There's about five different Carnifex "variants" listed in the 40k Tyranid Codex; it's what I used to produce the "Nidzilla variant" mentioned earlier.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I wasn't trying to suggest that Slugs should be eradicated backgroundwise, or that those should ne related to fexes in background in any way. Slugs would be backgroundwise their own thing, and carnifex variants would be something else. Both would be present in the background.

Only the rules would be linked, therefore people would be able to choose the appearance of their bio-tanks on the tabletop. Difference in appearence could be explained by stating that some Hive Fleets use different bio-tank strains because of the different genetic assimilation that has happened earlier on.

Exactly, the 40k taxonomy is just presented as a guesswork framework by ignorant imperials. Who knows what the real relationships are. Nothing to get too hung up on when trying to resolve some rules for people using slugs/fexes as preferred.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

My point was that the assault spawn are almost completely unknown and if put/kept in the list they would not be slugs, they're design would mirror existing models like how the Ravener and Trygon are related.

Although the background is styled as speculative links, it's pretty definitive with the Ravener/Trygon connection.

I don't think it's a good idea to merge fex variants with assault spawn. Assault spawn are bigger than fexes and lots of multiple fex variants is just confusing. It would also set something of a precident in having the same/similar models with the same names being used for two or more different units. Essentially the opposing player cannot tell from looking what models represent, they would have to be told and maybe regularly reminded.

I think it's all somewhat academic anyway. There are no readily available models to represent the fex variants (we only have the screamer killer) and if you're going down the new model line then why not design new assault spawn.

Dactylis - Large twin gunned Biovore
Exocrine - Large Biovore with really big gun
Malefactor - Smaller Trygon with Devourers
Haruspex - Smaller Trygon with heavy armour plates and crushing claws

Actually according to ForgeWorld (i think) it seems the assault spawns are already reenvisioned.

Old Trygon = Trygon
Malefactor = Barbed Hierodule
Haruspex = Scythed Hierodule

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I dunno. They seem a bit puny for DC3.

Morgan Vening

Yes FW has made them bigger and based the "new" Malefactor and "new" Haruspex on the Carnifex Genus instead of the Ravener Genus.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

That bit was actually the thing that where begun the thought process for the whole Slug/Fex thing. I began with the assumption that the Hierodule variants would be the re-designed Slugs.

Therefore my original idea was to come up with 2 new Hierodule variants, and then have a combined rule set for Hierodules and Slugs, so that people could choose whether to use the old Slugs or converted Hierodule models to represent these creatures on the tabletop.

This would have meant that there would have only 2 AVs in the armylist, and WE-count would have gone to 11. Also there would have been a need to come up with two new Hierodule variants that are not present in the current background.

But as read through the Epic Nid rules I found out that the Slugs are AVs in the rules, therefore more of a Carnifex-sized than Hierodule-sized. Also there are many Carnifex variants currently in the background, to there was no need for new concepts. Slug/Fex seemed to fit to the background and serve the armylist better than the Slug/Hierodule.


I don't think it's a good idea to merge fex variants with assault spawn. Assault spawn are bigger than fexes...

I'm not sure that FW re-imagnined the assault spawn as Hierodules, if they did GW weren't involved as the assault spawn keep popping up in newer publications (Hierodule and Hierophant are still fex derivatives).

I think it's just a differece of opinion. I think the assault spawn would be closer in look to the Trygon (at least Haruspex/Malefactor) than to the fex as represented by the higher spawn speed and reinforced armour (Trygon is 2DC, Spawn are 1DC RA and as 1DC WE don't exist they are AV).

Modelling wise I don't get why people would essentially build their own fexes to represent spawn when they could just build new spawn. If you can build a fex then you can build a spawn. The existing model isn't really suitable for conversions.

There is also the lingering presence of spawn, they keep getting mentioned and Epic is the logical place where they'll be. Just above the fex running upto the Trygon (as the largest assault spawn). There is quite a nice spread of points at the moment.

Fex - 41.6pts
Haruspex/Malefactor - 58.3pts
Exocrine/Dactylis - 75pts
Trygon - 100pts

It's great if someone does some new spawn that look like fexes but I would prefer that they aren't called fexes in the actual list.

