Fixing Tyranids Thread

You guys are gonna have to come back and keep discussing/bumping the threads for me or I'm just gonna let this one die and I'll make another one when I have something to post.

Hive Tyrant and Carnifex strains more or less done.

Got some more biomorphs figured out, starting to move ideas around from core things over to Formation special rules and Progenitor Fleet Traits.

I'm going to bed now, when I wake up I have some errands and things to get out of the way and then I'll start churning out datasheets. Should have a playtest worthy doc by Friday.

Were you and those other posters still going to make those fixed 40k rules if eighth turns out to either not change anything or make it aoslite?

>>52138000
With sigmarizing rules there will bo no need to fix them anymore - this is what I'm waiting for

>>52138113
What if the sigmar rules are bad too?

>>52138000
At the current moment in time that project's been pretty much abandoned but I could always go back to it if 8th is a disappointment, yeah.

File: 1378358653759.jpg (73KB, 712x512px)

73KB, 712x512px

I'm just thankful that someone takes their time to try to do something about the current codex. The hard part is going to try to let my gaming friends let me use it.

>>52141644
Sidenote, I really love all the Rob Cirillo concept art that was done for 4th ed.

The current Tyrant Guard models that finally look similar to the ones he was drawing back then are god tier.

I guess I can ask this here:
Do tyranids often inherit local species into their war strains? Or do they just adapt to local conditions through encounters with the creatures?
I'm writefagging a story where the planet is ~90% water, so I was thinking about some Tyranid sea creatures, gaining crab-like exoskeletons and such, and carnifexes becoming floating islands that bring hordes of barnacle-like rippers under its shell.

>>52141979
>Do tyranids often inherit local species into their war strains?
No.

>Or do they just adapt to local conditions through encounters with the creatures?
This one is more correct. They don't necessarily even need to encounter any creatures though. They just adapt to the environment itself on its own terms.

>I'm writefagging a story where the planet is ~90% water, so I was thinking about some Tyranid sea creatures, gaining crab-like exoskeletons and such, and carnifexes becoming floating islands that bring hordes of barnacle-like rippers under its shell.
The first planet Tyranids were ever encountered on - you know, "Tyran" - that was over 90% water, and they were never mentioned as being particularly different there than anywhere else. All Tyranids are baseline amphibious (I even have that in the rules in my Codex) and they already have exoskeletons that could be considered crustacean-esque and breathe through gills that function equally well in air or fluid.

That said, coming up with some new adaptations here or there like the barnacle-rippers could be pretty cool and totally in-line with the fluff.

>>52142129
Cool, thanks

Status update, putting together the meat of the playtest doc right now. Only a matter of days until it's at a usable state, even though it won't have absolutely everything.

>>52145058
Question: Did you make any modifications to the movement or running for Gants and Gaunts?

>>52147076
Termagants basically have Battle Focus (Run and Shoot or vice versa) and got Fleet back, while Horms have Run and charge (and charge as Jump infantry, so get Hammer of Wrath and can move over intervening terrain freely).

Onslaught also lets a unit move d6" in the Psychic phase (re-roll with Fleet), so they can stack that with their move and Run (and charge for Horms) for a potential 30" threat range on the Horms, averaging 23", if you want to spend the Warp Charges.

Warriors are Brotherhood of Psykers ML1 and come with Onslaught stock.

I went through a lot of different versions of this and this one has been the most satisfying overall.

File: 1389424055800.png (154KB, 624x644px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 624x644px

>>52147148
Forgot the trip.

Most of the bio-weapons are done. Still dicking around with the Rupture Cannon and a couple other things.

File: Tyranids - 1500pts.jpg (305KB, 900x1380px)

305KB, 900x1380px

>>52147148
>30 inch threat range
The boys are back in town
Loving what you're doing btw, I'll try and get some playtests done with my group when it's all said and done

>>52149926
All playtesting is definitely appreciated.

That's a fun looking list, by the way.

Bump for the swarm

>>52128174
What's wrong with them? Are they going through a Nid-Life crisis?

File: Tyranid_s_%281%29.png (190KB, 848x783px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 848x783px

>>52153647

>>52153647
It's just our Instinctive Behavior, don't worry.

>>52128174
Bumping for life support

>>52128174
On an unrelated note, how good are shrikes with rending claws? I really like the idea of CC tyranids but I know theyre not sorta mediocre at it

>>52159051
In the current Codex? Extraordinarily overcosted. You're paying 30ppm for a T4 5+ save model that will just get doubled out by Strength 8 and have its 3 Wounds count for nothing (or worse, help the opponent more during combat resolution because two hits with a powerfist dealt 6 Wounds).

That's if they don't just die to bolter fire or flamers or basically anything else.

To give them Rending claws and assault grenades is also another 9 points each, so we're talking like 40point models with about the same survivability as Orks.

>>52159722
Shame I really like the idea of them

>>52159722
>>52160375
Think im gonna try making a CC orientated army regardless, only play games with friends anyway so just see how it goes

>>52160566
Go for it anon, and if your friends are down to playtest unofficial rules I'll have something ready for you in a couple more days.

Working on the Gargantuans now, also flipping back and forth to Formations.

Tyrannofexes are going to be fun stuff.

