PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid rant



Pages : [1] 2

Khorneflakes
09-02-2014, 18:21
Well I've had 3 games with the bugs now at 1850 points against one of my regular gaming friend and I must admit

I'm happy
Yes you read that right, happy! I've had 2 wins and a loss. Previously using the last codex I had never won a game, don't think I even came close to a draw. The new codex has been a godsend I'm a happy BUGger :-)
My list is also using models that people have poo pooed as not worth it and not using some units that everyone seems to use.
My list is:
Prime with bonesword
Harpy
3 basic carnifex
2x3 biovores
2 venomthropes
4x3 warriors with devourers and a barbed strangler
22 termagants with fleshborers
23 termagants with fleshborers
5 shrikes with 4 boneswords and 1 rending claws
15 gargoyles

Anyone else had success with the bugs?

Menthak
09-02-2014, 18:35
3 games, come back when you have 10 or 20.

General Veers
09-02-2014, 18:39
I've had success. With a similar list as yours at least in the sense it's loaded with Synapse. I've also played Nidzilla and hard to kill synapse type lists. While I can win/loose that's not the problem.

Tyranids are boring to play.

The games are all about watching my opponent "kill by numbers":
1. Venomthropes
2. Synapse
3. Fast stuff
4. Objective holders/contesters

Any game with Tyranids against a decent opponent boils down to them figuring out the targeting priority list above. If you decide to shake things up and say don't field or can hide the Venomthropes, then the opponent only has to shift the targeting priority items up. Spamming units like warriors can be good but they're slow and honestly 12 is not that difficult to take out in an 1850 or higher game.

Edit: Zoans are annoying for my opponents with their 3++ and do work for me if I roll well for their invulnerable save. They are my primary go to Synapse right now. I'm fielding 6 at 1850.

Ssilmath
09-02-2014, 18:56
The games are all about watching my opponent "kill by numbers":

How is that any different from any other army?

thanoson
09-02-2014, 19:40
3 games. Won all 3. However, I used to win with my old codex too. It's ok. Venomthropes are a must now. Hide them behind MC's. MC's block the LOS most times

bork da basher
09-02-2014, 19:42
iv'e played about 14-15 games roughly vs new nids and personally think they're garbage. too restrictive, too punishing and lack any depth or interesting ways to play. you swarm forward, die in droves and basically just aim to clog him up with bodies, unless the dice are with you it's a serious uphill struggle that's not particularly fun to play with or against. i just find them very one dimensional and easy to shut down.

if you can have fun playing them, great stuff, i hope it lasts but i think anyone serious about gaming will struggle to find them a fun army to use after 15-20 or so battles win or lose, especially vs competitive lists. being a bad army is one thing but being boring is another.

IcedCrow
09-02-2014, 22:17
I've seen them played about a dozen times now. Ten wins, two losses.

NagashLover
09-02-2014, 22:21
How is that any different from any other army?

Objectively? It isn't. It is a fact not any different than any other army.

Target priority is target priority.

Tau aren't immune to it. Space Marines aren't immune to it. So logically, Nids aren't immune to it.

iv'e played about 14-15 games roughly vs new nids and personally think they're garbage. too restrictive, too punishing and lack any depth or interesting ways to play. you swarm forward, die in droves and basically just aim to clog him up with bodies, unless the dice are with you it's a serious uphill struggle that's not particularly fun to play with or against. i just find them very one dimensional and easy to shut down.

if you can have fun playing them, great stuff, i hope it lasts but i think anyone serious about gaming will struggle to find them a fun army to use after 15-20 or so battles win or lose, especially vs competitive lists. being a bad army is one thing but being boring is another.

Utterly disagree with you on all points. I've played 2 games and setting up a third against Tau (first two were Eldar and IG respectively) and I used different lists. I've also written 3 or 4 different lists that have different playstyles from large groups of MC to an actual swarm and even one based around flying and deepstriking. Ultimately though it doesn't matter what I say or what you say, neither one of us will change the others perspective. So I'll leave it at this. It isn't 4th Edition, my personal favorite, but it's thankfully much better than the last book, which was very restrictive and boring.

naloth
09-02-2014, 23:43
So I'll leave it at this. It isn't 4th Edition, my personal favorite, but it's thankfully much better than the last book, which was very restrictive and boring.

I'm curious what you found less restrictive about this codex relative to the last and even 4 edition books.

squeekenator
10-02-2014, 00:39
The games are all about watching my opponent "kill by numbers"

If you have a problem with that, an endless horde of mindless, utterly expendable mooks is probably not the army for you.

rocdocta
10-02-2014, 04:12
Well I've had 3 games with the bugs now at 1850 points against one of my regular gaming friend and I must admit

I'm happy
Yes you read that right, happy! I've had 2 wins and a loss. Previously using the last codex I had never won a game, don't think I even came close to a draw. The new codex has been a godsend I'm a happy BUGger :-)
My list is also using models that people have poo pooed as not worth it and not using some units that everyone seems to use.
My list is:
Prime with bonesword
Harpy
3 basic carnifex
2x3 biovores
2 venomthropes
4x3 warriors with devourers and a barbed strangler
22 termagants with fleshborers
23 termagants with fleshborers
5 shrikes with 4 boneswords and 1 rending claws
15 gargoyles

Anyone else had success with the bugs?

great to hear that someone is having fun with the new codex. I also hear that people have fun flipping coins or playing guess who. I can see by your excitement at playing 3 games that you are new to nids. Lets us know if you are still as excited playing your 50th game with the same restrictive tactics of rushing everything forwards on foot...over and over again.

rocdocta
10-02-2014, 04:14
I'm curious what you found less restrictive about this codex relative to the last and even 4 edition books.

I think he is saying that previous editions restricted him from having to use a mono-build as pushed by this book. previous books restricted you from having to use boring tactics and army builds. They forced you to have different armies and styles of play.

Ssilmath
10-02-2014, 04:49
Great contribution rocdocta. I'm sure you're going to sway everybody with your great attitude and solid arguments.

ehlijen
10-02-2014, 04:53
great to hear that someone is having fun with the new codex. I also hear that people have fun flipping coins or playing guess who. I can see by your excitement at playing 3 games that you are new to nids. Lets us know if you are still as excited playing your 50th game with the same restrictive tactics of rushing everything forwards on foot...over and over again.

I don't want to offend, but I would suggest reading the post again. He has in fact stated that he played more than three games overall, just 3 with the latest codex. I would not call that 'new to the nids".

Khorneflakes
10-02-2014, 05:00
@rocdota -if I keep winning with them, then yes I will have fun with them. as a side note I don't have to rush forward my list is quite shooty, ill only go forward to take objectives also not new to nids had an army for ages just never played with cos I found it hard to win with them
@menthak -how many games have you had with them?
@general veers -that's no different than any army. you always have kill by numbers against any player
to everyone else thank you for your replies glad to see other people enjoying the nids and not bashing them

thanoson
10-02-2014, 07:54
iv'e played about 14-15 games roughly vs new nids and personally think they're garbage. too restrictive, too punishing and lack any depth or interesting ways to play. you swarm forward, die in droves and basically just aim to clog him up with bodies, unless the dice are with you it's a serious uphill struggle that's not particularly fun to play with or against. i just find them very one dimensional and easy to shut down.

if you can have fun playing them, great stuff, i hope it lasts but i think anyone serious about gaming will struggle to find them a fun army to use after 15-20 or so battles win or lose, especially vs competitive lists. being a bad army is one thing but being boring is another.

This is kinda how I'm feeling. I don't like having to hang out together and hope I can tie them up. I want to present new threats on the fly. Hey everyone, gather around the venomthropes. They are really good this edition. Meh.

thanoson
10-02-2014, 08:00
Objectively? It isn't. It is a fact not any different than any other army.

Target priority is target priority.

Tau aren't immune to it. Space Marines aren't immune to it. So logically, Nids aren't immune to it.


Utterly disagree with you on all points. I've played 2 games and setting up a third against Tau (first two were Eldar and IG respectively) and I used different lists. I've also written 3 or 4 different lists that have different playstyles from large groups of MC to an actual swarm and even one based around flying and deepstriking. Ultimately though it doesn't matter what I say or what you say, neither one of us will change the others perspective. So I'll leave it at this. It isn't 4th Edition, my personal favorite, but it's thankfully much better than the last book, which was very restrictive and boring.

Wait, are you making multi list and then choosing a list based on what your opponent is playing? Then of course your tactics are going to shift because you have list tailored to fight a said opponent. Try the one list vs all approach. That's the true test of your list potential.

bork da basher
10-02-2014, 08:17
Utterly disagree with you on all points. I've played 2 games and setting up a third against Tau (first two were Eldar and IG respectively) and I used different lists. I've also written 3 or 4 different lists that have different playstyles from large groups of MC to an actual swarm and even one based around flying and deepstriking. Ultimately though it doesn't matter what I say or what you say, neither one of us will change the others perspective. So I'll leave it at this. It isn't 4th Edition, my personal favorite, but it's thankfully much better than the last book, which was very restrictive and boring.

you've played 2 games, get back to me when you've played 15-20 like i said your opinion might change. iv'e played against every type of list they can realistically make, horde, mixed, monster mash, infiltrate n deepstrike, flyer heavy etc etc. they all play more or less the same way to me and more importantly they are all shut down the same way and they all have trouble with objective based missions because of the restrictions imposed by synapse and IB. these are just my observations im very open to other perspectives but that needs to happen on the battlefield where i can be proven wrong. the problem with nids is they have a auto lose button you can press, no other army has that, certainly not to the degree nids have it. fluff be damned, it's a terrible mechanic and without it the codex would actually be good.

im not saying they can't win or that in the right hands they couldn't do well with the right list but they are hugely dependent on on outside factors to be good. terrain, dice rolls, player skill, OPPONENT skill especially, these are whats having the impact in my games vs nids NOT the codex itself. which to me makes it a bad codex.


This is kinda how I'm feeling. I don't like having to hang out together and hope I can tie them up. I want to present new threats on the fly. Hey everyone, gather around the venomthropes. They are really good this edition. Meh.

this is precisely what im seeing.

T10
10-02-2014, 09:14
3 games, come back when you have 10 or 20.

Have you played 20 games with the Tyranids?

-T10

bork da basher
10-02-2014, 09:33
wrong post

Minsc
10-02-2014, 11:03
The nid-player at my LGS (who's played 'nids since third edition) likes the new codex, and I'd estimate he has a 50/50 win/lose ratio with it so far, with ~10 games played since it was released.
He's tried swam-lists, nidzilla and even mixed with warriors. And he doesn't own any Venomthropes.

The only thing I've heard him express dislike about is the loss of re-roll's with scything talons.

And hell hasn't frozen over...

Langdon
10-02-2014, 11:22
great to hear that someone is having fun with the new codex. I also hear that people have fun flipping coins or playing guess who. I can see by your excitement at playing 3 games that you are new to nids. Lets us know if you are still as excited playing your 50th game with the same restrictive tactics of rushing everything forwards on foot...over and over again.


christ any army played 50times will burn you out..

Why is there a second thread, when we have a perfectly good one running?

Snake Eyes
10-02-2014, 12:23
Well I have used the new Nid codex 11 times so far. Won 8 games, Drew 1 and Lost 2. They have been fun to use and different to the rest of the armies out there.

As mentioned before, they aren't the most competitive and nastiest army in the world, but they can certainly do well and do well against some of the better army lists. My 2 losses were both against Taudar, but they weren't completely one sided. Hell they were the most enjoyable games out of the 11 I have played.

Menthak
10-02-2014, 18:22
@menthak -how many games have you had with them?
Have you played 20 games with the Tyranids?

-T10

Two, in fourth edition. But I don't need to play a ton of games with an army to know that 3 games is too low a number to base your views on.

Camman1984
10-02-2014, 18:38
I have a guy in my group who loves the new dex, there is certain units he wouldnt touch but he enjoys his games and wins most of them. Granted we arent a heavily competitive group but he is competitive amongst us.

T10
10-02-2014, 18:46
Perhaps two 4th ed. games too is to little to go on when it comes to disparaging a whole army.

Though, I apologize if you are in fact on the neutral "wait and see" faction. Hard to tell sometimes.

Grocklock
10-02-2014, 19:22
I'm going into my 13th game and got to say I'm currently 7 wins 3 draws and 2 loses with tau being the tough cookie to crack. As the game has ended 1 or two turns to early for me to get my teeth into them.

Do they require a bit of skill to play yes they do but that's what I'm after. I don't want to play a auto win list.

To the people who are saying they are rubbish, I say that's fine maybe it's not the list but the way you are playing with them.

I cannot got the life of me get space marines to work. I just get stomped and I've played 30 odd games with them fun but I cannot get them to work. But I understand others have unlocked there Pandora's box. It dons't mean the list is bad just I cannot get it to work.

I kind of get the impression from some peoples posts they imply they are wizards at this game and if they lose its because GW cannot write a codex rather then they cannot play it.

adreal
10-02-2014, 19:24
Are there things that work in the codex? Yes, 5 flying monsterous creatures will always be hard to deal with, and against the right type of army, mass shrouded will also be hard to deal with. But it's a limited codex, the same way as chaos is a limited codex. Space marines, Tau, Eldar and daemons are not limited codex's.

So in that sense Tyranids is a poor codex, it can win some games sure, but it will struggle, and could have been made better. The codex is too new though, so people are still struggling with the change from loosing spore pods and biomancy (loosing biomancy is foolish), but that doesn't change the fact that it is a poor codex

gitburna
10-02-2014, 19:24
Wait, are you making multi list and then choosing a list based on what your opponent is playing? Then of course your tactics are going to shift because you have list tailored to fight a said opponent. Try the one list vs all approach. That's the true test of your list potential.


No thanks, not for me anyway. This is the mentality that's given us armies of Tau riptides with Wraithknight support. I dont optimise a list to fight one particular army but i like to mix things around week on week based on what i've not used recently and what didn't do so well last time. For me its just like having a decent squad in football, you pick a team from what you have and possibly play a different way depending on your opponent (who is entitled to do exactly the same)

Some people say the hordes is boring. Whats really boring for me is seeing everyone playing the same taudar list all the time.

IcedCrow
10-02-2014, 19:27
I kind of get the impression from some peoples posts they imply they are wizards at this game and if they lose its because GW cannot write a codex rather then they cannot play it.

I believe you have touched the heart of the matter for a lot of individuals sir.

Camman1984
10-02-2014, 19:53
I really dont understand them losing spore pods as they feature in all the fluff and they would have sold really well. Maybe they will release its rules later as a way of selling this new overpriced weekly pamphlet.

Theocracity
10-02-2014, 19:56
I believe you have touched the heart of the matter for a lot of individuals sir.

And conversly, anyone who implies that skill or comfort with a particular army build might not be a universal trait across all players is actually saying that everyone but him sucks, regardless of what point he was supposedly trying to make ;).

IcedCrow
10-02-2014, 20:07
Something else to ponder...

There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.

Ssilmath
10-02-2014, 20:16
I'm mostly amused by the fact that we have people claiming the book is boring and people saying that you have to play the same list over and over again. There is absolutely no sense nor consistency. Feels almost like a parody, or maybe a bad meme.

"Claims GW makes boring codexes. Refuses to change list for 15 games in a row."

ehlijen
10-02-2014, 20:45
Two, in fourth edition. But I don't need to play a ton of games with an army to know that 3 games is too low a number to base your views on.

So you have played 2 games in a different edition and that qualifies you to deny the conclusions about the current edition of someone who has played 3 games this edition as 'hasn't done enough research' ?

childsoldier
10-02-2014, 21:04
There are two players in my gaming group who play Nids, at 1,000pts they're 4-2 I think and one 1,500pts loss and an 1,850pts win, both against SM albeit different opponents. One is leaning more towards Nidzilla (and did in the last edition too), the other has been a swarm player and seems like he might stick with that, though he is experimenting. Both seem to be of the opinion that it isn't a great Codex by any means, but not terrible either. We don't play in a particularly competitive environment so maybe it's different for others on the tournament end of the spectrum.

