Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Tyranids

[Fire Golem]

I’m hoping the old Genestealer models on the card doesn’t mean resculpted Genestearlers aren’t coming soon. 

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, fire golem said:

I’m hoping the old Genestealer models on the card doesn’t mean resculpted Genestearlers aren’t coming soon. 

Too early to say, they won't put new minis on stuff until they're ready to release them. They're not out before the Nids codex, ergo no new minis on cards.

[Stealth_Hobo]

23 minutes ago, Zoatibix said:

I confess to not being wild about 2d6 damage. While I get the average is 7…rolling poorly and having to spend CP is burned into my aged brain. 

At least you don't also have to roll for numbers of shots like poor Necrons. 

[Captain Idaho]

27 minutes ago, Zoatibix said:

I confess to not being wild about 2d6 damage. While I get the average is 7…rolling poorly and having to spend CP is burned into my aged brain. 

 

For my rolling, 2D6 damage means about 3-4 most of the time...

[Zoatibix]

10 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

Really digging these rules for Nids, as a Non-Nid player  I'm really happy to see rules revolving around battle shocker and "The shadow in the warp".

 

Not happy regarding the 2d6 damage -4AP anti tank gun though. Come on GW... I thought damage and AP were being scaled back? Either make it D6+2 or at least scale the AP back.

 

Point and instakill was the problem with vehicles in 9th; this concerns me the same as the repulsor gun they showed yesterday.

 

I hope these things are point costed appropriately.

It has been scaled back. Used to be three shots with d6+4 damage.

 

Unless you mean Tyranids shouldn’t get decent anti-tank weapons?

Edited May 3, 2023 by Zoatibix
Bad spell!

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

Really digging these rules for Nids, as a Non-Nid player  I'm really happy to see rules revolving around battle shocker and "The shadow in the warp".

 

Not happy regarding the 2d6 damage -4AP anti tank gun though. Come on GW... I thought damage and AP were being scaled back? Either make it D6+2 or at least scale the AP back.

 

Point and instakill was the problem with vehicles in 9th; this concerns me the same as the repulsor gun they showed yesterday.

 

I hope these things are point costed appropriately.

2d6 is a mild average reduction in damage for that gun, it's d6+4 atm with more shots.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Mogger351

[zero888]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

More built in rerolls hahaha. Nice GW.

 

Edit: I'm serious. The dread they showed had a reroll. The most popular faction's rule is pick a unit and full rerolls. Both Tyranid units shown today have rerolls. Twin linked means more rerolls. I'm seeing more rerolls not less. Not that it's a bad thing, but is anyone else seeing alot of rerolls still or am I going crazy?

 

 

I was thinking the same thing, not just you.

 

Rupture cannon is Roughly the same as the heavy laser destroyer, slightly worse. Standing still it will hit heavy vehicles on 2s, wound on 3s, same AP and both average 7 damage a swing.

 

Synapse is simple and shadow in the warp is pretty cool considering that battle shock now affects obsec.

 

The strat is cool too, affecting two units for 1 CP is a bargain.

[MasterDeath]

I really like that, until now, Anti-Tank guns have 2 attacks max. In 9th to many Anti-Tank guns we're anti-everything because of too many attacks.

[Tokugawa]

2 hours ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I mean, if twinlinked melee weapons are gonna be a thing (and twinlink=reroll), then the swarmlord, if anyone, deserves to have it.

quad-linked.

[Tokugawa]

1 hour ago, KrakenBorn said:

Really digging these rules for Nids, as a Non-Nid player  I'm really happy to see rules revolving around battle shocker and "The shadow in the warp".

 

Not happy regarding the 2d6 damage -4AP anti tank gun though. Come on GW... I thought damage and AP were being scaled back? Either make it D6+2 or at least scale the AP back.

 

Point and instakill was the problem with vehicles in 9th; this concerns me the same as the repulsor gun they showed yesterday.

 

I hope these things are point costed appropriately.

Please read the rules texts of factions you don't often play before making comments. This gun is Heavy3 AP-4 dmg D6+4 in 9th. It is nerfed in 10th.

[Subtleknife]

1 hour ago, fire golem said:

I’m hoping the old Genestealer models on the card doesn’t mean resculpted Genestearlers aren’t coming soon. 

I reckon they will be a later killteam release. Like Kasrkin were for the guard Complete guess on my part.

[GenerationTerrorist]

Genestealers looking nice and munchy.

[de Selby]

Interesting morale rules might be the Big Win of this edition, if simplification isn't.

 

Also the reinforcing swarm rules give me hope for better necron resurrection rules this ed.

[Brother Nathan]

I think nids wont get rules or images updates on anything new thats not before or in the new starter set. Nothing else new/updated til new codex in september. But for now should  just hopefully give an idea akin to the leviathan suppliment didnt make the new nid codex but gave a taster of it with  its synaptic imperatives and such. Nids have a fair number of downgrades such as nolonger ignoring tests and i will have to properly learn leadership stuff but hopefully itll make meaningful ude against even marines

[siegfriedfr]

The Rupture Cannon nerf looks pretty bad, in light of the Heavy laser destroyer buff. Is the "Robin" mentioned in both articles the actual Robin Cruddace of infamous 5th Edition Codexes? If so, that explains things.

