PDA

View Full Version : Tryanid Immune to instant death loss.



tartarus
06-01-2010, 17:47
I just anyone thought this was a bad thing or not? I'm personally on the side of it being a good idea seeing as it never seemed to make sense.

The Base
06-01-2010, 17:53
Sure it makes sense.

Think about it, should something as big as one of those guys should get killed in a single blow?

Lord Damocles
06-01-2010, 17:57
What does 40K need?


MORE ETERNAL WARRIOR


...obviously :shifty:

TheDarkDuke
06-01-2010, 18:01
The only thing it really made sense on for me was the tyrant and possibly a carnifex although i would personally only lean toward the tyrant for that ability. I still don't see why every one is so upset with the rest of the creatures losing it, a rocket really should be able to blow up a warrior but what ever, I'm still looking forward to the book.

Dalros
06-01-2010, 18:11
Of course maybe the bug players have been playing to much Apoc. where the D weapons only cause one wound to eternal warriour units.

Stormbrow II
06-01-2010, 18:21
Many of the big beasties have T6 so it doesn't make a difference for shooting.

Its only in combat that Force Weapons etc can maul them and even then the Tyrants have I5 while the others can be kept away from scary characters.

druchii
06-01-2010, 18:24
What does 40K need?


MORE ETERNAL WARRIOR


...obviously :shifty:

Because there's SO much of it running around right now. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, there isn't.

You'd have more of an argument about Fearless, which IIRC nids will be keeping with synapse.

To the OP:
It made a BIT of sense-I mean the hive mind was essentially forcing the beasties to continue to fight on with grevious wounds...however for balance it was removed (Oh, Hi, 3W troop warriors with EW...).

d

Vaktathi
06-01-2010, 18:27
It's a good thing its gone, the Hive Mind can try all it wants, a Warrior turned into little gibblets and red smears by titan cannons, or a Carnifex sucked into the warp by a Wraithcannon, isn't going to be fighting anymore.

There's a lot of T6 in the book, so it's really only going to be an issue with Force Weapons, Wraithcannons, and other such special items for most units. Warriors are the big things hurt by the change, but they also are very resilient to small arms fire and and massed attacks.

Mr.Dieth
06-01-2010, 18:31
Ah well,

High strenght shots at my warriors don't scare me. ( who's going to shoot at them if there are scarry trygons/carnifexes/tervigons running around )

And they are now much more durable against small arms fire.
So I'm happy.


*my first post on the forum btw ^^

Netfreakk
06-01-2010, 18:41
what makes sense? I don't think it makes sense that space marine can survive an orbital bombardment, but that's just me =P

IJW
06-01-2010, 18:44
Because there's SO much of it running around right now. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, there isn't.
Apart from the whole of the Chaos Daemons codex, Phoenix Lords and assorted other special characters in almost all recent codices, CSM Daemon Princes and no doubt a few other things I've forgotten...

Lord of Nonsensical Crap
06-01-2010, 18:51
Apart from the whole of the Chaos Daemons codex, Phoenix Lords and assorted other special characters in almost all recent codices, CSM Daemon Princes and no doubt a few other things I've forgotten...

Lets not almost any character the Space Wolves can take, special or not.

Actually, the whole "Tyranids shouldn't be impelled to fight on long after they die" argument kind of peters when you consider Lone Wolves, who already do just that.

toddznidz
06-01-2010, 18:53
No frag grenades is worse...

Nezalhualixtlan
06-01-2010, 18:53
I think it makes sense for it to be removed, but I think rather than +1 W it should have come with +1 T for at least Tyranid Warriors. That would have made them immune to ID from anything but S10 weapons, and there's no good reason they should be immune to that, they're hefty enough they should probably had a way to be immune to ID off powerfists though, that's going to be a painful experience for them. I think it's fine for Raveners, Lictors, and Zoanthropes to lose it and remain the same T though, they were always more fragile units (even though the Lictor didn't need to be more fragile) and Zoanthropes picked up a 3+* save to compensate. We'll see, I'm excited to get the new codex and test out new builds. I'll reserve my judgment on the full scope of losing the ability until after I've played it out a bit.

darker4308
06-01-2010, 18:57
I really like the end of eternal warrior. It was annoying to see broodlords getting up after taking a meltagun to the face. The same with warriors. Tau will obviously be the most happy.

totgeboren
06-01-2010, 19:01
It makes sence for it to be removed.
Old warriors, T4 W2 Sv 5+

Marine with meltagun shoots -> 55% chance to cause 1 wound
Marine with bolter shoots -> 55% to cause 1 wound, and 11% chance to cause 2 wounds, killing the Warrior.

I can't be the only one who found it odd that it was easier to kill a warrior with a bolter than with a meltagun (the thing we use to destroy Land Raiders and Leman Russes)?

toddznidz
06-01-2010, 19:10
Fluff wise, it makes sense. But play balance wise...

WH40KAj
06-01-2010, 19:20
It's a good thing its gone, the Hive Mind can try all it wants, a Warrior turned into little gibblets and red smears by titan cannons, or a Carnifex sucked into the warp by a Wraithcannon, isn't going to be fighting anymore.


I don't agree with this sentiment at all. But as a guard player in apoc who can put down a str D pie, that wipes half my army out in one shot now, in little under 500pts: I can see why you'd like it :eyebrows:


Seriously though, I saw it was going and just wanted warriors to take 1 wound from str8. I mean a "hit" roll doesnt always mean a dead on it, a leg can be taken off or an arm. The warrior would still move and such. Oh well; Toughness 5 as stated was the way forward, but okay...

tartarus
06-01-2010, 19:25
Because there's SO

To the OP:
It made a BIT of sense-I mean the hive mind was essentially forcing the beasties to continue to fight on with grevious wounds...however for balance it was removed (Oh, Hi, 3W troop warriors with EW...).

d

I dont care whose telling you to fight if you have no head or torso you won't be able to do it.

Lord Damocles
06-01-2010, 19:25
I saw it was going and just wanted warriors to take 1 wound from str8. I mean a "hit" roll does always mean a dead on it, a leg can be taken off or an arm. The warrior would still move and such. Oh well
By that logic, the Instant Death mechanic should be removed entirely; as who's to say that Guard Captain hit by a Plasma Cannon didn't 'only' suffer first degree burns?

naloth
06-01-2010, 19:27
It makes sence for it to be removed.
Old warriors, T4 W2 Sv 5+

Marine with meltagun shoots -> 55% chance to cause 1 wound
Marine with bolter shoots -> 55% to cause 1 wound, and 11% chance to cause 2 wounds, killing the Warrior.

I can't be the only one who found it odd that it was easier to kill a warrior with a bolter than with a meltagun (the thing we use to destroy Land Raiders and Leman Russes)?

There's something wrong with saying S4 and S8 both wound T4 equally. Besides 4e Warriors could (and often did) have a 4+ save.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
06-01-2010, 19:28
By that logic, the Instant Death mechanic should be removed entirely; as who's to say that Guard Captain hit by a Plasma Cannon didn't 'only' suffer first degree burns?

Frankly, instant death going back to causing D3 wounds wouldn't be so bad. Eliminates the "all or nothing" Eternal Warrior/Instant Death back and forth the game has now.

EDIT:

There's something wrong with saying S4 and S8 both wound T4 equally. Besides 4e Warriors could (and often did) have a 4+ save.

They don't, S8 wounds T4 on a 2+ and S4 wounds T4 on a 4+. I don't see what you're getting at here.

WH40KAj
06-01-2010, 19:30
By that logic, the Instant Death mechanic should be removed entirely; as who's to say that Guard Captain hit by a Plasma Cannon didn't 'only' suffer first degree burns?

I'm not picking on instant death, meltas or rockets specifically on all models. Purely just warriors, who should still have been ID'd by Str9/10. The whole battlecannon getting lucky killing a 15wound unit on 2's with no save is to me a joke and it's that specfically i'm attacking.

EDIT- The poster mentioning D3 wounds was what i've been saying is how it "should" be for over a year, seems the fairest of all. It probably should replace the instant death mechanic entirely.

totgeboren
06-01-2010, 19:38
There's something wrong with saying S4 and S8 both wound T4 equally. Besides 4e Warriors could (and often did) have a 4+ save.

The bolter has 2 shots, thats why it gets 55% chance of scoring 1 wound and 11% chance of scoring 2.

But sure, many warriors had a 4+ save. Doesn't change the fact that vs a basic warrior, a bolter was much better than a meltagun/lascannon/krakmissile. That was still very wierd.

naloth
06-01-2010, 19:47
The bolter has 2 shots, thats why it gets 55% chance of scoring 1 wound and 11% chance of scoring 2.
Just like a meltagun has an 18" range...



But sure, many warriors had a 4+ save. Doesn't change the fact that vs a basic warrior, a bolter was much better than a meltagun/lascannon/krakmissile. That was still very wierd.
Not when you have SW heroes that can shrug off more firepower a tank including a few direct melta hits, entire units of Termies that can ignore 2/3s of anything thrown at them, and tanks that often more as slow as troops.

Abaddonshand
06-01-2010, 19:49
I really like the end of eternal warrior. It was annoying to see broodlords getting up after taking a meltagun to the face. The same with warriors. Tau will obviously be the most happy.

Actually, Broodlords were T5 under Phil Kelly's codex (and they still are in Cruddace's AFAIK), so they always get up after taking a meltagun to the face.

Onto the main issue, why GW didn't listen to the community is beyond me. Everyone said, give us T5 4+ warriors and take away eternal warrior. The extra wound is more of liablity in combat resolution than anything else. T5 would have been perfect, I have no objections to having an entire unit nuked by a vindicator's demolisher cannon, in fact, fair play to the player who puts a vindicator with 24" of a Tyranid army!

WH40KAj
06-01-2010, 19:56
Onto the main issue, why GW didn't listen to the community is beyond me. Everyone said, give us T5 4+ warriors and take away eternal warrior. The extra wound is more of liablity in combat resolution than anything else. T5 would have been perfect, I have no objections to having an entire unit nuked by a vindicator's demolisher cannon, in fact, fair play to the player who puts a vindicator with 24" of a Tyranid army!

I second this and have no objection to a demolisher cannon, though it would be irritating regardless.

Shadowfax
06-01-2010, 19:57
First off, pre-codex I was 100% in favour of them removing the "Universal Eternal Warrior" rule. Of course, the implications of them doing so must be judged on the rules/point costs that DO make it into the codex, and it will be a while before we can do that with any kind of certainty. We'll see how it turns out eventually.

Secondly, the rule made 100% sense for Tyranids, more so than almost any other unit that has it in the game. Tyranid physiology is all about redundancy, maximizing protection and efficiency, and so forth. A tyranid creatures could get mangled, but since it is incapable of feeling pain or fear or self-protective urges it would keep fighting on.


I dont care whose telling you to fight if you have no head or torso you won't be able to do it.
A gaunt most assuredly be able to fight on without a head if it had backup synapse receptors stashed in its butt, or something to that effect. It makes way more sense than any human character who has EW.

Also, everybody who ever mentions "a Demolisher cannon shell to the face" or something to that effect is unbelievably deluded. Unless the centre of the blast template lands exactly on the target they're not taking the shell to their anything... they're taking a hit from shrapnel. Do you know what happens when a vehicle takes a hit from shrapnel in 40k? The strength of the blast is halved. You should be thankful that the same design philosophy wasn't applied to infantry hits.

druchii
06-01-2010, 19:57
Apart from the whole of the Chaos Daemons codex, Phoenix Lords and assorted other special characters in almost all recent codices, CSM Daemon Princes and no doubt a few other things I've forgotten...

Which, as my point stands, is not a lot.

d

IJW
06-01-2010, 19:59
Ah. I actually consider it to be a lot.

boogaloo
06-01-2010, 20:20
I am terribly glad it`s gone, Why? Because I read an article on the GW Websit about how there was a mistranslation in the german codex that made it sound like the ID rules they had stated included all ID weapons (not just ones equal to 2x their toughness), and rather than going through the expense of reprinting the german codex they FAQ'd immunity to all forms of ID everywhere else in the world.

Then of course when asked to provide a link on warseer they removed the page. Makes sense, why would GW admit to making a mistake. Take it for what it is, I SEEN IT!

Shadowfax
06-01-2010, 20:24
I'm more inclined to think that was a face-saving lie than actual intent.

If they had actually wanted the rule to only provide immunity to weapons exactly 2xT they would have written it more clearly in the first place. What probably happened is that they intended it one way, accidentally wrote it so that it meant something else, got locked into the strict RAW interpretation that they were advocating during that era, then had to FAQ it to enforce the RAW which led to an uproar among players who could sense the intention behind the original rule.

IJW
06-01-2010, 20:30
I read an article on the GW Websit about how there was a mistranslation in the german codex that made it sound like the ID rules they had stated included all ID weapons (not just ones equal to 2x their toughness), and rather than going through the expense of reprinting the german codex they FAQ'd immunity to all forms of ID everywhere else in the world.
Didn't the pre-publication designer's notes article in WD at the time state that they were immune to all ID, and then people kicked up a fuss when the codex came out?

catbarf
06-01-2010, 20:30
Just like a meltagun has an 18" range...

His math is correct. A bolter has a 55.6% chance of getting one wound and an 11.1% chance of getting two. A meltagun has a 55.5% chance of getting one wound. I can show you the work if you like.


Not when you have SW heroes that can shrug off more firepower a tank including a few direct melta hits, entire units of Termies that can ignore 2/3s of anything thrown at them, and tanks that often more as slow as troops.

But they are much easier to kill with lascannons than bolters. With Warriors, it was the other way around.

Being vulnerable to high-S heavy weapons is the weakness that goes along with having multiple wounds. Learn to avoid such fire and you'll be alright.

Vineas
06-01-2010, 20:45
No no no. We play 40k in a vacuum and warriors will be the only thing ever targeted by the ML and Meltaguns and Multimeltas and lascannons and rail guns.

I say good. If my opponent is firing every available krak missle he has (or other anti-tank guns) at my warrior brood(s) that leaves my Tyrant and Carnifex and Trygons to run around untouched by anything that can really hurt them.

If my opponent is shooting my big bugs with heavy bolters and bolters good on them. He'll hand me the game.

It really does make no sense that a warrior turned into a smear of guts and viscera and blood can keep fighting. When there is not enough left of a warrior to fight with it effectively will not fight anymore.

Someone mentioned a BC not always inflicting a grievous wound. If something is killed outright (ID inflicted due to something being 2x it's toughness) it is effectively dead. I mean, drop a shell from the 105mm Abrams into a crowd of people and not only will the guy directly hit by the shell be toast but so will everyone within 20feet of him due to the concussive force of the shell exploding and then everyone within 15-20 yards will be eviscerated by shrapnel.

Unless every Warrior in a brood is walking 20 feet apart in reality a main battletank shell should ID every Warrior within 1" of the Warrior the hole landed over.

The Base
06-01-2010, 21:03
By that logic, the Instant Death mechanic should be removed entirely; as who's to say that Guard Captain hit by a Plasma Cannon didn't 'only' suffer first degree burns?

"Death" game play wise is simple in 40k.

I means you have been incapacitated by any range of things from being KOed, to having a broken foot, to being a nothing more than a burn mark on the ground.

naloth
06-01-2010, 22:10
His math is correct. A bolter has a 55.6% chance of getting one wound and an 11.1% chance of getting two. A meltagun has a 55.5% chance of getting one wound. I can show you the work if you like.

His math presumes that you have Warriors standing at point blank range without cover and naked (without usual bio-morphs). The situation is "weird" more than the effect.



But they are much easier to kill with lascannons than bolters. With Warriors, it was the other way around.