And thank you Menthak for the heartiest chuckle I've had in quite a while, your reply was (possibly inadvertently) hilarious. IcedCrow, who says all Guard just sit back and shoot? At some point in every battle one must simply affix bayonets, cry "#YOLO, 4 tha Emprah'!1!!" and meet the foe up close!

insectum7
10-02-2014, 21:09
Something else to ponder...

There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.

I think those players are feeling like they are being forced into a style of play that they may not have "signed up for" in earlier editions. Players who may have started out with a Nidzilla list or a Genestealer shock-assault army in 4th edition probably wouldn't like feeling like they now have to rely on units that they don't like.

Guard, on the other hand has always been an army of lots of infantry, lots of tanks, and lots of artillery. As long as the codex delivers on those fronts, the Guard players are pretty happy.

IcedCrow
10-02-2014, 21:12
There are two players in my gaming group who play Nids, at 1,000pts they're 4-2 I think and one 1,500pts loss and an 1,850pts win, both against SM albeit different opponents. One is leaning more towards Nidzilla (and did in the last edition too), the other has been a swarm player and seems like he might stick with that, though he is experimenting. Both seem to be of the opinion that it isn't a great Codex by any means, but not terrible either. We don't play in a particularly competitive environment so maybe it's different for others on the tournament end of the spectrum.

And thank you Menthak for the heartiest chuckle I've had in quite a while, your reply was (possibly inadvertently) hilarious. IcedCrow, who says all Guard just sit back and shoot? At some point in every battle one must simply affix bayonets, cry "#YOLO, 4 tha Emprah'!1!!" and meet the foe up close!
I have never met those guardsmen but id like to!

IcedCrow
10-02-2014, 21:13
I think those players are feeling like they are being forced into a style of play that they may not have "signed up for" in earlier editions. Players who may have started out with a Nidzilla list or a Genestealer shock-assault army in 4th edition probably wouldn't like feeling like they now have to rely on units that they don't like.

Guard, on the other hand has always been an army of lots of infantry, lots of tanks, and lots of artillery. As long as the codex delivers on those fronts, the Guard players are pretty happy.

Thats fair enough but not what is primarily being raged outwardly at least.

insectum7
10-02-2014, 21:17
Thats fair enough but not what is primarily being raged outwardly at least.

Well, "raging" is not often filled with clear or focused messaging.

childsoldier
10-02-2014, 21:18
I have never met those guardsmen but id like to!

If I could find my way aboard the Terminus Est I'd happily charge headlong into whatever it is you collect, more meat for the Emperor's grinder! It actually catches a lot of players out to see an Infantry Squad go all gung ho. Although I'm probably a bit of an IG aberration, I don't field Vets and have only ever blob-squadded once back in 4th ed...

NagashLover
10-02-2014, 21:42
Wait, are you making multi list and then choosing a list based on what your opponent is playing? Then of course your tactics are going to shift because you have list tailored to fight a said opponent. Try the one list vs all approach. That's the true test of your list potential.

No. Stop trying to force an argument or making an assumption please. It will work better for you not to jump to conclusions.

I have used 2 different lists but I have written 4 or 5 up just to write them and try later. We don't list tailor, that was your assumption most likely due to your environment, it was never my statement. I played 2 different lists because I wanted to try some things out. It is as simple as that. True list potential? Yes, if you want to try and find that "one list to rule them all". Creating a well balanced list is still list tailoring regardless of how you feel about it. You build it to cut down on the variables. I would say your talent is purely done by making lists work. My view on list potential is that a book has a multitude of valid builds that perform well.

In that I can't answer if this book provides solid list potential. Nobody can. It still needs time to be played with by the community.



you've played 2 games, get back to me when you've played 15-20 like i said your opinion might change. iv'e played against every type of list they can realistically make, horde, mixed, monster mash, infiltrate n deepstrike, flyer heavy etc etc. they all play more or less the same way to me and more importantly they are all shut down the same way and they all have trouble with objective based missions because of the restrictions imposed by synapse and IB. these are just my observations im very open to other perspectives but that needs to happen on the battlefield where i can be proven wrong. the problem with nids is they have a auto lose button you can press, no other army has that, certainly not to the degree nids have it. fluff be damned, it's a terrible mechanic and without it the codex would actually be good.

im not saying they can't win or that in the right hands they couldn't do well with the right list but they are hugely dependent on on outside factors to be good. terrain, dice rolls, player skill, OPPONENT skill especially, these are whats having the impact in my games vs nids NOT the codex itself. which to me makes it a bad codex.


this is precisely what im seeing.

We'll just have to agree to disagree as synapse isn't an auto lose button unless you want to play it in a vacuum or theoryhammer where it plays very little in, your words, on the battlefield. As I have stated plenty of times before in other topics the book is not without its bad, but its still a huge step forward from what the last book was. Your outside factors apply to all armies. I've played against every single army since I've been playing a far back as '93 at one point or another and it's still the same. Target priority is target priority. It is no less or important than any other army and that is a fact. Synapse is far from the thing that keeps this codex from being amazing.

IB worse results should just be a 1. Genestealers I would have liked to see a slight points decrease. More bimorph options and thus more control over units and models. Pyrovores to actually have a more defined role/purpose.

Though I believe your issue is more with IB than Synapse but even then the book wouldn't go from "bad" to good to most dissenters just because of a positive change to synapse or IB.



As for outside factors, it is a dice game. Riptides missing all game does that make them bad? Nope. Even the most skilled players are subject to bad dice rolls. All those points from terrain, opponent skill and outside factors, as you called them, apply to every army. That doesn't make this dex any different and dice is another fairly common factor from dex to dex. So using your logic all dex's are bad because they rely on all of those factors. That is unless you play without terrain, use units in a vacuum and play against a mirror. I understand what you're saying but if a codex is "great" because it ignores terrain, dice rolls and opponent (and your) skill levels...that doesn't seem to be a game. Shouldn't every army be more dependent upon the skill of the user and how they mitigate the randomness of dice rolls and forcing opponents into unfavourable conditions through use of terrain?

Should a book not be impacted or be less impacted by those factors? I would say I don't believe so.


How about you get back to me when you play 15-20 games in more than your meta. Or how about you get back to me when you try combinations you'd never even consider doing. See these are also outside factors that belong on your list. Your opinion might change as well. This is where we run into issues. You feel your experience with it is more complete but that isn't how more reliable data is found. I don't mean to be condescending but when you start off with a statement such as that, the implication that your limited view (as you acknowledged with OPPONENTS and skill of the player i.e. that being you) is somehow more representative to every meta it's rather difficult to respond to seriously.

They are found by having a community, or a group, of people putting information into a system. Not by having anecdotal evidence at best. You are right more games against more opponents and armies will open my view up more on it. It won't change my view on the dex as a whole as my bias for the book leans towards it not being "terrible" versus others who have called it "terrible", though now they've switched gears to just call it "boring" due to that terrible claim falling through.

So is it boring? More time will tell but so far I haven't found it boring and I've only played 2 games, magnetized and painted models as well as built lists for fun. Yet I found the previous dex boring. So see what we have here is a very simple disagreement, which I pointed out in the first post you responded to, where you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I will say I do agree with you that I might be proven wrong somewhere down the line but honestly it is still to early to call the dex "bad" or even as I said the new phrase for terrible is "boring" when we have such a large playerbase that many don't build lists the same way or work in the same meta.

So to take all that and put it simply. We will just have to agree to disagree unless we want this discussion to turn into a battle of the cheerleaders where you get a side I get a side and then we extend this topic out to 45+ pages of circular arguing. I'd rather we just respectfully disagree.

naloth
10-02-2014, 22:57
There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.

Aside from the fact that there were complaints about various incarnations of the IG codex I'd submit to you that we also see several profoundly different strategies in use... Infantry blobs with a fair amount of character support that can do fairly well in CC (Straken for Fearless, Counter-Attack, and Furious Charge?). Armored Divisions that have mobility to deliver special weapon teams. Artillery Tank heavy with or without weapon teams. Infantry heavy divisions. Previously Rough Riders used to be very nasty assault (haven't really seen them much in 6e though). At one time "attack of the sentinels" was pretty effective too. This edition gave them one a very effective flying transport that has good weaponry. If you feel like outflanking a whole platoon, simply take Al'Rahem. If you compare a Hellhound to a Pyrovore or say upgraded Warriors to Ogryn, I'm guessing you'll also see that they compare pretty well on a unit by unit basis too.

Ssilmath
10-02-2014, 23:06
Haha, I love it. Outflanking single platoon with Al'Rahem = New way of playing Guard. Infiltrating Genestealers and following up with subterranean assault = no different than rushing cannon fodder forward to tie things up for the big bugs.

IcedCrow
10-02-2014, 23:08
I suppose thats possible. Unfortunately 100% of my games have been vs the leaf blower parking lot variety :-(

naloth
11-02-2014, 00:31
Haha, I love it. Outflanking single platoon with Al'Rahem = New way of playing Guard. Infiltrating Genestealers and following up with subterranean assault = no different than rushing cannon fodder forward to tie things up for the big bugs.

So you concede that there's a half dozen different strategies not available to 'nids even before you consider bringing in a whole outflanking company?

As for how serious Al'Rahem can be: His orders (d6" move after shooting) and items (insta-gib 6's sword) are pretty nice and it's a fairly cheap upgrade to get the telepathic relay for your deep strike/outflankers. No one likes having a Chimera command squad sporting heavy weapons, backed by up to 50 infantry guys (often also sporting heavy, special, and CC weapons such as pfists) possibly also in transports or as a blob, backed by another 2 squads worth of special weapon troopers, more units of heavy weapons, and possibly desperadoes hopping on in addition to other outflank/deepstrike shenanigans IG can do. It's not the most powerful build going, but I've seen it used to good effect. I suspect that would concern more people now than having a few 'stealers outflank.

On the topic of 'Nids reserve/outflanking - it's interesting but terribly unreliable. There's no good way to control which units are coming up and how soon. You could hold something back to use a Trygon tunnel, but then the Trygon comes at the same time or after the other unit. There's no re-roll for outflanking just a +1 to reserves if you invest in the Swarmlord (hefty investment). Subterranean assault won't get units deep until towards the end of the game. 'Stealers coming in can't do anything when they arrive. Outflanking gaunts is risky because they will be out of synapse next turn. The problem with those strategies are that the 'dex doesn't provide a lot of support for them.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 00:34
So you concede that there's a half dozen different strategies not available to 'nids even before you consider bringing in a whole outflanking company?

Just pointing out your hypocrisy and double standards, not conceding anything.

naloth
11-02-2014, 00:43
Just pointing out your hypocrisy and double standards, not conceding anything.

I'm more than happy to clear up your confusion on such points. I'm not sure why you resort to smear tactics? I even added more to the post just to clarify what a massive difference between what you can do between the codex exists even while you do the whole "yes, he presented quite a few options, but I found 1 that I find someone questionable so I'm going to make a production out of that".

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 00:45
If you're going to classify Al'Rahem as a whole new way to play Guard because he provides outflank to a squad of Guard, then Hive Commander provides exactly the same thing to Tyranids.

naloth
11-02-2014, 00:55
If you're going to classify Al'Rahem as a whole new way to play Guard because he provides outflank to a squad of Guard, then Hive Commander provides exactly the same thing to Tyranids.

As I put above, you can disregard that and still have x5 the strategic options.

As it is, unless you can point out a way to bring a similar type of force to bear using 'Nids (16+ special weapons, 6ish tanks, 66+ bodies, multiple heavy weapons) with the option to re-roll where you pop up, with a bonus to coming in when you want, plus other outflank/DS options you can also control as well, that do things when they pop up (not just stand around like 'stealers), I'd say there's pretty big disparity in the comparison.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 01:07
I'm endlessly amused that you think that bringing 16+ BS3 special weapons or heavy weapons that can only snapfire into charge or rapid fire range is a good tactic, or that spending that many points on said outflanking squad is a good expenditure of points. But I'll take your challenge.

Flyrant - 2 TL Devourers, Wings, Hive Commander

Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Warriors - 1 with Barbed Strangler, 4 with Deathspitters

Trygon Prime
Mawloc
Mawloc

Not quite the same, and a bit more dependent on cover and reserve rolls, but it's similar and provides a combination of outflanking and deepstriking with a strong initial punch and decent melee capability.

Now, just waiting for the "That's a bad list" or "That doesn't count" that's sure to ensue.

naloth
11-02-2014, 01:35
I'm endlessly amused that you think that bringing 16+ BS3 special weapons or heavy weapons that can only snapfire into charge or rapid fire range is a good tactic, or that spending that many points on said outflanking squad is a good expenditure of points. But I'll take your challenge.
Is all of this a diversion to distract from the fact that even if the 'Nid could mount a credible outflank/reserve army, there's still many times the diversity in other Codexes?

Presumably you mean the heavy weapons can only snapfire... A chimera popping in to deliver 8 plasma shots or 4 melta shots "Bring 'Um Down" is pretty credible. Suicide demolition/special teams are also pretty good. Having multiple units to force disorganized charges will make quite a difference against quite a few opponents especially if you're facing against troops that would rather not assault (Dev squad perhaps). Strongest choice from the codex, no. Useful strategy, sometimes. The Leafblower wasn't popular until someone realized they could outmaneuver and concentrate firepower. This is just in a different way.


Not quite the same, and a bit more dependent on cover and reserve rolls, but it's similar and provides a combination of outflanking and deepstriking with a strong initial punch and decent melee capability.
It's certainly a lot more points... and you're getting your MCs out there which may work if your opponent forgot heavy weapons... I suspect you wouldn't want to try this against a somewhat spread IG force, a force with a lot of flyers/transports, or even one that has a lot of its own DS/outflanking elements.

Better idea: since you're fond of the idea. Run it against a wide array of opponents and report back.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 01:43
You still haven't proven this "lack of diversity" outside of just dismissing out of hand every attempt to show you said diversity. Apparently Guard can do variations on "Shoot you lots" and have it count but if Nids do a variation on "Use the small stuff to distract/tie up while the big stuff gets into position" it's all the same thing. Nevermind that I just gave you an example that doesn't do that at all, and for not much more expensive than your example (1478 as opposed to 1230, and you don't have an HQ or second troop choice yet).

So, do you care to actually prove your statements, or move the goalposts further?

Formerly Wu
11-02-2014, 01:52
Infantry blobs with a fair amount of character support that can do fairly well in CC (Straken for Fearless, Counter-Attack, and Furious Charge?).
Nobody takes Straken competitively.


Artillery Tank heavy with or without weapon teams.
"Artillery tank heavy" is not a distinct playstyle; artillery tanks are an integral part of most any Guard list.


Previously Rough Riders used to be very nasty assault (haven't really seen them much in 6e though). At one time "attack of the sentinels" was pretty effective too.
Lack of charge from reserves and Overwatch hurt RRs a lot. And again, they weren't a playstyle, they were a useful tool. Both them and Sentinels have never been more than one-and-done distraction units.


If you feel like outflanking a whole platoon, simply take Al'Rahem.
Ssilmath has this handled.


If you compare a Hellhound to a Pyrovore or say upgraded Warriors to Ogryn, I'm guessing you'll also see that they compare pretty well on a unit by unit basis too.
Trying to compare Ogryn to Warriors suggests to me you don't have much understanding of the Imperial Guard list.

thanoson
11-02-2014, 02:29
No. Stop trying to force an argument or making an assumption please. It will work better for you not to jump to conclusions.