>>52162832
>Gargantuan tfex
Almost feel bad about making mine a tervigon
Almost

>>52163287
Those are Gargantuan too, don't worry. I can't justify making two models that are the same exact size (literally just the same body) have different unit types like that.

Neither of them get stomp attacks though, so that reins in some of the bullshit that most GCs have. Here's I'll just post the special rule actually:

>Skittering Gait: A model with this special rule is never slowed by Difficult Terrain, and can move freely over non-Vehicle, non-Monstrous Creature models as long as it does not end its move on top of any other models, but cannot make Stomp attacks.

>>52149926
Needs some Tryon primes. The tunnels are nice for respawning gaunts and extra synapse is never a bad thing.

>>52159051
I ran a brood of 3 with swords and either poisoned or adrenal glands. used them as a sweeper unit: damage the target unit (2+ armor if bringing rending claws, 3+ with swords) in shooting or from reporting with gaunts to dwindle numbers and slow them down. Really works well if you keep them as backline defense. Their mobility allows them to cover synapse gaps and still deal with flanking threats like bikes and assault marines.

>>52128174
A couple of nice ideas after brainstorming with my group:

Have the Trygon, Trygon prime, and Mawloc be GMC's, or at least have some of the rules. Instead of stomp attacks, you could have a single stomp using the flamer template representing the massive tails.

Trygon and trygon prime needs to gain haywire on 6's to hit with their shooting attacks.

All snake bodied nids (ravenors, Mawloc, trygons, rippers) need the beast type (or beast MC)

hormagaunt's bounding leap should add 3" to move, run, and charge like dunestriders

the harpy/hive crone should have something like a "born for the skies" rules, negating the need for grounding tests.

>>52163564
>Have the Trygon, Trygon prime, and Mawloc be GMC's, or at least have some of the rules. Instead of stomp attacks, you could have a single stomp using the flamer template representing the massive tails.
>Trygon and trygon prime needs to gain haywire on 6's to hit with their shooting attacks.
Already have both of these EXACTLY, except the tail smash has -1 to the Stomp table.

>All snake bodied nids (ravenors, Mawloc, trygons, rippers) need the beast type (or beast MC)
Not for Rippers, Raveners already have it, and GCs already move 12".

>hormagaunt's bounding leap should add 3" to move, run, and charge like dunestriders
At one point I was doing it this way but after carefully comparing all the options and existing rules, and factoring in that Onslaught is another D6" of movement, I went with this:
>Bounding Leap: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn. In addition, when charging, this unit is treated as a Jump unit.
It fits better in my opinion due to the way I did Termagants (have a similar rule called Bestial Agility that let's them Run and shoot) and the Wulfen have Bounding Lope now which is very similar.

>the harpy/hive crone should have something like a "born for the skies" rules, negating the need for grounding tests.
Again, something I have almost exactly.
>Born in the Skies: This model adds 1 to the roll when making Grounding tests.

A little eerie how well that matched up. Hive Minds think alike?

>>52163674
>hive minds think alike
Wow, sorry I suggested them then if they were already present! Amazing what happens when you apply some thought and common sense to models and their rules. Really makes you wonder what the rules designers were thinking initially!

>>52163780
>Wow, sorry I suggested them then if they were already present!
No need to be sorry, seeing other people came to the same conclusions helps reinforce that the rule is intuitive and logical. It's good to see!

>Amazing what happens when you apply some thought and common sense to models and their rules. Really makes you wonder what the rules designers were thinking initially!
I wonder about that every time I play this game.

>>52163433
I usually take two if I'm not feeling the rippers
I think so at least

>>52163780
>what the rules designers were thinking initially
He wasnt
Cruddace is a literal fucking retard

>>52128174
Abolutely none of the books are from perspectives outside the Imperium, what makes you think that Space Marines will ever not be the best army by a long shot?

Bump for Tyran

>>52166890
Bump for Prandium

Azezal
Anything you're stumped on.
I could spitball ideas if i knownwhat you're working on?

>>52168263
Still not sure what's happening with the Maleceptor.

Lemme check my master To Do list and see what I come up with.

Most of the hold-up is just me being busy with real life things in between trying to get work done on this.

Sidenote
>>52167915
If anyone doesn't know what Prandium means in Latin, go look it up (and if you don't know what Prandium means in the context of 40k go read up on Hive Fleet Behemoth).

File: 1345574911691.jpg (62KB, 500x435px)

62KB, 500x435px

>>52168304
Holy shit, my sides

>>52168304
I'm not sure the maleceptor needs much.
Bump it's invuln to a 4++ and drop its price so its a viable choice for MC psyker.

>>52141979
>water nids
thats the fluff im working on for my nids. good taste

>>52149926
Bump for Sirocco

>>52168304
So, under your build, how viable would a flying circus be? By that I mean an all winged army following CAD restrictions.

>>52174110
Presumably anything would be viable since that's how nids are supposed to work

>>52177732
I meant how did he change the rules/upgrades/cost/stats for Gargoyles, Flyrants, Crones, Harpies, and Shrikes.

>>52168706
oh and its unique power should probably just be warp charge 1 if you're meant to be casting it 3 times to be effective.