Actually at 25"+ lascannons are much more effective. Likewise 2 meltagun shots have a much higher probability than 2 bolter shots. Also, a 4+ save (while not universal) was pretty common especially when facing marines. Any of this shows that the "bolters kill easier" statement isn't accurate.

A more accurate assessment is "at the proper range fewer bolter armed models can kill warriors that are ill-equipped to fight SM than other weapons that are typically more deadly might be".



Being vulnerable to high-S heavy weapons is the weakness that goes along with having multiple wounds. Learn to avoid such fire and you'll be alright.
Wow, unwarranted snark. 5e 'nids are something of an anomaly since they get neither invulnerable saves nor EW on anything.

FWIW, I would have preferred T5 values to EW. Having neither will probably put Warriors as a 2nd string choice for Troops.

Vaktathi
06-01-2010, 22:24
Secondly, the rule made 100% sense for Tyranids, more so than almost any other unit that has it in the game. Tyranid physiology is all about redundancy, maximizing protection and efficiency, and so forth. A tyranid creatures could get mangled, but since it is incapable of feeling pain or fear or self-protective urges it would keep fighting on. There's a difference between feeling pain and the like and being a smear on the ground or vaporized. ID is really supposed to represent a hit so catastrophic that no amount of will is going to keep you going. A lascannon just isn't going to leave enough of a Warrior around as anything other than vapor to keep fighting, no matter how much the hive mind wants it to.

Stuff that stands back up after being hit by a titan destroyer weapon that's killing a Leman Russ 50% of the time with no regards to armor being no worse for wear than if a boltgun wounded it was just a wee bit silly.

Maren
06-01-2010, 22:30
I think eternal warrior (or equivelents) should only be for the most iconic of special characters (or largest of beasties). And I don't mean Malneus Calgar. I mean like Abbadon, Yarrick and so on who are truly legendary. Why Yarrick? Cause he's the the symbol of the stubborness and brutality of the imperial guard. It ain't logic mate. IT'S YARRICK!!!!

catbarf
06-01-2010, 22:32
His math presumes that you have Warriors standing at point blank range without cover and naked (without usual bio-morphs). The situation is "weird" more than the effect.

Actually at 25"+ lascannons are much more effective. Likewise 2 meltagun shots have a much higher probability than 2 bolter shots. Also, a 4+ save (while not universal) was pretty common especially when facing marines. Any of this shows that the "bolters kill easier" statement isn't accurate.

A more accurate assessment is "at the proper range fewer bolter armed models can kill warriors that are ill-equipped to fight SM than other weapons that are typically more deadly might be".

This is all equivocating. The bottom line is this: A Space Marine with a bolter was superior to a Space Marine with a meltagun against vanilla Warriors. He has more range and is more likely to kill the target. And there is something very, very wrong with the rules if the only reason to use a lascannon instead of a bolter against a T4 multi-wound creature is that the lascannon has more range.


Wow, unwarranted snark. 5e 'nids are something of an anomaly since they get neither invulnerable saves nor EW on anything.

FWIW, I would have preferred T5 values to EW. Having neither will probably put Warriors as a 2nd string choice for Troops.

The new Warriors are very difficult to kill with infantry fire and only heavy weapons pose a significant threat. Said heavy weapons are far better off targeting your larger creatures. This is where tactics come into play. The unit doesn't need to have no vulnerabilities or weaknesses to be playable. And the cost is not too high to expect it to have such a weakness.

itcamefromthedeep
06-01-2010, 22:33
If my opponent is firing every available krak missle he has (or other anti-tank guns) at my warrior brood(s) that leaves my Tyrant and Carnifex and Trygons to run around untouched by anything that can really hurt them.
Not necessarily. A battle cannon is far more efficient at killing Warriors than monstrous creatures. For the price, lasguns are more effective at taking wounds off of a Carnifex or Trygon than a battle cannon is (18 lasgun shots to the battle cannon, assuming the Carnifex is standing in the open). Even the mighty Demolisher Cannon is best fired at Warriors, leaving the Guardsmen to shoot their lasguns at better targets than Warriors (like that Carnifex).

To reiterate, shoot the Demolisher Cannon at the Warriors, and shoot the lasguns at the Carnifex. :angel: Perhaps I'll give that a moment to sink in...



...it's been a moment. Now if the Warriors and Carnifex are close together, by all means shoot both, but it's the Warriors that you're going to kill efficiently with that Demolisher.

Your Warriors will also run afoul of power fists, where target priority isn't really an issue (there's usually nobody else to smack).

naloth
06-01-2010, 22:35
There's a difference between feeling pain and the like and being a smear on the ground or vaporized. ID is really supposed to represent a hit so catastrophic that no amount of will is going to keep you going. A lascannon just isn't going to leave enough of a Warrior around as anything other than vapor to keep fighting, no matter how much the hive mind wants it to.

That's really only because a Warrior is T4. An Ogryn can now shrug off a couple of lascannon hits. Besides, if the game was consistent about that sort of thing you wouldn't have all sorts of SW ICs wandering around with EW. After all, they should be just a mortal as the next SM IC.

Vaktathi
06-01-2010, 22:36
That's really only because a Warrior is T4. An Ogryn can now shrug off a couple of lascannon hits. Besides, if the game was consistent about that sort of thing you wouldn't have all sorts of SW ICs wandering around with EW. After all, they should be just a mortal as the next SM IC.You won't get much argument from me on that, although at least on SC's (SM and otherwise) you can rationalize it as their "fate" or "luck" intervening.

naloth
06-01-2010, 22:45
This is all equivocating. The bottom line is this: A Space Marine with a bolter was superior to a Space Marine with a meltagun against vanilla Warriors. He has more range and is more likely to kill the target. No, the bottom line is there's something wrong with the situation. The SMs shouldn't be able to stand and rapid fire into Warriors standing in the open. The Warriors should have a 4+ save especially when facing marines. The 4e Warriors aren't pretty inefficient HtH choices against SM so they should be using their 24+" range weapons to stay away from both meltas and rapid fire.

The fact that you can engineer a situation where bolters come out on top doesn't make them the best choice for killing 4e warriors.



The new Warriors are very difficult to kill with infantry fire and only heavy weapons pose a significant threat. Said heavy weapons are far better off targeting your larger creatures. This is where tactics come into play. The unit doesn't need to have no vulnerabilities or weaknesses to be playable. And the cost is not too high to expect it to have such a weakness.
None of these statements are universally correct.

Warriors aren't hard to kill with infantry fire and in fact will have to expose themselves more than 4e warriors 'cause they are set up for CC instead of ranged fire support.

Many heavy weapons especially those with a blast marker can make their points back faster targetting warriors and will now be eliminating a scoring unit. Furthermore, a bonesword armed Warrior unit is much more dangerous to a MEQ unit in CC than equivalent points of a MC. Why wouldn't they be target priorities?

Warriors tend to end up costing as much if not more than 4e warriors which were not highly regarded as great choices. +1 W and bang they need an Achilles heel? That's just silly.

Vaktathi
06-01-2010, 22:50
It's not Warriors specifically that are getting an achilles heel, its the entire army that is losing that rule. It just hurts most on Warriors. That said, the 5E warriors are better in most respects than equivalently upgraded 4E warriors, and Troops, they just aren't immune to ID.

Shadowfax
06-01-2010, 23:15
Someone mentioned a BC not always inflicting a grievous wound. If something is killed outright (ID inflicted due to something being 2x it's toughness) it is effectively dead. I mean, drop a shell from the 105mm Abrams into a crowd of people and not only will the guy directly hit by the shell be toast but so will everyone within 20feet of him due to the concussive force of the shell exploding and then everyone within 15-20 yards will be eviscerated by shrapnel.

Crowd of people, check.

Now run the simulation for a crowd of ten foot tall aliens in shells of bioengineered armour.


There's a difference between feeling pain and the like and being a smear on the ground or vaporized. ID is really supposed to represent a hit so catastrophic that no amount of will is going to keep you going. A lascannon just isn't going to leave enough of a Warrior around as anything other than vapor to keep fighting, no matter how much the hive mind wants it to.

Why are you assuming every hit is a direct shot to the enemy's centre of mass? If every hit translates to a direct hit at the perfect point of vulnerability then there's no more reason a vehicle should survive a lascannon hit than there is for an infantry model surviving one.

catbarf
06-01-2010, 23:41
No, the bottom line is there's something wrong with the situation. The SMs shouldn't be able to stand and rapid fire into Warriors standing in the open. The Warriors should have a 4+ save especially when facing marines. The 4e Warriors aren't pretty inefficient HtH choices against SM so they should be using their 24+" range weapons to stay away from both meltas and rapid fire.

The fact that you can engineer a situation where bolters come out on top doesn't make them the best choice for killing 4e warriors.

I grant that it requires the Warriors to be without a specific optional upgrade, but that's beside the point. It's not an outlandish scenario that I've engineered, it's every single time the brood of Warriors is within 12". Every single time.

And if you notice, nowhere did I say that the bolter is the best choice against Warriors. What I am saying is that in every single possible scenario in the whole game where a bolter rapid fires and a lascannon or meltagun fires, the bolter will usually inflict more damage.

It doesn't matter that the extended carapace is a common upgrade, or that not all combat occurs within 12". The bottom line is that at a fairly common range with a not-unseen build, the basic infantry rifle is better than light anti-tank special weapons, heavy anti-tank guns, and titan-mounted laser cannons.

And there is definitely something absolutely fundamentally WRONG with that.


None of these statements are universally correct.

Warriors aren't hard to kill with infantry fire and in fact will have to expose themselves more than 4e warriors 'cause they are set up for CC instead of ranged fire support.

Many heavy weapons especially those with a blast marker can make their points back faster targetting warriors and will now be eliminating a scoring unit. Furthermore, a bonesword armed Warrior unit is much more dangerous to a MEQ unit in CC than equivalent points of a MC. Why wouldn't they be target priorities?

Warriors tend to end up costing as much if not more than 4e warriors which were not highly regarded as great choices. +1 W and bang they need an Achilles heel? That's just silly.

First off, yes, I agree that the more common builds are now melee. And yes, Warriors will consequently be shot at more by infantry weapons. But what you ignore is that not only are Warriors now 50% harder to kill with said infantry weapons, but they're absorbing fire that would have otherwise gone to other units. They are not simply taking fire out of nowhere now that people are using melee builds, it's fire that would have been aimed at the rest of your army, and now Warriors are pretty resistant to it.

Second off, most single-shot heavy weapons are going to be better used to take out Tyrants and Carnifexes and, to a lesser extent, Trygons than shoot at your Warriors. A Warrior has four times fewer wounds than a Tyrant or Carnifex but costs five to eight times less. As well, the Warrior can benefit from cover or screening from other units. Blast weapons are a danger, but there are not that many S8+ large blast weapons in the game and so they are a relatively minor threat.

And lastly, the increase in cost is significant but not a crippling handicap. Warriors are now able to fight both at a distance and in melee. If you add up the points, you find that the default build for a Warrior in the new codex is the same cost as a Warrior with the same build in the old codex. Now, you can't specialize to the same degree to save points (A dubious idea if you're giving them scything talons AND a gun), but instead get +1 wound. Hardly a sky-is-falling nerf.

If you put your Warriors out in front, in the open, unsupported, they will die. If you put them in cover, they will survive. If you put them behind other units, they will survive. If a Trygon shows up in their backfield and absorbs all the AT fire, they will survive. If you kill off enemy anti-tank units with your specialized troops, they will survive. If you send a brood of Raveners, Gargoyles, Genestealers, or Lictor into combat with an enemy anti-tank unit, they will survive. There are many ways to keep them alive and you keep assuming that they will never have cover and will always be the target of S8+ large template fire. How's that for engineering a situation?

Moozie
07-01-2010, 00:05
On some things I'm for it. Others, I'm not.

Hive Tyrants should have it. Being able to be taken down by a force weapon is very annoying for the premiere ground fighter of the Tyranid force.

Warriors shouldn't but they should also be a couple points cheaper because of it...or T5. Costing as much as a Chaos Terminator with no power weapon or 2+/5++ really makes them less appealing. At least give them a 5++...

Carnifex shouldn't have it, but they also shouldn't have doubled in points. Now a single little guy with a force weapon can take down our "tank".

sayles78
07-01-2010, 00:07
I don't think everything should have lost EW, and certainly they went a little too far with the removal of Offensive Grenades from just about every unit.

However, I do agree with EW being removed from Warriors. They just FEEL better with 3 wounds. It would be nice for them to be T5 in addition to, or instead of, 3 wounds, but on a TROOPS choice (scoring) unit, I believe it would be over-powered. Imagine a unit of T5 2or3 wound models, sat on an objective... I just think it would have been too much. I know Ogryns got T5 and 3W in new guard dex - but they cost more points, are not scoring, not as good at range, do not provide a Synapse type spec rule to other troops, cannot have power weapons and cannot be drop podded behind enemy lines / on objectives...

I say this even though warriors are my favourite Nid unit, and the one I will focus on when creating my 5th Ed build.

Hive Tyrants should have EW and should at least access to offensive grenades. Warriors also should have access to offensive grenades. You could make a case for a few other units as well (i.e Trygons using their bio-elec field on the charge could count as offensive grenades).

Epicenter
07-01-2010, 00:22
Eternal Warrior is supposed to be a "heroic" trait. That's why "mere humans" can get it, and so can a weedy Eldar guy. I'm not really going to vote on which units "should" get EW or not. I think Lone Wolves in C:SW getting EW is more than little questionable when entire heroes in other Codexes don't get it. I've always really felt that anything that doesn't have a "name" should not have EW. The Daemon codex was a sick mistake for that reason. And when entire armies have it? It should be called out for the crutch it is and let's face it, the current Tyranid codex has more crutches than a hospital that treats war injuries.

Given the general paucity of "named" or "heroic" characters in the Tyranid army, I think the restriction on EW could be loosened a bit, but should it be on Warriors? No.

Is it a "hit" for the Tyranids to lose "I Can't Believe It's Not Eternal Warrior!"? Yes, of course. It makes the nid army not as easy to play. I have hope that there's stuff to compensate for it, and that the Tyranid army is not going to be nerfed morass that many of the pundits on this board seem to think it will be. Will it mean the armies designed around the thinking and optimized army builds of the current codex take a hit and become less competitive? Yeah, I think that should be obvious by now.

I think it's a necessary change though. GW likes to shake the game up a bit to make people change their armies and tactics with new editions of stuff. It keeps the game from getting stale.

You're not alone. All of us Imperial Guard plasma abusers back in 4th edition knew in our hearts that deepstriking-plasmaspam-Iron-Discipline-infantry-armies would get nerfed in our next codex. As hard as it is imagine now, back in 4th edition Mech Guard was not a good army. Eldar and Tau laughed at us until they wet themselves (then flew away in their Skimmers-Moving-Fast hugging their 4th edition Glance Table). Chaos and Space Marines were polite enough to merely guffaw. I think Necrons and Nids chuckled. Remember Assault Cannon and five man las/plas spam? Harlequin spam? "Codex: Craftworld Eldar"? I doubt there's any Space Marine player who lives in "reality" who doesn't know in his heart that TH/SS is going to take some sort of nerf in the next SM codex. I'd say that any Tyranid player that didn't know that their "All-EW, All The Time" and "All Carnifexes and Stealers, All The Time" armies wouldn't get nerfed are deluding themselves.

I certainly don't think it's the end of the world - especially as the Codex isn't even out yet.

MajorWesJanson
07-01-2010, 00:36
Now a single little guy with a force weapon can take down our "tank".

:rolleyes: I bet all the "real" tank players are laughing because they don't have to worry about a single model taking out their tank in CC... Oh, wait, power fists. Power Claws. Thunder Hammers. Melta Bombs. Krak Grenades. Hammerhand.