[SkimaskMohawk]

8 minutes ago, siegfriedfr said:

The Rupture Cannon nerf looks pretty bad, in light of the Heavy laser destroyer buff. Is the "Robin" mentioned in both articles the actual Robin Cruddace of infamous 5th Edition Codexes? If so, that explains things.

 

Both the 5th Ed nid and guard books were actually extremely good and internally balanced codexes. Idk about later books, but those certainly werent a downgrade in terms of strength.

[prava]

2 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

Really digging these rules for Nids, as a Non-Nid player  I'm really happy to see rules revolving around battle shocker and "The shadow in the warp".

 

Not happy regarding the 2d6 damage -4AP anti tank gun though. Come on GW... I thought damage and AP were being scaled back? Either make it D6+2 or at least scale the AP back.

 

Point and instakill was the problem with vehicles in 9th; this concerns me the same as the repulsor gun they showed yesterday.

 

I hope these things are point costed appropriately.

 

Cmon man, the Rupture Canon is worse than it is now. Also, everything will universally get cover pretty much everywhere, and the bigger the model the easier they will get it. 

All things considered, this is a huge nerf.

[ThePenitentOne]

The concerns for rerolls and high lethality are certainly valid.... But I think there are more controls on these things now.

 

So yes, Oath of Moment allows rerolls, but it's only against a single unit per turn unless you include Bobby G. Characters may offer rerolls, but only to the unit to whom they are attached. Obviously, it remains to be seen if these types of limitations actually do reign in the rerolls in practice, but I think that's definitely the theory.

 

Same is true of the high lethality weapons- yes, many of them still exist. But stripping AP from basic and medium-powered weapons could still have the effect of reducing lethality overall. Again, it remains to be seen whether this happens in practice, but it's certainly the theory that is guiding GW's thinking.

 

I honestly can't wait to try this edition with all the free resources despite the fact that I'm not sure I can get over some of the changes (mostly psychic issues and the loss of rules that support non-marine subfaction identity).

 

I saw a leak the other day that said Crusade content may continue to appear in dexes, and that gave me a lot of hope. We knew Crusade was going to continue to be linked to campaign play... And it even looks like the way this is being done will be improved. But I'd been worried because it's the faction specific long and mid-term goals and the way these interact with Agendas and Requisitions that is my favourite part of Crusade, and we aren't going to get any of that from campaign books.

[AnvilofFenris]

I have to admit, when we first saw the repulsors laser and now the rupture cannon, I was concerned about how powerful they seemed. But thinking about it, they’re big anti armour weapons, they should be able to damage tanks. The increase in vehicle resilience is to stop them being whittled down by small arms fire, not to make them completely invincible. It’s that balance, if you bring a tank you should be able to expect it to roll through bolters/lasguns/shurikens etc unscathed, but if you park it in front of rail gun/lascannon etc, it’s going to get hurt!

[Arkangilos]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

I mean they specifically called it out as something they wanted to pull in and have less off.

 

Concerning.

I’m not too concerned, but we do seem to be in a general age of double speak.

[Jaipii]

I really like that new Shadow in the Warp. Feels really thematic and brings up those "cosmic horror" vibes that the Tyranids presented.

[Scribe]

26 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

I’m not too concerned, but we do seem to be in a general age of double speak.

 

I mean at what point do we hear "we are reducing rerolls" and then look at rerolls continue to... roll in, and go "but wait?"

 

Which is fine there are issues inherent to the D6 and all that, but yeah its just weird to me.

[AnvilofFenris]

6 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

Wait is that what I mean? I didn't know that's what I meant. I'm glad you told me because I thought I said something completely different. Silly me 

 

 

I think maybe just the damage should be reduced over long range; or as damage scales up then AP should scale down. 

 

Example:

Damage 4 AP -4

Damage D6 AP -3

Damage d6+4 AP -2

Damage 2d6 AP -2

 

I really don't think any single unit should have a long range anti tank gun able to kill a Landraider or a dreadnought in one turn unless that singular unit costs a bomb load of points or it's a glass cannon

 

Otherwise we still don't see many vehicles on the table i fear. They haven't reduced damage and AP; they have simply changed the meta by nerfing melta and buffing long range anti tank encouraging gun lines and static play.

Certainly it should be pointed appropriately, but some units are designed as long range tank destroyers (repulsor with the laser, leman russ vanquisher, hammerhead) and by overly nerfing those, they lose their utility. I think the bigger risk is going to be high damage/AP on more all rounder units. I definitely get your point, and don’t really  know what the answer is other than to hope that GW have put the thought in, and these kind of tank killing weapons aren’t overly available and are well costed/counterable. I’m glad I don’t have to balance things!

[DemonGSides]

46 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

I mean at what point do we hear "we are reducing rerolls" and then look at rerolls continue to... roll in, and go "but wait?"

 

Which is fine there are issues inherent to the D6 and all that, but yeah its just weird to me.

 

At the same point where we realize that "reduced" does not mean "removed", I would think.

But here you are, in every thread, complaining about re-rolls :P

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

At the same point where we realize that "reduced" does not mean "removed", I would think.

But here you are, in every thread, complaining about re-rolls :P

 

I did not initiate the discussion, but yes I think an overload of re-rolls just bogs things down. ;)