Librarium Online Forums banner

5th Edition Tyranids

33K views 157 replies 45 participants last post by  jammer397 
#1 ·
Has anyone taken a look at the rumors for 5th edition? Does anyone else think we nids are in for a crapshoot?
 
#9 ·
Right now, a Force Weapon "slays the target outright." That is not the same as Instant Death.

The point is that Synapse will now protect Tyranids from Force Weapons. That's a pretty significant boon.
Exactly.

--Rumors--
Run! vs Fleet of [Insert word depicting why unit moves faster]:
Yes the Run! rule allows D6 movement during the shooting phase with no shooting or assaulting allowed.
Fleet now allows you to Run! AND Assault. This will allow footsloggers some speed without taking away the tactics of knowing how far you need to move then assault or Run!
-Upgrade IMO(Melee fex and Broodlord now have a chance)
Rending:
The only thing that can stop rending now will be inv save.
-Upgrade IMO.
Tankkilling:
We have a D3 now when we rend after a successful penetrate on a vehicle hit.
-Ouch...
Also with the damage tables becoming one and glancing being a penalty, VC is now not a one shot wonder. Best you can do will be immobolising the tank over and over.
-Ouch....


We've received good and bad, but you need to take into account the whole picture.
 
#3 · (Edited)
From what I've seen, VC is no longer a good vehicle killer as glancing doesn't kill vehicles in the supposed "5th edition" unless they are open-topped. The other big thing I noticed was I don't believe stealers can kill the heavier vehicles anymore and the BS uses scatter. So as far as I can tell from rumors and what I've read, if its true, we are a little screwed for anti tank.

Spine gaunt shielding is more effective.

But remember, none of this stuff is truely confirmed. I have yet to actually hear anyone say what the source was for the WIP 5th edition that is floating around. It really has no backing aside from the fact that it looks official.
 
#7 ·
Well IMO I'm likeing a lot of the changes so far in 5th or as the rumors have told me so far. I'm very happy now that they have changed prefered enemy to rerolls to hit now as that makes lictors feeder tendrils a lot more usefull on them and actually makes it a viable upgrade on stealers. I'm also looking forward to the rummors about the changes to scuttle and infiltration that allows us to come from a random board edge.

Though nids will for sure be in a hard spot for anti tank that is true. Espically the change to rending we don't even really have a CC anti tank unit anymore (stealers can still hurt land raiders though only if they take toxin sacs) though with force march it may actually be viable to run CC carnifexs.

Though it is still much too early to make any drastic changes to our lists yet as from what I have heard the file is from June 2007 so GW could of changed many things as of now. (Though I'm still hopeing that I can make a cthulu army of nids...all equiped with feeder tendrils and all stealers with scuttle so none of my army is on the board...ahh that would be fun :D ).
 
#23 ·
WHOO HOO!! I can hide my 16 point pile of crap behind my 5 point pile of crap. Without some sort of update to the Nids, and specifically the genestealer, you would have to be partially braindead to use them.

As they are now, they are barely worth thier points. But in 5th ed, they will lose thier speed, lose thier inititive (for at least the first round of combat) and are 33% less effective in combat.

However, why are people saying you can't screen your warriors? nothing in the rules that I saw said the screening works on Models Eye View. Warriors are technically the same size class as gaunts.
 
#14 ·
Cheredanine, it isn't that simple. A Tyranid Warrior is tall enough to draw LOS over gaunts, so ... they don't block LoS. The only things screened by gaunts will be genestealers, hormagaunts, and um well that's basically it. Raveners, Warriors, etc. are not LOS blockers. What's more, games will become terrible argue fests over who does or doesn't have LoS.



Firers may of course shoot over intervening models and units, if they are tall enough or high up on some terrain piece so that their line of sight is completely clear of any models (as usual, check these models’ line of sight by taking a good look from behind their head, and ‘see what they see’).


And to clarify, my biggest worry is how terribly long games between ANY armies are going to take with the above rule in effect. You must measure from a model's head. It is not like area terrain, where because an infantry unit is there, you can't see past it.
 
#16 ·
Cheredanine, it isn't that simple. A Tyranid Warrior is tall enough to draw LOS over gaunts, so ... they don't block LoS. The only things screened by gaunts will be genestealers, hormagaunts, and um well that's basically it. Raveners, Warriors, etc. are not LOS blockers. What's more, games will become terrible argue fests over who does or doesn't have LoS.
I do agree with cher though that screening is probably an improvement. At the moment, it really means almost nothing. Any unit in the game can pass a freakin' leadership test now days as almost every unit has a way to achieve LD 10 or reroll their test and currently they can all shoot between spaces in their own models. Under these rules, spine gaunts are going to atleast block units their size for sure. This is probably going to mean stealers, hormies, rippers, (maybe raveners depending on the circumstances).