As for TH/SS stormies, I personally expect assault terminators to be base TLCC, with a 10 point upgrade for THSS.

naloth
07-01-2010, 00:37
I grant that it requires the Warriors to be without a specific optional upgrade, but that's beside the point. It's not an outlandish scenario that I've engineered, it's every single time the brood of Warriors is within 12". Every single time.

Yes, it's somewhat outlandish. You've presumed that the 'nid warrior either put his 24" ranged troops where they can be creamed by SM or bought CC warriors but left off a pretty critical upgrade. Either way it's presuming that the 'nid player has no idea what he is doing. Comparing a unit used well against a unit fielded incorrectly or used improperly isn't really much of a comparison.



And if you notice, nowhere did I say that the bolter is the best choice against Warriors. What I am saying is that in every single possible scenario in the whole game where a bolter rapid fires and a lascannon or meltagun fires, the bolter will usually inflict more damage.

So with the 4+ save, 2 bolter shots with 2/3 hit, 1/2 wound, 1/2 saved is better than a single shot with 2/3 hit, 2+ wounds?



It doesn't matter that the extended carapace is a common upgrade, or that not all combat occurs within 12". The bottom line is that at a fairly common range with a not-unseen build, the basic infantry rifle is better than light anti-tank special weapons, heavy anti-tank guns, and titan-mounted laser cannons.

The bottom line is that this situation should never come up with 4e warriors. If you're getting your 5+ save ranged Warriors in rapid fire range (and out of cover) you're using them wrong. If you're fielding CC Warriors against MEQ that's probably inefficient but they should at least have the 4+ save.

Additionally 5e Warriors are a lot more likely to take 2x the shots since they will be in rapid fire range a lot more. 5e Warriors won't have a 12" assault range and they have shorter range on their weapons. Additionally they are vulnerable to ID. To compensate for all that they only +1 W at comparable cost. That's not an increase in resilience - that's letting the opponent use the shots that wouldn't have been double before to inflict more damage than ever.

Most MCs cost 25-40 points per wound. You can get that cost back by killing Warrior so it's not better to target MCs with other weapons. It's more likely that since Warriors are so vulnerable to small arms your opponent may not need to use the big guns against them.



And lastly, the increase in cost is significant but not a crippling handicap. Warriors are now able to fight both at a distance and in melee. If you add up the points, you find that the default build for a Warrior in the new codex is the same cost as a Warrior with the same build in the old codex. Now, you can't specialize to the same degree to save points (A dubious idea if you're giving them scything talons AND a gun), but instead get +1 wound. Hardly a sky-is-falling nerf.

I've never said anything about a "sky-is-falling" anything. If you're actually following my posts you'll see I pointed out how much *more* of a target priority Warriors will be with new melee options. Per point, properly equipped (for the opponent) Warriors are more dangerous than MCs and should be targeted as such.

Here's the unvarnished truth:
Warriors have much better melee options, much worse shooting options, are less customizable, are scoring, and are less durable. This is no judgment on how well they will perform (mostly that will be up to tactics) just a comparison to the 4e counterparts.



There are many ways to keep them alive and you keep assuming that they will never have cover and will always be the target of S8+ large template fire. How's that for engineering a situation?
It's no more likely making an assertion that the 24" ranged warriors will avoid cover to get within rapid fire to make those bolters look like the ideal weapon of choice.

Neffertech
07-01-2010, 00:42
First of all as a tyranid player, I'm okay with EW going away. I'd like to have seen the Hive Tyrant keep it, but oh well.

As for the reasoning behind Eternal Warrior, it's not always because the model is incredibly tough, they could just be lucky. That last minute dodge that saves their life. Or the random piece of debris that deflects just enough energy for the model to survive. Call it luck, call it fate.

Tyranids could use the same excuse and explanation. Billions of creatures on a planet, all synaptically linked, all sharing sense data. What one sees they all see. Coupled with their fast reflexes it means they can always avoid the worst of the massive effect weapons. The same way the survive exterminatus, by hunkering down.

There, a stupid fluff reason given.

But like I said, I won't miss EW. It's bonuses weren't worth the complaining I had to constantly hear game after game. Now I can smile and say "Oops instant death" and just remove the model.

Toe Cutter
07-01-2010, 01:22
Carnifex shouldn't have it, but they also shouldn't have doubled in points. Now a single little guy with a force weapon can take down our "tank".

Oh mate I really feel for you. Thats horrible. Hang on:


:rolleyes: I bet all the "real" tank players are laughing because they don't have to worry about a single model taking out their tank in CC... Oh, wait, power fists. Power Claws. Thunder Hammers. Melta Bombs. Krak Grenades. Hammerhand

I hate it when my attempts at sarcastic 'wit' get ninja'd

And just for the record, half of my 'real tanks' can be taken out with frag grenades as well, you don't even need to bother with all the fancy expensive stuff mentioned above.

Sorry that you got singled out twice Moozie mate, it just made me smirk rather a lot when I saw that and I couldn't resist.

This seems to be on the verge of getting back to a previous debate I saw on eternal warrior vs instant death.

Essentially this tends to devolve into guard players vs everyone else.

We have the great equaliser (ordnance) and we have it in cheap abundance. We also have characters that regularly get chinned by everyone elses basic troopers in close combat (in fact it doesn't take much in the way of weight of numbers of gretchin to kill some of our characters).

What this does is that it gives us a healthy respect for the true brutal killing power of heavy ordnance and a healthy disrespect for the chances of these so called eternal warriors to actually do what the games mechanics lets them do.

I'd quite happily remove eternal warrior from the game entirely but the space marine fan boys would be broken hearted about their special characters dying so readily (get over it, this is war after all) and the cost of my uberkilly ordnance tanks would sky rocket as a result. That would prove troublesome.

So we're stuck with an irritating dichotomy around a game mechanic that frankly doesn't make much sense.

Variable wound damage say I. Simple D3 or D3+1 for particularly virulent ordnance perhaps. Who knows. It'd be elegant but probably wont happen.

Neffertech
07-01-2010, 01:36
You know who should have gotten EW in the Tyranid Codex.

Old One Eye. He's tough, and old, and has one eye. And a claw.

He's like an 18 foot tall Yarrick.

Toe Cutter
07-01-2010, 01:45
Who also shouldn't have eternal warrior.

Vepr
07-01-2010, 01:46
I am kind of surprised the Swarm Lord and Old One Eye did not get some form of EW. I fully expected the change on warriors but I figured they would make them cheaper and keep them at 2 wounds. The third wound helps small arms survivability but actually seems to hurt when it comes to CC with the proliferation of power fists and klaws etc.

itcamefromthedeep
07-01-2010, 01:59
The Swarm Lord is cool with dying. The Hive Mind just makes it another body.

Kriegschmidt
07-01-2010, 02:01
[EDIT: Apologies for drunken poasting....]

Guy McCool
07-01-2010, 02:01
As a Tyranid player, I actually like it (except for the Tyrant, but given his toughness, Shadow in the Warp, and the relatively low number of units with force weapons, it's not the end of the world). The new high wound, average toughness Warriors do a few things for the Tyranids.

First, for horde or horde-leaning armies, it means the opponent had better bring some hard hitting, slow firing weapons, which, incidently, are terrible at killing small creatures, to increase the chances of destroying or at least cripling what look to be the very powerful, versatile unit that is the new Warrior (granted, high strength ordinance is still an issue, but I think Heavy Venom Cannons and various burrowing monstrosities should be able to deal with those).

It has a similar effect, as well as adding some additional overall survivability, to the mid-sized forces made of lots of Warriors and Genestealers, such as the one I think I'd like to try.

And for the monster-skewing forces (which can now be even more diverse and also look like an interesting option), they provide another target for those same big guns, giving your oponent some interesting choices to make (I believe this was also mentioned somewhere on page two of this thread).

So, in conclusion, its different, and I think it can be argued that it makes Warriors, as an individual unit and totally devoid of context, a weaker unit (also not factoring in the other changes and options). However, in the scope of the larger army, I think it make sense, it will provide some interesting options for lists, and is overall a positive thing, assuming you can learn to use the new Warriors as they are (or will be) rather than how they were.

Thrax
07-01-2010, 02:16
The only Tyranid unit that deserves EW is the rippers. I think all swarms should be immune to Instant Death. Why bother inflicting extra woulds with a frag missile (blast template) when the krak variant wipes out the unit? Really stupid, GW.

itcamefromthedeep
07-01-2010, 02:32
The only Tyranid unit that deserves EW is the rippers. I think all swarms should be immune to Instant Death. Why bother inflicting extra woulds with a frag missile (blast template) when the krak variant wipes out the unit? Really stupid, GW.
Damn straight. As much as people complain about bolters being better than meltaguns for killing Warriors, we have a situation where it's better to fire krak than frag at Rippers. Assault Cannons are four times as good at killing Rippers as heavy bolters are.

Rippers were among the worst units in the game before they took a big nerf bat to the face. These new Rippers make Raptors look like a bargain.

Vepr
07-01-2010, 02:49
The Swarm Lord is cool with dying. The Hive Mind just makes it another body.

I must be missing something on the Swarm Lord. He looks nasty but for his price he still looks he will get curb stomped by Ghaz with his super duper Waaaagghhh who costs a good deal less.

Laughingmonk
07-01-2010, 03:07
The instant death rule is just another kludge in rules design that has to be solved with other kludges. They should've just done it like fantasy: weapons cause variable damage, but monsters have more wounds.

This is why I believe it is so hard to price monstrous creatures. A hive tyrant have four wounds and toughness 6, maiking them very resilient vs. lascannons and krak missiles, moreso than a medium and light vehicles who will be slagged quickly. The problem is that this system generates oddities in that lasguns and bolters become overly good at killing monstrous creatures. You could give them more wounds, but then they become ridiculous. Invulnerable saves only help against stuff that ignores armor, so even if I made a hive tyrants save invulnerable and made it cost 400 points, it would just mean that everyone will use bolters and autocannons to kill hive tyrants and they would be completely useless due to the price.

As it is tyranids look to gain some critical vulnerabilities, whilst not addressing old ones. Warriors look to get slaughtered by ordnance, powerfists, and anti-tank weapons. The only thing warrors are good at taking is plasma, as they have multiple wounds. There is no target saturation there though, as plasma is so utterly lethal to monstrous creatures. You pretty much shoot anti-infantry stuff at gaunts and stealers, and plasma and missiles at monstrous creatures. Warriors however, are vulnerable to everything it seems now.

Then again, there is hope. It will be hilarous to have 9 warriors accompanied by an alpha all armed with deathspitters at BS 4 and WS 6, with poison and scytals. Then, have a tervigon put FnP on them and watch an unprepared opponent try to deal with them. Expensive, but flexible and able to put out damage at both assault and shooting.

catbarf
07-01-2010, 03:09
Most MCs cost 25-40 points per wound. You can get that cost back by killing Warrior so it's not better to target MCs with other weapons. It's more likely that since Warriors are so vulnerable to small arms your opponent may not need to use the big guns against them.

Okay, I really don't get this. Do the math. Seriously. Bare minimum, a Carnifex is 40pts per wound. A Tyrant is 45. Harpy, 40. Hell, even a Trygon, about the lowest points:wounds ratio, is 33. With a few typical upgrades, you're looking at closer to 45-55, 45-50, 50-60, and 35-40 respectively apiece. And the Monstrous Creatures, unlike Warriors, can not hide in cover or be screened by other units. If your opponent shoots at Warriors with heavy weapons, it'll be purely for tactical reasons. They're no more a tempting target than your larger creatures pointswise or vulnerability-wise, and if your opponent is willing to waste his firepower on Warriors in 4+ cover then let him.

naloth
07-01-2010, 05:05
Okay, I really don't get this. Do the math. Seriously. Bare minimum, a Carnifex is 40pts per wound. A Tyrant is 45. Harpy, 40. Hell, even a Trygon, about the lowest points:wounds ratio, is 33.

That's slightly different than what I heard: Tervigon 150ish base, up to 180ish with upgrades, 6 wounds. That's 25-30 points, 35 if it gets up to 210. The 'Fex and Tyrant start high but the Tyrant can take additional wounds in the form of Guard for 30 each. Perhaps the range is 25-50ish instead of 25-40 for MCs. Even so the Warriors I expect to see will be 40+ (boneswords or other options) which is the high end of the range.


And the Monstrous Creatures, unlike Warriors, can not hide in cover or be screened by other units.

True, but if you're getting them out there for assaults you're not hugging cover very well. I imagine you'll be using a 'gaunt shield but that can be blown away at the beginning of the shooting phase to make way for the big guns. It's a fair tactic but it's only somewhat reliable in the face of good firepower.



If your opponent shoots at Warriors with heavy weapons, it'll be purely for tactical reasons. They're no more a tempting target than your larger creatures pointswise or vulnerability-wise, and if your opponent is willing to waste his firepower on Warriors in 4+ cover then let him.Yes, I would agree it's for tactical reasons. Most MCs aren't scoring, do less damage to MEQ and GEQ in HtH (possibly shooting as well), and don't provide synapse. Additionally every Warrior killed decreases the unit's effectiveness unlike a MC which fights/fires the same if it's at 1 wound or 4.

Warriors were often overlooked in 4e because:
- Warrior were harder to kill with heavy weapons. In terms of kill points, 6 single shot heavy weapon hits were required for 1 unit (KP) where 5 could often kill a MC.
- Warriors weren't an impending CC threat. That flyrant on your flank, however, was.
- Warriors were often hugging cover and outside small arms fire babysitting gaunts to hold an objective.
- Warriors weren't scoring and it's often easier to kill the Troops instead.

In 5e:
- Warriors die really quickly to S8+ weapons.
- Warriors have great CC options. Re-rolls, poison, power weapons, etc.
- Warriors will be coming toward you either to get in shooting range or for the assault. They will be a lot more confrontational.
- Warriors are scoring so wiping out the gaunts won't release objective.

It's quite a role change and we'll have to see how it plays out.

MicroElite
07-01-2010, 07:06
What was lost.

Gave up "Eternal Warrior".
Gave up stat line improvements.
Gave up cheap Monstrous creatures.
Gave up "With out number"

What did we gain

We get more range weapons to deal with vehicles.
We get template weapons.
We get better invulnerable saves.
We get bigger Creatures.
We get more troop choices.
We get cheaper guants and gargoyles.
We get better Psychic powers.
We get Drop pods.
We get unique characters.
We get to field more Monstrous creatures.
We get "Feel no pain".
We get immunity to "no retreat wounds". (you wish)

I call that a more then a fair trade because a few bonus abilities and changes are thrown in I didn't expect.

Lash Whips and Bone swords do something useful now
Improved Instinctive behavior

There is one silver lining in losing EW for Tyranids. Games Workshop has thought ahead and made it so an entire army can have EW and it only requires using a book labeled "Chaos Daemons".

DarkstarSabre
07-01-2010, 07:15
Stuff that stands back up after being hit by a titan destroyer weapon that's killing a Leman Russ 50% of the time with no regards to armor being no worse for wear than if a boltgun wounded it was just a wee bit silly.

So....Space Wolves?

Seriously. I'm sorry, getting in a huff about EW on Tyranids where it could be argued that they were being held together by psychic duct tape and crawling around like mindless drones with heads missing and all....but being just fine with the Lone 'Oh angst, I'm on my own' Wolves is silly mate.

Vaktathi
07-01-2010, 07:19
If it's any consolation, I think Lone Wolves are a terrible unit from a game balance perspective. I don't think they should have EW (why does grief suddenly make a Space Wolf so powerful?) and their KP rule really just flaunts the flaws in, and whole point of, that horrific system.