I have used 2 different lists but I have written 4 or 5 up just to write them and try later. We don't list tailor, that was your assumption most likely due to your environment, it was never my statement. I played 2 different lists because I wanted to try some things out. It is as simple as that. True list potential? Yes, if you want to try and find that "one list to rule them all". Creating a well balanced list is still list tailoring regardless of how you feel about it. You build it to cut down on the variables. I would say your talent is purely done by making lists work. My view on list potential is that a book has a multitude of valid builds that perform well.

In that I can't answer if this book provides solid list potential. Nobody can. It still needs time to be played with by the community.


Umm... ease up dude. I'm not attacking you or trying to start an argument. That was a legit question that I did indeed make an assumption with. I have played the same list over and over 4 times now. It basically comes down to Infiltrate with stealers and move up, trying to force a pin from horror. Crone goes ahead trying to distract the enemy long enough till my horde of bugs eventually gets to charge. I'm doing the bunching thing because venomthropes are a no brainer now. Never played with them in previous edition. I may think of getting a 2nd squad to allow a advance force and a defensive force. On the Synapse thing, never really been a problem with that. Think I may have lost all my synapse 3 times out of the many years I've played. The outflank/Trygon hole is not as good as it should be. I've stated that the trygon should be allowed to pop up on turn 1 so that you can actually get use out of his hole. That's assuming everyone didn't come in on turn 2. Even then, the things you want to pop in that way mostly are hth and do nothing on the turn they show up. Maybe a 30 man devilgant squad would be useful, if they could come in on turn 3. But these are just my opinions. Feel free to like this codex in your own way.

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 02:29
I'm endlessly amused that you think that bringing 16+ BS3 special weapons or heavy weapons that can only snapfire into charge or rapid fire range is a good tactic, or that spending that many points on said outflanking squad is a good expenditure of points. But I'll take your challenge.

Flyrant - 2 TL Devourers, Wings, Hive Commander

Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Genestealers - 9 + Broodlord
Warriors - 1 with Barbed Strangler, 4 with Deathspitters

Trygon Prime
Mawloc
Mawloc

Not quite the same, and a bit more dependent on cover and reserve rolls, but it's similar and provides a combination of outflanking and deepstriking with a strong initial punch and decent melee capability.

Now, just waiting for the "That's a bad list" or "That doesn't count" that's sure to ensue.

Not going to say that isn't bad, but doesn't actually do what you say. That is more of a hap hazard collection of units that can outflank or deepstrike.

Outflanking is only really helpful to put on a shooting unit (devilgants) or a synapse (your warriors or a tervigon). Bit silly to outflank an assault unit this edition. Also, the trygon tunnel is non functional and listing it as a valid tactic is a terrible thing to do. It is a cute gimmick you can do for fun, but no one is actually taking trygons to make use of the tunnel. Add to this that your list is frightfully fragile and it is easy to see why it is going to be dismissed.

Stealers are really only good for applying pressure with the infiltrate to take some heat off of something else for 1 turn of shooting (in which they die). Relying on them as a primary troop is a trap. Same thing for double mawlocs, 1 mawloc pretty much does the job while two will see diminishing returns. Your better off taking something else that poses a threat.

As sad as it is to say, the 5th ed codex provided more options for multidimensional threats. Pods really did add a dynamic that is sorely missed. Add to that the nerf to outflanking assault and you basically come from 1 direction consistently now. The new dex offers more viable disruption units (mawloc, outflanking devilgants, flyrants, and gargoyles) but not in the same vein as previous incarnations.

Options have decreased with each new dex for nids. What is viable and not viable has shifted between books (though pyrovore and rippers has remained consistently bad). Lot of options I took in the previous dex aren't available anymore, and the number of additional choices don't balance it out. Lot of people dismiss a lot of the customization of the 4th ed dex with "It was monobuild" but that doesn't actually address the fact that a player has fewer options. But then again, I don't fall into the average view point. I would take 10 choices where 1 was great than 3 choices where 2 are great. I want my 2+ save Miasma belching tyrant back.

On a side note...where is the rant that the title promised?

naloth
11-02-2014, 02:29
Nobody takes Straken competitively. Sometimes, he's used as part of your "uncompetitive" IG blob.


"Artillery tank heavy" is not a distinct playstyle; artillery tanks are an integral part of most any Guard list.
In so much as "shoot them from afar" is different than "out maneuver and engage"?


Lack of charge from reserves and Overwatch hurt RRs a lot. And again, they weren't a playstyle, they were a useful tool. Both them and Sentinels have never been more than one-and-done distraction units.
At one time you could run RR troops making a force from them. Sentinels were king back when Assault Cannons rolled 3 sustained fire dice and came standard. In either case, you still can do a somewhat cavalry (beast) heavy force or a heavily mechanized force. One popular and rather engaging force is the Killa Kan list after all, showing that it doesn't have to come from troops to be what's defining about your force.


Ssilmath has this handled. Sarcasm is more useful than facts or because he can blurb scorn? His strongest "evidence" is that he finds things posted by others as "humorous" when explained.


Trying to compare Ogryn to Warriors suggests to me you don't have much understanding of the Imperial Guard list. You are missing the point entirely. A decent CC unit with short range shots in IG army is often considered somewhat useless while in the 'Nid army Ogryn would be a treasure.

naloth
11-02-2014, 02:37
So, do you care to actually prove your statements, or move the goalposts further?

You mean like posting about 6 significantly different armies run with different themes and strategies in post #43, to which you replied "yea, but 'nids can do some deep strike/outflanking too!" which even if you could build a strategy around it (which I suspect you haven't done, just taken units that happen to have that ability) only counts as 2 real variants. x3 army variants (off the top of my head, that I have seen used a fair bit, easy to find on the army lists forum) seems like a lot of more variety.

So is there a point to the goal post rhetoric/laughing/smearing/silly blurbs?

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 02:41
Nerzhul, ummm...I don't really know what to say. You've managed to completely take the list the opposite way I envisioned it. Here's the breakdown.

Genestealers infiltrate into either good terrain or near objectives, preferably both, and go to ground if needed or there is nothing blocking line of sight. Warriors (A shooty unit) outflank using Hive Commander to go after fire support units and provide Synapse. Trygon Prime comes up where needed, ideally behind tanks like Leman Russ's to engage rear armor, provide Synapse and generally cause disruption. Mawlocs do what they do best, same for the Tyrant. If you really wanted to, you could swap out a Mawloc for some Raveners with Deathspitters, or a Harpy with Heavy Venom Cannon for more tank hunting.

I wasn't trying to make an identical, outflanking army, just an example (made up in 5 minutes) of a way to play Tyranids that doesn't rely on big bugs advancing slowly behind small bugs that move up to short range, shoot and assault. Instead, it has a strong theme of pop up and cause damage that is hard to avoid due to the deep strike and outflanking. Depending on how the game goes, the Genestealers can move up to engage in melee or use the Broodlords to force pinning checks as needed. It's hardly optimal or tournament winning, but I don't think it's that bad and could be fun to play. But the whole point was that it's a direct counter example to this whole Tyranid monobuild myth.

Edit: Naloth, since I gave you 5 different ways to play Tyranids that all are very different from each other in the other thread and you dismissed them out of hand, I think it's pretty safe to say your argument is worth about as much as what I wiped off my feet coming home today.

naloth
11-02-2014, 02:47
Edit: Naloth, since I gave you 5 different ways to play Tyranids that all are very different from each other in the other thread and you dismissed them out of hand, I think it's pretty safe to say your argument is worth about as much as what I wiped off my feet coming home today.

I recall someone juggling a different mix of approach to shoot at close range bugs, assaulting as possible, so hey, how many ways do we count that while you're lumping anything that move, shoots, assaults, and has a vehicle or not as one strategy too? Nice smear on the end, stay classy and keep avoiding the issue as you can.

EDIT: Ah, I realized you were referring to post #208 of that thread where you listed 4 armies that consist of advance on the enemy armies until you shoot at close range, sometimes supporting with a bit of deep striking, sometimes using more MCs than others, sometimes where the advance is flying instead of foot (trading bodies for speed) and my "out of hand dismissal" in post #210 where I discussed why I thought they were similar in more than a few blurbs with an insult at the end.

or as I put there:

Other than the first having deployment shenanigans (problematic), all these advance up under cover as possible to shoot short ranged weapons then assault. You've varied the unit composition a bit, but it all performs exactly in the same manner. It's the same feel perhaps with bugs that look slightly different.

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 03:01
Nerzhul, ummm...I don't really know what to say. You've managed to completely take the list the opposite way I envisioned it. Here's the breakdown.

Genestealers infiltrate into either good terrain or near objectives, preferably both, and go to ground if needed or there is nothing blocking line of sight. Warriors (A shooty unit) outflank using Hive Commander to go after fire support units and provide Synapse. Trygon Prime comes up where needed, ideally behind tanks like Leman Russ's to engage rear armor, provide Synapse and generally cause disruption. Mawlocs do what they do best, same for the Tyrant. If you really wanted to, you could swap out a Mawloc for some Raveners with Deathspitters, or a Harpy with Heavy Venom Cannon for more tank hunting.

I wasn't trying to make an identical, outflanking army, just an example (made up in 5 minutes) of a way to play Tyranids that doesn't rely on big bugs advancing slowly behind small bugs that move up to short range, shoot and assault. Instead, it has a strong theme of pop up and cause damage that is hard to avoid due to the deep strike and outflanking. Depending on how the game goes, the Genestealers can move up to engage in melee or use the Broodlords to force pinning checks as needed. It's hardly optimal or tournament winning, but I don't think it's that bad and could be fun to play. But the whole point was that it's a direct counter example to this whole Tyranid monobuild myth.

Edit: Naloth, since I gave you 5 different ways to play Tyranids that all are very different from each other in the other thread and you dismissed them out of hand, I think it's pretty safe to say your argument is worth about as much as what I wiped off my feet coming home today.

I figured as much about the list. But I couldn't really understand it as you said it "strong initial punch". That initial punch is 1 turn of hiding....so I got confused. The possibility to engage an enemy army from every angle was the sole thing I liked about the previous codex (and my 2+ save super tyrant).
Pods from above
Mawlocs from below (pushing things out of the way was a fun tactic)
Stealers from the sides

Now
Shooting from above (dakka flyrant)
Shooting from the sides (outflank warriors/devilgants)
Mawloc from below (basically a shooting attack now)

Enemies can be pretty sure where the threat is going to come from now. It is going to come from the front and nearly always in the form of shooting. If something does come in from a different directions they get a turn to shoot it. Also, not talking in the competitive vien, just a generic fashion.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 03:14
See Naloth, that is what I mean by hypocrisy and double standards. Guard with lots of tanks = so totally a different playstyle. Nids with lots of monstrous creatures = not different from swarm, or flyer spam, or a deep striking list. Nope, those are all the same, but a Guard player taking Rough Riders in his force? Yup, totally different playstyle.

Nerzhul, there's really no difference. Pods from above just delivered shooters anyways, it's not like anything really changed there. You might not be able to push things anymore, but Trygons and Mawlocs still come up in unexpected or unavoidable angles. Stealers still come from the sides, but it's no longer stupid stick "Haha, I assault you and there is nothing you can do about it" and you actually have to use them carefully.

Horus38
11-02-2014, 03:23
I've been having a lot of fun with my tyranids and won several games. It was only a regular opponent of mine taking a super nasty Tau gunline (several riptides with monster hunter ignore cover rending 12 shots at BS 5) that made me be like the Tyranids would never really be on "that level" of power. But they're definitely my fun army that's great for casual play.

naloth
11-02-2014, 03:30
See Naloth, that is what I mean by hypocrisy and double standards. Guard with lots of tanks = so totally a different playstyle. Nids with lots of monstrous creatures = not different from swarm, or flyer spam, or a deep striking list. Nope, those are all the same, but a Guard player taking Rough Riders in his force? Yup, totally different playstyle.

I'm torn between trying to explain how "Y shooting marines at close range, then assaulting when possibly, hugging cover as possible while approaching" vs X or Z doing the same is much different than "this unit functions to move troops around, deploy them at close range for shooting; this tank functions as artillery; some units are good against MC while others do better against infantry; this is a fast CC unit; this is a tarpit" and simply letting it go since you either see if it fights it's all the same or want to be as granular as 'if it looks lightly different, it's a new strategic option'. Obviously, having things that have different roles seems strangely hypocritical to you...

As for the double standard, I conceded that while the deepstriking/outflanking list is possible it's really not practical as a battle plan. The others are variants of the same advance on enemies using basically the same roles and tactics.

Taking a quick look:

Leafblower, for example derives its strength from being able to delay, destroy, and manage the enemy. It's not entirely a gunline, it's disruption and management.

A gunline is raw firepower, regardless of what units you select and you prefer to never engage your opponents in CC. Obviously artillery works, as do heavy squads.

An armored transport division is usually a well protected force that can manuever and dump concentrated fire power where you need it. Command squads let you pack in the specials

A cavalry army (not really very effective any more) was a good advance/assault army in its day. You could barrel down into the enemy lines.

IG blob armies tend to have both a fair ranged element and a decent CC element due to the quantity of bodies, being hard to shift, and having plenty of characters for buffs and good CC attacks. Attrition by numbers.

IG can have a good airforce with paratroopers dropping in. They are a too pricey for what you get but it's an interesting especially since AA is lacking in many armies.

You can run the pure infantry line that has plenty of bodies that can hold the trenches or advances since you have number to engage and shoot.

In addition, you can having elements (large or small) that build around deployment shenanigans. Perhaps you don't see the sheer quantifiable difference in variety?

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 03:46
With Nids, you have lots of different options.

You've got a the Nid version of a gunline army. You can get a great amount of midrange anti infantry on Warriors, who are tough enough to get into midfield and use those weapons, as well as your choice of Tyranofexes, Carinifexes, Exocrines, VC Tyrants, Biovores, Hive Guard and Zoanthropes to provide your high strength shooty.

You've got a list based entirely around speed. Hormagaunts form the troops for this one, with your choice of Shrikes, Raveners, Flyrants, Harpies, Gargoyles and Hive Crones to provide the heavy hitting. If you like, include some Lictor Broods or Genestealers for disruption.

You've got a traditional horde. This one is the most balanced, and uses Termagants as the troops. The goal here is to use Termagants to do damage through weight of numbers and to tie up important enemy assets while the heavy hitters get into position. Just about anything goes well with this, but Tervigons as troops supporting a firebase and providing more Gants, the walking brick of a Tyrant and Guard, Biovores providing pinning and anti firebase (Like Long Fangs) and both melee and shooty Carnifexes gives you a strong core.

You have the aforementioned subterranean assault list, which is all about coming at your opponent from different angles and doing damage they can't prepare for.

And then you have variations therein. Using Genestealers and Lictors as advance units while a mess of Flying Monstrous Creatures come in and shoot/charge everything down. Lists made of nothing but Gants, Gaunts, Tervigons, shooty Tyrants, Warriors and Hive Guard for a massive horde of bodies. Perhaps you don't see the sheer quantifiable variety that Nids have to offer?

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 03:47
Nerzhul, there's really no difference. Pods from above just delivered shooters anyways, it's not like anything really changed there. You might not be able to push things anymore, but Trygons and Mawlocs still come up in unexpected or unavoidable angles. Stealers still come from the sides, but it's no longer stupid stick "Haha, I assault you and there is nothing you can do about it" and you actually have to use them carefully.
Pods were a viable way to deliver units to dynamic locations. Mawlocs are essentially shooting attacks now in model form. Also, don't understand your stealer comment. You are exaggerating their ability to impact the game as though they were an autowin tactic. You go on to imply that players are too stupid to use them correctly now. When in fact it was quite avoidable and forced your opponent to think. There is very little pressure presented by an outflanking stealer threat. Outflanking threats now don't apply the pressure on deployment that they used to.

I don't like the codex much.
I don't like the reduction in choices presented.
I don't think the power level of the army has shifted much.
I don't believe there is some zen viewpoint that I am missing on how to use the army explaining why I don't like the codex.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot Ymgarls in my previous list.