Just to note: It is rumoured that spring 2010 we will see a news Codex Tyranids. I hope there will be new background in which helps to resolve this problem.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Well those that want their Assault Spawn to match what little there is in the current codex (coming from Ravener strain, closely related to Trygons) could still use them as such even if the Slug/Fex thing is done. This is because there are two different Trygon entries in the list; one from Independent section that forms a tunneling formation with Raveners, and one from Uncommon Broods that is arranged into Synapse Swarms.

Those want to create new models for Trygon-related Assault Spawn could use the Uncommon Brood Trygon rules for them, while using Independent Trygon rules for actual Trygons. Even when there only one set of rules, there are two different battlefield roles and swarm organizations, therefore I would have no problems if one wants to use different looking models for each type.

This is another example how one set of rules could be used by various people with different modelling and background preferences.

Are there enough weapon options for a Fex in 40k of the required calibre to match up to all the Assault Spawn.

1) The Haruspex already has Crushing Claws so matches the Fex on that.
2) The Exocrine mounts a Bio-Cannon (Apocalypse stats on the Barbed Hierodule are 48" S10 AP3 Assault 6, not a Fex weapon). You can't use the Venom Cannon as the best you can get is a single AP4+/AT5+ shot for a Twin-Linked VC unless the Tyrant and Warriors are rewritten to use different weapons.
3) Dactylis doesn't have a remotely viable weapon, the Barbed Strangler doesn't have the range unless it suddenly matches up to the Biovore in a new 40k codex. Plus the Barbed Strangler is already a variant heavy weapon represented in the VC stats (Tyrant models have them)
4) Malefactor can use devourers if you completely ignore the general trend in weapon transitions between 40k and Epic. Deathspitters are small arms and the Devourer would be too.

Tyranid weapons in 40K are bit tricky, as these do not have fixed stats, they are modified by the carriers Strengt value (and sometimes by the Attacks value). Therefore Hive Tyrant Venomcannon is 3 shots at S8, while Carnifex is 2 shots at S10, giving the Carnifex more puch against heavier vehicles.

Similarly a Warrior can fire a single Devourer per turn, with four S4 shots (this compares to bolter fire), but Carnifex can take two twin-linked sets, giving it eigth S6 shots re-rolling missed hits, something that I would not classify as small arms fire (it wounds pretty much all basic infantry on 2+).

Of course this system does not fit in Epic scale in such detail, but one could simply have weapons called Tyrant Vemoncannon and Carnifex Venomcannon and then use different statlines for the guns. For further clarfication slightly different names for Carnifex versions would be used, like Venomspitters and Clustered Devourers for example.

Dactylis is the most problematic one, I fully agree here. But I see its primary battlefield role as ranged AP fire support, something that Barbed Strangler can do. This bio-tank would see biggest rules modifications, but it should be able to keep battlefield role still somewhat the same, even with changes in the rules.

Once again Hive Tyrant Barbed stranger ends up having quite different profile that Fex one 40K (Tyrant one is S5, Fex one is S8), background there should not be a problem to have the Tyrant version being different (and to be abstracted into another profile when it comes to rules).

EDIT: Also one further idea. We could also see if what ever is lost on Dactylis could be transferred to Biovores. Biovores do have longer range than Venomcannons and such in 40K and could use Barrage rules in Epic (they Barrage in 40K) as far as I understand the rules.

This way the overall armylist would keep its capabilities better.

Just to give you all something spesific to chew on, here is a proposal on the matter. Don't know if it is any good, my first Epic game is still miles away...

Fex variants there come either directly from or are heavily influenced by the ones in Chroma's Nidzilla variant list and E&C's Leviathan list. Some are slightly altered so that their designated battlefield role and differences from eachother are more apparent.

Any thoughts on these?

They're certainly Fexes, I think the Assault spawn comparison names need to be removed though. They're just not assault spawn calibre. Points would be close to the Fex.

Compared to assault spawn the primary shooting variants are particularly weak in the role (Reduced range/firepower) and the others are generally weaker (but points value can compensate) and remove the more useful aspects (No extra FF attack and 2xMW attacks). TK should not really be on something that small and multiple Fearless creatures is always a worry.