DarkstarSabre
07-01-2010, 07:28
So, in summary, EW is really a cop out that should only be applied to a handful of things.

I personally don't mind Tyranids losing EW. Target saturation is easier now as you can deploy in so many ways and to be honest, the big thing that loss of EW would cripple (the Tyrant) gets the perfect solution for it in the default build.

Lashwhips and boneswords coupled with high initiative and improve combat capability.

ID is only a problem with Apocalypse and D class weapons. In truth ID should nod back to 2nd edition with a random number of wounds - D3 for double toughness attacks, D6 for special ID (force weapons, wraithcannon, D class weapons).

Shadowfax
07-01-2010, 07:34
That's slightly different than what I heard: Tervigon 150ish base, up to 180ish with upgrades, 6 wounds. That's 25-30 points, 35 if it gets up to 210. The 'Fex and Tyrant start high but the Tyrant can take additional wounds in the form of Guard for 30 each.

I'm not about to dig too deeply into your post, but there's one glaring error here... Tyrant Guard are over 60 points a pop!

Tervigon's base cost is 10 points above what you quoted, as well.

Vineas
07-01-2010, 07:43
Hmm....S8 Devs giving you problems? Where are your podding units? Where are your Lictors or Deathleaper, who while they can't assault on turn they come in have 2 S6 rending shots each. 3 of them will scare the crap out of a dev squad? Where are your podding pyrovores (yeah not the best unit on paper but 3 heavy flamers against a 5 man dev squad (or 6) will at least make them think twice about ignoring them past the initial burst)? Where are your trygon/mawlocs/flanking stealers or gaunts?

I mean, are the people whining about the warriors ONLY taking a single brood of 9 against an 1850 pts army? You did remember to take an army didn't you and not just expect 9 warriors to beat 1800+ points of your opponent?

Netfreakk
07-01-2010, 07:51
Huh? It's not only warriors, when I played it EW also helped out my raveners, lictors, and zoanthrops. Now each one of those will die instantly from a missile, las cannon, orbital bombardment, meltagun, railgun, bright lance, etc... I don't play a nidzilla list, so no EW is kinda scary. Plus now my leaping warriors can't go into assault as I will inevitably lose combat as a PK or PF will equalize or beat my combat resolution and I would lose more wounds due to no retreat rule.

big squig
07-01-2010, 08:18
I'm glad they dropped it. Now they just need to abolish it from the game entirely.

Scythe
07-01-2010, 08:49
I'm glad they dropped it. Now they just need to abolish it from the game entirely.

This. Eternal warrior shouldn't exist in the first place. Not on Tyranids, not on Daemons, not on 'muhahaha I am the big bad' Abbadon and certainly not on emo Space Wolves. If a human or warrior sized creature takes a demolisher shell right on, it dies, period.

Now, changing the instant death rules itself back to a multiple wounds rule is a different thing, which I will not go into here. Also, wether the Tyranid codex is internally and externally balanced with the removal of EW, stat changes and pricing changes, is also a different thing, which is hard to judge with my currently rather limited knowledge about the new codex.


Plus now my leaping warriors can't go into assault as I will inevitably lose combat as a PK or PF will equalize or beat my combat resolution and I would lose more wounds due to no retreat rule.

Get Boneswords and Toxin Sacs, and watch MEQs die in droves. You won't lose combat, trust me ;).

Archibald_TK
07-01-2010, 09:13
I feel people are underestimating the effect Alpha Warriors will have.

Alpha Warriors are more than a cheap HQ choice. When inside a pack of Warriors in addition to increasing their stats they also provide a most needed model with T5, meaning that you can redirect to them that lone missile or lascanon wound that was supposed to kill one of your Warriors. Plus regeneration is kind of cheap for them, and it may be one of the units that will benefits from it the most (one regenerated wound = one additional ID wound soaked).

But hey we will see how it will play in a few weeks.

totgeboren
07-01-2010, 11:10
Also remember that all your synapse creatures give a bubble of resistance vs force weapons. Shadow in the Warp makes it much harder to cast the force weapon effect.

So, we generally have different SM/CSM psychics, and the humble IG psychers that pose a threat with their spiffy swords.

IG psychers have Ld 9, meaning they have to roll 9 or less on 3D6 to pull it of, and they hit Hive Tyrants on a 5+, then wound on a 6+. They also swing after the Hive, and are hit on a 3+, then instant-killed on a 2+.
Hardly a threat.

The Librarian swings after the Hive, meaning the Hive can quite easily take him down before he even gets to swing (as seen in the WD battlereport). Should he survive, he still needs to hit and wound on 6+, and after that manage to cast the force weapon-thingy.
With some luck, he can take down a Carnifex, at least if it is out of synapse.
But I think what makes the Lib useful vs Nids is his trusty psychic hood. That will mess with the nids way more than trying to take down a TMC with his sword.

Chaos Sorcerers at least get to swing vs a Hive Tyrant, and they got one more attack than the Lib. Still they don't stand much better chance at downing it. The Sorc also lacks a Psychic Hood, meaning them are less useful.
As always, if you want an effective model, give him Lash and make the nid attack become disjointed. With the +1 I that MoS gives you, it might even be worth a suicide attack vs a Hive, but I think just Lashing will affect the battle much more than a suicide attack vs a TMC.

The shining star of instant-killyness, the Grey Knight Grand Master is as always a huge threat to anything they face. They stand a reasonable chance of killing a Hive Tyrant, even if they get killed themselves.
A Carnifex outside of synapse is breakfast for the Grand Master.
He can also be given a Psychic Hood, a 4+ Inv save, and holocaust, meaning we have one bad mutha that wipes the floor with whatever the nids throw at him.

Angelwing
07-01-2010, 11:40
My first game without EW I'll be grinding my teeth. Then, afterwards I'll just change and adapt as I have with the last 4 army list changes. ;)

alphastealer
07-01-2010, 13:11
I am also not to phased about losing EW. It is a bad mechanic that is too widely seen already. It has reduced the effectiveness of force weapons for no proper reason.

Tyranids will still be hard as nails. They will just need to be used correctly with the right units complementing each other for more effectiveness.

I like the idea of an alpha warrior in a large warrior brood with regen and a FNP bonus nearby from a tyrant. That will fix many wagons out there.

Also do not underestimate the massed gaunt rush. If you take a trygon/mawloc, they can deep strike out a tunnel. If you take a tyrant you can even outflank with them.

Add in a few lictors and ymgrl stealers and there will not be any safe terrain on the table.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-01-2010, 14:29
Warriors are a liability without EW. T4 Ogryns suffered from the same problem, and nobody took them when they costed 25 points.


This is all equivocating. The bottom line is this: A Space Marine with a bolter was superior to a Space Marine with a meltagun against vanilla Warriors. He has more range and is more likely to kill the target. And there is something very, very wrong with the rules if the only reason to use a lascannon instead of a bolter against a T4 multi-wound creature is that the lascannon has more range.


And all that is mostly italicizing. A Space Marine never had more range AND a higher chance to kill. He had the same chance at the same range, or he had more range but no chance to kill, as he could only ever cause one wound.

A lascannon is better because of its range, that's how it's been since 2nd edition, as a meltagun was always better for sheer penetrating power.

All of that pales in comparison to what I said initially and fades into meaningless white noise: Warriors won't be taken as soon as efficiency enters the equation.



The new Warriors are very difficult to kill with infantry fire and only heavy weapons pose a significant threat.

Then shoot them with HW. There's a good chance that you kill them in time to target something else, especially when you have a tarpit at hand. The other way around I foresee leading to disaster, as you won't kill several HT's and Fexes and Mawlocs soon enough to avoid or neutralize the Warriors.

naloth
07-01-2010, 14:29
I'm not about to dig too deeply into your post, but there's one glaring error here... Tyrant Guard are over 60 points a pop!


Perhaps, but not in the way you believe. I was doing cost per wound. At 60 per model and 2 wounds, you're paying 30/wound.

totgeboren
07-01-2010, 14:41
And all that is mostly italicizing. A Space Marine never had more range AND a higher chance to kill. He had the same chance at the same range, or he had more range but no chance to kill, as he could only ever cause one wound.

I just can't help myself. Within 12" he did not have the same range and the same chance.
He had a 55% chance to cause one wound with one of the guns, and 55% chance to cause one wound Plus an 11% chance to cause 2 wounds with the other gun.

The "other gun" is clearly better, as it can also be used at 24", but with a reduced chance to cause a wound (33%).

This doesn't matter anymore with the new rules, but what I wanted to point out was that the old rules lead to some very very strange results, at least for your opponents.

naloth
07-01-2010, 15:18
I just can't help myself. Within 12" he did not have the same range and the same chance.
He had a 55% chance to cause one wound with one of the guns, and 55% chance to cause one wound Plus an 11% chance to cause 2 wounds with the other gun.

More naked warriors standing in the open at optimal firing range where the Marines never even have to move. If you're going to make presumptions like that flamers are a much better weapon since you can line all the warriors up on a line, cover doesn't matter, you're not letting them buy a save, and you can assault afterwards.



The "other gun" is clearly better, as it can also be used at 24", but with a reduced chance to cause a wound (33%).

Being rapid fire there's a 6" range max range difference. At over 12 up to 18" a meltagun is clearly better. Within 12" you're probably better off firing the pistol and then assaulting. At over 24" any weapon with range is better than a bolter. Seldom is the bolter the best tool for the job.



This doesn't matter anymore with the new rules, but what I wanted to point out was that the old rules lead to some very very strange results, at least for your opponents.
Yes, it's very strange to find Warriors with a 5+ save in rapid fire range. It's so weird that it's *never* happened to me and I've been playing since Rapid Fire was introduced.

I don't understand why this is even a argument since it's a) rare and b) hardly unique to 'nids.

itcamefromthedeep
07-01-2010, 15:34
[COLOR="SeaGreen"]
What did we gain

We get more range weapons to deal with vehicles.
As far as anti-tank guns, Tyranids lost Warp Blast on the Hive Tyrant (well *I* used it sometimes), Carnifex barbed stranglers, Carnifex deathspitters and bio-acid mines. We picked up Hive Guard. I suppose you could include the new Landing Spore S6 AP- tentacle thingies, but they kinda suck for the job.

I suppose you could include the S5 weapons against Armor 10, but heavy bolters don't quite count as anti-tank in my mind.

Am I missing anything?

Overall I think the anti-tank capability of the army was increased, but the variety decreased markedly. The variety of anti-tank weapons was curtailed.

As far as I'm concerned the Venom Cannon is actually worse. It's actually harder to hurt battle tanks with the new version.

Bassline
07-01-2010, 15:42
we also got the S10 AP1 Lance itcamfromthedeep, best land raider poper in the game esp with a drop pod with the zoans

totgeboren
07-01-2010, 15:46
Being rapid fire there's a 6" range max range difference. At over 12 up to 18" a meltagun is clearly better. Within 12" you're probably better off firing the pistol and then assaulting. At over 24" any weapon with range is better than a bolter. Seldom is the bolter the best tool for the job.

I do hope you are aware of the fact that you can move and rapid fire? So you can move 6" and shoot two shots with a rapid fire weapon, meaning their effective range is 18", the same as the meltagun. The meltagun does not have a better range.

And how can you be better of shooting the pistol if you are within 12"? Marines can't assault 12", only 6" so its better for them to shoot two shots with their bolters if the enemy is 12" away in the shooting phase.

Ofc, if the warriors are within 12" at the beginning of the turn, you can elect to either shoot or assault. Depending on how many genestealers/carnifexes are hiding behind the Warriors, advancing might not be the most prudent thing to do.

I agree that many warriors I face had a 4+ save. Not all mind you. Fire support warriors often had a 5+ save, relying on cover instead. And marines can drive 12" in their rhinos, jump out 2" and rapid fire 12". 26" range.

A Nid player that places his shooty Warriors within 26" of a rhino can hardly be accused of being a bad player.

If those warriors are in cover, the damage from the marines in halved. If they have a 4+ save, the bolter is still better.

If the warriors are in the open, with a 4+ save, then the melta is better. Otherwise the bolter is better. In my mind you are essentially saying that warriors in any situation other than in the open, with a 4+ save is a forced situation, that we would seldom come across on the battlefield?

I have face nids many times, and I just don't think its all that far fetched face warriors in other kinds of situations.

itcamefromthedeep
07-01-2010, 16:01
we also got the S10 AP1 Lance itcamfromthedeep, best land raider poper in the game esp with a drop pod with the zoans
Zoanthropes could fight tanks before, so that one doesn't quite count. He was talking about more guns that can fight tanks at range. That gun was already there.

The increase to Zoanthrope tank-busty-ness is one of the reasons I don't think that Tyranid anti-tank has taken a hit. The quantity was reduced, but quality increased (on average that is, because the venom cannon is no good at supressing tanks any more).

The one I did straight-up forget is the capsule cannon on the Tyrannofex, which is near what the venom cannon should be.

Still, that leaves Tyranids 4 down and 2 up as far as I can tell.

---

Ooops, I forgot rending on the flesh hooks for the the Lictors. If I included the S7 twin deathspitters, I guess I have to include these as well.

My score-card has 4 down, 3 up. Total better for killing tanks at range. Am I missing any more?

naloth
07-01-2010, 17:15
If the warriors are in the open, with a 4+ save, then the melta is better. Otherwise the bolter is better. In my mind you are essentially saying that warriors in any situation other than in the open, with a 4+ save is a forced situation, that we would seldom come across on the battlefield?

I'm saying it's like 5e new Warriors being pasted with a S8+ ordinance weapon. It may happen but good players will avoid it if they can. I did so by taking the 4+ armor or keeping them behind nasties (fex or HT) where the SM didn't ever want to try to rush for bolter shots.

Warriors weren't really a high priority target. They were not scoring or there were just easier KPs (mission depending). It's just not worth throwing a SM w/Rhino squad away for the chance to kill a 3 man unit of 4e warriors worth half the cost. It's not likely to work either: using your preferred bolters 10 men rapid firing for 20 shots, 2/3 hit, 1/2 wound, 1/2 save kills just under 2 Warriors and the Warriors can't break.

That's changed with 5e. Warriors are more vulnerable (loss EW, shorter effective range), scoring, and have intimidating CC options. Bolter fire probably still isn't the best way to kill them but 5e Warriors will be something you'll *need* to kill either because it's dangerous or because it's scoring.

JonnyX
07-01-2010, 18:39
I agree with the loss of inta-death as fluffwise something thats desined to take down a tank should easily rip appart a tyranid warrior but with all the cover saves availible now you will nearly always shrug off half the hits at you from high AP weapons

naloth
07-01-2010, 18:43
I agree with the loss of inta-death as fluffwise something thats desined to take down a tank should easily rip appart a tyranid warrior

While I'm not opposed to the loss of EW, let's put things in perspective. Ogryns and Ork Warbosses are close in Warriors to size but don't suffer insta-death from those things. If a melta gun that can toast a Land Raider should insta-kill a Warrior (the pinnacle of mid-size creature evolution) why shouldn't Ogryn or Warbosses suffer the same fate?

EDIT: The question here is if you object to EW as a mechanic or the idea that 'Nid Warriors are resilient. I would have rather had T5 with 2-3 wounds putting them somewhere between the T4 marine/ork and the T6 MC especially since the cost will be around a Terminator (which themselves are both tough and good in CC). It gives them resilience but not immunity to ID (force weapons, S10, special weapons where S isn't important).

Scythe
08-01-2010, 07:27
Zoanthropes could fight tanks before, so that one doesn't quite count. He was talking about more guns that can fight tanks at range. That gun was already there.

