Tyranofex in a Aegis Defence Line.

[Harvey]

After recently discovering that Tyranids can indeed use "Gun Emplacements" as they are a separate rule to "Emplaced Guns" i was very excited.

Going through the codex to find what would best utilize the quad gun or lascannon i realized that the old Tyranofex whos use in a Tyranid list was only because of the anti-tank niche he filled became even less useful.

Then i realized that the Tyranofex being a MC could shoot 2 weapons per turn.

So what I'm asking is how effective could a Tyranofex with an Rupture Cannon in a ADL with a Quadgun could actually be?

Sure, it's very expensive but what you're essentially getting is a 6 wound, toughness 6, 2+ Amour Save / 4+ Cover Save, MC that shoots 2 strength 10 shots and 4 twin linked strength 7 shots per turn at range 48.

Not to mention it would look awesome and/or hilarious to see this huge angry bug sitting in a little floral pattern bunker at the back of the board.

[swarmy]

How's he shoot that big gun? Just whack it with the barrel of the rupture cannon till it goes off? Funny imagery

[vecuu]

I like to think he has some dexterity within his tongue.

[nalathani]

I think for most of us we would use the rules for these gun emplacements but model them to be seperate Nid creatures that are simply immobile, like a spore.

[bigpig]

BS4 venomthrope is probably a better choice. He can form a core of a gunline and provide a 5+ save to those around him.

For the fex you are spending 250+ points for a BS3 critter to man the gun. Sure hes tough, but for those points you could also have two 25 man gaunt units behind cover manning it. Those 50 gaunts are probably more survivable. Besides, the TFex's new role is solid anti-infantry (acid spray) in a hard as nails MC package that can flip tanks and smash ICs. You want him moving forward for that.

[gloomfang]

I second the Venomthrope over the Fex. The fex needs to be out there stomping face. Also you would be foreced to fire the rupture cannon and the quad gun at the same target. The quad-gun should be enough to kill something on its own.

[swarm492]

What about warriors with deathspitters and a prime? Throw endurance on them and unless its a high strength ordinance weapon you should have a very durable fire base.

[gloomfang]

Jul 31, 2012 17:41:24 GMT swarm492 said:

What about warriors with deathspitters and a prime? Throw endurance on them and unless its a high strength ordinance weapon you should have a very durable fire base.

No good. Again the unit has to shoot at the same thing every time.

[swarm492]

I'm just saying in general

[Voice of Reason]

wait, what?

How do you figure nids can use weapon emplacements? the FAQ is pretty clear that you can't and if you think you're going to convince someone that there's a difference between weapon emplacements and emplaced weapons, you should expect to be smacked upside the head with a rulebook.

[andy089]

Well there IS a difference.

Anyway - would the ignoring Line-of-sight from Hive Guards work on that quad gun?

[killme304]

Jul 31, 2012 19:20:06 GMT andy089 said:

Well there IS a difference.

Anyway - would the ignoring Line-of-sight from Hive Guards work on that quad gun?

Nope.

The said:

*The impaler cannon can shoot any target in range, regardless of whether there is line of sight to it or not.

Its an attribute of the gun, not the HG.

[Voice of Reason]

Jul 31, 2012 19:20:06 GMT andy089 said:

Well there IS a difference.

Show me in the rules, and I'll accept your argument.

anything else and you're trying to change the definition of words.

[infornography]

The rulebook is actually very clear that there IS a difference. The rules for them are notably different. Gun emplacements don't even get autofire. The rules for them are in completely different parts of the rule book.

The naming of them was definitely ill thought out, but they are clearly very different things.

[fragile]

Pg 96 and pg 105, two entirely different entries.