PDA

View Full Version : Opposite of Power Creep.



blackjack
01-02-2010, 21:00
I was thinking about Tyranids the other day and I began to wonder, when was the last time a new codex came out that was subtantially weaker than it's previous codex before Tyranids?

DoomedFuture
01-02-2010, 21:00
First to say Chaos Marines!

Nicha11
01-02-2010, 21:01
Chaos Space Marines? (although they do have some really powerful combos)

Dreachon
01-02-2010, 21:04
Chaos, they a very powerfull build but it get's really boring really fast, not to say the least of getting lost of badsportmanship medal thrown at you.

Mannimarco
01-02-2010, 21:06
definately chaos

Ive heard one or two people going on about codex:CWE and codex eldar, there are some who would say codex eldar isnt as powerful as some of the codex CWE builds

although I do see this turning into (yet another) tyranid whine thread, we are due one after all, its been at least a day

incarna
01-02-2010, 21:06
the release of codex Eldar wiping out the Craftworld Eldar codex was also a bit of a nerf. As an Eldar player I must say, it was deserved. Some of those craftworld Eldar armies were insane but it'd be nice to see some of that return with our next codex.

blackjack
01-02-2010, 21:10
Not a whine thread! Some people love the fact that nidzilla is gone. It is however unquestionable that the best builds in the new dex are weaker than the old one.

SPYDER68
01-02-2010, 21:16
Nids are weak ?

Ive only lost 1 game with the so far and it was barely.. From what ive been using and playing against.. Nids are rather strong still when used correctly..

Its just one of those armies its easy to take a bad list.

Nighthawke
01-02-2010, 21:23
the release of codex Eldar wiping out the Craftworld Eldar codex was also a bit of a nerf. As an Eldar player I must say, it was deserved. Some of those craftworld Eldar armies were insane but it'd be nice to see some of that return with our next codex.

aye, i was really dissapointed i couldnt do my biel tan army anymore, tbf though nothing in the craftworld book was insane, it was the eye of terror that made ulthwe insane with giant seer councils

Ozendorph
01-02-2010, 21:29
Stealth whine thread, lol.

CSM is weaker than Codex:Iron Warriors (or was it called Codex: Daemon Bomb...I can't remember), but that's hardly a bad thing imho.

Badger[Fr]
01-02-2010, 21:29
No one has mentioned the DA 4th Edition Codex yet?

Ozendorph
01-02-2010, 21:33
;4355710']No one has mentioned the DA 4th Edition Codex yet?

I wouldn't say it was any weaker than their previous (pamphlet) codex. In fact, their 2nd Edition codex was poor as well (especially compared to their blood-sucking roommates). I loved it when my rhinos would defiantly throw it in park and refuse to move one in every six turns, lol.

Absolutionis
01-02-2010, 21:43
Last Time?
Space Wolves

Either way, I laugh every time people scream "power creep"

Agnar the Howler
01-02-2010, 21:49
Dark Eldar!... oh, wait...

I'm gunna chime in with another 'Chaos', whilst some options are nice and good, most of the fun from the previous codex has been leeched by this one. Gone are the days of Codex: Obliterators, and here are the days of uniform twin-lash prince lists and plague marine spam. I'd like chaos to have a bit more variety than "Here's some good units, here are some bad ones, go crazy." and whilst some lists are powerful, a good number of lists are not.

Grax
01-02-2010, 21:55
Oh for the love of God...

*gets on podium*

Tyranids, Eldar, and Chaos Marines are still very powerful, and are arguably some of the most competitive armies out there today!

So why do people whine? Because they're not powerful in the same WAY they used to be. That doesn't mean the codex is weaker, it just means that players have to adapt.

Zoanthropes, Brood Lords, dirt cheap troops, drop pods, and mawlocks/tervigons/trygons make the Nids VERY powerful. Possibly one of the most powerful (I have to play against them a bit more to be sure).

If you still don't like it, then play something else.

Worsle
01-02-2010, 21:56
It is however unquestionable that the best builds in the new dex are weaker than the old one.

It is? I am pretty sure it is very questionable given the last codex could not make a real competitive list any more. Old nidzilla was dead, so now we have some new gigantic alien overlords to welcome.

Lordsaradain
01-02-2010, 22:48
CSM! Their new codex was more of a nerf than anything else (barring O&G in WHFB).

Phazael
01-02-2010, 23:07
Pretty much every 40k book since Dark Angels has been a downgrade over the previous book, with the exception of IG, Cheese Wolves, and SMurfs. The SMurf one is arguably a sidestep, except the special characters really are powerful for the points. Orks seemed like a powerup for a while, until people figured out Nob Bikers. Chaos, Dark Angels, and Eldar suffer from overcosting and a lack of variety of viable army builds. Tyranids and Orks have descent variety, but many internal balance issues and overcosted units, plus that whole inability to deal with AV14.

I really wish they would use the IG book as a measuring stick for how powerful the books should be, as I think that is the one book that has had the good balance of power, variety, and fun. Its really only abusive with allies.

CrownAxe
01-02-2010, 23:14
Oh for the love of God...

*gets on podium*

Tyranids, Eldar, and Chaos Marines are still very powerful, and are arguably some of the most competitive armies out there today!

So why do people whine? Because they're not powerful in the same WAY they used to be. That doesn't mean the codex is weaker, it just means that players have to adapt.

Zoanthropes, Brood Lords, dirt cheap troops, drop pods, and mawlocks/tervigons/trygons make the Nids VERY powerful. Possibly one of the most powerful (I have to play against them a bit more to be sure).

If you still don't like it, then play something else.
Seconded for great justice

DvlDog
01-02-2010, 23:22
I...really don't know what to say to Phazael. I can agree that the DA codex is overcosted and has a limit on what it can do. That's just about it....

DuskRaider
01-02-2010, 23:44
Codex: Chaos Space Marines, without a doubt. In the previous book, you were hard pressed for a certain build, since pretty much every unit in 3.5 was viable to an extent. When 4.0 came around, we lost our rules for specific Legions, we lost most of our options, and we gained NOTHING new. Seriously, look through the book. What's been added from the previous book to this one?

Nothing. Even Huron Blackheart, the bane character of Legion players, was in 2nd Edition. And you can't even say Vindicators, since they were an option for Iron Warriors in 3.5! Now everyone takes 9 Obliterators instead of just IW, the instant win (cheese) army these days include two Daemon Princes (which have NO options, BTW), Termicide squads, Berserkers in Land Raiders, Plague Marine spam, and Obliterators. That or... wait, nope. That's it.

trigger
01-02-2010, 23:46
Pretty much every 40k book since Dark Angels has been a downgrade over the previous book, with the exception of IG, Cheese Wolves, and SMurfs. .
Rant
Your off yor head mate , i have been a SW player for 15+ years and this is the weekest codex we have had. Dont get me wrong i love it its fun to use ... but it is def a down grade.

And by your argument Orks got a down grade .....WTF ???? They beet the snot out of most things
30 boys for the same price as a Russ ... hmmm.

Sm have always been the main staple of GW yet have always had the shat codex , I am glad there finaly good.

Rant over.

Cant comment on nids , codex is on way.
Chaos are still a very strong list , as said loads of times , you cant do what you used to.
I belive GW are slowly getting the codexi right. Yes CSM need a tweak , the SC ar no wear near good enough now , but it will come good in the end.

Thud
01-02-2010, 23:49
Pretty much every 40k book since Dark Angels has been a downgrade over the previous book, with the exception of IG, Cheese Wolves, and SMurfs. The SMurf one is arguably a sidestep, except the special characters really are powerful for the points. Orks seemed like a powerup for a while, until people figured out Nob Bikers. Chaos, Dark Angels, and Eldar suffer from overcosting and a lack of variety of viable army builds. Tyranids and Orks have descent variety, but many internal balance issues and overcosted units, plus that whole inability to deal with AV14.

I really wish they would use the IG book as a measuring stick for how powerful the books should be, as I think that is the one book that has had the good balance of power, variety, and fun. Its really only abusive with allies.

I disagree with the following:
-Tyranids being "weak."
-Marines only being viable in a competitive environment with special characters.

I know you did not say either of those things directly, and if I'm pulling a strawman here, please correct me.

Other than that, you're right. I can't for the life of me understand why so many seem to be under the impression that Orks are good and Tyranids are weak.

Epicenter
02-02-2010, 00:12
While Chaos players like to play the "boohoo" card, they did not get the biggest nerf between editions. Lots of disaffected Chaos players != biggest nerf.

The change between Codex: Craftworld Eldar to the latest Eldar codex is the biggest single "fall from :cheese:" in all of 40k. The loss of unlimited size Ulthwe Seer Councils and the Alaitoc Ranger Disruption Table were huge downgrades in power. In the original codex itself, you had Starcannon spam which made 4th edition Assault Cannon spam seem like a drizzling rain. Honorable mention goes to the Ulthwe Webway Strikeforce.