The increase to Zoanthrope tank-busty-ness is one of the reasons I don't think that Tyranid anti-tank has taken a hit. The quantity was reduced, but quality increased (on average that is, because the venom cannon is no good at supressing tanks any more).

The one I did straight-up forget is the capsule cannon on the Tyrannofex, which is near what the venom cannon should be.

Still, that leaves Tyranids 4 down and 2 up as far as I can tell.

---

Ooops, I forgot rending on the flesh hooks for the the Lictors. If I included the S7 twin deathspitters, I guess I have to include these as well.

My score-card has 4 down, 3 up. Total better for killing tanks at range. Am I missing any more?

Hmm, plasma cannons on carnifexes? They should do roughly the same as twin deathspitters did before, altough the platform they come on got more expensive. Also, didn't the synapse variant of the Tyrgon get a ranged weapon with a very high number of shots and ok strenght?

Anyway, the close combat options to deal with vehicles also increased, if only because there are a lot of extra monstrous creatures available.

Vineas
08-01-2010, 07:35
Prime/Alpha costs 1 Terminator more than the normal Trygon, has slightly more range to it's bio-shock and it's shots are doubled. It's S6 but no AP so even orks get a save and at BS3 it's not something I'd rely on to kill alot of stuff except maybe orks and non-carapaced IG.

I'm going to take a Prime for the extra SitW (better than the current one IMO even if shorter ranged) and the Synapse.

Memnos
08-01-2010, 08:03
Yes, it's very strange to find Warriors with a 5+ save in rapid fire range. It's so weird that it's *never* happened to me and I've been playing since Rapid Fire was introduced.

I don't understand why this is even a argument since it's a) rare and b) hardly unique to 'nids.

Whoah... Just so I understand, in the new edition with the proliferation of transports, you've:

a) Never had someone move up in a transport 12 inches, deploy 2 inches and rapid fire 12 inches? Just so you know, that's a 26 inch killzone the 'nids have to get by and I'm uncertain any 'nid unit can move 26 inches in a single turn.

b) Never killed a unit in close combat that was relatively close to another unit and had that other unit rapid fire you?

That's... Strange. I have to admit, my gaming group must be different from yours. In mine, we have a lot of transports and people will always stagger units so close combat units will end up in rapid fire range.

naloth
08-01-2010, 13:32
Whoah... Just so I understand, in the new edition with the proliferation of transports, you've:
<snip>

My 4e Warriors were fire support/synapse babysitters which usually puts a 'fex or two plus some gaunts between them and any Marines wanting to pull that trick. Add in that it's not going to kill the unit of Warriors but it will effectively sacrifice the Marines and it's really a bad tactic. I explained in detail why I believe that warriors will go from a 2nd class target to a priority above. In any case, I take the 4+ save in all-comers/anti-SM armies in case I want to use my Warriors late in the game for objectives (4e warriors aren't scoring, so the taking is taking away or babysitting gaunts). So no, I've never been rapid fired on where I didn't have the 4+ save.

Personally I can't see where someone would use 4e Warriors without a 4+ save in such a way where it would get them out in front of SM to be rapid fired to death other than as a tactical blunder. It's like parking your SM unit where a few Leman Russ tanks can drop AP3 templates on them.

EDIT: fixed objective wording before someone assumes I'm using them as scoring.

EDIT2: My gripe here is that most comparisons between 4e warriors and 5e warriors are against 4e warriors that seldom grace the table <or> are used in foolish ways. Why shaft last edition models to make 5e look good? I'm all for fair comparisons where everything is used in reasonable ways. If you want to compare common 4e builds (say S5, 4+, Talons, Deathspitter, 30 pts each like 5e warriors) to 5e builds, that's fine; however, comparing naked 4e warriors takes away their strongest advantage: bio-morphs. Of course when you do that 4e warriors are going to look bad.

itcamefromthedeep
08-01-2010, 14:49
Hmm, plasma cannons on carnifexes? They should do roughly the same as twin deathspitters did before, altough the platform they come on got more expensive. Also, didn't the synapse variant of the Tyrgon get a ranged weapon with a very high number of shots and ok strength?

Bio-plasma on Carnifexes does indeed fit the bill. The bio-electric field, however, doesn't quite count because it's at heavy bolter Strength, and I'm not going to call a heavy bolter an anti-tank weapon.

That's 4 down and 4 up for anti-tank guns.

The Bio-electric field on the Trygon can go for rear armor when the model pops up, and so can the tentacles or twin deathspitter on a Landing Spore, but those count as anti-tank guns less than a plasma gun in a drop pod, and we don't call that anti-tank in any other codex. The double-standard has its limits.

sayles78
08-01-2010, 15:07
Just to clarify this common misunderstanding....

Nids never had eternal warrior!

They had protection from double strength weapons ... the end. They never had immunity from force weapon instant death.



It was upgraded in a FAQ to full eternal warrior status. Apparantly, it was just worded poorly in the codex, so was addressed quite quickly in a FAQ pdf.

Warboss Doink
08-01-2010, 15:11
It was upgraded in a FAQ to full eternal warrior status. Apparantly, it was just worded poorly in the codex, so was addressed quite quickly in a FAQ pdf.

My bad.... outdated info.

Dead Man Walking
08-01-2010, 15:59
I think you will find that most tyranid players don't espeacially need eternal warriors to be happy. It would of been nice sure but what they really wanted was toughness 5 warriors with 2 wounds, not toughness 4 with 3 wounds.

You will also find that people who dont play tyranids would prefer no eternal warrior and for warriors to be toughness 2 with 1 wound. :rolleyes: Your going to see bias against any army that a player doesn't field.

I think a happy medium would of been tougness 5 with 2 wounds, I'd rather bother fire that than something with 3 wounds.

Shadowfax
08-01-2010, 18:34
It was upgraded in a FAQ to full eternal warrior status. Apparantly, it was just worded poorly in the codex, so was addressed quite quickly in a FAQ pdf.
I wouldn't call it "quite quickly".

To my recollection, the actual codex had been out for at least a year, probably much longer, before the FAQ was released.

In the first version of the FAQ, GW ruled in favour of a strict reading of the Synapse rule, meaning that only weapons *exactly* double a creatures toughness could be ignored.

In the weeks that followed the release of the FAQ there was a huge uproar across the internet and throughout GW's and FLGS', involving people who thought the ruling was stupid and wrong (both Tyranid players and others).

Eventually, in the only act of its kind, GW listened to fan input and changed the FAQ.

I think it's important to remember all of this accurately, because it was a pretty monumental event, and the only time I know of when GW actually admitted a mistake and promptly corrected it.

IJW
08-01-2010, 18:37
There were actually three different versions of the FAQ within a couple of weeks, if I remember correctly.

Synapse only helps against S is exactly 2xT.
Synapse protects against S equal or higher than 2xT.
Synapse protects against ID.

clutien
08-01-2010, 21:47
so in all this talk about EW, the OLD marines books DA/BA/BT/SW (before the new one) i know SW and BA did not have EW i do not believe that DA/BT do either. i do not have the DA/BT codicies so am unable to verify my belief so take it at face value.

I know for a fact that BA posses no EW yet Dante has lived for 1100 + years candiadte for EW anyone? and Mephy had a hive on armegeddon fall on his head. and he lived thru it. another EW candidate? this is not to say that the BA's should have EW on them but merely to illustrate the fact that there is a "hero" of the chapter who by all rights deserves the buff and does not have it.

at the point you have 3-4 warriors in a squad you have by virtue of wounds not weapons a squad of marines. WS one higher BS one lower. triple the wounds of one marine. could i not make the arguement that the lowly space marine should not be at*least* as capable of carrying on down the battlefeild as a warrior brood? sure you have less shots. so lets compare it to a squad of assault marines (BA troop type) appx 250 (its a little more but am trying to follow forum rules) points for single PW and 10 marines (10 wounds) giving 21 attacks on the charge or 11 in prolonged combat (only 3 and 2 possible ignored saves in either situation assuming a FULL squad.)


looking at the warriors. we'll do a brood of 4 (12 wounds). On the charge 16 attacks, in a prolonged combat 12, at a higher WS all of which ignoring armour saves (assuming the boneswords option was taken.) making a squad almost 100 points less expensive and having more wounds and having a higher potential casualty infliction due to boneswords

yes i know i am going to get the "but marines get a 3+ AS and the warriors dont" in my mind warriors are fairly MEQ as to the role they provide on a battlefeild not stats wise. scoring troops that can suck up alot of firepower (much like marines) but also can fall to higher str weapons - just like *every* troop choice in the game. i think the balance has come back towards the middle but has maybe come too far off the "cetner" line and is maybe hanging out on the non-xenos favor side of the comparison.

just my $0.02

naloth
08-01-2010, 22:12
yes i know i am going to get the "but marines get a 3+ AS and the warriors dont" in my mind warriors are fairly MEQ as to the role they provide on a battlefeild not stats wise. scoring troops that can suck up alot of firepower (much like marines) but also can fall to higher str weapons - just like *every* troop choice in the game. i think the balance has come back towards the middle but has maybe come too far off the "cetner" line and is maybe hanging out on the non-xenos favor side of the comparison.


Er, Warriors have never served the same role as MEQ. Warriors are decent anti-troop, but you can't take anything similar to a special, heavy, or transport so they lack the flexibility to root things out of buildings and cover (flamer) and knock down tough targets (lascannon, meltagun).

A lot of the "all 'nid lists look the same" is just because any of the supposed multi-use creatures really only have 1 role so we have to take that type of creature to fill that role.

As for falling to high S weapons. Marines don't have multiple wounds so it really doesn't matter if it's S4 or S8. It's not like a meltagun or powerfist can kill 3 marines in one shot.

I agree that Warriors can be lethal especially in CC but 5 warriors w/boneswords aren't +50% more resilient than 10 marines. At best they get a perk against AP5+ anti-infantry guns where they have more wounds and marines have a better save. Against S8+ there's no comparison though. Each warriors down is 3 wounds to every marine loss.

Amnar
09-01-2010, 00:49
How many S8+ weapons do you usually face in a given game?

I mean hell, in my 1,250 chaos list, including powerfists I have 8 (two are combi-meltas and only one shot)....

Silentbob10
09-01-2010, 00:55
it just seems that guard player are gonna laugh all the way to the heavy support section as they dnt need to take anything more than basic russes to take down the small er untis although i feel the fact that nids can deepstrike pretty much everthing now balances it out a bit due to generally faster ability for tyranids to get in clos to the tanks

MasterDecoy
09-01-2010, 00:55
played a 3k game yesterday using the new dex against gaurd, 2 missle launchers, 6 lascannon HW teams, 3 Lascannon armoured sentinals, and 2 battlecannons and 2 melta Spec weapon teams, and marbo.

but for the better part of the game, all those weapons where trained on zoans, tyrants mawlocs and carnifex's to care about warriors.

Amnar
09-01-2010, 00:58
That's not too bad for 3k is it?

MasterDecoy
09-01-2010, 01:01
its about right, marbo was the only one who ID 3 warriors and a ravenar. it hurt, but it was ok, id already lost the game by that stage (i had forgot about my big unit of 20 genestealers for 2 turns lol).

To be honost, I was hit harder by a massive loss of synapes mobility, I used to be able to saturate the field with synapes, now I was limited to a few small portions of the table.

Shadowfax
09-01-2010, 02:11
To be honost, I was hit harder by a massive loss of synapes mobility, I used to be able to saturate the field with synapes, now I was limited to a few small portions of the table.
But you gotta admit, the negative outcomes of losing Synapse coverage will be faaaaar less troublesome now than they used to be.

itcamefromthedeep
09-01-2010, 03:10
But you gotta admit, the negative outcomes of losing Synapse coverage will be faaaaar less troublesome now than they used to be.
Biovores really want Synapse, which makes it important the they can walk forward to stay in range. Biovores really want to shoot at an appropriate target, not the closest one. The same goes for Hive Guard. Needing synapse for even that detail, and only sometimes, is much worse than not needing it all for the Carnifexes that filled those roles previously.

Lacking synapse still gets your Gaunts broken, and this time it looks like they fall back toward your table edge, which is often away from help rather than toward it.

---

Just played a game with the new codex rules myself. There were six meltaguns, a battle cannon, a Vendetta, and an Eviscerator used with the blessing that give +2 Strength (bringing it to 8).

The meltaguns were shot at Zoanthropes, the Vendetta dueled with Hive Guard (and won, because I couldn't so much as glance it), the battle cannon missed, and so did the Eviscerator. The battle cannon really didn't have a better target for most of the game, with the possible exception of the Biovores (which were murderous). My Warriors went all game without suffering Instant Death. I lost three Zoanthrope Wounds to ID, but that was it for the game.

Lord Inquisitor
09-01-2010, 03:11
By that logic, the Instant Death mechanic should be removed entirely; as who's to say that Guard Captain hit by a Plasma Cannon didn't 'only' suffer first degree burns?

Bingo. Personally, this is what I think should happen. ID has caused nothing but problems since its inception. Since it's arbitrary, and affects only to a certain threshold, it hurts certain units more than others, and its hard to balance multiwound models because they're disproportionally vulnerable to these weapons yet don't have the toughness or invulnerability to small arms that vehicles have. Hence we've seen virtually every multi-wound unit (apart from swarms, oddly enough) gain some kind of immunity - tyranids had synapse, daemons got Eternal Warrior, Ogryns got a simple toughness increase, many characters and special characters... This has been brushed off as "not a lot of units" but this has been a respectable proportion of multi-wound units.

Now it's gone from synapse, suddenly we have the major group of multi-wound units that are now not immune again. I wonder if we're back to the age-old problem of Warriors being "naff" because they're vicimised by S8+ weaponry or whether their other attributes (such as the again arbitrary advantage of being a scoring unit) counterbalance this. Still, I don't see what good the damn Instant Death rule actually does in the grand scheme of things. It'd be better if it were gone - and perhaps the lack of EW in the tyranid codex is a sign of things to come?

Shadowfax
09-01-2010, 07:26
Biovores really want Synapse, which makes it important the they can walk forward to stay in range. Biovores really want to shoot at an appropriate target, not the closest one. The same goes for Hive Guard. Needing synapse for even that detail, and only sometimes, is much worse than not needing it all for the Carnifexes that filled those roles previously.

Lacking synapse still gets your Gaunts broken, and this time it looks like they fall back toward your table edge, which is often away from help rather than toward it.

You make good points, as always.

I think it's an issue of selective Synapse coverage now. Trying to have it where you need it, instead of forming a thorough web across your whole army. Stuff like Hormagaunts can be roughly "point-and-shoot" if you need them to be, which will relieve the problem.

The Biovore situation will be a pain in the butt, though. I hadn't thought of that. Usually I leave those guys in the dust, back in the deployment zone, while everybody else stomps forward... looks like they'll need babysitters now.

azimaith
09-01-2010, 07:46
I don't know if the new codex requires an LD test for IB or not.
I guess you could plant a dirt cheap warrior squad with guns or some such near them. Of course if they're assault weapons they could march with the army.

Vineas
09-01-2010, 08:00
Yep, same as current just the affects change. I think horms and terms got a one pt increase to LD...still fail it most of the time but at least now they'll either keep moving forward or shoot; not run away anymore.

blackroyal
09-01-2010, 08:21
I wonder if we're back to the age-old problem of Warriors being "naff" because they're vicimised by S8+ weaponry or whether their other attributes (such as the again arbitrary advantage of being a scoring unit) counterbalance this.

