Tyranid v7.1 |
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1  Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:03 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
| Quote (Hena @ 24 May 2006 (20:59)) | | Quote (Jaldon @ 22 May 2006 (02:47)) | | Tyranid formations never receive blast markers and therefore can never be suppressed or broken by them. Tyranid formations ?that lose an assault must still make a withdrawal move, and any units that end their move within 15cms of an enemy unit will be destroyed, but the formation itself is not broke |
I like to know why add the 'any units that end their move within 15cm ...' there? The wording is not very nice, when combined with fearless (for those rule layers that might exists). |
Because that's the effect a non-fearless unit which is broken has. Normally losing an assault will break you, and if you don't run away far enough you get wiped out (Any model within 15cm of an enemy formation at the end of their withdraw moves die). Tyranids can never be Broken, so instead they suffer cut-down anyway without becoming broken. Fearless specifies that they are immune to cut-down affects, and it's not a large jump of logic to reach that into these attacks (Which are the same thing, just that the unit isn't broken because it can't be!)
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 3:17 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Out of all the myriad questions that people have asked regarding the Nid special rules, I don't recall this ever being misunderstood.
I'd definitely go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this one.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:21 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 25 May 2006 (15:17)) | Out of all the myriad questions that people have asked regarding the Nid special rules, I don't recall this ever being misunderstood.
I'd definitely go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this one. |
Actually, the way that part is written it would appear that it's expressing an exception to the normal rules and that all Tyranid units, fearless or not, are destroyed if they end 15cm from an enemy after losing an assault.
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:16 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Actually, way back in SM/TL, the Haruspex was better at CC and the malefactor was shootier. Not that I think that fits the miniatures or should determine which is which, just a note as to the historical source of the stats.
I also favor the Malefactor as the better CC version based on the minis.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
FarSeerElandrieth
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:14 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Yarmouth, ME ?USA
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ragnarok
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:37 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
|
|
I agree that non WE bugs shouldn't have more than TK(1) for their attacks.
At the moment a swarm of Haruspex can tear apart titans better than our bio-titans, which are designed to do just that (though it does eat into the uncommon allowance).
_________________
Tyranid air marshal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:52 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
I think I'd oppose a Harridan with TK claws.
Of course, I oppose AVs having 2x45cm MW5+, too.
(insert rant about the proliferation of MWs here)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
ragnarok
|
Post subject: Tyranid v7.1 Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:49 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
|
| Quote (semajnollissor @ 17 June 2006 (07:52)) | Of course, I oppose AVs having 2x45cm MW5+, too.
(insert rant about the proliferation of MWs here) |
I'm in agreement. 45cm AP5+/AT5+ lance is much better, it stops the infantry taking the hits in preferance to the tanks and APCs
_________________
Tyranid air marshal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
