Welcome to Librarium Online!
So, I just thought I would put this out to get some feedback.
I have been using a flying hive tyrant for some time. Most of the time, it draws enough fire from my opponents shooting that it doesn't make it into hand to hand, but on the off chance it does, it usually gets killed by a power fist or force weapon. Very rarely does it earn its points back. The question for me was always "is it worth almost 200 points to not have them shooting the rest of my army". To which I typically answered yes (not to mention I was influenced by wanting to show off my conversion).
Recently I came across some interesting points regarding the rules. If any of them are wrong, please let me know.
1. It is a TMC not and IC and if it joins a squad in hand to hand combat, it cannot be selected by the opponents power weapons/fists/etc.
2. As a TMC it can allocate all of its attacks against an otherwise "invisible" character that is in base to base contact.
If the above 2 points are correct, that totally compensates for the shoot the big ones rule and makes the hive tyrant scary in hth.
Now if I understand this correctly, the only question left is do people think that this is cheesy? I don't as independent character in other armies are protected from shooting by joining squads, and this is just the opposite for TMC's.
I realize it will all be a moot point in a couple of months, but I would still like to hear what people think.
They take a lot of firepower to take down, but for many armies, there aren't a lot of other models to fear. For a typical marine army, gaunts can tie you up for a bit, but aren't normally a threat to your squads (assuming a TMC isn't approaching shortly after the gaunts, at least). Genestealers are a threat but not nearly as resilient. Same for a lot of other models -- warriors can do some damage in CC, but, again, not nearly as resilient as a TMC. Additionally, a model with a powerfist can still lurk behind models in base-to-base (within 2") and get his attack in to splat the TMC, so even allocating attacks to "invisible" characters in base-to-base isn't that amazing if the other player has his squad set up right. I think in smaller scale games when an opponent's heavy firepower is fairly limited that a TMC can sometimes be a little too powerful (like 500-750 points), especially things like a winged HT with WB and such, but I don't really have a problem with them in general.
Yah, I've been posting similar complaints for a while, now. Without yet again repeating myself, I'll just say that I treat my TMCs as monstrous independant characters. However, if someone I was playing against demanded that I obey the FAQ to the word, I will certainly comply -- and exploit it to the max.
1. It's my understanding that it's still an IC. I could be wrong, though.
2. True. But any player of any intelligence will have it's PF in the back. As long as it's within 2" of a model in base-to-base with your Tyrant, it still strikes at full attacks, and you can't attack it back.
Sam Mills (1959-2005) and Mark Fields - Keep Pounding
Cry Cheese, And Let Loose The Wraithlords And Templar!
I Always use a winged Hive tyrant; once games get up to 1500 points I always take two. Them drawing fire is key because the are drawing fire from things that instant kill warriors...and if you run out of warriors and don't play a hive tyrant you don't have synapse anywhere. As a Tyranid player it is your job to dictate hand to hand combats which is what leaping gaunts are best at; your hive tyrant should not be engaging any unit with powerfists by himself. The only time he fight them is when a group of gaunts is present and in base to base with the power-fister, forcing him to waste his attacks on them, so your tyrant can eat up the rest of the wimpy troopers. Between my two tyrants they always get their points back, though typically one gets 400 (yeah) and the other picks up 150-200 (not quite his points, but enough to ensure victory).
I know two of the same HQ is boring and I can't wait for the new genestealer so that I can vary my HQs...I play the same people freqently and love being able to make my army look really different every time we play...frustrates the sont out of them.
It never was an IC. And I never hear people complaining about how the wraithlord isnt an IC, while they do about the TMC.1. It's my understanding that it's still an IC. I could be wrong, though.
Hive Fleet Furi Kuri 32/21/4
Tomb Kings: 8/5/2
Im in ur Halo, killin ur covernantz
The codex defines it as the combination of an IC and a monstrous creature -- well, from the 3rd Edition ruleset. It actually behaved exactly like a 3rd Edition IC, except for when it came to shooting at them.Originally Posted by Baratos
yea but where using the 4th ed rulebook and that states that they use rules form both MC's and IC's
they are not and never wher IC's
The codex states that it has the some abilities of both independent charecters and monsterous creatures, but it doesn't not ever tag them as Independent charecters so if someone ever says they are give them your codex and ask them to find where it says TMCs are independent charecters and when they get to that spot make sure that they don't think your spine gaunts are imperial guardsmen because they can both shoot--I mean if they have the same abilities they must be the same thing.The codex defines it as the combination of an IC and a monstrous creature -- well, from the 3rd Edition ruleset. It actually behaved exactly like a 3rd Edition IC, except for when it came to shooting at them.
A matter of semantics. They were independant characters in everything but name. Personally, I don't care if other people treat them as ICs. I'd actually rather that they did, since it would avoid the anachronistic rules that the FAQ asks us to use.Originally Posted by nichodemus10
One instance where they were plain independant characters was pre-codex, though.