I have to think that because you no longer have to pay lots of points extra to get usable warriors, they will not be considered garbage with the ID rules. (New warrior price for a brood of 6 with deathspitters/VC is 6 points more, but you gain +1 W, +WS, and +BS over current codex)

MasterDecoy
09-01-2010, 14:15
I dont know, I was considering taking a harpy for my 3rd FA slot, but I may have to convert all my warriors into shrikes instead so I can take a 2nd squad of hormies.

naloth
09-01-2010, 14:28
I have to think that because you no longer have to pay lots of points extra to get usable warriors, they will not be considered garbage with the ID rules. (New warrior price for a brood of 6 with deathspitters/VC is 6 points more, but you gain +1 W, +WS, and +BS over current codex)

If you compare the to 3e Warriors, 5e has -1 S, -1 I, +1 W, +1 Sv, and the Devourer they come with has one less shot. 3e Deathspitter warriors with a 4+ Sv get a S6 w/Blast template compared to the 5e Warriors w/a Deathspitter (not blast). 3e counterparts equipped this way are 2 points more expensive.

5e Warriors look to be closer to 3e Warriors than 4e Warriors in terms of army role though 5e Warriors have better CC options.

EDIT: Fixed a few things... Been a while since I statted up 3e warriors.

Abaddonshand
09-01-2010, 17:07
Yep, same as current just the affects change. I think horms and terms got a one pt increase to LD...still fail it most of the time but at least now they'll either keep moving forward or shoot; not run away anymore.

I'm really looking forward to letting hormagaunts off the leash, so to speak. If people want their leaping hormagaunts back again rather than the scythgaunts we have now, simply keep them out of synapse for a turn or 2;

6" rage
6" move
3D6 pick the highest fleet
6" charge

Also, if they win/ draw combat, it's all good, if they lose the combat, they break, and the I5 gives them a good chance of getting away, at which point they'll be back into the range of the warrior brood following them, meaning they will auto-rally. This way we avoid No Retreat wounds. Of course, there is a risk of being caught, but it seems worth it considering how cheap hormagaunts are now.

And the Smurfs think Combat Tactics together with ATSKNF is good - here is our version.

catbarf
09-01-2010, 18:43
6" rage
6" move
3D6 pick the highest fleet
6" charge


What? I thought Rage just forces you to move towards the nearest enemy. Why the extra 6"?

Netfreakk
09-01-2010, 18:54
yea, rage just makes you move towards the nearest enemy not give you extra movement.

Abaddonshand
10-01-2010, 12:47
yea, rage just makes you move towards the nearest enemy not give you extra movement.

Then that SOB 13th Company player I had a game against before the new SW codex is a cheat!

itcamefromthedeep
10-01-2010, 13:10
Then that SOB 13th Company player I had a game against before the new SW codex is a cheat!
Whoa boy, that's quite a mistake. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Inform him of the proper application of the rule. If he persists, then he's a cheat.

Then again, you know the context better than I. Perhaps he's a habitual cheat.

MasterDecoy
10-01-2010, 14:13
Then that SOB 13th Company player I had a game against before the new SW codex is a cheat!

and if you had bothered to check the rules when something didnt seem right, it wouldnt have happened.

Grand Master Raziel
10-01-2010, 14:17
Now it's gone from synapse, suddenly we have the major group of multi-wound units that are now not immune again. I wonder if we're back to the age-old problem of Warriors being "naff" because they're vicimised by S8+ weaponry or whether their other attributes (such as the again arbitrary advantage of being a scoring unit) counterbalance this. Still, I don't see what good the damn Instant Death rule actually does in the grand scheme of things. It'd be better if it were gone - and perhaps the lack of EW in the tyranid codex is a sign of things to come?

A few points:

1: It occurs to me that Instant Death was meant to be a safeguard against 40K devolving into Herohammer, which as I understand it was a problem in 2nd edition. It's kind of hard to rely on a single jacked up hero rampaging through an entire army when he can be stopped by a single powerfist blow to the face. EW might be cropping up on a lot of special characters, but elective EW is almost entirely gone, leaving it only on GW-designed SCs, most of which are not optimalized for one thing, or are frightfully expensive, or both.

2: The metagame is considerably different than it was in 3rd and 4th editions. The amount of S8+ firepower that's going to be coming down the field is considerably less than it was in those editions, unless you're playing against IG. So, Nid players may take some Warrior casualties as they march them down the field, but not nearly as many as in previous editions. Heck, even power fists swing less attacks these days.

3: Any S8+ firepower that gets turned on Warriors is S8+ firepower that isn't getting turned on Hive Tyrants/Carnifexes/Trygons/stupid Malwocs/etc. Opponents facing Nids are going to have a lot of targets they want to lay that kind of firepower on. That'll help pull that kind of firepower away from Warriors.

4: With 3 wounds each, Warriors with EW would be completely unreasonable. Warriors picked up a major boost in resilience against smallarms fire, which had to be balanced out in some way.


Then that SOB 13th Company player I had a game against before the new SW codex is a cheat!

I can't find my copy of Codex: Eye of Terror right this second, but it occurs to me that the Space Wolves 13th Company may have a rule called Rage that does something different than it does in the new Codex: Tyranids. Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Before you go flying off the handle at that guy, ask to see the rule. Could save you having egg on your face.

Abaddonshand
10-01-2010, 14:48
and if you had bothered to check the rules when something didnt seem right, it wouldnt have happened.

I've never played an army that benefits from this special rule, and I happen to trust folk in friendly games who tell me what their army can do, unless it sounds way far out.

Abaddonshand
10-01-2010, 14:51
I can't find my copy of Codex: Eye of Terror right this second, but it occurs to me that the Space Wolves 13th Company may have a rule called Rage that does something different than it does in the new Codex: Tyranids. Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Before you go flying off the handle at that guy, ask to see the rule. Could save you having egg on your face.

I wouldn't bring it up now the game's over anyway, just if we were playing again (altho with new SW rules, I doubt it would be an issue). In case, I won the game IIRC, his HQ wasn't as durable as he thought after charging a Deathwing Squad on his lonesome lol!

itcamefromthedeep
10-01-2010, 14:54
1: It occurs to me that Instant Death was meant to be a safeguard against 40K devolving into Herohammer,
This is quite likely so.


2: The metagame is considerably different than it was in 3rd and 4th editions. The amount of S8+ firepower that's going to be coming down the field is considerably less than it was in those editions, unless you're playing against IG.
I'm not sure that this is true. Vehicles aren't the deathtraps they were in 3rd or 4th. Meltaguns are common now, where plasma ruled back in the day.


3: Any S8+ firepower that gets turned on Warriors is S8+ firepower that isn't getting turned on Hive Tyrants/Carnifexes/Trygons/stupid Malwocs/etc.
This doesn't quite work. For instance, the hard targets I brought to my last game were 6 Zoanthropes, 3 Hive Guard, a Hive Tyrant with Extended Carapace and 3 Tyrant Guard, 3 Biovores and 5 Warriors. Of those, the best target for the battle cannon that my opponent brought was the Warriors. Similarly, they were also the right target for krak missiles (though none showed up for this game).


4: With 3 wounds each, Warriors with EW would be completely unreasonable. Warriors picked up a major boost in resilience against small arms fire, which had to be balanced out in some way.That's not necessarily true. I think that playtesting would be required to see how reasonable that is. It's definitely more reasonable than FateCrusher lists, Pedro Kantor's inspiration and Lash of Submission. 3W with Eternal Warrior does sound strong. However, what would be better than either situation is 2W T5.;)

catbarf
10-01-2010, 15:37
I can understand the herohammer concern. The thing is, 3rd Ed was a lot more conducive to Herohammer than 2nd Ed., thanks to the new melee rules. A character could and still can chomp his way through an entire squad, whereas in 2nd Ed he could only hurt enemies close to him. So it would make sense if the designers added ID to discourage players from creating a 400-point character with which to slaughter through an entire army.

Treadhead_1st
10-01-2010, 15:58
They probably removed the EW buff for a simple balance reason:

T4, 3W, FNP, Immune to Instant Death (with the right upgrades). Combine the HQ Warrior that jacks the stats up and you have a very powerful unit that's very hard to take down.

I wouldn't want to be facing an entire squad of those beasties. By removing EW it means the squad is vulnerable to the really heavy weapons, whilst it can all but shrug off small-arms fire and standard Close Combat attacks. You got to be able to kill them in some way ;)

And to be honest if you get a brood caught in the open facing a Leman Russ then it's probably your own fault anyway: how about keeping them in cover? If that's not viable, then how about playing with the recommended 25% terrain so you can advance relatively unseen for a few turns? How about a Tyrant with that buff to Reserves? How about combining this with Raveners, Gargoyles, that Flying Fast Attack MC, Outflanking Stealers, Trygons and all the other Reserve-capable elements of the force striking from the different board edges?

The Warriors suck in isolation. But throw them into an army where there are different elements to tie up, destroy, distract or be more worthy of the heavy firepower and suddenly they don't seem to bad at all - at least to a non-Tyranid player.

I think they sound pretty beastly to be honest. I know I'm having to re-shuffle my Marine list to cope with the upcoming rise of Monster-spam that I have a feeling is on the way.

Souleater
10-01-2010, 16:01
Then that SOB 13th Company player I had a game against before the new SW codex is a cheat!

I believe the Sisters of Battle PMS rule is different, allowing the controlling player to use the 'This is YOUR fault' USR. The SOB unit i then allowed to move toward the nominated (infantry) unit.

Abaddonshand
10-01-2010, 17:43
I believe the Sisters of Battle PMS rule is different, allowing the controlling player to use the 'This is YOUR fault' USR. The SOB unit i then allowed to move toward the nominated (infantry) unit.

Very funny, SOB doesn't always mean sisters of battle...

Souleater
10-01-2010, 18:49
No! Really? :rolleyes:

People do sometimes miss bits of rules. It is one of the reasons I used to try and buy each codex.

OT: I hope Warriors will be killy enough in assault that we don't get back to the PF problems we had before the (wild overcompensation) Immunity to Instant death era.

Vepr
10-01-2010, 19:00
No! Really? :rolleyes:

People do sometimes miss bits of rules. It is one of the reasons I used to try and buy each codex.

OT: I hope Warriors will be killy enough in assault that we don't get back to the PF problems we had before the (wild overcompensation) Immunity to Instant death era.

PF are still rough. You pretty much end up automatically at least 3 wounds in the hole or more for combat resolution, sometimes more depending on who got the charge off. It does not make them necessarily bad in CC it just blunts them a bit.

Run away from terminators...

Memnos
10-01-2010, 19:12
Fair enough. Hmm... Fire support you say, eh?

Mostly, I saw Winged warriors with rending and +1 attack, whatever it was. With them, a couple of plasma/melta guns and rapid-fired bolters could do well.


My 4e Warriors were fire support/synapse babysitters which usually puts a 'fex or two plus some gaunts between them and any Marines wanting to pull that trick. Add in that it's not going to kill the unit of Warriors but it will effectively sacrifice the Marines and it's really a bad tactic. I explained in detail why I believe that warriors will go from a 2nd class target to a priority above. In any case, I take the 4+ save in all-comers/anti-SM armies in case I want to use my Warriors late in the game for objectives (4e warriors aren't scoring, so the taking is taking away or babysitting gaunts). So no, I've never been rapid fired on where I didn't have the 4+ save.

Personally I can't see where someone would use 4e Warriors without a 4+ save in such a way where it would get them out in front of SM to be rapid fired to death other than as a tactical blunder. It's like parking your SM unit where a few Leman Russ tanks can drop AP3 templates on them.

EDIT: fixed objective wording before someone assumes I'm using them as scoring.

EDIT2: My gripe here is that most comparisons between 4e warriors and 5e warriors are against 4e warriors that seldom grace the table <or> are used in foolish ways. Why shaft last edition models to make 5e look good? I'm all for fair comparisons where everything is used in reasonable ways. If you want to compare common 4e builds (say S5, 4+, Talons, Deathspitter, 30 pts each like 5e warriors) to 5e builds, that's fine; however, comparing naked 4e warriors takes away their strongest advantage: bio-morphs. Of course when you do that 4e warriors are going to look bad.

CKO
10-01-2010, 22:51
We dont have EW anymore, we have to move on how can we get over this by thinking about all the instant death we can dish out with str 9 attacks and boneswords.

itcamefromthedeep
10-01-2010, 23:41
We dont have EW anymore, we have to move on how can we get over this by thinking about all the instant death we can dish out with str 9 attacks and boneswords.
Tyranids don't put out much Instant Death now. Really, they don't. Perhaps less with the reduction in the number of Carnifexes around, and the heavy strangler going from S8 to S6. Perhaps the advent of Hive Guard and boneswords adequately compensates.

Not that it matters much. That's no criteria for judging the power of a codex or an army list.

CKO
11-01-2010, 00:48
Tyranids don't put out much Instant Death now. Really, they don't. Perhaps less with the reduction in the number of Carnifexes around, and the heavy strangler going from S8 to S6. Perhaps the advent of Hive Guard and boneswords adequately compensates.

Not that it matters much. That's no criteria for judging the power of a codex or an army list.

I agree so why is the lost of EW such a big deal?

itcamefromthedeep
11-01-2010, 02:58
I agree so why is the lost of EW such a big deal?
It isn't. At least, not in my book. I don't think Eternal Warrior was the way to go for them.

I find it odd that Warriors aren't Toughness 5 and 2 Wounds considering the removal of ID immunity, though. Those stats would make them more consistent on the table and more closely tied to the other medium-sized troops.

It's weird that Warriors have more Wounds than Tyrant Guard, but a lot less Toughness. Visually that doesn't really jive.

---

Not the end of the world, just really odd.

big squig
11-01-2010, 04:32
It isn't. At least, not in my book. I don't think Eternal Warrior was the way to go for them.

I find it odd that Warriors aren't Toughness 5 and 2 Wounds considering the removal of ID immunity, though. Those stats would make them more consistent on the table and more closely tied to the other medium-sized troops.

It's weird that Warriors have more Wounds than Tyrant Guard, but a lot less Toughness. Visually that doesn't really jive.

---

Not the end of the world, just really odd.

Exactly. IMO, warriors should had been 2 wounds, toughness 5.

Right now, they have all the problems the old ogryns used to have. Ogryns used to b 3 wounds, toughness 4, and almost the same combat abilities for 25pts and no one took them. They simply got ate up by the lone powerfist sarg you can't hit back.

Treadhead_1st
11-01-2010, 07:56
Exactly. IMO, warriors should had been 2 wounds, toughness 5.

Right now, they have all the problems the old ogryns used to have. Ogryns used to b 3 wounds, toughness 4, and almost the same combat abilities for 25pts and no one took them. They simply got ate up by the lone powerfist sarg you can't hit back.

But Warriors have access to Rending, Power Weapon eqv.s and all manner of nasty guns - they are most likely more than capable of cutting through an entire Squad and killing the Sergeant before he strikes - at the very least he'll take to Warriors down, Warriors have won combat, if the Marines stay around then the Sarge won't get a second turn to swing.

Ogryn had the problem that, whilst strong, they couldn't get through armour so they were always very vulnerable to the Power Fist, and ended up losing combats eventually.

Shadowfax
11-01-2010, 08:01
I find it odd that Warriors aren't Toughness 5 and 2 Wounds considering the removal of ID immunity, though. Those stats would make them more consistent on the table and more closely tied to the other medium-sized troops.

I'm guessing you mean medium-sized troops in non-Tyranid armies?

Even if that's true, giving Warriors T5 would have strained their consistency within the Tyranid book itself. The only way to do that while keeping the internal size:toughness scale coherent would be to also give T5 to Raveners and Lictors. Which probably could have worked, of course, but would have taken more tweaking to get right.

But I wouldn't have liked Warriors to be the sole beneficiaries of a toughness boost, even if it would have been sensible change from a gameplay perspective.

itcamefromthedeep
11-01-2010, 08:55
I'm guessing you mean medium-sized troops in non-Tyranid armies?
Actually, I was thinking of Tyrant Guard and Hive Guard.