The only reason why Eldar players didn't scream as loudly as Chaos (and nids, it would seem) is that most Eldar players I knew admitted to themselves that C:CWE was cheese and needed to go.

That doesn't change the fact that Eldar took a huge hit in power.


Not a whine thread!

"The lady doth protest too much."

Seriously, your tears are delicious, mostly because I don't see this tremendous weakness in the new dex.

the1stpip
02-02-2010, 00:15
Eldar are certainly still a very powerful army, especially if you use Seer Jetbike Councils and holo Falcons.

Chaos are powerful, but again with a few units.

I don't think nids have been nerfed, people are just upset that fexes are now properly priced.

MoonReaper
02-02-2010, 00:28
Come on guys ... The chaos marines codex was a nerf because the 3rd ed chaos was utterly ridiculusly broken ..

Tyranids were hardly competitive, nevermind broken in 4th

Max Jet
02-02-2010, 00:33
What stroke me mad and let me favor with the Chaos people was that they have stolen so many options from them which could not be presented any more.
Cultists, Basilisks, a whole bunch of Slaneeshi Marines. That was pretty hefty and I know now how that feels. I can still field any of my units but it's like playing Golf with a broomstick.
Of course you can.. but why would you? Because you cannot afford a Golf Club of course.

Pszito
02-02-2010, 00:36
The new tyranids codex is so far from 'weak' or down-creeped! When you can take an entire army filled with 'power weapons' (although they aren't actually power weapons), pinning or moral checking ranged weapons, add in the most powerful anti-tank shot in the game (the the stipulation of a short range), blend nicely with a near-universal deepstrike/drop pod capability, add meat shields/cover saves to taste and VOILA! you have nothing short of a huge problem for your opponent to deal with. The ability synergy with the new nids makes some frighteningly powerful units that have a punch and survivability unlike much anything elde i've seen.
Its true, if you played the EXACT army list you did from the previous edition, you are going to have a hard time. The point/ability changes (a bit of a +/- situation) to old units and the inclusion of many superior 'roled' units makes this a whole new beast (as i've been saying since i've been able to digest it). You cant play the same old same old and expect it to hold up in new editions, this stands true for every codex. Tyranids just had such a huge shift this time it's causing a little whiplash in the players used to it from before (myself not excluded) but to baseline the entirety of the new codex as 'underpowered' or simply not as powerful as it 'should' be does reek of whining and shortsightedness.
There are plenty of new delights in the new dex, just gonna take some time to discover them all and make the adjustments to our models to roll with it, imho.

Mannimarco
02-02-2010, 00:41
codex chaos was indeed a nerf, they just took that nerf hammer and beat the codex like they were its daddy

the general consensus on how nerfed the nid codex seems to be on the other hand is little more than "carnifex is now a more reasonable price and you have to pay points for wargear which is not as good as stuff of similar cost"

there is a certain degree of resentment that all those people were suckered in with the new shiny carnifex kit and all its little options and look how you can make a whole army of them and none of them need look the same, and now they cost a lot more points and people are up in arms about that

yes nidzilla was a good solid competitive build but lets face it: a retarded monkey could make a nidzilla list and win with it, you simply point it at the enemy and laugh as small arms fire bounce off them and hope the enemy doesnt have lots of high strenght low ap special and heavy weapons in there, that doesnt make a tactical genuis (tyranid creeeeed!!!) it just means you recognise the books overpowered cheese list. Vulkan termy spam/lash spam/biker nob spam/obliterator spam says hello to our old friend nidzilla

indeed chaos players like to whine about the loss of our beloved 3.5, we still do to this day but the nid player has claimed our throne as biggest whiner, at no point was warseer filled with "Whaaa they nerfed my army" every second or third post as we have seen at the height of the nid whinefest

and yes I agree the eldar took a massive hit when it came to power levels, shame really as im sure theres many out there who fondly remember the ranger disruption table

for anybody still screamong "they nerfed my nids" have you actually read the book and played a few games with it or is this just a repitition of "I read a guy on the net who quoted a guy on the net who was playing on another table in a club and he didnt do well with his new nids ergo the nids are nerfed whaaa"

ill tell you now I have played the new nids, yes theyre different from before but theyre still solid, just different. What worked in the past doesnt work now but fortunaltey theres so much in there that does actually work and it works well

TheWarSmith
02-02-2010, 00:49
Look, you're gonna get power creep, or you're gonna get a slide down, if you look at it that way. The only way to keep things 100% on the same level, would be to never change them, and I doubt any of you would want that.

Laughingmonk
02-02-2010, 01:11
I was thinking about Tyranids the other day and I began to wonder, when was the last time a new codex came out that was subtantially weaker than it's previous codex before Tyranids?

This is assuming that nids got weaker. To my knowledge it appears only the carnifex appears to be truly nerfed. The venom cannon and hive tyrant changed, and genestealers , zoeys, gargoyles, and hormies got boosted. We also got access to some excellent units, such as hive guard, tervigons, the trygon family, and tyranid primes.


Regarding the chaos codex:

The chaos codex not only completely invalidated multiple armies, but also didn't add one single new unit to the list (in fact, they removed a vast quantity). It has the same terrible internal balance as the tyranids, which hits chaos extra hard since the army lends itself more to themed lists.

MystheDevourer
02-02-2010, 06:05
Nids are weak ?

Ive only lost 1 game with the so far and it was barely.. From what ive been using and playing against.. Nids are rather strong still when used correctly..

Its just one of those armies its easy to take a bad list.

ANNNNDDDDD Bingo was his nameo!

Yes Nids are strong you just need to know the "numbers" for instance why would I field a Carnifex for the same price as a Tervigon???? OH and the Tervigon is a troop Choice! so I can Mycetic Spore him onto a objective? Yes please!

There are many other things so many many more things. your welcome to lurk on Warpshadow for a while we love the codex over there! well most of us! We generally leave the QQ to fourms like Warseer and BoLS

Vaktathi
02-02-2010, 06:11
Chaos Space Marines weren't really nerfed in power level except for the more extreme builds of the old codex, their troops actually became much better for the most part (thousand sons and Emperor's Children remaining mediocre notwithstanding)

The problem with CSM's was the removal of what drew people to the army, the variety of options and abilities and background material, and the change from the dark enemy who built the imperium and now fights to destroy it to basically emo marines.

The book itself, even without lash princes and plague marines, is still quite powerful. I win far more games than I lose with my CSM's that is basically nothing more than 30-40 CSM's, 3-4 rhino's, a winged khornate DP, 12 termi's and 6 oblits.



As to the Tyranids, I don't think they got any weaker, they are just *different*, majorly so.

godking
02-02-2010, 09:56
nidz are very powerful right now. I would say next to IG, lots of new and powerful stuff.

I saw a nid player "grow" 50 guys, give them FnP and counter assault(wtf). the chaos player killed none of the nids starting list.

blurrymadness
02-02-2010, 10:19
I think the problems here are mixing power vs. problems with codices.

Orks took a big hit on the heavy weapon department, and the AT department (kannons were ordnance, no looted tanks, zzaps not autohit, zzaps not 2d6 pen, Lootas could take meltas!), but overall they had a buff. They made a lot of lame decisions with it, but the units are nearly all viable, usable, and fun enough to tide us over until they get rules that make them... ragtag/unique. After all, it's not just about stats...

CSM actually got a buff in many areas, while they nerfed the big stuff, and changed the way a lot of things worked. The biggest thing that ticks people off is the loss of many unique rules (just like the Ork dex) and making the codex mundane, while very good. I still scoff at any idiot who thinks standard CSM aren't worth it, or thinks there's but one build and that it revolves around plague marines. Yeah, they're good, but they're not the entire codex.

@godking
If your buddy can't kill all those gaunts, he:
A) needs more bolters. Drop the plagues, get some CSM so you add an extra 50% shots just like that
B) stop spamming oblits/vindis. You need things that put out a ton of hits, not marine killers
C) If that's not it, go krump em in CC. They take fearless wounds and can't win that well even with CA and FnP. A bunch of s3 attacks at WS3 at what is hardly better than a 4+ is not enough to be 3 attack S4 3+sv marines who strike first. Add in a flamer and you'll do fine. Also, 50 gaunts is a gross gross exaggeration of what happens statistically. If it happened... ok. But it's not the norm.