File: 300px-Gargoyle.png (36KB, 300x121px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x121px

>>52174110
>>52179091
Flyrants get a little bit worse, everything else with wings gets better. New Formations themed for flying circus, similar to Skyblight. Leviathan Hive Fleet "tactics" add a bit more of an edge to flying armies.

I'll elaborate more in a bit, I just woke up and have some stuff to attend to. Thanks for keeping the thread alive everyone.

>>52179847
I hope by "flyrants got worse" you meant "nerfed brainleech devourers"

>>52179892
Yes, a little, and they can also only take one pair.

>>52180470
What else was nerfed? Fmcs already arent that great, nerfing devourers was all that was needed imo

>>52180470
So tyrants can't double up on thebsame gun anymore?

>>52181232
Walkrants can do whatever, Flyrants are limited to only replacing one pair of scything talons.

>>52181449
Makes sense, nids are traditionally hexapeds after all

>>52180640
Complete list of Flyrant nerfs:
- Wings are 40 pts, up from 35 (not really a big deal, I just wanted the cost consistent with what Daemon Princes are paying)
- Can only replace one pair of scything talons, so no more double devourers.
- Devourer Peraphicytes (the new name for Monstrous Creature versions) are only strength 4, but gain the Living Ammo special rule (To Wound rolls of 6 Wound automatically regardless of Toughness and force armour saves to be re-rolled, if they cause an unsaved Wound the target must take a Toughness test and suffers an additional Wound for each point they fail the test by).

And that's about it. So you're going from a gun platform putting out 12 S6 shots to 6 S4 shots, but with a new special rule. They'll be slightly cheaper though since you aren't paying for the second pair of Devourers.

On the other hand they gain It Will Not Die, a 6+ invulnerable save, a bunch of new psychic powers, re-roll any dice in a Psychic test once per turn when using one tree of powers, and all the new army-wide buffs.

In other words it MORE than evens out, but they won't be as devastating of an all-around gun platform anymore.

Walkrants on the other hand can take more firepower, better armour save, and the new buffed Tyrant Guard, as a trade-off for the lower mobility.

>>52181932
Based

>>52181932
Living ammo seems rather complicated and seems powerful but i assume cost balances it?

>>52182368
It's not as powerful as it looks, and most weapons with that special rule went down in strength slightly to compensate. Basically they're better vs non-vehicles and worse vs vehicles.

>>52181932

>force armour saves to be re-rolled, if they cause an unsaved Wound the target must take a Toughness test and suffers an additional Wound for each point they fail the test by

Is that triggered on the To Wound roll of 6 or is it active all the time?

>>52182708
Active all the time. The full wording on the rule is more clear, I was doing a shorthand in that post.

>Living Ammo: Any To Wound roll of 6 made with this weapon Wounds the target automatically, regardless of the target’s Toughness, and successful armour saves taken against these Wounds must be re-rolled. In addition, if a model suffers an unsaved Wound from a weapon with this special rule, at the end of the current phase that model must pass a Toughness test or suffer an additional automatic Wound with no saves of any kind allowed for each point it failed the test by.

^Is the complete text.

>>52182814
do fleshborers have this?

>>52183389
The legs aren't supposed to be replaceable, and for internal balance purposes Flyrants need to have an additional opportunity cost over Walkrants.

>>52183436
Fleshborers and Devourers.

>>52183524
>My tide of termies will fuck everything
Nice

>>52183733
They won't even scratch vehicles though, just be aware.

And against models with a 4+ or 3+ armour save the forced re-roll from a To Wound roll of 6 is statistically only slightly better than a -1 to the save. A re-rolled 2+ is a hair better than a 3+. It's definitely not on the level of Bladestorm or anything.

>>52182814
I can't help but feel like one extra unsaved wound would be better than a number equal to the points they fail the test by.

>>52184589
Yeah, I might go with that. The amount they fail the test by was a throwback to 2e Lictor poison. I think it might also slim down the rules text which is a bit lengthy. One sec.

>>52184589
>>52184633
>Living Ammo: Any To Wound roll of 6 made with this weapon Wounds the target automatically, regardless of the target’s Toughness, and successful armour saves taken against these Wounds must be re-rolled. In addition, if a model suffers an unsaved Wound from a weapon with this special rule, at the end of the current phase that model must pass a Toughness test or suffer an additional Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.

Fixed.

>>52184657
Sad but understandable

>>52184993
Why's that?

Quick status update:

Formations are underway. Mostly done with Carnifex genofixed strains. Mostly (almost completely?) done with bio-weapons. What are people's thoughts on Spore Mines, are they in a good place right now? Can I leave them as is? In every edition since 3rd I've always found it really tiring to read their tons of rules and weird exceptions, maybe I can find a way to make them a little more simple and elegant.

>>52188663
The current rules work best, as far as I'm concerned. The old random movement direction + speed made me never want to take them.

>>52186494
Extra wounds based on a failed toughness test could potentially just fuck anything without t6+, statistically at least

>>52188663
I guess letting them explode from deep strike would be the only thing i could think of, and some rewording since it's current rules are a bit of a mouthful

>>52188663
>>52190709
Seconded.

I've never understood why you can't put Spore Mines in Reserves then hit a unit via Deep Strike.

>>52190709
>>52191438
Sounds good to me.

>>52191554
So, what kind of changes has the Tervigon gone through? Other than the switch to a quasi-GC.