I don't see why Warriors would get more Wounds. They don't look any beefier, in any way.

azimaith
11-01-2010, 09:09
I'm guessing you mean medium-sized troops in non-Tyranid armies?

Even if that's true, giving Warriors T5 would have strained their consistency within the Tyranid book itself. The only way to do that while keeping the internal size:toughness scale coherent would be to also give T5 to Raveners and Lictors. Which probably could have worked, of course, but would have taken more tweaking to get right.

But I wouldn't have liked Warriors to be the sole beneficiaries of a toughness boost, even if it would have been sensible change from a gameplay perspective.
Considering all the medium tyranids went up to three wounds I don't see how it would strain consistency. Instead of all being 3 wounds they're all T5.

itcamefromthedeep
11-01-2010, 09:18
Considering all the medium tyranids went up to three wounds I don't see how it would strain consistency.
:confused:

:eek:

:(

Oh, oh dear.

azimaith, I'm so sorry... but the Warrior, Ravener an Lictor are the only "lucky" ones.

azimaith
11-01-2010, 09:21
I heard it was Warriors, Raveners, Lictors, and Zoanthropes (especially to help prevent the zoanthrope special char from frying itself in a single turn.) all went to 3 wounds. To me thats all the medium tyranids granted you might consider tyrant guard medium. They're toughness 6 though so I don't.

Vineas
11-01-2010, 09:36
Naw, Zoans are 2 wounds but really, a S8 plus weapon has a 33% chance of getting through the zoans invulnerable save.

Losing ID immunity on them doesn't bother me. My stealer shock army didn't really need the extra synapse and while it kept my zoans from dying they weren't much of a threatening unit in 4th (downright sucked actually) so just died to conventional weapons (2+ only takes you so far and having a 6+ invul still mean a plasma gun could waste you if fired twice).

Now they have slightly less resilience to small arms (2/6 chance of failing a wound now) but will shrug off things like lascannons and multimeltas better than in 4th (in 4th a plasmagun hitting twice had a 25/36ths chance of wounding twice and then the zoanthrope had a 25/36th chance of failing both saves). Now the plasma gun still has 25/36ths chance but the zoan will only fail both saves 1/9th the time).

azimaith
11-01-2010, 09:44
If zoanthropes have 2 wounds how will the zoanthrope SC survive when its taking d3 wounds for firing.

Scythe
11-01-2010, 10:37
If zoanthropes have 2 wounds how will the zoanthrope SC survive when its taking d3 wounds for firing.

It has a special ability that sucks the life out of nearby opponents which gives it more wounds (up to 10), if I recall correctly ;)

azimaith
11-01-2010, 10:59
The abilities strength is equal to its number of wounds and it loses d3 wounds a shot.

A s2 large blast vs D3 guaranteed lost wounds. You'd be lucky to survive the first shot much less the second shot at s1 unless you managed to luck out and fight an army of grots or something.

IJW
11-01-2010, 11:38
The Doom of Malantai starts with rather more than two Wounds.

Souleater
11-01-2010, 16:31
OTOH with the way Implant Attacks and paired Boneswords work now I'd feel rather sheepish complaining about losing Warriors to Instant Death.

I would have prefered T5 for the medium creatues instead of more wounds. It just seems to fit the size/toughness progression in my head but hey ho.

thanoson
11-01-2010, 17:00
I agree. T 5 would have solved ID for the most part, but still made them affected by small arms fire.

Shadowfax
11-01-2010, 17:10
OTOH with the way Implant Attacks and paired Boneswords work now I'd feel rather sheepish complaining about losing Warriors to Instant Death.

I would have prefered T5 for the medium creatues instead of more wounds. It just seems to fit the size/toughness progression in my head but hey ho.
Implant Attack got nerfed. It's just standard ID now, and therefore can be avoided by EW's (whereas 4th edition Implants were so great because they could bypass EW).

So I don't know why you mentioned that. Paired Boneswords are still cool though. :D


Considering all the medium tyranids went up to three wounds I don't see how it would strain consistency. Instead of all being 3 wounds they're all T5.
Yes, they could have done that. It would have been more difficult to integrate than the extra wounds, though. If people didn't like nidzilla, just think of the whining that would have been generated if a list of T5 troops + T5 fast attack + T6 monstrous creatures accidentally became the norm.

Also, I agree that Tyrant Guard kind of screw everything up. Even more so now that there are two types of Guard, that have different stats. It's a mess now. You kind of have to abandon the idea that size/build has anything to do with a Tyranid's stats, and move towards the idea that it's internal, "unseen" factors that govern them.

Souleater
11-01-2010, 17:28
I mentioned it because it is another way we have of inflicting ID and to complain about being hit with ID when you are handing out more of it seems a little rich.

OTOH I agree with you that the old version of Implant Attack was far, far superior.

And I would also point out to myself that inflicting ID on T4 multiwound Nids isn't exactly hard for other armies. E.g Rokkits, MLaunchers, PFs, etc

So having thought about it. Damned, they nerfed that, too. :(


I am kinda puzzled though that we didn't get more in the way of INV saves. GW have been steadily beefing up the INV saves for most other races but stripping away those of the Nids.

Unless I missed an entry (entirely possible) then only the Zoe's now have INVs.

itcamefromthedeep
11-01-2010, 17:57
Unless I missed an entry (entirely possible) then only the Zoe's now have INVs.
Well, there are two special characters in there. The Doom of Malan'tai doesn't really count as a Zoanthrope, because he function very differently on the tabletop, and the Swarmlord has an invulnerable in close combat. That makes three by my count. That's one more than the 4e codex, and the Invulnerables are all a lot easier to make.

Overall, I'd say that you'll see a whole lot more passed Invulnerable saves in Tyranid games.

Bassline
11-01-2010, 18:10
Well, there are two special characters in there. The Doom of Malan'tai doesn't really count as a Zoanthrope, because he function very differently on the tabletop, and the Swarmlord has an invulnerable in close combat. That makes three by my count. That's one more than the 4e codex, and the Invulnerables are all a lot easier to make.

Overall, I'd say that you'll see a whole lot more passed Invulnerable saves in Tyranid games.

Come apoc though nids will have a big upgrade though from a W10 2+/6++ GC with regen they got a W10 2+/3++ GC with regen for the same points

But we did lose are bubble of -5 LD :(

airmang
11-01-2010, 20:17
But we did lose are bubble of -5 LD :(

you can still do it with Broodlords.

Shadowfax
11-01-2010, 20:38
you can still do it with Broodlords.
Have you verified that the power is cumulative (using the English codex obv.)?

It's one of the things I was wondering about, but I figured it probably wouldn't be.

If it is, that's sweet. Outflank with a bunch of Broodlords and then shoot everything on that side of the board with Devourers. Then wave bon voyage to the enemy. :D

MasterDecoy
11-01-2010, 22:20
devourers already add a -1 to moral checks caused by it....

Shadowfax
12-01-2010, 00:01
So then what happens when you fire one at somebody who's within a -1 Ld aura?

Reaching back to my kindergarten math class, I believe the result is -2 Ld. Or have I carried the wrong zero?

MasterDecoy
12-01-2010, 00:11
So then what happens when you fire one at somebody who's within a -1 Ld aura?

Reaching back to my kindergarten math class, I believe the result is -2 Ld. Or have I carried the wrong zero?

geeze, try to help a person make a point, and what do you get....

I was pointing out that that would yes indeed be a good stratergy....Duh...

airmang
12-01-2010, 00:13
nope the Broodlord's -1Ld is done at the beginning of your Assault Phase, and last until the end of the enemy Assault Phase. And yes, it does say it is cumulative.

Shadowfax
12-01-2010, 00:15
geeze, try to help a person make a point, and what do you get....

I was pointing out that that would yes indeed be a good stratergy....Duh...
Oh, I apologize then.

It was hard to discern the tone of your first post because of the brevity combined with the concluding ellipses. My Tone Tendrils gave me a false reading on your Sarcasm Sacs.

edit: Although now it appears that you can't even combine the two tools as we'd hoped :(

azimaith
12-01-2010, 00:17
I mentioned it because it is another way we have of inflicting ID and to complain about being hit with ID when you are handing out more of it seems a little rich.

OTOH I agree with you that the old version of Implant Attack was far, far superior.

And I would also point out to myself that inflicting ID on T4 multiwound Nids isn't exactly hard for other armies. E.g Rokkits, MLaunchers, PFs, etc

Being vulnerable to ID and being able to hand out ID does not make a balanced equation. We have to look at how important ID is to our ability to function as an army.

Marines only have multiwounds in their HQ and their army can function absolutely fine without them, same with most other armies except for perhaps orks who have multiwounds in Elites, HQs, and Fast attack, one again, they can function without them.

Nids have multiwounds in their HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attacks, and Heavy Support and a number of them are absolutely key for their army to function. Furthermore the units that are available form the only serious anti-tank for much of the army, thus its obvious that the effects of suffering instant death affect nids far more than the effects of being able to cause instant death. Furthermore, where instant death is delivered is a huge issue as well. Overall, ranged instant death is relatively less of an issue.

Battle cannons, demolishers and the like are all very threatening (and they are against any army) but they're not amazingly common, can be defended against by cover saves, and can be stopped from firing, however, they will likely be the hardest for nids to stop.

Instant death in close combat is somewhat more common which really dissuades us from spearheading assaults with multiwound t4 models however, are much easier to destroy than said tanks. If there's *anything* the new tyranids are good at, its absolutely tearing troops to shreds. For a 10 tac squad with about a powerfist you can easily manage around 6 warriors. If said 6 warriors had toxin sacs you would be looking at something like this.

Warriors charge with 24 attacks, 16 hits+5 re-roll hits, 10.5 wounds+5 wounds, 5 dead marines on the charge. (Not quite as good as the same amount of hormagaunts with similar upgrades but still.) The powerfist is likely to only destroy one and the remaining 5 tac attacks are not even likely to drop a single warrior, next turn the tacticals are turned into mulch on an average roll.

Expect as tyranids to avoid instant death by terrifyingly large margins of overkill on squads you hit, the re-rolls from toxin sacs to medium strength units is a massive bonus.

MasterDecoy
12-01-2010, 00:23
Being vulnerable to ID and being able to hand out ID does not make a balanced equation. We have to look at how important ID is to our ability to function as an army.

Marines only have multiwounds in their HQ and their army can function absolutely fine without them, same with most other armies except for perhaps orks who have multiwounds in Elites, HQs, and Fast attack, one again, they can function without them.

Nids have multiwounds in their HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attacks, and Heavy Support and a number of them are absolutely key for their army to function. Furthermore the units that are available form the only serious anti-tank for much of the army, thus its obvious that the effects of suffering instant death affect nids far more than the effects of being able to cause instant death. Furthermore, where instant death is delivered is a huge issue as well. Overall, ranged instant death is relatively less of an issue.

Battle cannons, demolishers and the like are all very threatening (and they are against any army) but they're not amazingly common, can be defended against by cover saves, and can be stopped from firing, however, they will likely be the hardest for nids to stop.

Instant death in close combat is somewhat more common which really dissuades us from spearheading assaults with multiwound t4 models however, are much easier to destroy than said tanks. If there's *anything* the new tyranids are good at, its absolutely tearing troops to shreds. For a 10 tac squad with about a powerfist you can easily manage around 6 warriors. If said 6 warriors had toxin sacs you would be looking at something like this.

Warriors charge with 24 attacks, 16 hits+5 re-roll hits, 10.5 wounds+5 wounds, 5 dead marines on the charge. (Not quite as good as the same amount of hormagaunts with similar upgrades but still.) The powerfist is likely to only destroy one and the remaining 5 tac attacks are not even likely to drop a single warrior, next turn the tacticals are turned into mulch on an average roll.

Expect as tyranids to avoid instant death by terrifyingly large margins of overkill on squads you hit, the re-rolls from toxin sacs to medium strength units is a massive bonus.

personnaly I was thinking boneswords and lashwhips with toxin sacs on my warriors, using your equation 24 attacks, 16 hits, 8 wounds +4 from re-rolls, 12 dead marines.

azimaith
12-01-2010, 00:45
Whether I use dual talons(which are viable) or bone swords is going to depend entirely on how much they cost. (By the way if you can get dual bone swords you could obliterate nob bikers with them I bet.)

MasterDecoy
12-01-2010, 07:07
yes you can, bone + lash costs a decent amount (more than 10, less than 20), scything talons are free.

azimaith
12-01-2010, 11:30
I don't think i'm gonna pay something like 45 points a warrior for a power weapon especially walking.

I think the new tyranids are almost entirely about weight of wounds rather than quality with the new poison.

SteelTitan
12-01-2010, 13:34
I have 6 warriors with scything talons en rending claws. IIRC rending claws are a bargain in the new dex so following azimaith reasoning this setup will be viable under the new dex (quantity>quality). This in contrast to our previous dex where leaping ST+RC warriors were really expensive.

All they need are a drop pod and they are good to go. Even with leaping it was hard to get them in combat before turn 3 or 4 as it didnt really help with their 6" move. With pods this will work a lot better as they might still be in combat by turn 3 (depending on the reserve rolls but at least they are not shot at for the first 2 turns).

naloth
12-01-2010, 14:39
I have 6 warriors with scything talons en rending claws. IIRC rending claws are a bargain in the new dex so following azimaith reasoning this setup will be viable under the new dex (quantity>quality). This in contrast to our previous dex where leaping ST+RC warriors were really expensive.

Under 4e you could (without leaping) WS5, S5, I5, A3, 4+ and Rending for the same cost as the 5e talon/rending warriors. For argument's sake we'll say +1W is roughly a trade-off for the loss of EW (EW still seems better). That gives 4e a better S & I but no re-rolls on 1s. Offhand, I would say that re-rolling 1's isn't worth the same as S+1 & I+1 .



All they need are a drop pod and they are good to go. Even with leaping it was hard to get them in combat before turn 3 or 4 as it didnt really help with their 6" move. With pods this will work a lot better as they might still be in combat by turn 3 (depending on the reserve rolls but at least they are not shot at for the first 2 turns).
A spore pod will cost the same as buying leaping for about 5 warriors so that's a push. With leaping you have a 3 turn assault range of 31-42" (18" + 2d6 + 12") and you're not relying on the grace of rolling well with deep strike. Personally I would take the 18" threat range every turn with leaping over the odds of getting a decent deep strike and surviving.

Of course, a better 5e option would be to use the Hive Tyrant to outflank with a +1 to reserves.

Murphey
12-01-2010, 15:08
Under 4e you could (without leaping) WS5, S5, I5, A3, 4+ and Rending for the same cost as the 5e talon/rending warriors. For argument's sake we'll say +1W is roughly a trade-off for the loss of EW (EW still seems better). That gives 4e a better S & I but no re-rolls on 1s. Offhand, I would say that re-rolling 1's isn't worth the same as S+1 & I+1 .


Very true, actually. What people don't realize in general, is that one scything talon set is a really poor bonus mathematically.

You have, at any given time. a 16.6% chance of rolling a 1. And then, with your re-roll, you have to get a hit. So, on average, Scything talons are giving Warriors a 8.3% to 11% increase on it's to hit rolls. That's nothing to write home about.

Comparatively, the initiative bonus is invaluable if it means you're going first (which, at I5 it usually did). And the extra S meant a 16.6% better chance to wound against most opponents. And that's not even mentioning the ability to actually hurt T8 creatures, an invaluable ability for a CC unit.

~Murphey

azimaith
12-01-2010, 15:30
The scything talons are just there base, poison is where its at for anything strength 4 and below, I might even say strength 5.

naloth
12-01-2010, 16:01
The scything talons are just there base, poison is where its at for anything strength 4 and below, I might even say strength 5.