SW, sorta similar, but I disagree that it's been nerfed at all. GHs got better and went down in cost, you got 4 attack on the charge assault marines for less points, the Asscannon, Cyclone, Dread, SCs, Landraiders, Rhinos, Razorbacks, Long Fangs, and wolf guard were all improved AND cheapened up. I'm not one who thinks it's majorly cheesy, but I know nostalgia when I see it. Failure to adapt a bit is != bad codex. (That said, Orks, SW, and Chaos are effective, but got far more lame in different ways. Why the heck is SW so psychically good? I liked the old rune priests to be honest..)




In summation, what we see, even in IG to a degree, is that the newer codices tone down ranged a bit, buff CC, and then make things tougher in general. (adding/improving saves, cheapening models, requiring larger squads).

Morganstern
02-02-2010, 14:09
Back to the origional point, I have a very balanced Nid army that I have used for years. All of a suden this army costs more points and is actually less powerfull than it was before. This says to me that there were some mistakes made when the codex was writen.

x-esiv-4c
02-02-2010, 14:10
Another vote in for the Chaos codex :)

Lord Malorne
02-02-2010, 14:16
I now don't mind it (I did resent it at the start) but that is (as has been said) more due to what was lost, cult armies and wargear selection, as to the wargear wacky workshop are doing that with all army books, as to the cult troops.. meh.


Come on guys ... The chaos marines codex was a nerf because the 3rd ed chaos was utterly ridiculusly broken ..

Tyranids were hardly competitive, nevermind broken in 4th

I'm not coming on anything :eyebrows:.

The Nid book is fine, I have a friend with a 12k Nid army and he has the new book and I asked, "so is it better than the last ed book?" To which he replied with a smile "Yes!"

I take his word over theroy players anyday.

nightgant98c
02-02-2010, 14:33
indeed chaos players like to whine about the loss of our beloved 3.5, we still do to this day but the nid player has claimed our throne as biggest whiner, at no point was warseer filled with "Whaaa they nerfed my army" every second or third post as we have seen at the height of the nid whinefest


You're right, chaos players didn't whine every second or third post, they just whined in almost every single thread. Even ones in which it made no sense at all.

Codsticker
02-02-2010, 14:55
Back to the origional point....

What was that now? This thread has wandered sufficiently far off topic (which was pretty vague and limited anyway). I'll leave it open a bit longer to see if anyone has something unique (and on topic) to contribute and then....

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

Grax
02-02-2010, 15:06
What I said about Tyranids being more than powerful enough goes double now, after the match I had last night. My record with my Orks is around 60/20/20 (wins/draws/losses) and I got smacked around the table.

Of course, part of it is learning exactly how to play against the buggers, but I didn't have nearly as much trouble against the IG or Space marines when their new codex came out. Tyranids have gotten very powerful and quite versatile. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know how to play them.

Vepr
02-02-2010, 15:45
You're right, chaos players didn't whine every second or third post, they just whined in almost every single thread. Even ones in which it made no sense at all.

And Chaos players are still crying about it. :p Nid players have a long hill to climb to catch Chaos in this area. :D

Even though I jokingly use Cruddaces name in vain when gaming now the new Tyranid codex is alright. Not great but not terrible and I would not say that it is weaker than the last dex because we got stronger in the troops and anti-armor department. I am just a little disappointed in what they did to some of my favorite units like the Lictor, Carnifex, and Tyrant. Also some of the newer units are just head scratchers like the Pyrovore and to some extent the Venomthrope but in the end I cannot call this codex a nerf. It is just a huge change, almost a different army and that will take some getting used to even for people that like change.

Every army see's change with a new dex but no army generally sees as much change as the nids. We cannot even count on our weapons being the same. If the bolter got nerfed there would be riots. :)

MystheDevourer
02-02-2010, 15:59
I think the problems here are mixing power vs. problems with codices.


C) If that's not it, go krump em in CC. They take fearless wounds and can't win that well even with CA and FnP. A bunch of s3 attacks at WS3 at what is hardly better than a 4+ is not enough to be 3 attack S4 3+sv marines who strike first. Add in a flamer and you'll do fine. Also, 50 gaunts is a gross gross exaggeration of what happens statistically. If it happened... ok. But it's not the norm.



Did 55 gants in 5 turns with 1 Tervigon. last roll was a 6 6 5 meh

Like stated earlier Nids are not weak you just HAVE to read up on them and do your research that is ALL they are not quite simple
so do not pick them up as a starting army which many people are doing right now.



What I said about Tyranids being more than powerful enough goes double now, after the match I had last night. My record with my Orks is around 60/20/20 (wins/draws/losses) and I got smacked around the table.

Of course, part of it is learning exactly how to play against the buggers, but I didn't have nearly as much trouble against the IG or Space marines when their new codex came out. Tyranids have gotten very powerful and quite versatile. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't know how to play them.
This is true, I play the new nids and I would think my self decent, by no means as good as a veteran but I have learned my dex faithfully and know how I want to play. Saying that can anyone believe that a 1500 SM army out horeded a EVERY nid army that was out there at our tourney this past sunday???

He had 61 models!!!! I spawned more from one tervigon but that is beside the point! it was amazing and my only real loss but that was only because of time. . .

It is really on the player playing the dex, yes many will say that nids got nerfed but then many who have not complained and have worked with the dex have found that nids are AMAZING!!!! Myself included of course! It all boils down to being able to adapt really.

Pink Horror
02-02-2010, 16:54
The opposite of power creep has happened many times in fantasy and 40k. I call these things backlashes. Sometimes the studio gets sick of power creep and decides they want to do something about it, so they make the next codex an example... but then they always go back to their old ways one or two books later.

SPYDER68
02-02-2010, 16:58
I now don't mind it (I did resent it at the start) but that is (as has been said) more due to what was lost, cult armies and wargear selection, as to the wargear wacky workshop are doing that with all army books, as to the cult troops.. meh.



I'm not coming on anything :eyebrows:.

The Nid book is fine, I have a friend with a 12k Nid army and he has the new book and I asked, "so is it better than the last ed book?" To which he replied with a smile "Yes!"

I take his word over theroy players anyday.

I agree...

Nid book is perfectly fine and more i playtest and get used to the new army, the more i think it can deal with IG mechvet tourney lists even.

More will realize this when they stop taking units that are terrible, and take the ones that work best in competetive play.

Fixer
02-02-2010, 17:06
The Chaos Codex was a weird one.

There were a huge number of one dimensional power armies in the list. What happened was that a lot of specific units and army types took a nerf, a few units ended up as pointless lots of stuff ended up balanced but another bunch of choices ended up so much better than anything else that they became cookie cutter. Lash Prince, and Obliterators, we're looking directly at you.

The Chaos Codex is basically a lot of fairly average choices with a few overpowered options and very few special rules for added flavour.

The new Tyranid Codex is a lot of below average choices with a few average choices and a whole bunch of terrible special rules or ones worded so badly we're not sure they'll even work.

Worst of all has to be the DA Codex. Most of it is redundant and the way the Special Characters have been set up... it appears the entire army was designed to play in a 40K universe devoid of power weapons or powerfists.

ReaperOfSouls
02-02-2010, 18:31
I agree...

Nid book is perfectly fine and more i playtest and get used to the new army, the more i think it can deal with IG mechvet tourney lists even.

More will realize this when they stop taking units that are terrible, and take the ones that work best in competetive play.

Isn't this the definition of a bad codex though? If there is a lot of terrible units, which by chance happens to be several of the ones that long time players already have, there is something wrong in my opinion. :)

SPYDER68
02-02-2010, 18:52
Isn't this the definition of a bad codex though? If there is a lot of terrible units, which by chance happens to be several of the ones that long time players already have, there is something wrong in my opinion. :)

Every codex has Good units, ok units, and terrible units.

This is the same with IG, and Space wolves.. they both have units that are bad.. some that are ok.. others are good..

And an army is only good if you stay with mostly good units / few ok units.

When they get bad is when people are trying to take 2x 5 man warrior squads for troops in their army of 1850 with squads of Fex's which are total crap now.

So if your definition of a good codex is one without units that are terrible, then that makes every codex in the game terrible.

gwarsh41
02-02-2010, 19:49
I have played the new book, and read it. I played against the old nids several times. I dont get how people cant see that the new book is great!

Pink Horror
02-02-2010, 19:49
So if your definition of a good codex is one without units that are terrible, then that makes every codex in the game terrible.

Do good and terrible exist only as a binary trait? The world of codex value is all relative. Yes, there is no absolute terrible codex, and there is no absolute good one. That doesn't invalidate any complaints.

azimaith
02-02-2010, 20:03
Oh for the love of God...

*gets on podium*

Tyranids, Eldar, and Chaos Marines are still very powerful, and are arguably some of the most competitive armies out there today!

So why do people whine? Because they're not powerful in the same WAY they used to be. That doesn't mean the codex is weaker, it just means that players have to adapt.