>>52192541
I've changed the Spawn Termagant rules substantially. Instead of creating new units it adds D6 models to each Termagant unit (up to a maximum of three units) within 6". Doesn't run out.

Once per game, instead of doing that, you can instead move a unit of Termagants onto the board from Reserve using the Tervigon as the table edge.

Also synaptic feedback is gone, when you kill it it actually spawns a final unit of Termagants on the spot where it died instead of killing the ones around it.

Oh and it has the fleshborer hive weapon that was an option for the Tyrannofex, by default.

>>52192691
Does it still grant Counter Attack, or no?

>>52192746
Not sure yet, I'll have to see how wordy the special rules section of its datasheet comes out when I get to typing up the final version. If I have the space I'll keep it. It's not a particularly useful or powerful ability in my experience but it is fluffy. I have a psychic power that grants Counter-attack, Interceptor, and a similar thing to Tau supporting fire to all units within synapse range of the target Psyker, so maybe I could give Tervigons that power by default and a bonus to manifesting it...

We'll have to see how all this works out in playtesting. I think I've been careful to not write any one thing that's brokenly powerful, but all the synergies stacking on top of each other might reach a breaking point.

>>52192691
>Once per game, instead of doing that, you can instead move a unit of Termagants onto the board from Reserve using the Tervigon as the table edge.
I really like this
I might have to actually take my tervigon in my swarm again

So, how are we fixing the Swarmlord? What about the Hierodules?

>>52192828
Suggestion: make the hq tervigon actually different from the troop tervigon.
Currently there's no reason to take one in an hq slot unless you're running a list of just the tervigon and three gaunt squads for a 500 point game or something, so an actual incentive would be nice.

>>52196364
Special characters don't have unique datasheets, but the generic versions can be turned into them with the right combinations of biomorphs, mutations and genotypes.

Forge World models are not in the purview of my book, at least for now. Maybe I'll do a small supplement later.

>>52196736
That's a pretty cool idea. I'm not too worried about making the FoC flexible because the book is going to include around 13 Formations and 3 whole different Decurion-style Detachments, so by combining those with small CADs on the side you should be able to do pretty much anything, but I still like the idea of making a Tervigon Queen that's buffed up from the normal ones.

Are your warriors amazing now? Is all warrior viable?

>>52199776
Yes absolutely, that was one of the number one goals of the project.

Well, I wouldn't say ALL Warrior is viable, you want to mix in a couple units of smaller bugs to get the most out of them, but I'll get to that.

Warriors and Raveners are now Strength and Toughness 5 with 2 Wounds. Warriors are Brotherhood of Psykers ML1 and know the Onslaught power by default, which lets a friendly unit move an extra D6" in the Psychic phase. They can also Look Out, Sir! Wounds onto Gaunts within 3", so take them with cheap Termagant screens and they become much harder to kill.

There are a few genofixed warrior strain upgrades that give them additional stuff, too. Thraectors are fast leaping Warriors that can keep up with your Hormagaunts, Mutacerons are Infiltrating shooty Warriors that can mutate the ammunition in their bio-weapons to shoot different profiles like Sternguard.

Tyranid Primes are called Praefactids and they're a squad leader upgrade for the Warriors instead of a separate Independent Character, they boost the Mastery Level up to 2 for the unit while alive and are significantly cheaper.

As for Raveners, they can make a disordered charge after Deep Striking if they roll a hit on the scatter dice, and can return to Ongoing Reserves at the start of your turn same as a Mawloc. They also have Rage thanks to IB (Kill) and prehensile pincers by default which means a staggering 7 attacks on the charge (or 5 on a disordered charge).

>>52200370
>Reserves at the start of your turn same as a Mawloc. They also have Rage thanks to IB (Kill) and prehensile pincers by default which means a staggering 7 attacks on the charge (or 5 on a disordered charge).
Nice

File: enhanced-4415-1461371991-1.png (592KB, 614x331px)

592KB, 614x331px

>>52200370

>>52200370
do toxin sacs still give poison. and can raveners still take them with rending claws? if so that sounds burtal as fuck.

>>52202135
Yeah toxin sacs are unchanged.

You can also upgrade Ravs with a 4+ armour save instead of giving them thorax guns.

Oh and one of the Formations gives all your tunneling creatures Shrouded on the turn they emerge from Deep Strike if they stay within a certain distance of one another, from the massive amount of dust and shit that gets thrown into the air when they explode out of the ground.

>>52202230
>Bonded exoskeleton or chest gun
Neato

>>52202230
>one of the Formations gives all your tunneling creatures Shrouded on the turn they emerge from Deep Strike if they stay within a certain distance of one another, from the massive amount of dust and shit
This pleases my fleets fluff

>>52199180
Something like making the hq variant capable of spawning/replenishing something other than termagaunts?

File: lictor_05.jpg (227KB, 2856x1816px)

227KB, 2856x1816px

I think that the Lictor's Flesh Hooks ability to be changed to S3-4 ranged attack that pulls 1 model in a unit D6 inches closer to the Lictor.

Individual models can be attacked by no more than 1 flesh hook per turn, of course.

>>52203182
Flesh Hooks are a really difficult thing to get right. I want them to be able to do the ol' snare and grapple thing but it can cause a lot of rules fuckery with unit coherency and questions of who is locked in combat if it isn't done right. I'm working at it though.