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 03:51
You have the aforementioned subterranean assault list, which is all about coming at your opponent from different angles and doing damage they can't prepare for.
This though isn't true. At least as much in the fact you used the word "assault". You would be better calling it Subterranean Indirect Fire List. As the assault elements are not present and shooting is the only viable use of the abilities to outflank and deepstrike.

insectum7
11-02-2014, 03:51
On a side note...where is the rant that the title promised?

Found it!



I don't like the codex much.
I don't like the reduction in choices presented.
I don't think the power level of the army has shifted much.
I don't believe there is some zen viewpoint that I am missing on how to use the army explaining why I don't like the codex.

Oh, wait. . .

AngryAngel
11-02-2014, 03:55
Something else to ponder...

There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.

I think there is a lot of factors with that. First being, that their shoot shoot shoot tactic did warrant many wins. Second, that most Guard players actually greatly like the shoot shoot shoot tactic. Third being their current book was a vast step up from their last book, great improvement does help improve peoples attitude. Another factor is there aren't many total rubbish units, there are some eh ones but totally useless not many. Could also be the player base, most guard players I've known love their army beyond all reason, even if they aren't that great. As well its hard to screw up, many tanks, men, guns and let me shoot and sometimes charge or being charged. If you fail to deliver that, then your the worst codex designer ever. As another has said, give that to Guard players and they will be happy.

On a side note I've had people say playing against the Guard is boring because they sit back and shoot a lot. Most likely its one of those factors, it also had its time in the sun however where as most Nid players haven't had their time at the top of the heap from what I can recall, if they did it was a long while ago. The real sign will be when the new guard book drops, what the reaction and reception will be. I'm already going to say there will be some negative backlash with the army name change.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 03:58
This though isn't true. At least as much in the fact you used the word "assault". You would be better calling it Subterranean Indirect Fire List. As the assault elements are not present and shooting is the only viable use of the abilities to outflank and deepstrike.

Would it make you feel better if I said subterranean attack instead? :rolleyes:

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 04:00
Found it!
Oh, wait. . .
Well someone needed to, otherwise this whole thread is misleading lol. I was at least expecting a rant about people ranting or a counter positive rant. Nope, all I got was "I like them". That isn't a rant, that is a blurb.


Would it make you feel better if I said subterranean attack instead? :rolleyes:
Yes, but then you have to consider only 2 units do that and they are in heavy support.....so it isn't actually an army type.

brassangel
11-02-2014, 04:06
great to hear that someone is having fun with the new codex. I also hear that people have fun flipping coins or playing guess who. I can see by your excitement at playing 3 games that you are new to nids. Lets us know if you are still as excited playing your 50th game with the same restrictive tactics of rushing everything forwards on foot...over and over again.

He's not new to Tyranids. He's just only played 3 games with the new book.

As for restrictive tactics: moving models forward is a lot more fun than sitting models in a corner (Tau and IG), going left and right (Eldar), or pushing boxes (Space Marines).

Tyranids have backfield, midfield, and forward options now; thanks to the massive points reductions, they can play all three at the same time.


I think he is saying that previous editions restricted him from having to use a mono-build as pushed by this book. previous books restricted you from having to use boring tactics and army builds. They forced you to have different armies and styles of play.

What?

-The 4th edition book was 5 Carnifexes + junk and pray you didn't run into Harlequins (which were everywhere at the end of 4th, by the way).

-The 5th edition book was play Doom + Tervigons and lose. Then you bought Biomancy when the 6th BRB rolled in, and hoped your artificially super monster won the game by itself. No tactics, no care for Synapse, synergy, or out-thinking the opponent. Push a monster forward and hope the opponent didn't get lucky.

This book has backfield play (Mawloc, Genestealers, dataslate, Biovores); objective play (Tervigons and Warriors); psychic dominance, if it wants; Alpha strike options (Flyrant, Crone); decent firepower (Exocrine, Tyrannofex); and a healthy mix of all of the above.

It's because you can't just push models forward as fast as possible for the win that people are griping. They wanted an EZ mode book and didn't get it.

This book is leaps and bounds better than the previous pile of garbage because it has options. Cheaper options at that.

NerZuhl
11-02-2014, 04:16
This book has backfield play (Mawloc, Genestealers, dataslate, Biovores); objective play (Tervigons and Warriors); psychic dominance, if it wants; Alpha strike options (Flyrant, Crone); decent firepower (Exocrine, Tyrannofex); and a healthy mix of all of the above.

It's because you can't just push models forward as fast as possible for the win that people are griping. They wanted an EZ mode book and didn't get it.

This book is leaps and bounds better than the previous pile of garbage because it has options. Cheaper options at that.
Except the crone and exocrine, which others from that list weren't present in the 5th ed codex?
No one used flyrants? Got used to them being auto include in the last book
How have genestealers changed?
Tervigons weren't used for objective play?
Aren't warriors picked more because of the nerf to Tervigons, not because of any actual improvement?
Why are you using such obvious generalizations to dismiss peoples comments concerning blandness?

The point adjustments presented in this codex are indeed a step in the right direction. But for every option that was added, another was removed. You must leap and bound very short distances....and mostly to the side.

Formerly Wu
11-02-2014, 04:27
Sometimes, he's used as part of your "uncompetitive" IG blob.
Oh, we're talking uncompetitive now?


In so much as "shoot them from afar" is different than "out maneuver and engage"?
So every possible Guard variant of "shoot from afar" and "out maneuver and engage" count in their favor, yet any Tyranid variants on their essential strategy don't. Gotcha.


At one time you could run RR troops making a force from them. Sentinels were king back when Assault Cannons rolled 3 sustained fire dice and came standard.
I.... just don't even. This is comical. You're citing what, second edition army builds? To support what point exactly? I might as well say 'nids have the most flexible MC in the game because of the fourth edition Carnifex. It's just as valid as citing the awesome assault cannon Sentinel army.


In either case, you still can do a somewhat cavalry (beast) heavy force or a heavily mechanized force. One popular and rather engaging force is the Killa Kan list after all, showing that it doesn't have to come from troops to be what's defining about your force.
You CAN. But you can do a Ravener-heavy force too. Or a Gargoyle-heavy force. But we're not talking about them, because they're not good, just like the all-cavalry force.

You should also be aware that Killa Kans are an Ork unit.


Sarcasm is more useful than facts or because he can blurb scorn? His strongest "evidence" is that he finds things posted by others as "humorous" when explained.
Ssilmath had it handled because he's correct on the points, which was that Al'rahem only counts as a "variant army style" if you ignore both its lack of competitiveness and similar Tyranid army builds.


You are missing the point entirely. A decent CC unit with short range shots in IG army is often considered somewhat useless while in the 'Nid army Ogryn would be a treasure.
No, you're changing the point because it didn't suit you. You said that Ogryn compare well to Tyranid warriors. No honest analysis could possibly suggest that that is the case.

naloth
11-02-2014, 05:05
You've got a the Nid version of a gunline army. You can get a great amount of midrange anti infantry on Warriors, who are tough enough to get into midfield and use those weapons, as well as your choice of Tyranofexes, Carinifexes, Exocrines, VC Tyrants, Biovores, Hive Guard and Zoanthropes to provide your high strength shooty.

So, you're boasting the ability to sit back and shoot... with a 24" range on many of these, with the odd 36" and 48" on relatively few. Do you honestly feel they feel they can outshoot a similar number of points worth in a gunline of a different army? It seems obvious that it's stronger if you have a few "cover" critters, plan to advance into shooting range, and even good to play to use the CC benefits since you're paying for the privilege of having a MC.



You've got a list based entirely around speed. Hormagaunts form the troops for this one, with your choice of Shrikes, Raveners, Flyrants, Harpies, Gargoyles and Hive Crones to provide the heavy hitting. If you like, include some Lictor Broods or Genestealers for disruption.

Presumably you still had 'gaunts of some form either as midrange shooting, to justify a tervigon, to have cheap scoring troops, or even just to be cover to keep your midrange/MC alive longer. In any case, you're advancing again to get inside shooting or assault range (depending on just what options you have fielded) and it's a trade off between using cover and heading straight there as to how much you get shot at.



You've got a traditional horde. This one is the most balanced, and uses Termagants as the troops. The goal here is to use Termagants to do damage through weight of numbers and to tie up important enemy assets while the heavy hitters get into position. Just about anything goes well with this, but Tervigons as troops supporting a firebase and providing more Gants, the walking brick of a Tyrant and Guard, Biovores providing pinning and anti firebase (Like Long Fangs) and both melee and shooty Carnifexes gives you a strong core.

Ok, so here you're using bodies instead of tougher things to absorb shots while you advance, shoot, then assault. The primary difference being quantity over quality?



You have the aforementioned subterranean assault list, which is all about coming at your opponent from different angles and doing damage they can't prepare for.

Using Trygons to deploy other units has severe issues in that you can't "delay" a unit until a tunnel is ready since you can't control reserves. Even if you could, they couldn't arrive until turn 3 and then are restricted in what they can do when they arrive. You are also limited in size since I believe it has to fit on the 5" template (making it an ideal target for some retaliation too). Often many of your units will end up arriving from the front and trying to advance even farther than if they had deployed normally.

Outflanking is subject to the whim of the dice as well. Not just for when you'll show up but also which side. Given the short range of troop weapons (mostly 18" or shorter) that limits what you can plan to shoot at. You also can't take a transport for protection or mobility after you arrive. Many troops suffer IB in subsequent turns limiting what you can do by infiltrating or deep striking them as well. Of course, assaulting the turn you arrive is gone too (and probably for the best).

Given the limits of synapse, the problems of Trygon tunnels, and the general randomness of Outflank, I just don't see it as viable for 'Nids in the same manner it's viable for many other armies which can guarantee turn 2 drops (Pods/Deathwing Advance) or manipulate rolls (re-roll outflank, buy a cheap +1 reserves). I'm open to being proven wrong by someone building a strategy around it, it's just most of them seem to rely on hoping that things breaking really well, which frankly, any army will do well with if the match-up and all the rolls are in your favor.


And then you have variations therein. Using Genestealers and Lictors as advance units while a mess of Flying Monstrous Creatures come in and shoot/charge everything down. Lists made of nothing but Gants, Gaunts, Tervigons, shooty Tyrants, Warriors and Hive Guard for a massive horde of bodies. Perhaps you don't see the sheer quantifiable variety that Nids have to offer?
Lictors are a tool, but unless you're using the dataslate I doubt they will do much to alter the dynamics of the army. They are a nice distraction much like other bodies you throw at the enemy en masse. Like above, the composition changes a bit, but you're building a short range army with primary anti-infantry shooting that needs to approach, shoot, then use assaults to justify the cost of the units.

I contrast that to armies that can be built to operate at a distance, in your face, hit and run, or even midrange. The lack of armor means that an army that shrugs off infantry weapons easily isn't really possible. The lack of transports means that you have to plan which will go where more carefully because you are limited in how far, say troop choices, can move in later turns to either redeploy or claim positions. None of those many the army bad, but they do limit it strategically in how it can be played.

Besides, even stretching your examples you still have fewer than I listed for IG and I didn't even go into weird things like conscript/Ogryn CC only armies.

naloth
11-02-2014, 05:30
Oh, we're talking uncompetitive now? It was slightly sarcastic. If you're running infantry blobs, there's an advantage to adding Striker's bonuses and really he's not bad in CC himself either for the cost. Either way such as discussion is better suited for an IG thread unless you really want to get into how IG blobs work.


So every possible Guard variant of "shoot from afar" and "out maneuver and engage" count in their favor, yet any Tyranid variants on their essential strategy don't. Gotcha.Don't be silly, I listed a few CC tactics (tarpit or winning through numbers) that work for IG, besides the well known disruption tactics, a more viable deployment shenanigans way, and even a straight charge down your throat option.


I.... just don't even. This is comical. You're citing what, second edition army builds? To support what point exactly? I might as well say 'nids have the most flexible MC in the game because of the fourth edition Carnifex. It's just as valid as citing the awesome assault cannon Sentinel army. In context we were talking about how things have changed. Sentinels like other vehicles were more valid choices in 5e and may be again in 7e. Furthermore, having lots of walkers (ala Killer Kans) is a fairly strong tactic for some armies. EDIT: looked back, and more generally you said that sentinels and RRs had never been more than a supporting unit or distraction, which is an overly broad generalization that did not specify "only in 6e" or "only under the current IG book". When the 5e book was first released both units were considerably more powerful/effective and more than just a distraction.


You should also be aware that Killa Kans are an Ork unit. Duly noted.


Ssilmath had it handled because he's correct on the points, which was that Al'rahem only counts as a "variant army style" if you ignore both its lack of competitiveness and similar Tyranid army builds. You mean how he laughs in the face of logic and reason? Sure, if that's your yardstick. It's pretty clear that if you can control where your units can come in better and when they come (certainly cheaper), have more of them, have better options/weapons, and don't tend to eat themselves or run amok - it's a stronger and more reliable play. Now, in the context of the IG army it might not be as strong or desirable as other lists you can build, but it's certainly been used to good effect.

As for comparing types of lists, I'm comfortable lumping this in with the outmaneuver type armies if you want. I'd still say that the 'Nid version is fragmented and hopes for breaks rather than relying on a good battle plan (rolls go your way, opponent brings the type of list you can take). Even so, you're left with the 2 build types for 'nids and a whole lot more for IG which end up with that and more.


No, you're changing the point because it didn't suit you. You said that Ogryn compare well to Tyranid warriors. No honest analysis could possibly suggest that that is the case. Try an honest analysis and we'll see. 'Nid players long clamored for the stats Ogryn have even at a similar cost. Ogryn aren't bad CC or short range shooty troops. They just don't mesh well with most IG strategies and take up Elite slots that can be better used elsewhere. The problem isn't the unit or cost.

rocdocta
11-02-2014, 06:49
He's not new to Tyranids. He's just only played 3 games with the new book.

As for restrictive tactics: moving models forward is a lot more fun than sitting models in a corner (Tau and IG), going left and right (Eldar), or pushing boxes (Space Marines).

Tyranids have backfield, midfield, and forward options now; thanks to the massive points reductions, they can play all three at the same time.



What?

-The 4th edition book was 5 Carnifexes + junk and pray you didn't run into Harlequins (which were everywhere at the end of 4th, by the way).

-The 5th edition book was play Doom + Tervigons and lose. Then you bought Biomancy when the 6th BRB rolled in, and hoped your artificially super monster won the game by itself. No tactics, no care for Synapse, synergy, or out-thinking the opponent. Push a monster forward and hope the opponent didn't get lucky.

This book has backfield play (Mawloc, Genestealers, dataslate, Biovores); objective play (Tervigons and Warriors); psychic dominance, if it wants; Alpha strike options (Flyrant, Crone); decent firepower (Exocrine, Tyrannofex); and a healthy mix of all of the above.

It's because you can't just push models forward as fast as possible for the win that people are griping. They wanted an EZ mode book and didn't get it.

This book is leaps and bounds better than the previous pile of garbage because it has options. Cheaper options at that.

Its really sad when people expose their own limited experience.
- 4th ed - my main killers were my hormagaunts and my raveners. They killed marines and tanks. I hear a lot "oh it was just about MCs!" well my lists were very successful and they had a tyrant and 2 fire support carnis to stun tanks. Hardly only MCs. As I said my real punch came from WS4 I5 S4 hormagaunts.

- 5th ed was a struggle but never used Doom. I find it funny that people say no tactics for nids etc. These people don't use nids and like to comment on how easy they are to use. They are also the greatest advocates for including IB as its "fluffy".

- 6th ed. This book has few options. real options. You CAN have some stealers and you CAN pop up a mawloc but if you want to pay those points for a 1 shot S6 AP2 template then more power to you. I cant be bothered explain the rest because really whats the point? You obviously like a book that is rubbished by competitive players and held up as great by those that don't use it.