We do get screwed pretty hard by these new rules, but remember everyone, they aren't final, this was still a WIP and even if they are, despite the rumors, I doubt that it is going to hit shelves this year.
 
#15 ·
I had an idea (coming from a necromunda-ish rule) that units in front of other units should take some of the shots.

Space Marines shooting into a warrior squad but there is a spineguant squad in the way on flat ground, normally a passed leadership test to hit the warriors then shoot as normal 3+. Well now i was thinking that on a roll of 1 or 2 miss, 3 or 4 hit the gaunts and 5 or 6 hitting the warrior. a gaunt would cover almost half of the warrior. now it would need some work (better shooting units can hit the half of a warrior better then the next.

I need allot of help on this but with that new rule with height measurement this still might end up less work and be pretty cool at the same time
 
#17 ·
Considering their big anniversry plans for warhammer, I think this year is unlikley to see new 40K - especially so soon after apoc. I think this year Fantasy will be the target, but I don't see this as being a late 2009 release - and early one I think - they might even try and get the christmas slot
 
#20 ·
Strength 8 cannot kill a Monolith, due to the way its weapon destroyed results never spill over into immobilized or destroyed when immobilized. You just perpetually weaken the gauss flux arc beyond nonworking.

The Fex is S9, and the Monolith is a skimmer, so even w/ TS, and assuming it is IMMOBILIZED, your chances are not fantastic. If it is not immobilized, they become slim and none, since it requires a 6 to hit it in close combat.
 
#21 ·
Strength 8 cannot kill a Monolith, due to the way its weapon destroyed results never spill over into immobilized or destroyed when immobilized. You just perpetually weaken the gauss flux arc beyond nonworking.

The Fex is S9, and the Monolith is a skimmer, so even w/ TS, and assuming it is IMMOBILIZED, your chances are not fantastic. If it is not immobilized, they become slim and none, since it requires a 6 to hit it in close combat.

Slim and none is still a chance. I still think multiple immobilization hits will equal destroyed.
Besides why even bother with the monolith. Bugs rip through necrons in close combat. Just kill them and leave it alone. That is what every bug player has ever done to me.
 
#26 ·
Call me crazy but the zoanthrope (or a warp blasting tyrant) looks to be just about any army's best weapon vs armor 14 vehicles shy of Tau and their railguns. That or a running CC carnifex (remember how everyone said he was too slow? Well now he's back, with a vengeance). Oh but what was I thinking? Go back to your doom and gloom.
 
#28 ·
The rumors I've heard is that "model-eye-view" isn't an issue, in reference to screens. The rumor is that they are streamlining the shooting so that it doesn't take 30 minutes to shoot. That said, anything that is not a MC or Vehicle can be covered by a screen of like-sized models. Warriors are the same size as Gaunts (et al).
 
#30 ·
I just want to clarify that the rules do not classify infantry as level 1 or anything even remotely like that. This is not area terrain. It's individual model's eye view. Warriors are on a larger base, and are twice the height of gaunts, so by the RAW currently in the leaked PDF they can see right over them, and ofc other things can see them back.

Also, the Zoanthrope's shot is not AP1, and yeah 18" range BS3 and a psychic test in the first place.

Wound allocation, LOS drawing, etc. will all extend the shooting phase, not streamline and shorten it. Army building dumbing down, game length buffing up.
 
#31 ·
I just want to clarify that the rules do not classify infantry as level 1 or anything even remotely like that. This is not area terrain. It's individual model's eye view. Warriors are on a larger base, and are twice the height of gaunts, so by the RAW currently in the leaked PDF they can see right over them, and ofc other things can see them back.
Well, all we have to work with is the current rules and rumors. The current rules have 3 sizes, size 2 being the standard for infantry and the remaining requiring explicit mention. The rumors are varying and the one I've heard is LoS is strictly size based, not model-eye-view. This falls in line with the theme of streamlining the rules, as most people are claiming GW is doing. Thusly, physical size won't be all that important, just its size on paper. In this case, Gaunts and Warriors are both size 2 and can screen interchangably.
 
#34 ·
Gorfang, perhaps you've never seen what necrons do to gaunts, and vice versa, esp. the monolith.

It encourages less squad #'s, and bigger squad sizes - dumbs down the game. In most cases, big big squads are the target troop approach by the rules now ... and anyone who argues that maneuvering a smaller # of squads, and a higher # of big bulky squads, is MORE tactical/strategically challenge ... well, ain't up in my book o' smarts. Sledgehammer vs. daggers.