In other news: Formations still underway, I've started on Progenitor Fleet Traits, I THINK I've figured out what I'm doing with the Maleceptor, I've figured out the full rules for the Trygons Bio-electric Field as well as containment spines biomorph, the Haruspex is done, Barbed Strangler has been pretty much finalized... what else... probably some other stuff has been finished since last time I posted an update.

I think Tyranids are fine for the most part.

It's just that other Codex's need to be brought in line.

>>52205019
Guess how I can tell you didn't start playing this game until at least 5th edition.

File: 1487305360418.png (356KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 600x449px

>>52205109
My sparkling personality that shows I haven't given up on GW? ;)

>>52205121
Haha. I'll be honest I haven't totally given up either, but 8th edition and what follows will probably be make or break for me.

In any case I disagree with the philosophy that the strong Codexes need to be brought in line with the weaker ones, I'd prefer if all the weaker Codexes were brought up to level of the strong. There's a few things in the core rulebook that are really cancerous and need to be changed, but in the Codexes, assuming all power levels were raised to the ceiling, just a few points-adjustments for the most OP units (Wraithknights for example) would go a long way.

File: 99120116005_AdMechKastelanRobots03.jpg (42KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x620px

>>52205190
See, I prefer weaker codexes because I hate seeing half my army pop in a single turn. I like having strategy instead of going, "Welp, I'm fucked" pretty much immediately.

>>52205019
>I think Tyranids are fine for the most part.

Boring as hell and riddled with monstrously poor internal balance? Yeah, sure, great idea.

I don't think there's any need to try and obsessively detail every single bit of Tyranid fluff as a rules mechanic, and I feel things like "Hive Fleet traits" are a waste of time. I'm pretty sure I've argued that point with Azazel before, albeit months and months ago. But the current Tyranid codex is not fine by any stretch of the imagination and desperately needs a ground-up rework.

>>52204999

What about giving models with flesh hooks 1 additional attack with the precision strike rule in close combat? To represent the target being hooked a pulled towards the Lictor.

>>52205277
Maybe at I10 aswell, abstracting that the attack actually happens during or even before the charge.

>>52205277
This would be pretty cool and not overly complicated

>>52205019
They are weak, awful internal balance, all our troops choices are awful, warlord traits are laughable, we have the weakest MCs despite being monsters, psychic abilities are below average and we can ONLY use them, we have no transports, are a slow army, lack almost any real heavy weapons

>>52205240
>I don't think there's any need to try and obsessively detail every single bit of Tyranid fluff as a rules mechanic, and I feel things like "Hive Fleet traits" are a waste of time. I'm pretty sure I've argued that point with Azazel before, albeit months and months ago.
Yeah I do sort of take it to an excessive level sometimes, it's true, but I would do the same for any Faction's Codex, it's just my style. I like the game better with more fluffy rules.

I'll put up the playtest doc without the Hive Fleet traits, they're not necessary but they will be a nice addition to the final product.

>>52205277
So I've actually got two forms of Flesh Hooks, the Projectile ones the Lictors use, and Vestigial ones which are available to Warriors, Genestealers, etc. The Vestigial Flesh Hooks just straight up grant the Precision Strike special rule. But I think the Lictor ones need to go above and beyond that.

(Worth mentioning flesh hooks don't act as assault grenades in my codex because nids don't need them, part of their army-wide special rule is completely ignoring initiative penalties for charging through difficult terrain.)

>>52205401
Oh and a follow-up on the projectile flesh hooks, whatever special rule I give them to represent grabbing things will go on the Haruspexes grasping tongue as well. That being the case it feels a bit more important to me to make sure they're really done properly and not just glossed over.

>>52205401
lictor fleshhooks allow you to challenge any model as if it were a character and that model is forced to accept the challenge

also count as assault grenades

thats what I would do

>>52128174
Hi, I'm completely new to the warhammer 40k tabletop game, I've always loved the universe, but have never actually played and am hoping to start playing as the tyranids. I just wanted to ask as a completely new player what is wrong with tyranids and should I reconsider playing them over another army?

>>52205562
Armies change, in 3-4th ed, tyranids were strong, not so much now.

They are currently weak because they are monobuild, you have to take a certain select few units to be viable, unit synergy is off, our gun beasts are terrible at shooting, our big CC MC are poor in CC and slow, our warlord and psychic is weak etc...

However armies change and nids might make a come back, if you enjoy them lore wise and visually go for it! What attracts you to them?

>>52205574
Honestly, I was originally attracted to the Tau as they were my favorite race in Dawn of War, but as I began researching the Tau lorewise, I realised I knew next to nothing about the Tyranid when I read about the fight between the offshoot of hive fleet Kraken and the Tau.

So I started reading about them and just couldn't stop. I love their looks and the way the lore describes they fight.

File: 1377854937981.jpg (175KB, 900x1165px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 900x1165px

>>52182604
>Basically they're better vs non-vehicles and worse vs vehicles.

If most weapons have lowered strength, what good options are there against tank heavy armies? I recall that basic tyranid tactics revolved around getting to eat vehicles with your bigger creatures, but against a tank wall they could just kite your anti-tank carnifexes.