You aren't going to say "hey you are right. Its an uncompetitive bland poorly put together rushed cash grab run at the enemy monobuild without options book".

And I am not going to say "Well you make some good points. More useless models on the table is actually is better. I now can see that shovelling models back into the box is the what Tyranids should be about. I was selfish for wanting a decent and customisable army."

it is good that at least some people like nids. It gives the kiddies a cinematic army to collect too.

AngryAngel
11-02-2014, 07:07
Not to nit pick, but Ogryn aren't taken much because they are meh not bad but not great. The fact they are elite has nothing to do with it. As elites aren't a much fought over place for the IG army, at one time battle psykers were but with them not able to use their LD dropping ability from inside a chimera, elites just aren't very needed. Won't go into why Ogryn end up meh but simple view of their stats will tell you that.

As Nid players may want str 5 toughtness 5 warriors, but I doubt they want LD 6 ( 7 ), lack of fearless and a 5+ save.

Minsc
11-02-2014, 11:07
With Nids, you have lots of different options.

You've got a the Nid version of a gunline army. You can get a great amount of midrange anti infantry on Warriors, who are tough enough to get into midfield and use those weapons, as well as your choice of Tyranofexes, Carinifexes, Exocrines, VC Tyrants, Biovores, Hive Guard and Zoanthropes to provide your high strength shooty.

You've got a list based entirely around speed. Hormagaunts form the troops for this one, with your choice of Shrikes, Raveners, Flyrants, Harpies, Gargoyles and Hive Crones to provide the heavy hitting. If you like, include some Lictor Broods or Genestealers for disruption.

You've got a traditional horde. This one is the most balanced, and uses Termagants as the troops. The goal here is to use Termagants to do damage through weight of numbers and to tie up important enemy assets while the heavy hitters get into position. Just about anything goes well with this, but Tervigons as troops supporting a firebase and providing more Gants, the walking brick of a Tyrant and Guard, Biovores providing pinning and anti firebase (Like Long Fangs) and both melee and shooty Carnifexes gives you a strong core.

You have the aforementioned subterranean assault list, which is all about coming at your opponent from different angles and doing damage they can't prepare for.

And then you have variations therein. Using Genestealers and Lictors as advance units while a mess of Flying Monstrous Creatures come in and shoot/charge everything down. Lists made of nothing but Gants, Gaunts, Tervigons, shooty Tyrants, Warriors and Hive Guard for a massive horde of bodies. Perhaps you don't see the sheer quantifiable variety that Nids have to offer?

Damn it, now I want to start with 'nids again...


decent firepower (Exocrine, Tyrannofex)

I can't believe you didn't put Carnifexes in this group as well: 36 Twinlinked BS3 S6 shots is almost leafblower warning. ;)

Menthak
11-02-2014, 11:16
Perhaps two 4th ed. games too is to little to go on when it comes to disparaging a whole army.

Though, I apologize if you are in fact on the neutral "wait and see" faction. Hard to tell sometimes.

I'm no faction, I don't really see tyranids or play them, I just think three games is too little to judge an army on, regardless of it's gribblyness.


So you have played 2 games in a different edition and that qualifies you to deny the conclusions about the current edition of someone who has played 3 games this edition as 'hasn't done enough research' ?

What qualifies me is common sense and logic, not my skill/experience with Tyranids.


Nobody takes Straken competitively.

Do you even know who Straken is?

Formerly Wu
11-02-2014, 11:38
Naloth, your tendency to elide/obfuscate the point when you're called out on something is one of the things that makes you very frustrating to argue with.

I was taking issue with your assertion that, in contrast to available Tyranid builds, Guard had a multitude of different playstyles, which you supported by listing a handful of actual playstyles and then a bunch of random units that are not playstyles at all.


It was slightly sarcastic. If you're running infantry blobs, there's an advantage to adding Striker's bonuses and really he's not bad in CC himself either for the cost. Either way such as discussion is better suited for an IG thread unless you really want to get into how IG blobs work.
You brought up Straken as a viable Guard variant build, not "a unit that gives you advantages." If he's not a competitive variant build, then your original point is moot.


Don't be silly, I listed a few CC tactics (tarpit or winning through numbers) that work for IG, besides the well known disruption tactics, a more viable deployment shenanigans way, and even a straight charge down your throat option.
Except only one of those (tarpit) is a CC tactic that works for IG. I would like to meet the Guard players who try a "straight charge down your throat."


In context we were talking about how things have changed.
No, in context you were using Sentinels or RRs as examples of variant Guard builds, and when called out on it you retreated to "well they used to be like that a decade ago." Which is so utterly ridiculous that I don't know why I'm still wasting time pointing it out.


Sentinels like other vehicles were more valid choices in 5e and may be again in 7e. Furthermore, having lots of walkers (ala Killer Kans) is a fairly strong tactic for some armies. EDIT: looked back, and more generally you said that sentinels and RRs had never been more than a supporting unit or distraction, which is an overly broad generalization that did not specify "only in 6e" or "only under the current IG book".
When and why would we be talking about anything except 6E, or about "some other armies?" In what world is it okay to count obsolete (or even better, speculative future) units/builds in a discussion about current army build variety? This is just word salad to obfuscate that you're in the wrong on this point and can't admit it.


When the 5e book was first released both units were considerably more powerful/effective and more than just a distraction.
Both units were considerably more powerful, but neither was more than just a distraction. It's my army, and I was there.


You mean how he laughs in the face of logic and reason? Sure, if that's your yardstick.
Spare me the high dudgeon.


Even so, you're left with the 2 build types for 'nids and a whole lot more for IG which end up with that and more.
The two classically competitive IG build types have been blob squad and mechvets. Anything else (including Leafblower, Flying Circus, Al'rahem, Straken, etc.) is tinkering around the edges of these two, which is something Tyranid playstyles (swarm w/ MC support, Nidzilla, backfield disruption) are quite capable of.

Again, I only stepped into this thread because you were grossly inflating the list of competitive Guard playstyles with individual units or variations on a strategy while discounting any Tyranid possibilities of same. I'm not interested in getting bogged down with you quibbling over exactly how competitive something needs to be to fit your criteria, because quite frankly I don't trust you to have consistent criteria.


Try an honest analysis and we'll see.
Okay. They're both 3W models that come in squads of 3-10.

Ogryn
Pro: T5. S6 on the charge. Decent short-ranged weapon. Stubborn.
Con: No upgrades. 5+ armor and no invuln. Terrible leadership makes them unreliable tarpits, even with Stubborn. Bad initiative and lack of decent melee weapons puts them at a disadvantage vs. most dedicated CC. No delivery system. Expensive. Non-scoring. No synergy with rest of list; other units do their job better and typically cheaper.

Warriors
Pro: Troops. Synapse creature that provides synergy with list. Excellent LD. Psyker defense. Plenty of wargear options: can be built to provide back/midfield fire support and synapse, or present a credible threat to enemy melee, or a mix of the two. Gets a save vs. bolters. Variant can be fielded as Shrikes in Fast Attack for better mobility. 10 ppm cheaper than Ogryn.
Con: Still fairly expensive. Marine physical stats. Can be splatted by S8. No invuln. CC builds are inefficient and lack a delivery system.

Anything I missed?

If all you're saying now is that you wish Warriors had an Ogryn statline, then yeah, fine. I wish Ogryn were flexible and reliable scoring units that provided an army-critical area buff. But if I had to choose one of the two units for arbitrary army list X, I'd go with Warriors every time.

Max1mum
11-02-2014, 12:27
I Don't understand how this discussion works.

I'm guessing that is because of how i view the discussion.

The entire discussion about IG and Nids came about because somebody was talking about variety within the nid codex.
This was followed by a lengthy discussion about the competitive value of various units within the nid and guard codex.

How did a discussion about variety turn into a discussion about power?

There is no arguing against the variety, we can all clearly see that the nid codex offers plenty of variety for painters and gamers alike.

And that is exactly what a codex should do, offer variety to painters and gamers.

The ability to win with that codex is not up to the codex, its up to the players who use it. Its up to the terrain, its up to the scenario the players want to use. Heck it might even be up to the amount of alcohol the players consumed.

Arguing that the codex is the reason why somebody can or can not win is the same as arguing poker is all about chance. Its not about the game, its about the players. If you lose with a nid codex, you lose with the nid codex. The nid codex does not lose with you.

I know that the powerlevel of a codex MIGHT make it easy'er to win a battle, but its no a guarantee. In the last doubles tournament i entered, my half of the army in total 850 points of guard troopers (only footsloggers) took care of 2 Riptide's and a bunch of support units. Not because the riptides where bad but because the tau player was not using them well.

( And for all you guard players, first rank second rank order against a riptide with 40 guys, is FUN!. )

Minsc
11-02-2014, 12:29
With Nids, you have lots of different options.

You've got a the Nid version of a gunline army. [...]

You've got a list based entirely around speed. [...]

You've got a traditional horde. [...]

You have the aforementioned subterranean assault list [...]

Not gonna bother with the Swarm or the Nidzilla-approach, since those kinds of lists are so common anyway.

Just for funsies I made a "gunline", a "speedfreak" and a "subterraean assault"-armylist respectively @ 1999 pts. (Most common at my LGS)
They might need some tweaking (I'm not used to making nid-lists) but they all offer different playstyles, and they would be quite competetive at my LGS.

Shooty Nids

Flyrant (Wings, 2x TL-Devourers with BLW)
Prime /w Lash whip & Bonesword, Toxin Sacks, Deathspitter, Flesh Hooks.
9x Warriors /1 Rendingclaws, Venom Cannon, Deathspitters.
21x Termagaunts (spike rifle or fleshborer, your preference.)
21x Termagaunts (spike rifle or fleshborer, your preference.)
3x Hiveguard
3x Hiveguard
3x Zoanthropes
Exocrine
3x Biovores
2x Carnifexes /w TL-Devourers with BLW.

Speedy Nids

Flyrant
Flyrant
28x Hormagaunts
27x Hormagaunts
27x Hormagaunts
1x Zoanthrope
1x Zoanthrope
9x Raveners /w Scything + Rending OR 9x Shrikes with Scything + Rending.
Hive Crone
Hive Crone
3x Biovores
Mawloc
Mawloc

Sneaky Nids

Flyrant + Hive Commander
Flyrant + Hive Commander
21x Devogaunts
21x Devogaunts
5x Genestealers + Broodlord
5x Genestealers + Broodlord
1x Lictor
1x Lictor
Hive Crone
Harpy
Mawloc
Mawloc
Trygon Prime

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 13:32
How did a discussion about variety turn into a discussion about power?

Because one was saying that the main complaint about tyranids isn't that their list doesn't have a lot of power (even though this is exactly the complaint levied by many), but that it was just the same type of army swarming forward all the time and that that was boring.

I replied that I had never heard an imperial guard player complain about how awful his codex was one time even though their tactics are pretty much all about sitting in the back and shooting without really moving, which was as mono-dimensional as the supposed tyranid mono swarm forward build.

This branched out into how IG could do other builds, others arguing that those other builds are the same as saying that tyranids could also do this, but it doesn't count if tyranids do it...etc...

So it seems imperial guard players are cool with their codex being for the most part mono-build, but tyranid players are somehow up in arms about mono-build...which is something that I just don't buy. I still think that the main crux of the tyranid argument is that they don't have an abuse option to keep up with the current abuse options in the game (as has been explicitly stated to me buy probably a dozen players who are more forthright)

That's just a hunch though.

Spiney Norman
11-02-2014, 15:12
Something else to ponder...

There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.

I think a one-dimensional list is tolerated more in a codex that has been out for yonks, there is a general acceptance that when an army list was designed for a totally different edition moe than half a decade ago limitations will have arisen through the edition changes which limit the army. Moaning tends to ensue when a new book, designed for the current edition doesn't work any better with the current rules than one that is 6-8 years old and 2 editions out of date.


I'm mostly amused by the fact that we have people claiming the book is boring and people saying that you have to play the same list over and over again. There is absolutely no sense nor consistency. Feels almost like a parody, or maybe a bad meme.

"Claims GW makes boring codexes. Refuses to change list for 15 games in a row."
What exactly amuses you about it? If your codex of choice is a one-dimensional, flat-pancake list that only works one way then why would you change the only competitive formula available to you?

One of my armies is sisters of battle, its a terrible, terrible codex, its not that it only has one competitive build, it doesn't have any, all it has are marginally less terrible ways to field it, most of which involve cramming as many non-sisters elements into the list as you possibly can (dataslate detachments, allies, fortifications), but I don't spend all my time on warseer moaning about it because I got over it a long time ago.

The same will happen with Tyranids, they just need a little time.

Ssilmath
11-02-2014, 15:20
Funny enough Spiney, my comment was based entirely off of somebody who was scolding another player for changing up his list and finding more than one way to play Tyranids. Yes, in this thread about how Nids have only one build and way to play, the people who find different playstyles and a variety of lists (And have fun with them) are portrayed as the ones in the wrong. Warseer at its finest.

naloth
11-02-2014, 15:25
Naloth, your tendency to elide/obfuscate the point when you're called out on something is one of the things that makes you very frustrating to argue with.
and I find your tendency to mislead slightly concerning as well... for example:


I was taking issue with your assertion that, in contrast to available Tyranid builds, Guard had a multitude of different playstyles, which you supported by listing a handful of actual playstyles and then a bunch of random units that are not playstyles at all. You'll have to explain that one since I later even put a general description and play style to each of them.


You brought up Straken as a viable Guard variant build, not "a unit that gives you advantages." If he's not a competitive variant build, then your original point is moot. First of all the original statement was blobs with characters support: "Infantry blobs with a fair amount of character support that can do fairly well in CC (Straken for Fearless, Counter-Attack, and Furious Charge?)" so you went of on a weird tangent about how you dislike Straken, completely ignoring that a IG blob kitted for CC can work.


Except only one of those (tarpit) is a CC tactic that works for IG. I would like to meet the Guard players who try a "straight charge down your throat." Usually this is where someone cracks out the math to show you that IG guys have about the same stats as Termagaunts, can be taken in larger units, and can have champs, characters, and other multiplies to add to the effectiveness. Care to explains how swarms of S3 T3 gaunts are so much more effective than a blob of S3 T3 IG guys?

Oh, yea, I remember this is where if the math doesn't support your claim it will be dismissed much like the Grey Hunter example. It's the one that Ssilmath put forth, proclaimed so cool because it showed how good 'Stealers were, then got offended when a few mistakes and oversights pointed out, after correct the 'Stealers come out behind by a fair margin, then refused to consider that they have no way to get to CC w/o opening themselves to being shot (at least overwatch, usually a turn or two of shooting as well) and complained it was "the worse possible" situation for a dedicated CC unit with no ranged attack to have to actually maneuver to get into CC with a ranged unit. Shortly thereafter, no reply came without an personal insult.


No, in context you were using Sentinels or RRs as examples of variant Guard builds, and when called out on it you retreated to "well they used to be like that a decade ago." Which is so utterly ridiculous that I don't know why I'm still wasting time pointing it out. No, I used several points of time in reply to "they've never been used like that" including under the current 'dex. Perhaps you're just baiting with generalizations so you can ignore half of what I put and only focus on stuff you want to ridicule instead of consider?


When and why would we be talking about anything except 6E, or about "some other armies?" In what world is it okay to count obsolete (or even better, speculative future) units/builds in a discussion about current army build variety? This is just word salad to obfuscate that you're in the wrong on this point and can't admit it. and speaking of bait... So, you can disdain the entire past and future of armies, but if I frame anything in a context you don't like you jump to "obfuscation, even though I brought it the past". Really pick a point and stick to it.

I outlined several variants that actually see use on the table effective, pointed out a few other niche armies that were popular under this codex, pointed out that you could take slightly less effective choices and build your army around those as a theme as well for even more variety (which as an irony may still be more effective than random 'nid units slapped together to be a variant).