Zoanthropes, Brood Lords, dirt cheap troops, drop pods, and mawlocks/tervigons/trygons make the Nids VERY powerful. Possibly one of the most powerful (I have to play against them a bit more to be sure).

If you still don't like it, then play something else.

Wait! I'm not done falling on my sword in grief!

Seriously, this is accurate to a degree (I don't see it as the most powerful, but its definitely winnable.) Its not a bad codex. Its a codex with a good chunk of bad options.

You can still play a tyranid army and be successful, but you may have to ditch a good chunk of your old models and play in a very different way.

Most of us have a problem with this being because of internal balance issues that could have been avoided easily but weren't.

After an absolute ton of games with the new dex I've found it doesn't play the way I think the background depicts so I'm not buying anymore and I'm not wasting time on it. I'll play with what I've got and I'll make damn sure GW has my opinion but what else is there. I want to buy GW products but at the same time this sort of sloppiness was the last straw for me. The new nids have basically put a stop to all my army expansions (and I'm a freaking army starting fiend) because I don't want to buy stuff from a company that doesn't put the effort it needs to produce an excellent product (and their codex and rules are product.)

fluffstalker
02-02-2010, 20:50
Az I feel your pain, but frankly speaking, didnt you notice that GW is terrible at balancing BEFORE the new nid dex? I mean..your acting likes this a relatively new phenomena. They've never really put much effort into rules at all, since the beginning. And nids in the last dex didnt exactly play to fluff either.

WinglessVT2
02-02-2010, 23:07
Marines have a lot more units that are a lot worse than the worst thing you can pull from the tyranids' latest book.

naloth
02-02-2010, 23:24
Marines have a lot more units that are a lot worse than the worst thing you can pull from the tyranids' latest book.

What's worse in the Marine 'dex than a pryovore?

MystheDevourer
03-02-2010, 00:12
Every codex has Good units, ok units, and terrible units.

This is the same with IG, and Space wolves.. they both have units that are bad.. some that are ok.. others are good..

And an army is only good if you stay with mostly good units / few ok units.

When they get bad is when people are trying to take 2x 5 man warrior squads for troops in their army of 1850 with squads of Fex's which are total crap now.

So if your definition of a good codex is one without units that are terrible, then that makes every codex in the game terrible.

I play 2x 5 man Warrior broods. . . add in a T Prime HQ and 18 shots at BS4 is deadly. . . but the fexes. . . *shudders* Never really liked them they always seemed like one trick ponies to me. . .

Thylacine
03-02-2010, 01:48
I was thinking about Tyranids the other day and I began to wonder, when was the last time a new codex came out that was subtantially weaker than it's previous codex before Tyranids?

Nids are debilitated? Not according to the starter of this thread.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243032

BTW, local stores win/loss tally has nids winning most of their games! I have not played them yet but they were always a handful, especially if used by a power-gamer at tournament level. GW seems to be forcing Nid players away from some of the previous power builds into swarm builds depicting the concept of the army.

cotillion989
03-02-2010, 02:23
I'm not that particularly good, and I haven't lost yet with the new codex. Seems pretty darn powerful to me.

Phazael
03-02-2010, 02:31
Don't use early wins as a barameter for a codex. People won like crazy with Orks when the book hit the shelves too, until the mass of internet stupid got the answers to beating the army fed to them. Right now, people are facing a new book and not sure what to attack or when. Once the unwashed masses get the lowdown on how to hit the army from the interwebs, you will have a more realistic picture.

azimaith
03-02-2010, 09:18
Az I feel your pain, but frankly speaking, didnt you notice that GW is terrible at balancing BEFORE the new nid dex? I mean..your acting likes this a relatively new phenomena. They've never really put much effort into rules at all, since the beginning. And nids in the last dex didnt exactly play to fluff either.

Most codex had one or two issues I'd see readily and a couple of less than optimal choices. The nid codex just comes out with quantity and more to the point, a sort of brazen disregard for testing that was the last straw. I can look through the marine codex for example and find a couple of unit I find suboptimal, but I could still find a reason to field them without feeling like I'm tossing points away. The new nids are not like that and it seems like so many of the problems of 4th ed nids are still present outside of anti-tank.

This was just the last straw, one crap entry too many to disregard.


Nids are debilitated? Not according to the starter of this thread.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243032

BTW, local stores win/loss tally has nids winning most of their games! I have not played them yet but they were always a handful, especially if used by a power-gamer at tournament level. GW seems to be forcing Nid players away from some of the previous power builds into swarm builds depicting the concept of the army.

I find this is less swarm oriented than before.

The old codex you could have three apples and two oranges now you can have three oranges and two apples. The lessened cost of smaller units is countered by the increased cost of larger units that are required to make the smaller units viable thus I find my army not getting any cheaper or any more numerous. The idea that I could just cut out the middle man and dump small nids almost entirely and come out ahead is just as much available in this dex as it was in the old one.

nightgant98c
03-02-2010, 12:21
There were a huge number of one dimensional power armies in the list. What happened was that a lot of specific units and army types took a nerf, a few units ended up as pointless lots of stuff ended up balanced but another bunch of choices ended up so much better than anything else that they became cookie cutter. Lash Prince, and Obliterators, we're looking directly at you.

That's kinda funny, because early on, I remember people complaining that obliterators had been nerfed. My memory isn't the best, so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Bloodknight
03-02-2010, 12:24
Obliterators were actually nerfed by changing T4(5) for T4, S dropping from 5 to 4 (the difference between an S8 and an S10 power fist), they went up a couple of points and lost a couple of weapon options (none that I would miss, though). They also went from Elite to Heavy Support. The big win, however, was that they're not a 0-1 unit anymore for everybody, not only IW.

Fixer
03-02-2010, 12:35
They gain Plasma cannons as a weapon option though, which when combined with lash makes them a real PITA.

SPYDER68
03-02-2010, 14:07
I play 2x 5 man Warrior broods. . . add in a T Prime HQ and 18 shots at BS4 is deadly. . . but the fexes. . . *shudders* Never really liked them they always seemed like one trick ponies to me. . .

i never said 2x5 Warrior broods were bad, i actually like a squad of them at times, what is bad is people playing 1500 pt games or more, and its the only 2 troops they take in the entire army.

boreas
03-02-2010, 14:35
Sheesh... I can't wait for Codex: Blood Angels to come out, if only to change the Nids-whine trend. I just hope Nids players won't be weeping all over the boards for years like the CSM players. Even the Necrons and DE players, collectively, don't whine like you guys (and God knows, they would have a right to!).

I'd say the last sub-par codex to come out was the DA one. It really doesn't shine tactically. It doesn't have tons of fun units and models like the Orks, Nids, SM, SW or IG.

CSM and Eldars got okay codexes. Not a ton of new cool things, but codexes that can still be competitive and fun to use. Tau is getting weaker with each new codex coming out. So is BT...

Necrons, DE, WH and DH are just in a limbo right now. Either unplayable, quirky or expensive (money-wise, like SoB and all those metal models).

Chaos Demons, I'm not sure about. I've seen great things and bad things. They are the "Ogre Kingdoms" of 40K. An odd ball out with some expensive models and weird rules that make it hard to play. But for some reasons, many Daemons players love their codex. If worst comes to worst, from what I understand, they can stick their models on square bases and go win quite a lot of WFB games...

Phil

fluffstalker
03-02-2010, 14:39
Well I agree crons have a right too.

DE dont, at least in a competitive context, because their dex is still very strong. From a modeling and fluff standpoint yes.

Max Jet
03-02-2010, 14:41
I'd say the last sub-par codex to come out was the DA one. It really doesn't shine tactically. It doesn't have tons of fun units and models like the Orks, Nids, SM, SW or IG.

You know what? When the DA Codex came out everybody loved it! There where Threads, where Space Marine Player wanted to ask wether it would be o.k to use the DA Codex, It's just when the actual Space Marine Codex came out, that people suddenly said "But why didn't WE get those fancy toys???"

the_picto
03-02-2010, 15:08
You know what? When the DA Codex came out everybody loved it! There where Threads, where Space Marine Player wanted to ask wether it would be o.k to use the DA Codex, It's just when the actual Space Marine Codex came out, that people suddenly said "But why didn't WE get those fancy toys???"

I love my DA codex. I love the outflanking bikers and the awesomeness that is Sammael. Deathwing are cool as well. Mostly I love it for being marines. Not long after the book came out I fancied starting a marine army and chose DA because it was the most up to date marine book and combat squads made me nostalgic for 2nd ed. A couple of years later and, out of my four armies (I also play eldar, daemons and tyranids), they are the army I enjoy the most. Even with the release of the ultramarine/salamander codex I still use it, I just can't bring myself to drop sammael, the ravenwing and the badass chaplains. I tend to win more than I lose with them as well.