>>52205684
There are lots of options. Rending Ravs assaulting from Deep Strike or just blocking their retreat path, Tyrannofexes guns are both good at tankbusting now, Zoeys get a boost to manifesting Witchfires so they can get off a Warp Lance more consistently, Trygons can lay down a bit of Haywire, Venom Cannon are S7 Rending 2 shots instead of blast, and with Onslaught even those Carnifexes will be hard to outrun forever.

>>52205629
>Liking tau on TG

Prepare to get abuse

Also yeah tyranid lore is pretty cool although lately its just been several stories about how we lose, or don't do tactics and just swarm. Hoping for a glorious return to 3rd edition soon

>>52205747
Thank fuck for that, venom cannon being small blast is uselss, id rather have it single target but stronger and somewhat AP viable

>>52205882
My full rules for VCs:

Range 36” S7 AP4 Assault 2, Rending, Shred, Hyperlethal

Hyperlethal: A weapon with this special rule is always treated as Strength 10 for the purposes of Instant Death.

Possibly will do a heavier version for the MCs that gets an extra shot?

>>52205872
Yeah having started browsing /tg and reading about the universe, I've found that everyone hates the Tau, is there any real reason or is that just that they sell themselves as a inviting accepting race but are really brainwashed assholes that kill anyone who doesn't join them.

>>52205747
>Venom Cannon are S7 Rending 2 shots instead of blast
My nigga

>>52205872
To be fair behemoths tactics WERE to just swarm and break the strongest part of an enemy's defense, but every other fleet acted completely different

>>52205921
Their current tabletop presence is VERY powerful and their players play almost exclusively to win if they started tau in these last two editions

>>52205921
Some people dislike them for "not fitting the setting" as a clean looking optimistic race (I don't mind this, doesn't appeal to me personally but I don't collect them so why would I care)

Others dislike them because they have some incredibly OP units and lists and a lot of people play tau just to run these OP things and win games, as opposed to just playing an army you enjoy for fun

Also weebs

>>52205913
Realistically I don't know if it needs hyperlethal, id just have it as a S7 AP4 Assualt 2 rending, maybe keep shred too

>>52205940
That would explain why the group I might potentially play with hates the Tau player.

>>52205981
I can't justify not giving it a cool rule involving Instant Death given the fluff. It's one of the scarier sounding weapons in the whole 40k setting to be hit by. A pressurized stream of corrosive acid, filled with razor sharp extremely poisonous crystals, charged with a deadly electrical current, and then accelerated to speeds past the sound barrier, that's like 5 different ways to kill a person in one shot.

Besides there aren't a whole lot of Strength 10 (effectively or otherwise) single shot middling AP weapons in the game, it's a pretty unique niche. Fun for hunting T5 elite infantry with.

>>52206005
There's one tau player in all of San Antonio that i can stand and that's only because he's been playing since 2001 and list tailors to make games against nids more fun
He's also the source of like 3/4 of my bugs, and the main reason I've only spent like $400 but have $1200 of nids

File: Screenshot_20170316-101209.jpg (78KB, 1094x919px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1094x919px

>tfw you've been on an autistic fluffing spree the last two days on an Anphelion project like system analysis
>only halfway finished with one planet
Haha fuck

>>52205230
This is mostly why the core rules need to be changed up so we can bring the codices in line with each other.

>>52205455
Speaking of which, how did you modify the Haruspex?

>>52205921
The reasons why I'm cool with my friend playing Tau:

1. He started with their 3rd edition 'dex, so he knows what sucking meant for them. For example: this was back when a dead ethereal meant your entire army stops functioning for a turn.

2. He knows how much more powerful his dex is, so he mostly runs infantry with some tank and crisis support

3. He understands when I say that the current Nid dex is in the shitter, and humors my homebrew mods.

>>52207473
It has It Will Not Die, feeder tendrils (preferred enemy in close combat), Weapon Skill 4, Strength and Toughness 7, Gastric Parasites special rule spawns a free Ripper Swarm with D6 bases when it dies, and its bonus attacks from dealing unsaved Wounds triggers every round of combat instead of just the round it charges.

The main obstacle for the Haruspex is just getting into melee range, but with the rest of the Codex synergizing better I don't think it will suffer that problem as much anymore. Fast hormagaunts, lictors and raveners will tie things down, Onslaught will speed it up, and once it's within 12" the tongue grab and pull can bring the prey to it.

I'm not 100% satisfied with it though, because I'm not sure it has a distinct enough role from the Carnifex.

>>52207767
>I'm not 100% satisfied with it though, because I'm not sure it has a distinct enough role from the Carnifex.

I'm >>52205240; for what it's worth, I'll detail how I would change the Hauruspex.

Essentially, it has a hybrid purpose; sweeping away large swarms of chaff infantry, and killing single, very tough targets. It would come equipped with Crushing Claws as before, and a single composite bioweapon called a "Feeder Maw" which confers one of two bonuses, chosen at the start of each round of close combat.

It can either confer 2D6 bonus attacks which hit automatically at St4 AP5, or a single attack at St6 AP2 with Instant Death and Precision Strike, but needs to roll to hit as normal. Neither of these bonus attacks would gain bonuses from special rules inherent to the creature or its biomorphs (Toxin Sacs, Adrenal Glands, etc etc) itself.