Both units were considerably more powerful, but neither was more than just a distraction. It's my army, and I was there. Is this were we compare points in IG or where you have shown us that you are the only one with the one true way to run the army? FWIW, IG were my first tourney army and perhaps my largest 40k by sheer number of bodies. I have run each of those under 5e and some under 6e. More than once outflanking a sentinel squadron made a considerable difference and a wall of AV10 is pretty decent protection for the cost of sentinels, but hey, you probably haven't tried these so that idea isn't a real strategy?


The two classically competitive IG build types have been blob squad and mechvets. Anything else (including Leafblower, Flying Circus, Al'rahem, Straken, etc.) is tinkering around the edges of these two, which is something Tyranid playstyles (swarm w/ MC support, Nidzilla, backfield disruption) are quite capable of.
Ok, so you can field a few more guants here and there or a different MC and consider it a different strategy, but you want to lump a primary short ranged mechanized elite force, disruption, an pure gunline, CC units, and an air force as just variants of the same theme. Somehow, I suspect you can see the discontinuity here.


Again, I only stepped into this thread because you were grossly inflating the list of competitive Guard playstyles with individual units or variations on a strategy while discounting any Tyranid possibilities of same. I'm not interested in getting bogged down with you quibbling over exactly how competitive something needs to be to fit your criteria, because quite frankly I don't trust you to have consistent criteria. So a personal attack to detract from the fact that the supposed 'Nid styles don't have to be remotely reliable or competitive (not the standard you're holding IG to apparently), ignoring that several different IG styles have seen play, and ignoring that over in tactics/army reports most of the 'Nid lists are very similar in usage.



Ogryn
Pro: T5. S6 on the charge. Decent short-ranged weapon. Stubborn.
Con: No upgrades. 5+ armor and no invuln. Terrible leadership makes them unreliable tarpits, even with Stubborn. Bad initiative and lack of decent melee weapons puts them at a disadvantage vs. most dedicated CC. No delivery system. Expensive. Non-scoring. No synergy with rest of list; other units do their job better and typically cheaper.

Chimera transport (standard) and you can stuff them in another it's just they are bulky (use 2 slots), so really they have quite a few delivery options unless you're referring to IG not having an assault vehicle like a Land Raider. Last, I checked there was nothing stopping you from joined in IC to them such as a Lord Commissar (Ld10, stubborn), Primaris Psyker (nasty bunker, decent delivery system), or even a Priest (Ld 9, though you don't get his re-rolls). With S6 and 4 attacks on the charge they are more dangerous than a tar pit. Low I and expensive are relative terms, as they can generally fare decently vs Orks of similar cost depending on who gets the assault.



Warriors
Pro: Troops. Synapse creature that provides synergy with list. Excellent LD. Psyker defense. Plenty of wargear options: can be built to provide back/midfield fire support and synapse, or present a credible threat to enemy melee, or a mix of the two. Gets a save vs. bolters. Variant can be fielded as Shrikes in Fast Attack for better mobility. 10 ppm cheaper than Ogryn.
Con: Still fairly expensive. Marine physical stats. Can be splatted by S8. No invuln. CC builds are inefficient and lack a delivery system.

Synergy is a misnomer. They provide synapse which takes away IB (a limitation other armies don't have) and gives them Fearless which is generally beneficial but has drawbacks such as not being able to fallback or go to ground.

A fair number of wargear options, but most are costly with limited effectiveness. They have mostly 18" ranged weapons with the option to upgrade one to a "heavy" that's not really as threatening as specials other armies field so other than camping objectives they are very limited for back or midfield use. They aren't winning any long distance shooting contests against most shooters worth a fraction of the points. The only character that can join/augment is a rather pricey Prime. Many upgrades will jack them well over the price of Ogryn.

Taking them as Shrikes removes scoring and also drops their save to where they are bolter bait. It's worth noting again that Ogryn can buy a transport or use another purchased in another slot, so they do have mobility options.

Warriors/Shrikes do come with WS5 so they would hit more vs most things, but unless you buy toxin/adrenals you give that up trying to wound most things with their S4 vs the Ogryn S5/6.

Someone ran the numbers under 5e and pretty handily showed that Ogryn clobber warriors in a head's up match unless the dice go wonky. Sure, probably not a situation you have to worry about since IG players shun them.


If all you're saying now is that you wish Warriors had an Ogryn statline, then yeah, fine. I wish Ogryn were flexible and reliable scoring units that provided an army-critical area buff. But if I had to choose one of the two units for arbitrary army list X, I'd go with Warriors every time. Sure, it would be good if Warriors (ogryn sized, used to have similar stats) were comparable in stats and cost. As it is, there's a reason Warriors are used sparingly if at all. I wish Warriors were flexible reliable scoring units that did more than remove an army weakness, and if Ogryn were an elite in 'Nids they would be a contender vs the other elites even without their transport options.

...and if you like you can go back an tally how many points you either didn't respond directly to, resorted to insults and scorn rather an a real reply, or obfuscated/distracted by going of on weird tangents while accusing the same.

naloth
11-02-2014, 15:50
Because one was saying that the main complaint about tyranids isn't that their list doesn't have a lot of power (even though this is exactly the complaint levied by many), but that it was just the same type of army swarming forward all the time and that that was boring.

Depends on what you mean. I'm disappointed that some things are pyrovore bad. I don't want things boosted to Riptide spam broken. Certainly there's a happy medium where choices are solid but not broken? It tends to get lost in the hyperbole where everything has to be super competitive to be considered. Units viable at a similar power level to choices in other books seems like pretty solid idea and I'm not thinking you would use Waveserpents or Riptides as your power benchmark.


I replied that I had never heard an imperial guard player complain about how awful his codex was one time even though their tactics are pretty much all about sitting in the back and shooting without really moving, which was as mono-dimensional as the supposed tyranid mono swarm forward build. I suspect that is something of a meta or scenario problem. When games revolve around claiming table quarter or other objectives a "sit and shoot" army loses when it can't table the opponent.


So it seems imperial guard players are cool with their codex being for the most part mono-build, but tyranid players are somehow up in arms about mono-build...which is something that I just don't buy. I still think that the main crux of the tyranid argument is that they don't have an abuse option to keep up with the current abuse options in the game (as has been explicitly stated to me buy probably a dozen players who are more forthright)
You seem to have drawn your own conclusions again (mono-build) ignoring that blobs, mechvets, and leafblower are all fairly popular and different tourney builds that have performed over time and that if you want to stray further from those templates you can do even more with the IG codex and win. That may not happen where you are, but I prefer to switch things up a bit. Running a gunline every single time for even the life of a codex (let alone how long I've played) wouldn't keep it interesting.

Your last comment is also somewhat curious. So only players that say they want abusable options are forthright? Promoting balance, moderation, or variety is somehow abnormal, wrong, or suspicious? Seems self-incriminating if share that view and somewhat of a bad generalization if you don't intend to to apply to most players.

IcedCrow
11-02-2014, 15:57
Your last comment is also somewhat curious. So only players that say they want abusable options are forthright? Promoting balance, moderation, or variety is somehow abnormal, wrong, or suspicious? Seems self-incriminating if share that view and somewhat of a bad generalization if you don't intend to to apply to most players.

Certainly not everyone is "not being forthright" but a lot of people I feel (strongly) would have not said a word about the tyranid codex if it had its "riptide spam" option.

I look in several rules dev forums to see all of the "tyranid fix" threads and draw my conclusion from those...

naloth
11-02-2014, 16:11
Certainly not everyone is "not being forthright" but a lot of people I feel (strongly) would have not said a word about the tyranid codex if it had its "riptide spam" option. Hard to say... After all, there were complaints when Tau and Eldar came out as well. It's hard to make everyone happy.


I look in several rules dev forums to see all of the "tyranid fix" threads and draw my conclusion from those... People post random ideas, some are more balanced than others. Some are weak, others are poorly thought out.

Minsc
11-02-2014, 17:19
Hard to say... After all, there were complaints when Tau and Eldar came out as well. It's hard to make everyone happy.

The complaint's weren't nearly as numerous or lasted this long.

I can't speak for Tau, but there was 3 main complaint's about Eldar.
#1 Howling Banshee's being crap due to having no good delivery system - Poor internal balance.
#2 Warlocks not automatically passing psychic tests on their shoddy Ld8 -Bad mechanic.
#3 The Wraithknight being overpriced compared to other units (Riptide) - Poor external balance.

#1 is still an issue. Eldarplayers deal with it by (most commonly) simply not using Banshee's. Some will still since they love the model's.
#2 is still an issue, but people will adapt and still use warlocks. Maybe just not cast their power every turn.
#3 is not an issue, since the WK is only overpriced in comparison to the (underpriced) Riptide.

I'd imagine people will have the same view about the Tyranid codex in 6 months time, except it will naturally be about other units in a different context.
#1 Will still be an issue. Some units (Ripperswarms, Pyrovores, Lictors, etc.) will still be a sub-par choice. Most nidplayers will respond by either not using them, while some will use them for some reason or another.
#2 Will still be an issue, but people will adapt. Units change, and a unit/mechanic that seems bad at first glance will still fill a role once people have figured out how to manage/use it. Loosing Biomancy is a perfect example here.
#3 Is not an issue. The external powerlevel of the new codex is actually fine. If you're a WAAC-player or tournamentplayer that likes to win, you will be disappointed in the fact that there is no spammable auto-win-choice. For most regular gamers however, the powerlevel is fine. It's not the tyranid codex that's the problem, it's certain options in other codeci (Tau and Eldar in particular.)

And there are more ways to play nids than Nidzilla and Swarm. Think outside the box...

Formerly Wu
11-02-2014, 17:41
(cloud of intentionally obtuse, ass-covering nonsense)
Nope.

Nice try, but I've got better things to do today than take another swing at this bop bag. No sense in arguing with someone who so demonstrably can't maintain a coherent argument between posts without descending into quibbling, subject-changing garbage.

Good day, sir.

naloth
11-02-2014, 18:40
Nice try, but I've got better things to do today than take another swing at this bop bag. No sense in arguing with someone who so demonstrably can't maintain a coherent argument between posts without descending into quibbling, subject-changing garbage.

I might take your "quibbling subject-changing garbage" complaint halfway seriously if you hadn't either misunderstood or misquoted from the beginning, then reacted this way when called on it. As it is somehow I get the mental image of someone with fingers in their ears going "nyah nyah, I can't hear you" while dancing around in a circle.

It seems better to agree to disagree or try to be civil and discuss something on topic.

naloth
11-02-2014, 18:51
The complaint's weren't nearly as numerous or lasted this long. In the context of it's only been a few weeks and this could stretch a bit longer, it's hard to say. I remember that there were Tau/Eldar threads that popped up for about a month but the history doesn't seem to stretch far enough to pull them up on this forum.


I can't speak for Tau, but there was 3 main complaint's about Eldar.
Tau bemoaned Broadsides, Vespids, and a few other things... Mostly units that don't see as much play now since other options are available and honestly, I don't know that even their "bad" units are really "bad" so much as they compare poorly to other choices you can take in the same codex (internal balance).

As for Eldar, sure there were those and a few others. It seemed more minor as there were still plenty of playable units.


And there are more ways to play nids than Nidzilla and Swarm. Think outside the box... All our games are played on a 4x6 table. (j/k - the rectangle we have to play in.) Seriously, though, most lists I see presented are a similar mix of MCs and gaunts. Flyrant typically leading them. Slight variation in heavy and elite choices. Lists that stray too far from that formula suffer from a number of issues. The tactics forum on this and other sites discusses this in great detail.

Langdon
12-02-2014, 00:09
snip 1


snip 2


snip 3


snip 4


Can you do the thread and the tyranid codex a favour and not comment again?

The bile, ego stroking and nonsense written in just 4 replies on this page alone is more than anyone with an iota of common sense would ever write.


Just accept that the codex is good. Not great, not unbeatable. Just, simply, good.

There is more to life than making yourself the joke of two threads.

You are running in circles contradicting yourself, arguing with people who agreed with you, arguing with neutral parties and failing to disprove any of the arguments aimed back on you.

I can't wait for the reply to this from you.. I am sure you will twist everything like you always do.


Until then, I will ignore you. thats what kills attention whores.. dont pay attention to them and they flounder.

rocdocta
12-02-2014, 00:48
It always amazes me that when people say 'this codex is a pile of steaming poo" some players rush to say "no I am having fun! I am I tell you! Its not as bad as most people think! It and everything GW are doing are great. I like it. I...am...loving...this kool aid...."

You love it, great. Be content in your happiness and walk away. But don't try and polish the proverbial or even roll it in glitter. When people refer to the book as "its not that terrible" or "it is playable" well then with those references it must be a shining example of a good codex that nid players wanted. A lot of sub par units with restrictive rules that don't get applied to other armies.

6th ed...the Age of the Pew Pew Pew Roleplayer. Wake me up when they bring tactics and strategy back in please.

Formerly Wu
12-02-2014, 01:01
It always amazes me that when people say 'this codex is a pile of steaming poo" some players rush to say "no I am having fun! I am I tell you! Its not as bad as most people think! It and everything GW are doing are great. I like it. I...am...loving...this kool aid...."

You love it, great. Be content in your happiness and walk away. But don't try and polish the proverbial or even roll it in glitter. When people refer to the book as "its not that terrible" or "it is playable" well then with those references it must be a shining example of a good codex that nid players wanted. A lot of sub par units with restrictive rules that don't get applied to other armies.

6th ed...the Age of the Pew Pew Pew Roleplayer. Wake me up when they bring tactics and strategy back in please.
I, too, wish that my opinions were universally shared. Alas, we live in a degraded age.

Minsc
12-02-2014, 01:10
It always amazes me that when people say 'this codex is a pile of steaming poo" some players rush to say "no I am having fun! I am I tell you! Its not as bad as most people think!

It goes the other way around as well, I assure you.

IcedCrow
12-02-2014, 01:31
It always amazes me that when people say 'this codex is a pile of steaming poo" some players rush to say "no I am having fun! I am I tell you! Its not as bad as most people think! It and everything GW are doing are great. I like it. I...am...loving...this kool aid...."

You love it, great. Be content in your happiness and walk away. But don't try and polish the proverbial or even roll it in glitter. When people refer to the book as "its not that terrible" or "it is playable" well then with those references it must be a shining example of a good codex that nid players wanted. A lot of sub par units with restrictive rules that don't get applied to other armies.

6th ed...the Age of the Pew Pew Pew Roleplayer. Wake me up when they bring tactics and strategy back in please.

It rolls both ways. Its about the same as saying "the tyranid codex is pretty cool" and someone rolls in to assure them that it sucks and is a horrible horrible thing.

The level of tactics and strategy in 40k are about the same as they were fifteen years ago. That being - minimal.

rocdocta
12-02-2014, 02:42
@Minsc and IcedCrow

Agreed that I am sure that it does roll both ways.

As for the level of strategy for the last 15 years. That would be debateable. It does seem more dice rolling now over skill. Don't get me wrong I don't think 40k has ever reached the level of tactics of 6th ed WHFB and on that point I agree with you.

IcedCrow
12-02-2014, 03:47
@Minsc and IcedCrow

Agreed that I am sure that it does roll both ways.

As for the level of strategy for the last 15 years. That would be debateable. It does seem more dice rolling now over skill. Don't get me wrong I don't think 40k has ever reached the level of tactics of 6th ed WHFB and on that point I agree with you.

