Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Planning my tfexes and 3rd ed. Tyrant as a Prime?

Since the Trygon is the model that got me into Tyranids,  I'm trying to plan out a good Tyrannofex build based on a Trygon.  Right now, the "vision" is to use a Mawloc jaw with some sort of tube made into a rupture cannon protruding between the lower outstretched mandibles.  The hard part is picking the diameter and length.  Not sure how to represent the thorax swarm yet; mounting a carnifex plate on the front might work as I'm already planning on adding additional armor plates to the Trygon model.

The other, and more controversial piece, is to use the 3rd edition Hive Tyrant model for my Primes.  They are smaller than the current Tyrant, and look like a natural progression up for warriors.  Are they too big?? What are your thoughts?


  1. hmmmm i wouldnt say they are too big persay, just put them in a more hunched position, kind of like how the queen alien walks in 'aliens' or 'alien vs predator' movies. thats the only issue i had/have with that model, its not hunched enough for what it portrays...

    when i converted my tervigon, i cant remember the upgrade i gave it, the 1 with spines, i used 2 carnifex spine carapace plates (won a few in comps), so if you want i could email you the pics.
    my emails in my profile, so drop me a line and ill send the pics out to you within a day or so if interested. easier than tryin to describe it to you

  2. Since they old Tyrant is mounted on a MC base, there is certainly the chance to argue that it's too big.

    Officially GW doesn't state how big it's supposed to be, but it's not a MC, so logic would dictate that it should use a smaller base, but there are exceptions to this rule already (IG heavy weapon teams).

    The question is: Would anyone have a problem with you using a model that's larger that it's "supposed to be?"

    The answer has to do with modelling for an advantage. Do you gain some advantage to having your model being larger? Well, it can:

    - Engage more units in combat.
    - Block more LOS to units behind it.
    - Potentially gain a better LOS to other targets.
    - It also potentially allows less models to fit under a template.

    It can also be disadvantage for various reasons, but anyone who takes issue with it, won't be because of it's disadvantages. If you want to cover your bases, find a suitable reaction to the above questions and use away.

    Of course, these are from more of a "hardc0re" perspective. If you want a more casual thought, I say go nuts. I'm trying not to put too many special models in my force for those units that don't already have models--that way, come 6th edition, I don't have to find a use for a model that no longer has rules. Case in point, I use normal warriors with Ravener heads as my primes. That way, if primes get squatted in the next edition, I can easily use them as normal warriors.

  3. Definitely appreciate the input guys - I'd given some of these things thought, but it really helps to have them enumerated. I was planning on using a warrior-sized base, rather than an MC base, and using a warrior as proxy if anyone has the "hardc0re" issues. Been messing with blue-tac to see how to change the profile a bit, but also considering cutting/repositioning the legs for a more dynamic (and lower) pose.

  4. I personally wouldn't have any problem with it, and hopefully nobody else would raise much of a fuss either. I'm sure it comes down to who you play with and how you use the models. If you're consistantly using the larger model for an advantage, then it's real problem. If, however, you just like the model, what's the harm.

    If you do come up against that "hardc0re" player, you could just opt to give them the benefit of the doubt in all circumstances, and that'll prove 100% that you're not modelling to an advantage.