Basically, you get to attack with the big mass of tendrils, or the giant tongue-spike, depending on what you're fighting against. Alternatively, or in addition if it still turned out to be a bit lacklustre, it could impose penalties to enemy Initiative or Attacks, to represent people getting tangled up in all the various tongues and tentacles. Like the old Lashwhips.

>>52208534
This would be a great way to get around the Haruspex's awkward build. I don't get why they made an" infantry muncher" with WS3, 3 attacks, and only crushing claws.

>>52208534
This is a solid concept, and I do have the tentacles as a separate bio-weapon profile under the name Ripping Tentacles right now which I might modify along these lines or otherwise mess around with some more... but there's one problem, which is that the Toxicrene exists and is already the specialist for killing single tough targets with its Instant Death on 6's and at high initiative.

We're definitely a bit overloaded on Monstrous Creatures right now and finding a place for all of them is challenging.

When I picture the Haruspex it strikes me as our melee anti-Vehicle specialist with those huge crushing claws, something I think the Toxicrene is very much not cut out for with a low strength value and poison-based approach. However anti-Vehicle tends to be the role of a Carnifex.

If that's the case, maybe it's possible to focus the Haruspex primarily as the anti-infantry choice, a tarpit-clearer. But then it feels like those Crushing Claws are really going to waste.

Perhaps... if the Haruspex had a special rule, some method of destroying transports and then immediately being able to attack the passengers after they're forced to disembark? Like it uses the claws to peel open the tin can and goes to town on the guys inside with the face full of horror. I'm not sure if that's really a niche that needs filling though, at least enough to be worth the amount of rules text.

>>52207767
Also, idea for Rippers:

Any Ripper base may exchange all of its close combat attacks to make a single close combat attack with the Jammed! special rule.

Jammed!: An attack with this special rule gains the Haywire special rule with a -1 modifier to the haywire result. Any modified result of 1 causes the attacking model to take a wound with no armour saves allowed.

I came up with it to give rippers the ability to throw themselves into the guts treads and gun barrels of tanks in order to jam or damage them.

>>52208848
I feel like Rippers are so small they wouldnt really have a noticeable enough effect on a Vehicles machinery that way. Maybe Gaunts, but it's just too many special rules for Gaunts. I do have a thing very similar to this for Gargoyles that only effects Flyers, though.

A strange suggestion I'm sure, but instead of giving rippers access to spinefists how about something like this.
>Bio-Deluge
Every unit with this upgrade can make a single shooting attack each turn with the profile below (select which models will participate). All participating models must be within range and line of sight to the Target.
Template S: 3+X AP: 6 assault 1, Digestive Reflux
>Digestive Reflux
Place the template so that the narrow end is touching the base of one of the ripper swarms taking part in the attack. X is equal to the number of models over three taking part in the attack. For example, if 6 models were taking part, the deluge would be strength 6.
Might be a little out there desu but i really liked the carnifex crusher brood and it could help to make rippers a little less shitty

>>52208944
A cool idea, however in my Codex Pyrovores are sort of like "squad heavy weapons" that add on to Ripper Swarms, which means another template weapon for that unit isn't really necessary. Unless, I suppose, you wanted to Deep Strike those Ripper Swarms and still have a Template option, but then you have do Tyrannocytes. There's also the Thorax Swarms and Pyro-Acid Spray from the Tyrannofex, and Screamer-Killers can fire their bio-plasma as a Template once per game, so the Faction feels a little full up on those.

Oh and the Hive Crone too, jesus.

>>52208993
>Already had it covered
Dope

>>52208892
One idea I always liked for Rippers is to allow them to destroy objective markers. If they begin the turn in base contact with one, and remain there until the start of their next turn, the marker is immediately removed and the Tyranid player scores a single Victory Point.

>>52209242
That's something I might play around with, but possibly as a Formation special rule, not a core Ripper Swarm one.

>>52208993
>Pyrovores are sort of like "squad heavy weapons" that add on to Ripper Swarms
Idea, might be a dumb one just for fluff purposes, but since the pyrovores gun is supposed to spew Digestive fluid what if units wounded by it's flamespurt take their armour saves with a negative modifier?

>>52205940
I started them for the new plastic FW and Crisis Suits so y'all can fuck right off

>>52211259
Crisis suits are one half to suit spam

>>52205913
>Possibly will do a heavier version for the MCs that gets an extra shot?
probably extra strength as well, thats the usual transition to mc version, more shots and more power.

>>52211522
Except they arent anywhere fucking near riptides and ghostkeel level broken

>>52182814
>>52184657
Suggestion: Swap the two parts, to make it clearer that the latter half isn't dependent at all on the former half.
If a model takes an unsaved wound, stuff. In addition, any To Wound roll does stuff.

>>52206025
>that's like 5 different ways to kill a person in one shot.

Functionally it's basically a Railgun, though, and Railguns don't have any such rule - they just have a very high strenght. Why not just make it St8? That's high enough to inflict instant death on everything but the very toughest man-sized targets.

>>52208828

What about something along the lines of;

In any CC where the Haruspex inflicts a successful penetrating hit on a vehicle, any passengers suffer X number of hits.