In conclusion, Dark Angels are awesome.

boreas
03-02-2010, 16:32
I might not have written things the way I meant them. The DA codex is not bad. It's not as good as the newer ones, though. What I mean by that is that newer codexes have offered players lots of new things to play with. Either new models (Nids, Orks and SM come to mind), fancy new rules (SW, Nids) or powerful builds that allows tourney-minded players (of which I'm not) to crush their opponents.

DA have nice rules, cool upgrade sprues and definitely got an upgrade from the comic-book sized codex they previously had, but it wasn't a revolution either. Also, that codex never became "king of the hill" like we saw from later codexes. And worst of all, it got kicked by the new SM book who then got all sort of fancy things. I've seen a few "I'll use the DA codex for my Marines" thread in 2007 but a lot more "I'll use the SM codex for my DA" later on. Let's hope the next DA book goes a lot deeper than the last one. From what I'm reading in the Horus Heresy books, there is so much potential for diverse and powerful new DA units.

Phil

MystheDevourer
03-02-2010, 19:35
i never said 2x5 Warrior broods were bad, i actually like a squad of them at times, what is bad is people playing 1500 pt games or more, and its the only 2 troops they take in the entire army.

I was 4th in the FLGS style tourney we did at the store I play at.I was running a Tervigon, Termagants, Hormagants, and 2 5 man Warrior Squads. I did pretty well. Though yes I do dislike seeing people feilding 2 slots of warriors when we have SO MANY different choices. Like what I used. That is nearly all of our choices - 2 so I am happy!


Tyranids got a HUGE boost! Not many armies have to decide what units to take like we do, nearly ALL of our slots are highly contested!!!

Ozendorph
03-02-2010, 21:18
You know what? When the DA Codex came out everybody loved it!

:wtf: Somehow I missed this era entirely.

Pink Horror
03-02-2010, 21:31
Tyranids got a HUGE boost! Not many armies have to decide what units to take like we do, nearly ALL of our slots are highly contested!!!

Make several of the units in other armies 1-3 each and you'll find their slots become contested too.

LouiseDePointe
03-02-2010, 21:46
Ok, seriously? Tyranid people are going there?

The new Nid list is really cool, and much more accurately represented on the tabletop according to their fluff. Not to mention it's EXTREMELY fun to play both with and against.

Nidzilla, while kind of nice, was also super annoying because nids, in almost every single fluff description, were about the hordes and terror that their 'black space in the warp' caused the psykers. The only real change that was negative was the increase in pts cost of Carni's, a change that makes a great deal of sense. Well that and the silly-vore. That was an odd decision to say the least.

Once you've tried out your Zoanthrope 'pods', mawlocs, tervigons and trygons, you'll realize that the big nids are still awesome without having to define your lists.

Honestly, many people would die to have a codex that introduced that level of new yet fluffily appropriate dynamics whilst simultaneously revitalizing the hobby dimension with so many new models to paint. Many armies have been waiting a long while for a real update like this one and would be ecstatic to get a book that introduced change of this magnitude. Tau, Dark Eldar, Necrons and Eldar all come to mind.

I bet if you released 4-5 new, big honking models/units for necron players they'd crap their metal pants.

Once Tyranid players adapt to their new list, I am sure these threads will cease (well slow, I doubt that they'll ever stop entirely...)

azimaith
03-02-2010, 22:18
I don't see the codex as being any more fluffy than before. Little models need big models to make them function. Big models are expensive, thus we skip the little models, get the independent models and be done with it.

I've seen less swarms in this new dex vs the standard gene spam or MC heavy lists because of the cost increase making it less viable to run the synapse you need.
If they wanted to make swarms more prevalent they'd decrease synapse creature cost, increase viable gaunt diversity, improve rippers, and increase the effect of mid level tyranids like raveners. Then you'd go on to improve the ability to "Swarm" tanks down with smaller creatures and toughen large chunky anti-tank creatures with a higher cost.

Instead we see synapse creatures jumping in price, gaunt diversity being smushed (Its not spine gaunts, termagants, and Devourer Gaunts,its just termagants and maybe devourer gaunts), we see mid range creatures increasing in price. Then we see our anti-tank creatures that are large going up in price, going down in effectiveness, and our mid-level assault monstrous creatures improved!

Its all over the place without any emphasis on putting out a ton of models. Heck my list shrunk by some 20 some models because I couldn't fit effective anti-tank fex with said smaller creatures and my cheap independent synapse zoanthropes (synapse and catalyst) were increased in price along side my warriors.

You can say a lot about the new codex but to say it stays closer to the background is a lie.

Lothlanathorian
03-02-2010, 23:01
The only thing wrong with the Tyranid Codex is Warriors be Troops or Fast Attack and not Elites. They should be Elites/Troops/Fast Attack.

MystheDevourer
03-02-2010, 23:45
The only thing wrong with the Tyranid Codex is Warriors be Troops or Fast Attack and not Elites. They should be Elites/Troops/Fast Attack.

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THAT BE GOOD!!!!

Tell me please! We have Hive Guard and Zoanthropes that alreavy stiff eath other for FoC Slots as is! Take the HQ version like i do if you want something better then.

If you are focusing on using fex's you have not seen the memo, THEY ARE OUT DATED!!!!

azimaith
03-02-2010, 23:47
Maybe he thinks warriors are overpowered....

MystheDevourer
04-02-2010, 00:57
Maybe he thinks warriors are overpowered....

At 30pts a warrior and able to be instant deathed???

DuskRaider
04-02-2010, 01:04
At 30pts a warrior and able to be instant deathed???

Or instant death, in the case of the Bone Swords (which are broken).

Mannimarco
04-02-2010, 01:29
your 30 point multiple attack multi wound scoring warrior is 7 points more expensive than my 2 attack single wound scoring plague marine (who is also broken depending on who you ask)

azimaith
04-02-2010, 01:54
You don't get instant death bone sword warriors for 30 points much less a 3+ save+fnp+T5 with gun for it either. The plague marine is actually a little harder to kill unless your talking plasma gun.

boreas
04-02-2010, 01:55
Oh please, get over the "instant death" thing. At 30 pts, you get a very tough troop choice. Sure, missile launchers and powerfists are hard on these guys. Well they are hard on Tau XV suits too. And on SM Captains (ooooh 4+ inv. save, but costs more than 3 times the points). And Plagues marines (which cost less but die more to non-ID shooting). And I could go on with many codexes.

They are a very good scoring unit that can be very resistant while in cover (easy to do in 5th ed). At 18", 5 warriors will kill 1.25 marines while 10 marines will do 1.57 wounds. The Warriors lose no models. Not bad. At 12", the marines will do 3.33 wound and will kill one warrior. But they are now in charge range. The warriors proceed to do 2 wounds while the Space Marines do 1.4.

Change few things like switching to deathspitters (the 5 warriors then cost 5 pts more than the 5 marines) or give one of them a deathspitter (Space Marines now cost 10pts more) or give them all boneswords (the Warriors now cost the same as 5 CC termis for 15 powerweapon attacks that would kill 3-4 of the termis on the charge!).

I know this is all "mathhammer" theory about 2 units in a void, but the reality is that while Warriors can die in "bundles" on 3 wounds due to instant-death, they can also take 4 wounds without losing a model (due to wound spreading if 1 model is buying a venom cannon) while the SM would lose 40% efficiency (losing 4 models). For 5 pts more than the Space Marines, their "Drop-Pod" will shoot 6 St6 shots (albeit at 6") AND defend itself as a St6 Monstrous Creature with lash whip if assaulted.

They also have Synapse (so add synergy to a list) and Shadow in the Warp.

I guess many other codexes would love to have "bad" troops like that.

Phil

azimaith
04-02-2010, 02:02
Oh please, get over the "instant death" thing. At 30 pts, you get a very tough troop choice. Sure, missile launchers and powerfists are hard on these guys. Well they are hard on Tau XV suits too. And on SM Captains (ooooh 4+ inv. save, but costs more than 3 times the points).

Thats why suits have jump shoot jump and marine captains can hide in independent characters.



And Plagues marines (which cost less but die more to non-ID shooting). And I could go on with many codexes.

Um the only thing a plague marine dies more to is plasma basically.



They are a very good scoring unit that can be very resistant while in cover (easy to do in 5th ed). At 18", 5 warriors will kill 1.25 marines while the marines will do 1.57 wounds (no cover save). The Warriors lose no models. Not bad. At 12", the marines will do 3.33 wound and will kill one warrior. But they are now in charge range. The warriors proceed to do 2 wounds while the Space Marines do 1.4.

You're going to prove they're good by marines doing 4 wounds and then the warriors charging and doing 2 while taking yet another wound from the ranged specialists they just charged with melee specialist abilities? Or sorry, more accurately, the marines doing 1.57 wounds+3.33 wounds+1.4 wounds, and then the warriors do 2. Five wounds vs two=balance. When did warriors even become capable of a turn two/three charge. Maybe you're thinking of less armored shrikes.



