolls a 4, and then rerolls wounding on a 2+. It makes the poison weapons a bit more powerful, but it also makes them a whole lot less herpa derp against some things.

Lord Damocles
12-02-2012, 21:04
Would you really consider that a good trade-off? :eyebrows:
If I intended/expect to use the MC against the 10% of enemies where poisoned attacks would aid it, sure.


It's like asking why anyone would ever take a Gauntlet of Fire over a Warscythe on a Necron [Over]Lord given that it makes him worse against just about everything which isn't a GEQ; but if you're expecting to face lots of GEQs, or want to cover a lack of GEQ-killing power elsewhere in your list, then it might just be worth it.

Vipoid
12-02-2012, 21:45
If I intended/expect to use the MC against the 10% of enemies where poisoned attacks would aid it, sure.

Thing is, toxin sacs only really help MCs against other MCs, and there are already pleanty of ways to deal with them without making your MCs worse. Toxin Sacs on Homogants, Gaunts (with tervigon), Genestealers, Warriors, a Prime and gargoyles is far better. It makes them better against virtually all targets (especially MCs), without making them worse against everything else.



It's like asking why anyone would ever take a Gauntlet of Fire over a Warscythe on a Necron [Over]Lord given that it makes him worse against just about everything which isn't a GEQ; but if you're expecting to face lots of GEQs, or want to cover a lack of GEQ-killing power elsewhere in your list, then it might just be worth it.

Firstly, the warscythe isn't free, and certainly isn't cheaper than the gauntlet. Secondly, it doens't make the necron lord S3.

Archibald_TK
12-02-2012, 22:48
What if it was so that it makes them better in combat the other 10% of the time? :eyebrows:
I'd really like to see these 10% that are so hard to wound for the S9/S10 Carnifex that he has to downgrade itself with poison to deal with them, knowing that even in the worst case scenario you are still wounding Wraithlords on 3+ with a base Fex.

Demoulius
12-02-2012, 23:16
Personally, I think there should have been monstrous toxin sacs as another upgrade, which wound on 2+. Under the explaination that there's more poison, or the creature's sophisticated enough to manufacture more advanced toxins.

As a house rule though, my group rolls to wound normally, and then rerolls to wound on the poison value. E.G: DE attacks marine with a venom blade, rolls a 4, and then rerolls wounding on a 2+. It makes the poison weapons a bit more powerful, but it also makes them a whole lot less herpa derp against some things.
lol herpa derp xD

Tbh the only thing with T10 is either in apocalypse (and poisen only works on a 6+ on those....) and the nurgle greater deamon from forge world if im not mistaken....

Not exactly many things that warrant the "upgrade" and all those examples turn your MC in a paste in a single turn.... Yay for useless updates!