The internal logic for weapons in this codex is such an absolute mess that I'm shocked it made it past QA. Not that GW actually seem to have a QA dept lol
Seems quite solid to me. Everything seems to have a decent niche that it fulfills. What's the issue that you're finding?
Oh, I don't mean where weapons fit into different roles, I mean how they're assigned to different units and how they and their costs stack up. It's a mess, even on units that have the same core model!
In the past as most of us know, 'Nid melee weapons have been assigned in pairs because most models have several sets of arms which are swapped out 'cos multiple carried/hand-held weapons aren't a thing for aliens with built-in weaponry instead of hands...but the real reason is to provide models with options and pairs of scytals were notable for being the original way of getting extra attacks on a range of models.
I mean look at the Carnifex:
Previously:
Fex + scytals x2 = 4A +1A = 5A
SK + scytals x2 = 4A +1A = 5A
TB + scytals x1 = 4A = 4A
Perfectly fine and consistent, after all, a Screamer-Killer is just a Carnifex with an angry head-cold and a Thornback just has a longer reach. The core model is still the same, as it should be, then modifications are made to it.
But now in the inane edition that seems to be done by committee with arbitrary ideas:
Fex + scytal x4 = 4A +1A +1A +1A +1A = 8A
SK + scytal x4 = 10A
TB + scytal x2 = 4A +1A +1A = 6A
I mean, why? Firstly, why does a Screamer-Killer just have 10 attacks; why does it have its own Fancy Scytals that are identical to normal 'Fex scytals but without the extra attacks which are then baked into its profile with two extra? What's the point? The weapons don't cost anything so that's not a factor, so why not just give the SK 6A base and keep the scytals identical for all three Carnifexes, which is the sensible and logical thing?
That's just one example of things just seeming to be totally arbitrary. The really baffling thing is the change from pairs of weapons to two individual weapons. This might sound trivial but it affects both combat performance and the cost of the unit overall.
Again, look at the Carnifex...previously melee weapons were bought as a pair for one price (if applicable). Pair of scytals, pair of claws, claw & flail. The pair acted as one weapon system for one price. Logical.
Now, we have "2 scytals" and "2 crushing claws" and why? We get extra attacks from the separate scytals now, which makes no sense because no other non-Fex monsters with scytals get +1A except for the Tyrants and even they aren't consistent with each other; a Tyrant gets +1A from two scytals & the Flyrant gets +2A from a pair (effectively).
Also, look at the Maleceptor and Tervigon: pretty much exactly the same scytals as a Carnifex, vastly different profiles (the sweep/strike is what they should be for all monsters and attacks back down to 4A IMO) but admittedly that was the same for 8th too, but not before then when all scytals were the same.
Why are Carnifex claws priced individually when they have to be bought in multiples of two? +5pts per claw, there's no benefit from having 2 claws over "a pair" so why not have them as a pair of claws, 10pts instead of paying for a claw twice when you only use one?
It's just bonkers. Biomorphs too, are all over the place. Small gribblies are +pts per model, mediums like Warriors are fixed +pts per unit, then monsters go back to +pts per model again. Why?! Logically that encourages larger units of medium models and small-medium units of smalls to get the most value, but that's not the way a lot of people want to play...so why?
Ever since we lost frag, toxin & acid spore mines a spore mine is just a spore mine. So why does a spore mine from a unit of Spore Mines have the chance to do D3 mortal wounds on a 6 but a spore mine fired from a Biovore doesn't? They're the same spore mine.
Why do Termagants get their own Devourers & Spinefists now? I mean I kinda like that it's a slight nod back to 4th where a weapon's effectiveness scaled with the host creature's Strength & Attacks using it but again, the values used seem to be plucked from thin air: S4 Assault 5 Devs on Warriors, S3 Assault 2 Devs on Gants, but Spinefists keep the same shots on both but the S & AP changes. Why? Raveners have "Thoracic" Spinefists, which are absolutely identical to normal Warrior Spinefists and both Ravener Devs & Spinefists are the same as Warrior weapons, but they're not "Thoracic" despite also being in the Ravener's thorax so why the Thoracic on Spinefists?
Why swap Rippers and Gargoyles? Why nerf Gargoyles by making Blinding Venom a strat? Why are Fleshborers now more powerful than a boltgun?
So many "Why?"s! I can't work out if different units were updated by different people and whoever was in charge just didn't care or if the changes are just a team flailing about trying to improve Tyranids to keep up with other 9E codexes so much that they sacrificed any internal logic or consistency when doing so. It's like the complete opposite of the Genestealer Cults book where the Studio were so focused on how that Faction should work they just made them rubbish, and here they've just changed whatever they felt like at the time to randomly improve stuff. Mind you, I'm still annoyed that when Cults first came out I bought a Valk, Russ, Chimera & HWT to give them some flexibility, then when the next codex came out the Valk was gone and nowwith the new book there's no IG stuff at all unless I want to bring a complete IG Detachment to complement them or lose CPs to bring random units. Thanks for that, GW, and no, I don't want to buy a new IG codex when that comes out just to use a handful of models! GUUUUUURTCHA!
This may sound like nit-picking but when consistency and logic don't get applied to a game which is very structured it makes me wonder how competent the Studio team is at the moment. Like don't get me wrong - I'm looking forward to using the new Tyranids book as it's a definite step up but the whole thing is just such a mess in design that I'm dreading how many FAQs it'll get.