I know this is all "mathhammer" theory about 2 units in a void, but the reality is that while Warriors can die in "bundles" on 3 wounds due to instant-death, they can also take 4 wounds without losing a model (due to wound spreading if 1 model is buying a venom cannon) while the SM would lose 40% efficiency (losing 4 models). For 5 pts more than the Space Marines, their "Drop-Pod" will shoot 6 St6 shots (albeit at 6") AND defend itself as a St6 Monstrous Creature with lash whip if assaulted.

Are you saying that we should abuse wound allocation so we don't lose the exact same 40% in points cost if not more because of the upgrades?



They also have Synapse (so add synergy to a list) and Shadow in the Warp.

The moment any other race needs to be within 12" of their entire army or have them do something stupid on a leadership test of around 6 is the moment you can add Synapse as a "benefit." Synapse as a benefit is like having ammo for a gun as a benefit. You need it function. Shadow is nice, against psykers at least.



I guess many other codexes would love to have "bad" troops like that.
Phil
Like IG, 10 points more expensive, an additional toughness and base furious charge (which would make them equal to warrior cost. They sure love their ogryns....

Warriors are mediocre, that's all. You can find a place for them in most lists but they're hardly an amazing unit.

boreas
04-02-2010, 02:28
Warriors are mediocre, that's all. You can find a place for them in most lists but they're hardly an amazing unit.

Mediocre
1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.
2. rather poor or inferior.

So because they are not amazing, they are not good? I'm saying Warriors are a very balanced troop choice, like most troop choice should be. IMHO, they are on par with the Space Marines. Some troop choice might be better, many are worst.

Ogryn are Ld7 so might break and flee. They have a worst save. Sure, they are not killed by St8. But you basic squad of 5 cost 60pts (40%!) more and don't score!

Phil

azimaith
04-02-2010, 03:21
They're "ordinary." Moderate quality, adequate.

If there were anything else to replace them for synapse you wouldn't include them most of the time.

They're expensive and not really that tough, its the same its always been for warriors.

Being instantly killed by strength 8 is a huge deal. Theres a reason why IG have been complaining about it for ages since we had ogryns eating powerfist instant death. One warrior is enough to completely tip combat in your enemies favor due to an average powerfist roll. It gets even worse when you couple them with gaunts as your defeat can easily become assured then.

So to counter act that you try to improve the warriors abilities with bone swords, ect, and then they get even more expensive.

There's no way to win this contest. Your a support unit that doesn't do its job very well being taken for a lack of better options to take for its role.

They can do alright and they can be downright deadly if you want them to be, but then you're also going to be paying more than a terminators cost for a 4+ save and no frags. Ultimately how you field your warriors is going to be mostly dependent on whether you fight a select number of enemies that their cost can be made worthwhile beyond the most basic. IE Nob bikers being common in your area makes dual bone swords much more viable.

hellhammer6
04-02-2010, 03:32
The real issue (as I see it) is that the VERY few good cost effective units that we have are written with vague rules.

The strongest aspects of the codex are being rules-lawyered into being completely innefective. Very frustrating.

Mawlock deepstrike, Doom of Malantai, stacking reserves+, people saying that troop tervies do not score, people saying we can't use bone sword and lash whip at the same time, problems with MC sizes and spore pod sizes, etc...

We can barely get through a test game without dicing off at least twice over a rule that makes or breaks the game. Until the FAQ, we have no way of learning how to use our lists... except how to argue over rules.

boreas
04-02-2010, 03:47
Until the FAQ, we have no way of learning how to use our lists... except how to argue over rules.

That, I see as frustrating... GW needs outside beta testers ASAP. I'm pretty sure they take some things for granted while testing in-between themselves. Just a few weeks with the dex and a dozen problems have sprung up.

Fortunately, all that is Faq-able. It still should have been done before printing the book.

Phil

azimaith
04-02-2010, 03:58
GW can't even be bothered to play test seriously before the codex is released much less utilize beta testers. They constantly go through the same thing. They say "Were a company that makes miniatures." Whether they like it or not that is a half truth. They are a game company that happens to make miniatures as well.

Without their game systems GW financially would implode upon itself with the force of a billion suns going supernova in the time it takes for a photon of light to travel a nanometer in a vacuum. Metaphorically of course.

Pink Horror
04-02-2010, 04:18
GW can't even be bothered to play test seriously before the codex is released much less utilize beta testers. They constantly go through the same thing. They say "Were a company that makes miniatures." Whether they like it or not that is a half truth. They are a game company that happens to make miniatures as well.

That doesn't do enough justice to where their profit comes from. They are a miniatures company that writes games as a powerful tool to sell more miniatures. Similarly, Apple runs the iTunes store as a tool to sell overpriced iPods. The miniatures are literally the hardware. The rules are the software that makes them viable products.

As a side note, I believe Games Workshop's long term goal is as a creator of intellectual property, which only makes games and miniatures as a way to generate and establish copyright, trademarks and market awareness for that intellectual property. Like Marvel with its comics.

azimaith
04-02-2010, 04:23
If people decide they're tired of sloppy codex and stop playing the game they will stop buying the miniatures. The games are so important to their sales they're foolish to not treat them seriously.

hellhammer6
04-02-2010, 04:57
If they write us a good FAQ like they did for space wolves it will all get cleared up.

If they leave out important "defrolla" level blank spots... it would be unfortunate, to say the least.

I'm over being angry about the nids dex, now just patiently waiting for the FAQ to see if I will continue playing them.
(not to mention spending money on them)

DuskRaider
04-02-2010, 06:16
Oh please, get over the "instant death" thing. At 30 pts, you get a very tough troop choice.

Shall we talk Nobs then? Whom Warriors with Bone Swords and Lash Whips will wipe the floor with?

azimaith
04-02-2010, 07:47
Bonesword lashwhip, not so much. Dual bone sword, yes. Dual BS+Adrenals is what you want.

Of course we could also talk about how those lash whip bone sword or dual bone sword warriors are twice the cost of those nobs as well.

Basically if you have equally costed squads of nobs vs lash whip bone sword warriors (and nothing else) you could have all those nobs outfitted with power klaws in which case if the warriors don't wipe them out in a turn....

Fixer
04-02-2010, 11:19
I've actually been comparing my old Tyranid Warriors with the new ones.

I could actually get a 4+ save warrior with a Str 6 Deathspitter blast weapon, Talons, BS4 and STR 5 basic for 34 points and the ability to pad the unit out with cheaper warriors for cushioning wounds. Now I can't even get close to that and the venom cannon that's basically a longer range old 4th edition Deathspitter is extremely expensive.

Same with my rending/leap warriors. For basic warrior setups the unit actually took a big nerf.

You can make an uber killy unit with twin boneswords and force multipliers like primes/hive tyrant outflank but it still leaves the old Warriors out of whack and these guys end up as expensive or more expensive than an Assault Terminator.

When it comes to gaunts, Termagaunts got the smallest of upgrades. Spinegaunts are fairly equivalent to Fleshborers against infantry, though Fleshborers have a chance to glance AV10 too. Still, the price of the old Spineguants and new Termagaunts are the same, so their job as effectively a cannon fodder unit has not changed.

Hormagaunts are extremely strange. You can now use them as a fleet and somewhat assault based cannon fodder unit. However at the same price you can buy a unit of Gargoyles that do the same job only better. You can add poison to the Hormagaunts but this prices them out of the cannon fodder department and makes them somewhat more of a MC killing unit.

The thing that makes units really worthwhile is the addition of Catalyst from a friendly Tervigon.

Nighthawke
04-02-2010, 11:35
i think this is the main problem wht nid players say the new codex sucks, your comparing it to the older codex, where as everyone else is comparing it to other armys.
yes its not as good as the old one, but its still better then most other armys

Fixer
04-02-2010, 12:20
i think this is the main problem wht nid players say the new codex sucks, your comparing it to the older codex, where as everyone else is comparing it to other armys.
yes its not as good as the old one, but its still better then most other armys

The old one wasn't particularly good either :rolleyes: trouble is the new one is worse in many regards. At least if you want to use models or units you owned or existed before the new edition.

In 4th edition the Tyranids had balanced lists and one power army in the guise of Nidzilla. 5th Edition made Nidzilla somewhat competetive but lacking in Scoring units and gave us Stealershock.

New army book is just odd.