From 1998 - 2000 I played starcannon eldar in 3rd edition. My tactic was rolling 42 S6 AP2 starcannon dice in my 1500 point list. To put that in perspective... most 1500 point marine armies back then had about 40-45 models in them total) I moved around for lulz but mostly just erased 2.5 squads of marines a turn. I was fortunate in that 9/10s of my opponents were marines, so I won a lot. I mistook this for "skill" and that I was good at the game, and won tournaments and placed high at GTs but that was because I got lucky and played 9/10 of my games against marines, which my list was probably the most efficient at killing in the history of 40k as a game. (it was also a baby-net list ... baby because the internet wasn't huge back then and net listing was only just starting to catch on, but I copied the list from a guy that smashed my dark angels in a rogue trader tournament because he said it was a very hard list to use properly :shifty: )

I moved on from that to the 3.5 chaos codex... only about a peg down in terms of obscene power builds from the eldar starcannon list. My tactic went from rolling 42 starcannon dice to rolling about 42 power close combat attacks and rhino rushing. It sort of went like this "move my rhino as far as i can, get out, assault, roll a pile of dice, gloat, get called a cheesy git, win the game".

Then it was the necrons and their new book (new back then from the white dwarf list) that involved deep striking 3 monoliths down. Oh the tactical lulz that brought. And the dice. I rolled a bunch of dice as the lollypop on top fried units.

Then I moved on to the leaf blower Imperial Guard. Because... lots of dice to roll.

After that I took a break from the game for a while because I got really bored. I saw the grey knights come out and start rolling lots of dice after spreading wounds across terminator paladins as a tactic. Had that come out a few years prior I'd have more than likely ran that for a while, because winning.

I've never really seen any great use of tactics in 40k since I have played. Pretty much ever... its always been about rolling a lot of dice and maximizing some broken feature of one of the top 2 or 3 codices. The top 2 or 3 codices change with the loopholes exposed of course but there was never anything tactical about 42 starcannon shots, the rhino rush, the 3.5 chaos codex on power mode, the leaf blower, the grey knights and draigo, the necron air force, and now the eldar seer spam with wave serpent spam or taudar with 3 riptides and a wraith knight. The tactic is figuring out how not to hurt your dice throwing hand from all of the dice you are rolling, and that tactic hasn't changed since at least 3rd edition. I never got to play 2nd ed so I don't know how that was. I imagine largely the same.

The first 2-3 years of 6th edition fantasy however... were the golden years of the game for me in terms of strategy and tactics and fun. I miss 2000-2003.

naloth
12-02-2014, 04:17
I've never really seen any great use of tactics in 40k since I have played. Pretty much ever... its always been about rolling a lot of dice and maximizing some broken feature of one of the top 2 or 3 codices. The top 2 or 3 codices change with the loopholes exposed of course but there was never anything tactical about 42 starcannon shots, the rhino rush, the 3.5 chaos codex on power mode, the leaf blower, the grey knights and draigo, the necron air force, and now the eldar seer spam with wave serpent spam or taudar with 3 riptides and a wraith knight. The tactic is figuring out how not to hurt your dice throwing hand from all of the dice you are rolling, and that tactic hasn't changed since at least 3rd edition. I never got to play 2nd ed so I don't know how that was. I imagine largely the same.

2nd edition and prior was ripe for the same sort of playing - worse even if you consider the fun that was sustained fire dice (an assault cannon could do 9 shots per turn if lucky) and more unbalanced if you played with the random event cards (virus outbreak "most of your units die if you're playing IG or Orks, SM are unaffected" or my fav: "Jones is acting funny" so he kills a bunch of his unit). Prior to that you had Choas warbands that were as good as you rolled (Lost and the Damned and Slaves to Darkness), Ork options out the wazoo (Freebooterz and 'Ere we go), custom Robots that followed a program you designed (priced in how effective you could make the flow chart), and even prior to that you had the ability to modify attribute lines in Rogue Trader and give what's basically Imperial equipment to anyone which at the time included some pretty nasty stuff (gravity guns, displacer fields, vortex grenades).

Most of the basis for 40k was set down by the end of 2nd edition (Tau and 'Crons being a bit later), and the fluff was a great read. The models were originally pretty cheap (my first IG box was 36 multipose guys for like $15). Back then you could even custom order direct anything from the GW catalog from England that they had ever made. On a whim I got every version of SM armor back then including the Mk1 that looks more like a roman guy with a gun than a Space Marine.

All of that aside, you could play for a variety of reasons and most of the first edition up until the second was pretty free form. You didn't just randomly design armies and it wasn't a big club thing where you had random match-ups. It was a fair amount of getting together with friends and coming up with what sort of things you would do, so the "balance" aspect is that you had a idea of what sort of things you were preparing for and you expected your friends to play in a reasonable manner.

Second edition was really where tourneys started and when uncomp'ed they were pretty ridiculous. I tried a few different types: some that were scenerio based, some that were more like a predecessor to 'ard boyz where you took WAAC armies, some that were comp'ed, others that were judged as much on sportsmanship as your win/losses - and really got into it for a while. Depending on which type you favored, you were trying to out design, out play, or just play for mutual enjoyment. That more or less lasted until towards the end of 3rd and with 4e rolled around it seemed like things shifted towards more focus on WYSIWUG and modeling for advantages. Net-listing became the dominate fad.

Bottom line, I think it's more what environment you play in and who manages the events. It's more fun if you can relax and play with people you would enjoy socializing with normally. It's never been designed to be "air tight" or super competitive. GW seems to view it more as a vehicle to sell models and then take them out to show friends what you've got. 3e and up were a bit better for balance, but there's always a lot of variance when someone from the design team champions an army and writes a book for them.

Snake Eyes
12-02-2014, 09:06
I think trying to say that Naloth is a vile person based on how he posts on the internet is a horrible thing to say. You may not agree with his sentiment but that doesn't attribute to him being a vile individual.

A lot of what Naloth has said I don't agree with, but I think he has (for the best part) contributed to discussions with at least a decent frame of mind. There are far worse posters around.

As for the state of 6th edition and the Tyranid codex, I actually think the Tyranid codex is the perfect example of what 6th edition is bringing to the table for the majority.

In my local area we now have more players than we ever have. Every week at our gaming club we have games being played all the time, and even have some people waiting for a game these days to the degree that we are looking for a bigger venue. At a time were the economic market has been struggling, the edition has to be doing something right for people. Last week I played a fantastic game using my Imperial Fists against a Necron army where the guy hasn't played since 4th, but has come back because of 6th edition.

I started my own 40k addiction towards the end of 3rd edition and the mass dice rolling certainly isn't a new thing. It is something that has always been around in 40k and always will be. The more dice you roll the better chance you have to kill something right?

The Tyranid codex (and other newer codexs) generally has a decent mix of units and a decent range on variation to play the codex. Since the new book has been released we now have 6 Tyranid players down our club instead of the 1 we had before. They all play different style armies. Nidzilla is always popular, but we also see disruption style lists, hoard of critters, a rolling wave style army. Now they are not all the most competitive army lists, but they are fun to play against and the guys all seem to really be enjoying their new codex.

Space Marines, Dark Angels, Daemons, Tau and Eldar also can bring a wide variety of army styles and can make some very fun games. They all have a lot of usable options that don't just roll over and die. They can bring a decent and solid game play.

6th edition has bought about a lot of variety and variation. Allies is a great thing as it brings more variations and some cool and wacky builds.

As always there are armies which are a bit over powered. There always has been and always will be. It isn't a new thing. My Ork Nob Biker army used to demolish armies with little effort, but 6th edition has given the fun, fluffy style gamers a much bigger outlay of options and variation. Different missions and game styles. The supplements are even bringing some cool missions with them which are good fun to play.

I currently run an Imperial Fist army which is a lot of fun using the Sentinals of Terra supplement. It is a blast to play and I have some very enjoyable games with it which do involve a lot of thinking and tactics as the units don't hit the hardest and aren't the most survivable. I also have a Taudar army with 3 Riptides and a Wraith Knight. I also have some very enjoyable and fun games with that. I go to tournaments with it as well and yes do quite well with it. But with the other top builds, it isn't just an auto win situation.

6th Edition is great fun. People may not agree with me, but I have never been happier in the hobby.

Minsc
12-02-2014, 09:38
The first 2-3 years of 6th edition fantasy however... were the golden years of the game for me in terms of strategy and tactics and fun. I miss 2000-2003.

This can't be said enough times.
7th Ed. WFB was decent as well in terms of strategy and tactics, (but started suffering from powercreep), but 6th Ed. was the golden age.

40k can for as long as I remember only been about 5% actual skill, 45% who-brought-the best-list and 50% pure dice-rolling (luck).

NerZuhl
12-02-2014, 10:07
I find this "If you hate the codex, it must mean you don't like using strategy" line of logic to be very damaging to anyone defending the codex. I have stated and many know I don't care for the codex. But I don't dismiss their beliefs off handed like this and they don't dismiss mine either. We engage in a debate about the virtues we find at odds and get quite embroiled in counter pointing each other.

If you can't handle an internet debate, it is best to just step out of these threads entirely. Half of my post number comes from the old thread denouncing the 5th ed codex. And I expect this number to grow as I debate the new codex. (Though I haven't reached a complete denouncement of it yet)

New Cult King
12-02-2014, 11:47
Two options here. Keep the discussion on topic, and away from personal insults, or I nuke the thread from orbit.

Your call.

NCK Warseer Mod Team

Grocklock
12-02-2014, 12:51
[QUOTE=Minsc;7067709]The complaint's weren't nearly as numerous or lasted this long./QUOTE]

Was there a release he following mouth for 40k space marines. They distracted people

Reinholt
12-02-2014, 16:01
Having played and talked to people well into the 10+ group of games with the new Tyranid codex, here is what I am seeing:

1 - If you are doing narrative / non-competitive gaming and nobody accidentally brings a counter list, the codex is fine.

2 - If you run into people who built semi-competitive lists (much less tournament level ones), or who accidentally brought a counter list (such as the flyer-heavy list that just tabled one of my friends), if you don't have a large disparity in player skill favoring the 'nids, the 'nids do not win.

3 - If you hit tournament level players and equivalent skill, the 'nids get annihilated.

It all comes down to three recurring themes that I have seen:

1 - Synapse. It's a big deal. When you face players who understand how the 'nids work, and underestand how to kill synapse, that's a big problem with no obvious answer (other than "don't take things where Synapse is a problem").

2 - Lack of mobility. The flyers are fast, the mawloc moves around in interesting ways, but the lack of mobility particularly hurts the 'nids when they either have to navigate ugly fire lanes or chase around fast armies (I saw a hysterical game where a Ravenwing army prevented the 'nids from getting into CC for virtually the entire game - obviously the Ravenwing are good at this kind of thing in general, but it's exacerbated when the other side doesn't even have the option to take bikes or transports).

3 - Player skill disparity or lack of understanding of the 'nids appears to be the driver in most of the games where the 'nids are winning that I've seen. When you are watching a game and witness someone stubbornly shooting into gaunt mobs not realizing that just waxing the synapse creature makes the gaunts nigh-harmless, and you can play in more optimal ways, you know it's a skill issue. Mirror matches also reveal this, or army swapping (I've played several games with good friends where we trade armies and play again, and each time, 'nids were stomped on both sides of that trade).

The one army list I seem to have that works decently is flyrants / MCs / min warriors / maybe one blob of gaunts / gargoyles. Everything else seems pretty much not worth taking, which is sad, because like 75% of the book should never see the table if you are playing someone decent. Certainly the list above with the genestealers only for troops is going to get wrecked; a good opponent will just wax the stealers (which are super fragile) and you have no troops, which basically means you auto-lose many missions. The lack of any troop-based durability outside of the now overcosted Tervigon is hugely harmful to the 'nids.

So I remain seriously unimpressed with this codex and I'm basically shelving my army, because I get much better results with my marines (even dark angels!), my eldar, and my necrons where I don't feel like I'm fighting against my own codex to win.

To be clear - I can see how people would win with this army against average to sub-average players, and average to sub-average armies, but I don't like investing in a force, spending time painting / modeling / collecting and have a hard counter be "the other guy knew what he was doing and brought a solid army list". I don't have that problem with any of my other 40k armies. To that end, 'nids are very sub-par to me overall. They may work in some local areas, but as people are saying in this thread, when you start running into the stronger armies, you auto-lose (witness previous comments about "I was doing great until I played Tau / Eldar / strong marines / etc.", and for me, it's not been an issue of win less, but not winning at all, even against players and lists I can easily beat with some of my other armies).

IcedCrow
12-02-2014, 16:43
Why then did the tyranids supposedly sport a 58% win ratio at the Las Vegas Open, an environment dominated by competitive power gaming lists?

To clarify I was not at the LVO, this number comes from people that attended and were reporting how each army did. A lot of comments about how tyranids did a lot better than the internet claimed they would from the people that were there.

If someone from the LVO could post that would be awesome.

naloth
12-02-2014, 16:54
Why then did the tyranids supposedly sport a 58% win ratio at the Las Vegas Open, an environment dominated by competitive power gaming lists?
Where did you see the results? I saw the results of the top 8 on bloodofkittens but not a full report of the results.

It really does not sound like many 'Nid players were present from the other account I found:
http://daemons40k.blogspot.com/2014/02/results-from-open.html?showComment=1391939125836
"The field was packed with top players from around the country and abroad. I'd say Eldar were probably the most common army, but there was a lot of Space Marines (White Scars, especially.). I saw a number of flying circuses and no Screamerstars. I think you could count Nid players on one hand. They mostly played the new dex and at least two players did very well. Blackmoor was in the thick of it until the fifth, and my last game was extremely close against a great Nid player."

Mandragola
12-02-2014, 17:14
Yeah nids are showing nearly a 55% win ratio on torrent of fire at the moment, which includes the LVO. 5th place with Eldar, Tau, Daemons and Necrons ahead of them (but only just).

So apparently, Nids are a perfectly good army. They are not Eldar and not Tau, but they are not awful. Obviously people are still figuring them out, and the meta hasn't shifted yet to take them on, and the sample size still isn't huge. But it's nothing like the whitewash we've been told to expect.

Weird, as the internet said they were unplayable.

IcedCrow
12-02-2014, 17:34
I've seen the number touted by three people now who supposedly were in attendance (this was on a fb group). Them not being well reprsented doesn't surprise me because the internet claims that they are the worst army ever and you will get curb stomped when playing them in a tournament environment. them not being well represented is not good evidence though of the book sucking, it is evidence that people don't like playing armies that are perceived as not being easy to win with.

I remember when tomb kings were laughed at and no one played with them either until they won a GT (in a tournament where there was a bare handful of them) and then suddenly you saw many more TK players for a time.

However, assuming that what these people are saying is true, coupled with Throne of SKulls and then my own anecdotal evidence, they seem to be capable and on par with the marine codex, which is what I judge power level by typically. LVO in particular as it is not a soft event, it is an event where you know spam powerlists will be in abundance.

I still however see a lot of this quote which comes from above:


when you start running into the stronger armies, you auto-lose (witness previous comments about "I was doing great until I played Tau / Eldar / strong marines / etc.", and for me, it's not been an issue of win less, but not winning at all, even against players and lists I can easily beat with some of my other armies).

despite the evidence to the contrary. But much like the tomb kings I have a strong feeling that until tyranids win something like the LVO that they will be seen as a list that auto-loses to any tournament powerlist so it won't matter if they have a 99% win ratio until that happens.

Of course I know that when I fielded powerlists I did awesome too, and when I lost my powerlist, my win/loss ratio evened itself out considerably since I wasn't really that great even though I thought I was at the time, and that I was merely an average player, and I still happily concede that the tyranid book does not have powerlisting options.

gitburna
12-02-2014, 18:27
How much terrain at the LVO? are there pics around? Have tournaments changed the types of scenery to compensate for the strengths of the eldar and tau tall

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

gitburna
12-02-2014, 18:31
Damn it! The eldar and tau tall models is what i meant to say. I think a simple thing that could help nids out a lot is a cheap fortification option for spore chimneys, giving several spore towers that could be plonked down and function like a wood or provide stealth nearby etc. It would suit the background. Or something similar relating to the change of the ecosystem generating lots of cover for the nids. Of course without a model that's highly unlikely to happen.