Sure, poison is a good upgrade. When I field warriors I'll probably get it.

The reason for my post was that I keep seeing comments like "cheaper Warriors" or "Warriors got buffed". Neither is really true. Warriors got a lateral shift into the a more in-your-face assault role. 5e warriors tend to be more expensive than 4e warriors when built with the same options.

The advantage that 5e has over 4e that I see:
-Scoring.
-New army buffs (Tervigon's psychics, HT can allow them to outflank).

The disadvantages:
-Generally more fragile (have to get closer, no EW)
-Generally will cost more (seems to be a 5e 'nid theme)
-Better CC options (poison, boneswords)

itcamefromthedeep
12-01-2010, 17:24
-Generally will cost more (seems to be a 5e 'nid theme)
Uggh, tell me about it. If I just straight used the models from 4e in a 5e army, my normal army would go from 1495pts to 1986pts. That's a jump of about 500 points, and I only use 4 monstrous creatures in that list!

EDIT: Sorry, that's 1901, not 1986. My bad.

---

So, removal of ID. I played a game the other day using the rumored rules.

My opponent's battle cannon had no better target than the Warriors, but it missed a whole bunch. Meltaguns vaped a couple Zoanthropes, but they lost most of the wounds they did from anti-infantry fire. I lost perhaps 3 Wounds to Instant Death that game. If you're wondering why meltaguns were pointed at Zoanthropes and not Warriors or the Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guard, it's because the Zoanthropes destroyed or immobilized the Valkyries carrying those Veteran squads, and no better targets were within range.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 19:55
Uggh, tell me about it. If I just straight used the models from 4e in a 5e army, my normal army would go from 1495pts to 1986pts. That's a jump of about 500 points, and I only use 4 monstrous creatures in that list!

Yeah in a 1500 point list I generally ran 2 - 3 fexs, a HT with 2 guards, a brood lord, 5 - 6 shooting warriors and 5 - 6 CC warriors and then Stealers, Gants, and Gaunts filling out the rest with an occasional lictor Zoan, or biovore tossed in for giggles if I was wanting to change things up. Hard to believe I am paying so much more. Are things more effective now? Yes and no. CC tends to be more effective but shooting less effective. In some ways they are more resilient and in others they are less. We have more choices now on building our lists but I am not sure that it means our lists are any more effective.

naloth
12-01-2010, 20:25
Yeah in a 1500 point list I generally ran 2 - 3 fexs, a HT with 2 guards, a brood lord, 5 - 6 shooting warriors and 5 - 6 CC warriors and then Stealers, Gants, and Gaunts filling out the rest with an occasional lictor Zoan, or biovore tossed in for giggles if I was wanting to change things up. Hard to believe I am paying so much more.

Yes, I'm suffering sticker shock too. My army was more like 2 hvy support fexes and maybe 1-2 elite 'fex. The 3rd hvy often a brood of biovores or zoanthropes. I preferred my Flyrant to the walker (helped with my mobility issues). Scuttling stealers and cheap gaunts were my scoring troops and I usually had a unit of shooty warriors to babysit them. Sometimes I rotated in a Lictor or Broodlord (though I preferred troop genestealers since 5th). Even given the break on genestealers my army costs +25% more with a lot less shooting traded for a little CC improvement. The only real way I can see to make back what I lost is to replace older now less efficient units with new units.

MasterDecoy
12-01-2010, 23:27
Wow, My army went from 2978 to 2577, thats a drop of 400 points.

Edit: Im actually configging things now, make that 2562 now

Vepr
12-01-2010, 23:30
Wow, My army went from 2978 to 2577, thats a drop of 400 points.

Edit: Im actually configging things now, make that 2562 now

Do you mean your total army or where you playing 3000 point games?

MasterDecoy
12-01-2010, 23:31
my total army, i had just under 3k points, now i have just over 2.5k

(I do actually now have to buy a 3rd ravenar cause the min brood is 3 now)

(you can actually find my 4th ed list in my sig, I have made a few amendments of biomorphs, mainly where options no longer existed, but not too much apart from that)

azimaith
13-01-2010, 00:11
I guess its just me as I didn't use elite carnifex outside of an occasional dual talon one. I had two gunfex, two zoanthropes,3 squads of 20 spine gaunts, 2 squads of 17 hormagaunts with adrenals for WS, three warriors, and a warp field dual talon flying tyrant alongside a trio of warriors at 1500 points.

I don't know how its going to translate but I know for 5th ed tyranids i'm probably going to have to dump all the spine gaunts and beef up hormagaunt numbers. I'm not sure how much I will save altogether if at all.

Max Jet
13-01-2010, 00:21
Wow, My army went from 2978 to 2577, thats a drop of 400 points.

Edit: Im actually configging things now, make that 2562 now

And what did you loose? Powers, Options, weapon strengts, Attacks? To the point I cannot see how anyones army could have gotten cheaper unless you took tons of Hormagaunts, Raveners and Gargoyles.

MystheDevourer
13-01-2010, 00:28
Yeah in a 1500 point list I generally ran 2 - 3 fexs, a HT with 2 guards, a brood lord, 5 - 6 shooting warriors and 5 - 6 CC warriors and then Stealers, Gants, and Gaunts filling out the rest with an occasional lictor Zoan, or biovore tossed in for giggles if I was wanting to change things up. Hard to believe I am paying so much more. Are things more effective now? Yes and no. CC tends to be more effective but shooting less effective. In some ways they are more resilient and in others they are less. We have more choices now on building our lists but I am not sure that it means our lists are any more effective.

The idea it seems behind the change in points was to change peoples perspective, now you dont throw that Zoan in for the giggles now its you throw 3 Zoans in and call that your anti Tank slot where as you use your MCs as a diversiion for those horrid gaunts to come in and tear S*** UP! etc.

THE ABSOLUTE biggest point sinks you cna get from the 4ed dex to this one is the Fex HANDS DOWN. So for those of you who played 3 fex's or more I am sorry but you cant really now. They cost to much and they should. But the base cost in the dex is not the true base cost because it comes with attached weapons and such. Thank about that.

All in all this codex IS going to force people to change their tactics and that is where I think alot of the complaining is coming from. people to lazy to change. I do agree on some changes were not needed to the degree they got but I can not really cry about the frosting being smudged when the cake is still great.

MasterDecoy
13-01-2010, 00:40
OK, Diffinitive list of changes I made/options I lost:
Hive tyrant: now has a straglethorne cannon instead of scything talons, lost warpshield (hence now has no 2+ save or inv)
Warriors: merged into 1 squad, then converted into shrikes, changed scything talons for rending claws, ones with devourers got deathspitters instead.
fleshgaunts: squad size went from 32 -> 30(2 redundent minis to be converted into hormagaunts/spinegaunts), lost WoN, lost adrenalglands, gained toxin sacs
Spinegaunts: lost WoN
Hormagaunts: lost flesh hooks
Zoanthropes: Gained a mysmic spore
Biovores: Lost Bio-acid mines.
Raveners: Squad size went from min 1 to min 3
Ripper Swarms: Gained adrenal glands, spinefists, tunnel swarm
Lictors: No change
Genstealers: Merged with broodlords squad, Max squad 12-> 20 (4 redundent models), gained toxin sacs. Lost extended carapice and feeder tendrils, broodlord swaped acid maw for implant attack.
Carnifex: lost extended carapice, bonded exoskeleton, re-enforced chitin, scythe tail, adrenal glands toxic mismia's. Spine banks swaped with frag spines. gained bio plasma.
Gargoils: Gained adrenal glands and toxin sacs.


For a complete list of old armaments, and new ones, click the army list in my sig.

Vepr
13-01-2010, 00:43
The idea it seems behind the change in points was to change peoples perspective, now you dont throw that Zoan in for the giggles now its you throw 3 Zoans in and call that your anti Tank slot where as you use your MCs as a diversiion for those horrid gaunts to come in and tear S*** UP! etc.

THE ABSOLUTE biggest point sinks you cna get from the 4ed dex to this one is the Fex HANDS DOWN. So for those of you who played 3 fex's or more I am sorry but you cant really now. They cost to much and they should. But the base cost in the dex is not the true base cost because it comes with attached weapons and such. Thank about that.

All in all this codex IS going to force people to change their tactics and that is where I think alot of the complaining is coming from. people to lazy to change. I do agree on some changes were not needed to the degree they got but I can not really cry about the frosting being smudged when the cake is still great.

I don't mind change but that being said it seems nids have had a major change. More so than any other army in 5th so far in my opinion. It can be said that tyranids needed a major shake up and I would not disagree but with that comes a shift in how the army plays etc. Some people will not like how the new army plays and move on. It does not mean they are lazy. I have been play testing since I first saw the leak trying out new combos etc. The first thing I did was compare my old list in points vs the same relative list in points. I did not play nidzilla so I was a little shocked when the cost of the list went up.

I think the new nids will be alright. I am not wowed by the new codex so far but I would not say it is a bad codex either. My initial reaction is that it just has some odd internal balance issues.

Laughingmonk
13-01-2010, 02:06
I don't mind change but that being said it seems nids have had a major change. More so than any other army in 5th so far in my opinion. It can be said that tyranids needed a major shake up and I would not disagree but with that comes a shift in how the army plays etc. Some people will not like how the new army plays and move on. It does not mean they are lazy. I have been play testing since I first saw the leak trying out new combos etc. The first thing I did was compare my old list in points vs the same relative list in points. I did not play nidzilla so I was a little shocked when the cost of the list went up.

I think the new nids will be alright. I am not wowed by the new codex so far but I would not say it is a bad codex either. My initial reaction is that it just has some odd internal balance issues.

You're not wowed?

This worries me, as generally it is very easy to wow people with new books.

It's not surprising, however. One chapter of space marines gets entirely the same attention as the entire tyranid race. Even then, the books feel rushed.

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 06:22
I guess its just me as I didn't use elite carnifex outside of an occasional dual talon one. I had two gunfex, two zoanthropes,3 squads of 20 spine gaunts, 2 squads of 17 hormagaunts with adrenals for WS, three warriors, and a warp field dual talon flying tyrant alongside a trio of warriors at 1500 points.

I don't know how its going to translate but I know for 5th ed tyranids i'm probably going to have to dump all the spine gaunts and beef up hormagaunt numbers. I'm not sure how much I will save altogether if at all.

I hope you weren't attached to those gunfexes, because they're either illegal (BS + VC) or completely worthless (deathspitters --> devourers).

azimaith
13-01-2010, 06:35
I didn't like them because I wanted my tyranids to flip tanks over not shoot them. However, the arms are glued on.

Here is one of my biggest negative feelings about the new codex.

Fex-Worse, you've already got 2 or more.
Gunfex-Flat out illegal, most of those were these.
Spinegaunts-worse, you've got an ass ton of these.
See what i'm getting at. Even if the idea isn't true it still feels that way.

Scythe
13-01-2010, 06:53
It's not surprising, however. One chapter of space marines gets entirely the same attention as the entire tyranid race. Even then, the books feel rushed.

Forget about the Tyranids, you have Blood Angels to look out for! Memphiston got this new cool psychic power: jaws of the world vampire; remove all enemy monstrous creatures within 24" on the roll of 2+! :p:rolleyes:

Ahem. I didn't use gunfexes for arthistic reasons, so I am not bothered by that loss. The price hike on fexes is a little too steep though, for too little gain. Ow well, I started to think I should look with my gaming group to house rule quite a few things in codexes and army books, even before the codex release. Maybe we should actually look into that now. Drop the fex by say, 30-40 pts, and it becomes a lot more playable.

Till that time, I will be converting new monstrous creatures ;)

Abaddonshand
13-01-2010, 09:19
I hope you weren't attached to those gunfexes, because they're either illegal (BS + VC) or completely worthless (deathspitters --> devourers).

Tyranid MC's get special ammunition for their devourers called Brainleech Worms, essentially adding +2 strength and +3 shots to them compared to normal ones. At the same price as deathspitters (and better than them thanks to the above), your equation should look more like this;

Brainleech Worm Devourers >>> Deathspitters > Devourers

Deathspitters are only a marginal improvement over standard devourers in any case.

Souleater
13-01-2010, 09:49
The cost of Brainleeches compared to Deathspitters is very odd. I think several points costs are off - no idea why the price of Tyrants or Fexes skyrocketted like they did.

Anyhoo, this has kinda wandered more into army building so shouldn't we start or join a Tactica in the Tactics thread?

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 10:35
Tyranid MC's get special ammunition for their devourers called Brainleech Worms, essentially adding +2 strength and +3 shots to them compared to normal ones. At the same price as deathspitters (and better than them thanks to the above), your equation should look more like this;

Brainleech Worm Devourers >>> Deathspitters > Devourers

Deathspitters are only a marginal improvement over standard devourers in any case.

The whole point of my statement was that there is literally no reason to take deathspitters. BWDs fire more shots, the shots are stronger, AND you get the devourer's fear-causing ability for exactly the same price. AP5 will only matter when firing on vehicles or guardsmen, seeing as how even orks are hurt more by the S increase than the AP.

Lord Solar Plexus
13-01-2010, 10:56
Ahem. I didn't use gunfexes for arthistic reasons


For arthritic reasons? :)

Scythe
13-01-2010, 11:44
For arthritic reasons? :)

Damn those mice on my keyboard! ;)

Infidel
13-01-2010, 14:48
As a daemon player I must say that this is a loss for the Nids. Marines/Guards can take lots of lascannons or missile launcher while Eldar/Dark Eldar can take lots of lances. While I'd agree that they're better off firing them at Fexs and the variety of Gons, each warror you hit will nearly guarantee a kill and an immediate reduction in the shooting you'll be receiving the next turn, while you must chip away a multitude of wounds before you can reduce the effectiveness of any other beastie.


Again, that's just me tho and I can't say how glad I am to see each of my Bolt of Tzeentch now being able to reduce the number of Strangler/Devourer firing at my guys.

Bassline
13-01-2010, 14:56
As a daemon player I must say that this is a loss for the Nids. Marines/Guards can take lots of lascannons or missile launcher while Eldar/Dark Eldar can take lots of lances. While I'd agree that they're better off firing them at Fexs and the variety of Gons, each warror you hit will nearly guarantee a kill and an immediate reduction in the shooting you'll be receiving the next turn, while you must chip away a multitude of wounds before you can reduce the effectiveness of any other beastie.


Again, that's just me tho and I can't say how glad I am to see each of my Bolt of Tzeentch now being able to reduce the number of Strangler/Devourer firing at my guys.

That is true but if you do not chip away the MC and they hit your front lines well then your dead and you can not run for ever as there is not enough board same to do that. Plus moving = less fire power you can shoot

itcamefromthedeep
13-01-2010, 15:14
As a daemon player I must say that this is a loss for the Nids. Marines/Guards can take lots of lascannons or missile launcher while Eldar/Dark Eldar can take lots of lances. While I'd agree that they're better off firing them at Fexs and the variety of Gons, each warrior you hit will nearly guarantee a kill and an immediate reduction in the shooting you'll be receiving the next turn, while you must chip away a multitude of wounds before you can reduce the effectiveness of any other beastie.
A note on target priority:

If you have 3 dark lances and 3 disintigrators, the right play is to shoot the lances at Warriors and the disintigrators at the Carnifex. That is, unless the Carnifex is in the open and you need it to die quickly.

If you have 1 dark lance and 9 splinter rifles, the right play is to shoot the lance at Warriors and the splinter rifles at the Carnifex.

Anti-infantry fire, particularly the S3 variety, is more efficient for killing monstrous creatures than it is for killing Warriors.