I'm primarily a Marine player and so far I've played against the new Tyranids twice with them, which has lead to two curbstomps thus far. I had one combat squad with a flamer inside a rhino wipe out a huge swarm of Termagaunts and a Warrior brood on it's on in the last game. I have my own lists but I'm finding that I'm having to drop a whole bunch of stuff to make a truly effective army list.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242881

Point is that people are saying that warriors got a boost in the new book because they got an extra wound and +1 WS. However the opposite is true. For the most part they are worse. I think we'll find in the coming months that people will be ditching them in favour of the much better options available.

Worsle
04-02-2010, 13:11
5th edition made nidzilla competitive? What? No the 5th edition completely neutered nidzilla, only really winning when its rock found a scissors army. The old book was crap you are right there but the idea the new one is worse is laughable, might require some real thought and choices to make a good army but that is not the sign on a bad codex. Warriors are a solid unit, only thing they are really week against is things you should not be engaging them with anyway, like assault terminators.

That and why is it when people claim they know all about the codex that they post lists that have massive holes in them? Call it having to drop stuff to make a competitive army if you want but if you are going to play at 1500 points you don't get much change for the interesting stuff after you have filled in the basic needs. Biggest issue is your all but non-existent anti tank? Don't tell me you think two zoanthropes is competitive anti tank giving how good mech is. What is up with the lash whip on the tyrant, he is better of with the extra pair of scything talons every time. Regenerate is nice but at that points level I would rather bulk up other units. I would also want less termagants and more gargoyles.

Fixer
04-02-2010, 14:36
5th edition made nidzilla competitive? What? No the 5th edition completely neutered nidzilla, only really winning when its rock found a scissors army. The old book was crap you are right there but the idea the new one is worse is laughable, might require some real thought and choices to make a good army but that is not the sign on a bad codex. Warriors are a solid unit, only thing they are really week against is things you should not be engaging them with anyway, like assault terminators.

Somewhat competetive, as I was seeing them in the top 20 of the UKGT qualifying heats still. 2 Made it in the last heat I was in.

Warriors are unfortunately not a solid unit. They're a melee/ranged hybrid unit which excels at neither unless you outfit them with boneswords. The trouble is that despite the addition of the extra wound they're now getting mulched by Str 8 and hidden powerfists, and losing wounds due to CR because of Powerfist overkills.

As such standard warriors are not effective of use against armies with massed Str 8+ shooting power or forces that pack hidden powerfists in most units. This makes them a poor choice against Guard, Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks, Dark Eldar, and Chaos Demons. However they can be a slightly below average for cost unit against Necrons, Tau and Eldar!

It's actually possible to make a mixed unit of warriors with better firepower, more wounds, immunity to ID and multiple targets for wound allocation using the old rules. If no one was using Warriors in the previous edition when they were not seen as good enough, why would you expect anyone to use them now when they discover that they are worse?

MystheDevourer
04-02-2010, 17:04
They also have Synapse (so add synergy to a list) and Shadow in the Warp.

I guess many other codexes would love to have "bad" troops like that.

Phil
You misunderstand, I was just saying that I do not consider them over Powered in any way, yes a fully tooled out warrior, (Adrenal Glands, Bonesword & Lash Whip, with Deathspitter) Costs roughly 55pts a warrior or 50 if you go for the twin Boneswords (wich are not Over Powered because we have no other power weapons and these make since) gets a bit pricey when you arr more. That is 500-550 for the 2x 5 man warrior brood.

They can get strong for 3 wounds but they die so easily if the opponent knows what he is doing.

boreas
04-02-2010, 17:49
I've actually been comparing my old Tyranid Warriors with the new ones.

I could actually get a 4+ save warrior with a Str 6 Deathspitter blast weapon, Talons, BS4 and STR 5 basic for 34 points and the ability to pad the unit out with cheaper warriors for cushioning wounds.

That actually comes to 36pts/warrior when I do it. 20% more expensive. You lose: re-rolling 1s in CC (so-so), Shadow of the warp (so-so), 1 wound (that more of a deal) and scoring (very big deal in 5th ed.). In exchange, you lose EW. Ok, that is also a big deal. But it's more than a fair trade-off when you consider one very important thing: cover saves. Most St8 weapons, will ID a warrior less that 30% of the time when it's in cover. A SM sarge with powerfist will kill one 82% of the time in CC. Ok, but that sarge is a 51pts model (2 base+powerfist).

Of course, I'll concede that they die easily when your opponent knows what he's doing. But then, I'd have to make the same point for most troop choice in the game. IG can easily 1-2 punch a marine unit in a rhino with autocannons then a Leman Russ blast. Watch them try to do the same when the Mycetic spore dropped the Warriors a few inches in front of them and the blast might just scatter back!

Warrior are not an amazing unit, neither are they a bad unit. They are a good unit. That should be the point of being a troop instead of an elite choice. The one thing I'll have to say in favor of them "not being as good as they should be" is that they should be able to get frag grenade if you wish to "tool" your unit towards assault.

I guess my point is: Warriors are "good" beacause they can do all sorts of things (assault okay, shoot ok, score "resiliently" in cover, can be tooled to be CC beasts, can take mycetic spores to be "in your face", etc...) but they are not "must take". And that is a good thing. When units become "must take", your opponent knows how to tool his list. Even in "all comers", some weapons surface up because they can kill "that" unit. If you play a regular crowd, you can arrive and face a player with lots of flamers because he expects a tervigon/termigant list yet you brought a Warrior Prime/warrior/Mycetic spore heavy list. Next week, it could be the reverse.

In regular groups, Nids players had problem because everyone "knew" what to bring. Powerfists and flamers. Now, if I spend 100-125 points on powerfists in a 1500pts list and I get swamped in gants/gargoyles, I just lost a big advantage. So I have to bring a few (2-3) powerfist and try to make sure they get to your warriors. In return, you have to keep your warriors in cover if necessary and try to attack my squads that don't have powerfist. That's why I see WH40k getting more interesting with every codex that comes out. It stops being army-based rock-paper-scissors where army X will beat army Y most of the time. It getting where each army has Amazing units (that usually don't score) and good units (that usually score) and bad units (because sometimes GW didn't screw their head right ie Pyrovore). And a game of WH40k feels less like "My list X will trash your list Y unless I roll badly and you roll good" and more like "Heck, how can I use terrain, cover from my other units (football block!) and intrinsic mobility to get my unit X to your unit Y without getting shot too much by unit Z so that unit Y can't trash my unit A that is currently scoring?".

Phil

Worsle
04-02-2010, 18:49
That is a nice assessment boreas and probable more than I am up to today. However powerfists on the whole don't have much shine in a lot of armies now. The old idea of a first was to stop you getting locked into combat with something you can't kill but with the current marine rules you can just run away, making the first with the reduced attacks kind of a waist of time. Better of stipping them out and putting the points some where that can help you properly. Only units where fists still have a strong value is in fearless units (or if you are not lucking enough to get one rending can do) as you need some thing to threaten those walkers who can other wise just laugh of your attacks.

Fixer it was less compensative than it was before the 5th. You where playing a game of rock paper scissors with that sort of list so yes some did do well because of lucky draws but the moment they hit some paper it would all fall apart. You are not a compensative army unless you are real well rounded army and that was not nidzilla (it also was not any other army from the last codex).

azimaith
04-02-2010, 23:01
Actually powerfists work pretty well still. In most cases you don't want to leave combat until it is your turn, which is fine because you're often getting charged, but in the cases where you do charge or where your enemy doesn't put many wounds on you a powerfist can easily drop an MC from 100% to 75-50% in a single turn not to mention allowing you to charge other units and destroy them.

Powerfists still add a metric ass ton of versatility and you're still fully allowed to duck out of combat later and unload with your plasma or the like.

boreas
05-02-2010, 01:25
Oh, powerfists definitely work very well. When the rumored of 25pts powerfist with no +1 attacks for bolt pistol came out, the whole SM community was outraged. But now, we can tell it still a useful weapon and much more balanced than it used to be.

No matter what, though, I still think an over sized energized fist looks silly.

Phil

Nurgling Chieftain
05-02-2010, 03:20
After doing a great deal of analysis on the Warriors I can only conclude that they do, in fact, pay a bit of a premium in exchange for their synapse and shadow abilities. That's not entirely inappropriate, however.

MystheDevourer
05-02-2010, 06:32
After doing a great deal of analysis on the Warriors I can only conclude that they do, in fact, pay a bit of a premium in exchange for their synapse and shadow abilities. That's not entirely inappropriate, however.

For 12" that do not really matter that much anymore??? Remember the things with Instictive behavior do not run to nearest synapse some like the biovore and the Hive guard you WANT in synapse but other then that, why? Now Shadow is nice but not that over powering really. average roles are 3s and 4s so you may pass and may miss still regardless.

azimaith
05-02-2010, 07:51
Two fours and a three equals 11 which is failed test. Two threes and a four is failed if your LD9. Plus you have three chances for a pair of sixes or ones.