As far as the zoanthrope goes, you are allowed 3 max, they hit with very low frequency and only penetrate in 1/3 hits. 3 zoanthropes, assuming the necron player is retarded and lets all 3 get in range of his monolith (assuming he only has one), since they're only as hard as 6 terminators to kill (in other words: NOT hard at all). 1.5 hits / turn. 0.5 penetrations / turn. .17 kills / turn. That's a chance of killing 1.02 monoliths in an entire game if all 3 zoanthropes pass their psychic tests and shoot and are alive every turn. Mmmmmyeah ... and just for reference, the stunned/shaken/weapon destroyed do not significantly impact anything. It's three penetrations AN ENTIRE GAME.

As for the LOS thing, Kore, I already linked the rule from the PDF here in this thread, I directly quoted it. You draw LOS from the models. There is no mention of model size in re: the targetting. You simply draw true LoS.


I shall re-quote it here:

5th edition said:
Firers may of course shoot over intervening models and units, if they are tall enough or high up on some terrain piece so that their line of sight is completely clear of any models (as usual, check these models’ line of sight by taking a good look from behind their head, and ‘see what they see’).
 
#35 ·
I'll hold judgement until I see something more concrete. A few points on sizes though:

I think the "size type" is a better way to go. That way there's no question if a unit can screen/be seen. If they were to do a "model's eye view" kind of thing, that's really going to depend on HOW you model a fig. Case in point is some of my leaping warriors. I modeled them to be hunched down low to the ground. The end result is they are about the same hight as a hormagaunt. Now my "models eye view" can't see these warriors because of how they are modeled.
 
#36 ·
Currently, Tam, that is exactly my point and problem. It literally tells you to get down and take a model's eye view ... and it can see what it can see. Let's just model one fex super huge and wide, and give him all defensive upgrades, and model the other monstrous creatures as small and limbless as possible with WYSIWYG, and just hide 'em behind fatboi. Meanwhile, put all the spinegaunts standing on their hind hoof or tail.

R-tarded.
 
#38 ·
I think we're all in agreement on this point. Suddenly you get complaints about people abusing WYSIWYG in their conversions. While this makes for interesting models, it adds too much variability to the game. When there are too many variables you find more arguing and this is not how the game should end up. As far as rumors go, I am pointing out that an opposite rumor concerning LoS is floating around. It is pointless argue "who is right" when they are just rumors. What is important is that we draw conclusions from all the potential rumors (ie if this, then that).

On a side note (concerning scoring units), Necrons only have one Troop choice and it is rumored to end up with S&P. They may be getting nerfed worse of all. But I digress, there is a seperate thread for Necrons.
 
#37 ·
I think we all just need to realize that GW is just continuing its quest to make 40K a child's game. With each new edition they make it more mindless than the previous one. No sense in getting all up in arms about it, for its going to happen. As soon as GW realizes that this game is NOT for kids we MIGHT see a revert to older systems when the game was actually for people that could think.

*Rant end*

O.T.
 
#39 ·
Well, my main point was that I was going off a published GW leaked item, and not a rumor, re: the LOS, hence quoting the actual item. I am aware, before you reply, that a VERY few people (without substance /backup) have claimed there are multiple copies. I haven't found that to be true, but I'm aware.


What IS true, is that units behind other units but still shoot-at-able will get a cover save of 4+. If the warriors can be seen over the gaunts, or can see others over them, their targets and they themselves will apparently have gaunts that aren't just meat-shields, they're actually bullet stoppers.
 
#40 ·
What IS true, is that units behind other units but still shoot-at-able will get a cover save of 4+. If the warriors can be seen over the gaunts, or can see others over them, their targets and they themselves will apparently have gaunts that aren't just meat-shields, they're actually bullet stoppers.
What sucks about this is that those Gaunts won't have to take any wounds. Now, I realize this would make the game much more cumbersome, but it would be more realistic.
 
#41 ·
I agree with you Kore, but it would be really tough to figure that out each time, unless you had something like any rolls to hit of 1 count as hitting the unit providing cover, though then you could end up shooting your own models if they are the ones which are providing cover.
 
#44 ·
I am a bit confused here... Didn't 4th Ed come out not that long ago? And any ideas on when the 5th Ed is coming out?(roughly) Otherwise it just seems silly to start arguing over something that is so far away that any actual "leaks" of rules could be entirely changed or even left out of the new 5th Ed... And if it is coming out soon I do hope they implement that firing past a unit that is shoot-at-able then the model gets a cover save.... Finally a useful and fluffy version of a Invul save.... Thats better than the one that Tyrants get... Stupid 40 points to get a 6+ invul save...
 
#45 ·
Well, to be fair, Tyrants pay 35 points, not 40 points. This lets them fly and get a 2+ save, something extended carapace cannot give, and it is only 10 points more than extended carapace itself is.

So basically, for 10 points, you are allowed to fly and you get a 6+ invul save. Not to be too off topic, but gityerfaxstrait.

4th edition came out several years ago, and it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility to see a new edition sometime this year or early next.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top