Could potentially work it so more penetrating hits equals more damage to passengers, or just require one as it is trying to get in. Could also extend this to fortifications, buildings, some types of cover? Would make the Haruspex a really interesting dedicated bunker buster/tank buster, but in an infantry munching way, in that it doesn't even need to destroy it to get at those inside. In theory, the vehicle doesn't even have to be destroyed for it to clear out the passengers, which would separate it from the average carnifex.

>>52208828
>Perhaps... if the Haruspex had a special rule, some method of destroying transports and then immediately being able to attack the passengers after they're forced to disembark? Like it uses the claws to peel open the tin can and goes to town on the guys inside with the face full of horror. I'm not sure if that's really a niche that needs filling though, at least enough to be worth the amount of rules text
Give it the crushing claws bonus to its hammer of wrath hits. If its hammer of warth destroys a transport its automatically considered to be engaged with the occupants.

Bumping briefly, I'll return to respond to comments in a moment.

>>52205940
>>52205970
>>52206005
>>52211259
>>52211522
>>52212004
I'm just gonna kindly request people stay on topic in the future and don't bring the Tau controversy here.

But for the record I don't consider Crisis Suits at all broken, they're a very well designed unit. The Monstrous suits, not-so-much.

>>52211601
That was considered, but then I feel like it starts to feel too similar to a Rupture Cannon.

I could possibly reduce the strength of the non-Monstrous VC to 6 and make the Monstrous one 7.

>>52212293
This is a great suggestion, actually, thank you.

>>52212726
Railguns have the same kinetic force but they're just a plain solid slug otherwise - a venom cannon ALSO can kill via extremely lethal toxicity, acidic burns, and so forth. The original idea was to have it cause D3 Wounds instead of 1 on every unsaved Wound but that felt too powerful against GCs combined with the Rending.

>>52213094
Hmm I actually might be able to combine this straight into the Ripping Tentacles biomorph instead of needing an additional special rule on the Haruspex page. I'm liking it.

>>52214033
Hammer of Wrath bonuses feels like it should stay the domain of Carnifex, which is built for devastating charges. The Haruspex strikes me as slower, plodding, but consistently vicious once it makes it into melee. Sort of a front-loaded approach vs a steady bleed.

>>52217550
>That was considered, but then I feel like it starts to feel too similar to a Rupture Cannon
eh. they're still different enough.
some overlap is fine, the tyranofex shouldn't be the one and only ranged anti tank option. It can be the best at it, for a cost.

the fex can be the cheaper jack of all trades MC, it can be built to do most things cheaply and adequately. But it's not as good as the specialists in their field (or as tough usually). Plus the fex has flipping tanks still as its thing.

>>52217550
>Hammer of Wrath bonuses feels like it should stay the domain of Carnifex, which is built for devastating charges. The Haruspex strikes me as slower, plodding, but consistently vicious once it makes it into melee. Sort of a front-loaded approach vs a steady bleed

perhaps make the tentacles fight at I1. but the haruspex gets another pile in and they can attack a unit that was inside a transport it assualted and destroyed with its regular attacks.
Otherise if you justbwant an infantry grinder give it many low S attacks and make its regen linked to models removed rather than wounds inflicted. Making it that much better if its chomping through a guardsmen squad than if it was punching a wraithlord.

>>52217550
Apologies about going off-topic, guess i was just really fired up
Like >>52217833 said, multiple low strength attacks would go far to mulch infantry but leave you disadvantaged against bigger beasties, which is presumably what you would want out of the thing, maybe something similar to guillimans sword or the carnifex wrecker ball, deals automatic hits equal to each model within range or summat

RipperTentacles: A Haruspex makes 2D6 additional attacks in the Initiative 1 step of the Fight sub-phase using the following profile:
Range - S 5 AP 3 Type Melee, Rending
If its normal attacks inflicted one or more Penetrating hits on a Vehicle or Building with embarked passengers, it can allocate its ripper tentacle attacks to the embarked unit, even if they are not in base contact when these attacks are resolved. In addition, enemy models that are in base contact with a Haruspex in the initiative 1 step of the Fight sub-phase suffer a -1 penalty to their Attacks characteristic.

I'm going with this for now. We'll see how it works out in playtesting but the number crunching looks decent to me. This replaces the Rapacious Hunger special rule, so the Haruspex no longer gets the bonus attacks for inflicting unsaved Wounds, that would be absurd in combination with this.

>>52218241
It's not so much that I want it disadvantaged against bigger monsters as it is that it should be focused more towards hordes, with the Toxicrene being the opposite. Both of them should be decent but not spectacular at filling the other role in a pinch.

>>52218328
Looks good.
If it turns out to good in playtesting I'd consider just lowering the strength and raising AP before making other changes

>>52217550
I've learned from writing rules for other things that if there's any possible way to read something as being dependent on earlier text, people will do so, so the best way to avoid that is to word it to least be able to be interpreted that way in all cases.

Update, making progress on the Formations. This whole thing is really winding down. There's still a lot of busywork to do before I can post it but as far as raw content I'm getting there.

File: rippedsnootylc6qd1.png (79KB, 525x420px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 525x420px

>>52153647

Last bump before bed.

I had hoped to be finished with the playtest rough draft today but I've been so busy with other things, and weekends tend to be tough for me, so I'm gonna say Monday now is looking likely.