The synapse is a little more necessary. I don't see synapse as an army wide benefit as its as much a penalty as a bonus. There are plenty of armies without synapse that don't have that sort of leadership burden (IE the orks just need 11 models, they don't take special penalties for being out of 12" of the warboss)

I don't think that sort of thing should be factored into the price as it just reduces the desire to field things reliant on synapse which is mostly gaunts.

Nurgling Chieftain
05-02-2010, 08:35
For 12" that do not really matter that much anymore??? Remember the things with Instictive behavior do not run to nearest synapse some like the biovore and the Hive guard you WANT in synapse but other then that, why?Because failing a morale check and running sucks, especially when you don't run towards synapse. Even genestealers fail morale checks sometimes. Instinctive behavior doesn't always go the way you'd like it to.

Worsle
05-02-2010, 10:21
I think I might have not made my point clear on powerfists. Powerfists have their role but that roles is not in every squad any more, if you have a fearless squad you will need a powerfist though as other wise walkers can just eat your squad and you have no way of even arguing with it. However in squads like tactical marines you don't need a fist any more and you are really better of just saving the points for something else.

Tactical are the poster boys for this as you can choose to fall back with them. Why? Because they are not a melee squad no matter what you should be shooting with them, not charging. In all but the strangest of circumstances something is going wrong when you decided to charge. Even more so you wont be charging the targets you would take the fist for so you are better of saving those points for some thing else.

That and don't even get me started on the plasma comment. You shouldn't even have it on most squads any more if you are playing in the 5th edition. Things have changed, a brave new world out there.

azimaith
05-02-2010, 13:26
Not everyone plays mech. Plasma is good for rapid firing big nasty enemies or meq squads closing in, better than melta guns at that job. I have other guns to kill tanks.

Powerfists give you 3 strength 8 attacks denying armor saves on the charge, they're quite good at beating things down especially if your in a drop pod army and you end up close to enemy troops you'd rather not be shot by.

Worsle
05-02-2010, 16:18
Then you can take flamers, really plasma is not an optimal choice it just costs to much for what it gives. Being in combat results in being attacked back, shooting does not this should make the choice obvious. Tacticals are just not an assaulting squad they don't have the tools for it and adding a powerfist is not going to change that.

Not every one plays mech but if you can't deal with mech you are not really playing in the 5th edition. As many units as possible should have some way to deal with mech armies, not having a good anti tank weapon on tacticals is a mistake. You also really should not be in a drop pod army that have to drop in the first turn rule and the lack of mobility there after really hurts their effectiveness.

azimaith
05-02-2010, 16:26
Then you can take flamers, really plasma is not an optimal choice it just costs to much for what it gives. Being in combat results in being attacked back, shooting does not this should make the choice obvious. Tacticals are just not an assaulting squad they don't have the tools for it and adding a powerfist is not going to change that.

This really depends who your assaulting and who you're shooting. My meta game is different than yours obviously because while I deal with mech that's not all I fight (and honestly I feel bad for anyone who does, that's boring.)



Not every one plays mech but if you can't deal with mech you are not really playing in the 5th edition. As many units as possible should have some way to deal with mech armies, not having a good anti tank weapon on tacticals is a mistake. You also really should not be in a drop pod army that have to drop in the first turn rule and the lack of mobility there after really hurts their effectiveness.
I play a drop pod army because I want to. Its not what I'd call competitive (it is neat though.) Because it drop pods in its good to have rapid fire at my command and a powerfist to deliver some damage to something I want to kill in a turn or two rather than relying on many specialist (who can't go into the drop pod after all.)

Its got some anti-tank but its not heavy on it and I just don't go looking for mech players with it. Mech is frankly boring to fight against overly much just like double lash is boring to fight against over and over.

I play my nids, guard, crons, and sometimes my daemons in tournies. My space marines are entirely to yell "For the Emperor, Strike from the Skies Brothers!" And plop down 3-4 drop pods and have the Emperors finest bust out and start cracking skulls.

Its epic light hearted fun plus its entertaining to have my librarian zooming around my stern guard with gate of infinity and coming in death from above style with my vanguard (yes it uses vanguard.) I've even thought about using legion of the damned because I like the models. Its hard to decide between a relic blade captain (based on that two handed thunder hammer model) or a shiny legion squad. They're both nice looking.

On a plus note necrons don't like this list at all.

UberBeast
05-02-2010, 17:03
;4355710']No one has mentioned the DA 4th Edition Codex yet?

Good, somebody did!

Worsle
05-02-2010, 17:11
Really I don't think I can say what I think of the "meta gaming" concept out loud. It is tailoring though and I don't believe in it. Build one list that can deal with anything, that is it. Meta gaming can ruin your perspective and when some one does something different it leaves you looking stupid. However if you are not building to have mech or mobility in your army you are building a target, you don't get to react because your army lacks that potential. Those armies are boring armies to face, you can make some good foot or semi mech armies but you need to bring mobility in different ways and not every codex gives you the tools to do that.

Play a drop pod if you want but it is a sub optimal choice and using it to justify other poor choices is not good logic. If the plasma gun a worse choice than the other options? Yes, but it will still kill things. I have no problem with people taking other things because they find them more fun but passing them of as good ideas is an other thing.

azimaith
05-02-2010, 17:43
I play drop pods for the entertainment value. Sometimes I win, sometimes I don't. If I wanted a competitive marines army I wouldn't even be using drop pods much less vanilla space marines.

Plasma guns are better at certain things than melta guns are. Its just that simple. I only get one special weapon a squad.

Worsle
05-02-2010, 21:12
So now SM don't have a competitive codex? You know what I will bite, what codexes are competitive then and how are you defining this? Bring this back to the crux of the argument why would you say some of these codexes are competitive and the nids are not. I am really not sure if we are talking about the same basic game.

exsulis
05-02-2010, 22:06
Az is refering to SW as a more powerful dex than the SM one.

azimaith
06-02-2010, 11:28
So now SM don't have a competitive codex? You know what I will bite, what codexes are competitive then and how are you defining this? Bring this back to the crux of the argument why would you say some of these codexes are competitive and the nids are not. I am really not sure if we are talking about the same basic game.

He's right, I'm talking about space wolves. I could play a more effective (but still not great) drop pod army with them but they don't have vanguard so I don't. Wolves are just better for Drop Pods because you can make very efficient squads simply due to the number of special weapons compared to heavy weapons not to mention small squad sizes.

As for nids, the codex is competitive enough. Its not top tier but its not useless. The internal balance is bogus though.

MystheDevourer
06-02-2010, 11:54
He's right, I'm talking about space wolves. I could play a more effective (but still not great) drop pod army with them but they don't have vanguard so I don't. Wolves are just better for Drop Pods because you can make very efficient squads simply due to the number of special weapons compared to heavy weapons not to mention small squad sizes.

As for nids, the codex is competitive enough. Its not top tier but its not useless. The internal balance is bogus though.It is hard to make a balanced list with were our best anti tank is no longer our MCs but rather Zoans and the New Hive Guard.

This really can pose a problem but then again it can not pose a problem depending on the mind set of the user. I know a guy who wants to do nothing else but assault with Genestealers all day to have fun, which is ok but boring to me. I could play him and just shoot into them and kill them fast enough as a fellow Nid player. Others are horrid at adapting while others my self included have adapted and are learning with test plays.

space-ork
06-02-2010, 12:04
Hmmmm what about the daemon codex.

Worsle
06-02-2010, 12:14
Space wolves are different to marines but given drop pods are just not competitive using wolves is not going to make it any better. Comparing one uncompetitive army to one that is still uncompetitive even if slightly less so is pointless. If we are comparing the two books properly the big thing wolves have going for them are all foot based (well I guess cavalry counts as feet). If you are making a mech lists you tend to be better of sticking with the SM book, they have more tools for it. Both books can give you good armies but just tends to be in different ways.

The internal balance stuff for the nid book is mostly crap and people not seeing how to use them. There are very few options in the nid codex that don't have a place in the right army. Problem is people keep giving stupid theory hammer assessments that massively miss the point, firing weapons to cause ID on warriors in cover? Good much worse places you could be firing them. The fex has its place, warriors have their place, harpies have their place, lictors have their place, tyrannos have their place and even the venomthrope has its place (gants are far more than just expendable nonsense). Biggest problem this codex has is there are to many good options, it makes focusing in on what you want in your army a lot harder than most. Compare this to the sorry state of the old book and peoples reactions really confuse me.

catbarf
06-02-2010, 14:20
Not a whine thread! Some people love the fact that nidzilla is gone. It is however unquestionable that the best builds in the new dex are weaker than the old one.

Nidzilla? Gone? The very economically-priced Trygon, Mawloc, and Tervigon disagree.