Tactical RerollTactical RerollTrust the math. Bless your dice.
⋯

Haruspex

Monster · 125 pts
Lists20% · in 54 of 271 public lists, September – November 2026
SimulateHaruspex against any unit, in the calculator

SWORD: what Haruspex kills

Damage for its points

57SWORD
per 100 pts

Its 125 pts kill ~81 pts in one activation.Typical melee unit: 49 per 100

Into each enemy type

Whole meta57SWORD per 100 pts
Hordes73SWORD per 100 pts
Line inf.87SWORD per 100 pts
Heavy inf.90SWORD per 100 pts
Light veh.96SWORD per 100 pts
Heavy veh. ★105SWORD per 100 pts

SHIELD: how hard Haruspex is to kill for its points

Toughness for its points

494SHIELD
per 100 pts

It takes about 24% of a top army's turn to remove 100 pts of it. To remove all 125 pts: about 543 pts of enemy units, 4 times in 5.Typical melee unit: 284 per 100

For its points494SHIELD per 100 pts

What creators say

4 creators
  • Very good in Assimilation Swarm 3 of 4
  • Lots of attacks 1 of 4
  • Big, solid body 1 of 4
  • Lower armour piercing than most 1 of 4
  • Less sure to wound marines now 1 of 4
  • Durable, but no protection against big guns 1 of 4

Units near it

Per 100 pts, its nearest in Tyranids and across the game

SWORD

Across the game· melee units

Assault Intercessor Squad Space Marines · just ahead58
Haruspex 57
Havocs Chaos Space Marines · level with it57

SHIELD

In Tyranids

Haruspex494

Across the game· melee units

Talos Drukhari · just ahead496
Haruspex 494
Wraithknight with Ghostglaive Aeldari · level with it494

How we got these numbers

Invasion FleetDatasheet weaponsNo leaderNo stratagems

SWORD 57 · 125 pts kill ~81 pts in one activation

SHIELD 494 · about 24% of a top army's turn to remove 100 pts of it

To remove it: about 543 pts of enemy units, 4 times in 5

Ranked among the game's 566 melee units · How we score ›

What we ran
  • Haruspex, 125 pts
  • Its datasheet's weapons
  • Counted as dice: the army rule and the detachment's rule
  • Not counted: leaders, stratagems, other units' auras
The letter: 4 creators
The lists: 271