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

naloth
12-02-2014, 18:37
However, assuming that what these people are saying is true, coupled with Throne of SKulls and then my own anecdotal evidence, they seem to be capable and on par with the marine codex, which is what I judge power level by typically. LVO in particular as it is not a soft event, it is an event where you know spam powerlists will be in abundance.

<snip>
despite the evidence to the contrary. But much like the tomb kings I have a strong feeling that until tyranids win something like the LVO that they will be seen as a list that auto-loses to any tournament powerlist so it won't matter if they have a 99% win ratio until that happens.


I gather there were 3ish 'Nid players out of 220ish total players, which really says more to lack of presence. Among those, they apparently won slightly more than half, but that's a really small pool to draw conclusions from. After all, there were a lot Eldar losses since they were the most prominent army, putting them both at the top (overall winner, others in the top 8) as well as having plenty of entries that finished poorly.

Perhaps players didn't have time to ready a new army for this event (assemble/paint/playtest) since it was only a few weeks after release? I can understand why you wouldn't want to play some of your first few games with a new book at tournament.

IcedCrow
12-02-2014, 18:44
I'm going to bet that until someone wins one of these events with tyranids that you will continue to see the powerlists predominantly present, as with the LVO.

naloth
12-02-2014, 18:51
I'm going to bet that until someone wins one of these events with tyranids that you will continue to see the powerlists predominantly present, as with the LVO.

More often I see comp rules get added to alter perceived imbalances. EDIT: LVO had relatively few army restrictions but no comp scores or real comp limitations outside of ally restrictions.

I also noticed that FW rules appear to have featured fairly prominently in the armies that did well at LVO.

EDIT: from the player pack it also looks like 'Nid players had the option of using either the 5e codex or the 6e codex given the timing of the release. They just had to say which they were using when they submitted. It's possibly that among the 3ish players they weren't even using the 6e book, so it would be good to verify how the ones that were did.

insectum7
12-02-2014, 19:03
EDIT: from the player pack it also looks like 'Nid players had the option of using either the 5e codex or the 6e codex given the timing of the release. They just had to say which they were using when they submitted. It's possibly that among the 3ish players they weren't even using the 6e book, so it would be good to verify how the ones that were did.

From your own post, dude:



"The field was packed with top players from around the country and abroad. I'd say Eldar were probably the most common army, but there was a lot of Space Marines (White Scars, especially.). I saw a number of flying circuses and no Screamerstars. I think you could count Nid players on one hand. They mostly played the new dex and at least two players did very well. Blackmoor was in the thick of it until the fifth, and my last game was extremely close against a great Nid player."

naloth
12-02-2014, 19:14
From your own post, dude:

Yes, he says "They mostly played the new dex and at least two players did very well." which doesn't really seem very definite for how the overall handful did. The other account which states there were 3 'Nid players doesn't really say which each played or how well they did.

If there were less than 6 'Nid players half of them did really well using the new codex and the other half accounts for the majority of the losses, it puts the new codex in a more favorable light. If only one used the new codex, it's easy to say his success was a bit of a wildcard.

airmang
12-02-2014, 19:24
There were 11 Nid lists, 2 used the 5th ed book. They ended up all over the place in the rankings, with the highest being in the 12th spot.

naloth
12-02-2014, 19:26
There were 11 Nid lists, 2 used the 5th ed book. They ended up all over the place in the rankings, with the highest being in the 12th spot.

Good to know. Would the lists used happen to be anyplace? I'm curious to see how what they fielded fared against things like in the top 8.

airmang
12-02-2014, 19:39
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1290/572843.page

This is all i've been able to find so far. If you go to about the middle of the page you will see pics of some of the top Nid Player's armies. The players talk about their armies for the next couple of pages in the thread.

rocdocta
13-02-2014, 00:47
Having played and talked to people well into the 10+ group of games with the new Tyranid codex, here is what I am seeing:

1 - If you are doing narrative / non-competitive gaming and nobody accidentally brings a counter list, the codex is fine.

2 - If you run into people who built semi-competitive lists (much less tournament level ones), or who accidentally brought a counter list (such as the flyer-heavy list that just tabled one of my friends), if you don't have a large disparity in player skill favoring the 'nids, the 'nids do not win.

3 - If you hit tournament level players and equivalent skill, the 'nids get annihilated.

It all comes down to three recurring themes that I have seen:

1 - Synapse. It's a big deal. When you face players who understand how the 'nids work, and underestand how to kill synapse, that's a big problem with no obvious answer (other than "don't take things where Synapse is a problem").

2 - Lack of mobility. The flyers are fast, the mawloc moves around in interesting ways, but the lack of mobility particularly hurts the 'nids when they either have to navigate ugly fire lanes or chase around fast armies (I saw a hysterical game where a Ravenwing army prevented the 'nids from getting into CC for virtually the entire game - obviously the Ravenwing are good at this kind of thing in general, but it's exacerbated when the other side doesn't even have the option to take bikes or transports).

3 - Player skill disparity or lack of understanding of the 'nids appears to be the driver in most of the games where the 'nids are winning that I've seen. When you are watching a game and witness someone stubbornly shooting into gaunt mobs not realizing that just waxing the synapse creature makes the gaunts nigh-harmless, and you can play in more optimal ways, you know it's a skill issue. Mirror matches also reveal this, or army swapping (I've played several games with good friends where we trade armies and play again, and each time, 'nids were stomped on both sides of that trade).

The one army list I seem to have that works decently is flyrants / MCs / min warriors / maybe one blob of gaunts / gargoyles. Everything else seems pretty much not worth taking, which is sad, because like 75% of the book should never see the table if you are playing someone decent. Certainly the list above with the genestealers only for troops is going to get wrecked; a good opponent will just wax the stealers (which are super fragile) and you have no troops, which basically means you auto-lose many missions. The lack of any troop-based durability outside of the now overcosted Tervigon is hugely harmful to the 'nids.

So I remain seriously unimpressed with this codex and I'm basically shelving my army, because I get much better results with my marines (even dark angels!), my eldar, and my necrons where I don't feel like I'm fighting against my own codex to win.

To be clear - I can see how people would win with this army against average to sub-average players, and average to sub-average armies, but I don't like investing in a force, spending time painting / modeling / collecting and have a hard counter be "the other guy knew what he was doing and brought a solid army list". I don't have that problem with any of my other 40k armies. To that end, 'nids are very sub-par to me overall. They may work in some local areas, but as people are saying in this thread, when you start running into the stronger armies, you auto-lose (witness previous comments about "I was doing great until I played Tau / Eldar / strong marines / etc.", and for me, it's not been an issue of win less, but not winning at all, even against players and lists I can easily beat with some of my other armies).

Thanks you Reinholt. that post is exactly how I feel with the new nids. You can win but if you are matched up vs a competitive list or a top player then theres not much chance of a win.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 01:09
I've had 2 wins and a loss. Previously using the last codex I had never won a game, don't think I even came close to a draw. The new codex has been a godsend I'm a happy BUGger :-)

So can you explain what worked and why this new codex worked for you while previous one didn't?
Some details would be nice rather than the typical posts like " new nids dont suck cuz i won some games!"
doesn't really explain or teach much while Reinholt's post is really detailed.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 01:22
Something else to ponder...

There is a new argument that formed over the past few days that is "the tyranids may be able to win but its gotta be the same way over and over again... the horde approach"... while that may be a valid argument, why was this argument never applied to the imperial guard codex and their uni-approach to the game (sit back, shoot shoot shoot) as being a bad codex? I have never once in recent memory seen an imperial guard codex rant about what a boring and awful codex it is.
Because every IG section have amazing units, and what incredible variety of choices we also have.
What makes a codex good is ultimately variety and different ways to synergize an army rather than mono flavor.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 01:23
That wasnt what the argument was. It was that the tyranids do the same thing, swarm forward.

The IG do the same thing as well.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 01:29
That wasnt what the argument was. It was that the tyranids do the same thing, swarm forward.

The IG do the same thing as well.
Do you even play IG or are you basing this off your experience with 1 IG opponent? Tell me what IG does the same exactly?

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 01:31
I started collecting ig in 2004. I have 4000 points of them, several campaigns with them and two tournament seasons with them.

Ive played a few dozen games vs ig. They park in the back and roll lots of dice while shooting.

Your assumed knowledge of my experience is noted.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 01:36
I started collecting ig in 2004. I have 4000 points of them, several campaigns with them and two tournament seasons with them.

Ive played a few dozen games vs ig. They park in the back and roll lots of dice while shooting.

Your assumed knowledge of my experience is noted.
And what do you cal builds such as:
Vendetta vet spam
Penal Straken spam
Foot slogger chimera spam
LR av14 wall spam
demolisher assault spam

etc etc? they are all extremely effective and not mono like tyranids where few play style are viable enough.
Yes I do think your knowledge is limited as demonstrated. Also, I do play both tyranids and guards, over 10k points each minimum.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 01:38
Point me in the direction of some battle reports where the guard arent sitting back and shooting the whole time. Preferably tournament lists since that is what this conversation centers on.

I can fabricate a lot of builds too :-)

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 01:41
Point me in the direction of some battle reports where the guard arent sitting back and shooting the whole time. Preferably tournament lists since that is what this conversation centers on.

I can fabricate a lot of builds too :-)
You dont play enough IG if you think there need to be fabrications, or rather Im surprised you
cant paint a mental imagery of how these lists work right off your head, especially for someone that owns a guard army. :rolleyes:
Expected of someone that played guards for 10 years and only own 4k, I do understand that means you have at most
2 builds possible. But come on, don't you at least read unit entries to what you dont own? and have some basic comprehensions to
what the codex is actually able to accomplish in tactics and synergy? :wtf:
I'll be honest here, you clearly don't know IG, which is fine, but at least realize I answered your original question.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 01:47
No i asked for evidence of these other non sit in the back lists not your pretentious word for it internet tough guy.

rocdocta
13-02-2014, 01:55
No i asked for evidence of these other non sit in the back lists not your pretentious word for it internet tough guy.

guys don't feed the troll. If he states that IG are just a sit back and shoot list well then he has just provided all the evidence of why he isn't worth responding to about it. As good IG players we all know the mobile builds available. As good nid players we know that changing any army list from run forward and tie up with termagants to run forward and tie up with hormagants is not really a completely different playstyle build. next it will be "but she has a new hat!"

just sit back and be content to be right.

Ssilmath
13-02-2014, 01:57
So what about the 4 different playstyles of which only one involves running forward and tying up with little bugs I came up with in ten minutes? Do you just get to wave your hand and say "Those don't count" or something?

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 02:01
No i asked for evidence of these other non sit in the back lists not your pretentious word for it internet tough guy.

Wait so it comes down to name callings now? You are accusing me to be an internet tough guy when you are the one using such insults?
Hmm the irony. No, I presented to you why IG received positive response while Nids didn't.. To be fair, you pondered that question didn't ya?
Instead of trying to understand the varieties of those builds that made IG payer base so diverse and viable,
your lack of confidence in IG clearly made you overly defensive and look what happened. Sir, do chill off for now here have a beer :cheese:

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 02:03
I see that in the whacky world of warseer debate its kosher to demand evidence from the opposition, but your word for it should be cool. Otherwise you are a "troll". Regardless of if it was ones side that begins being a **** and slinging the "troll words" around to instigate.

Except that in the real world if one asserts something, one best have the evidence to back it up.

Since the whine fest is on tyranids self impaling themselves on their own thumbs when facing "competitive(powergaming ) lists" and that the book is awful because all you do is swarm forward, then you best hVe some examples of competitive powergaming ig lists that dont just sit back and shoot all day if you're going to claim that the IG list is robust and provides multiple competitive powergaming builds to choose from.

Fabricating builds to prove a point is what the internet debate monkey does. If you are going to assert that there are successful powergamer ig builds that dont just sit back and shoot, then present the evidence. Dont spout off about "trolls" and other nonsense, back your flapping gums up with actual evidence when asked after asserting and then talk about "just sit back and know you're right". That's not how debates work.

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:07
This is all i've been able to find so far. If you go to about the middle of the page you will see pics of some of the top Nid Player's armies. The players talk about their armies for the next couple of pages in the thread.

I've reviewed it a few times but this seems to be the best summary:


First off, new Tyranids went W23-L17-D2 to finish .575. That's very respectable. Eldar/Dark Eldar was the winningest army with .808 Win-Loss ratio.

Old Tyranids went W6-L4 (2 players only) to finish .600.

Top Tyranid player was Cooper Waddell (aka LaJollaGrad). He ended up 24th Overall with a 4-1 record, with his only loss going against Tau. BTW, Cooper is perhaps one of the best Tyranid players here on the West Coast. He is the only Tyranid player to have won a 2-day GT in recent memory (in 5th Edition).

2nd best Tyranid player was Team Zero Comp member Geoff Robinson (aka InControl of StarCraft fame), who ended up 31st. Geoff is actually fairly new to Warhammer and is the only top player to use the old Tyranids. He also went 4-1 with his only loss being against Goatboy's Daemons. He didn't play against Tau or Eldar.

Probably the Tyranid player who did the best was Allan Hernandez (aka Blackmoor), who finished 39th with 3-1-1. He had arguably the toughest matchups, with a draw against a vicious serpent-spam Mechdar list with 2 wraithknights and a win against Eldar+Tau in round #4. He finally lost to Seer Council Deldar played by the eventual winner of the the whole tournament, Alex Fennell.

Jay Woodcock, a member of DaBoyz, took 49th Overall with a 3-2 record. Jay is another top-notch Tyranid player who once made it to the Top 8 at Adepticon. He actually beat Tau, but lost to Necrons and Cooper's Tyranids.

Not far behind Jay was Pete Setchell from the Dice Abides. He ended up 52nd overall also with a 3-2 record. His 2 losses came at the hands of Eldar and, ironically, Cooper's Tyranids as well (yes, Cooper's bugs beat 2 other Tyranid armies).


Since Cooper ended up facing other 'Nid armies twice which kinda skews the top statistics. It's hard to say if the 'Nid statistics would have been better or worse otherwise (since it wouldn't have logged both a win and loss for 'Nids at the same time). 5e armies fared almost as well and ended up with a higher win rate than 6e even with many of the renown player's choosing the new army book instead.

In any case, it's more data over time may tell a different tale.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 02:16
I see that in the whacky world of warseer debate its kosher to demand evidence from the opposition, but your word for it should be cool. Otherwise you are a "troll". Regardless of if it was ones side that begins being a **** and slinging the "troll words" around to instigate.

Except that in the real world if one asserts something, one best have the evidence to back it up.

Since the whine fest is on tyranids self impaling themselves on their own thumbs when facing "competitive(powergaming ) lists" and that the book is awful because all you do is swarm forward, then you best hVe some examples of competitive powergaming ig lists that dont just sit back and shoot all day.

FBricating builds to prove a point is what the internet debate monkey does. If you are going to assert that there are successful powergamer ig builds that dont just sit back and shoot, then present the evidence. Dont spout off about "trolls" and other nonsense, back your flapping gums up with actual evidence when asked after asserting.

Sir, there are perfectly logical reasons to why people are calling you a troll, hear me out.
Straight off the bat, you call anyone that called you a troll, "instigators". While in your very own posts, you already instigated everyone else by using terms like
"internet tough guy, whine fest, debate monkeys, back flappiing your gums", etc etc.
There are pages of well written responses to why some nid players didn't like this codex, backed up with comparison with prev codex...
I see that as a more respectful post than posts like " oh my proof is I won a few games, or players in my store said so". Which is at best, anecdotal evidence.
Which Im fine with, but atleast people aren't calling it out rudely like how you did.
So far, you have attempted to dismiss any rational responses presented to you, while you simply spurted they weren't good enough for you.
Then, where the feth is your backed up responses? You had none. In every thread you tried to damage control with absolutely nothing to back yourself up,
I think you might actually be making it worse no?

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 02:23
Please list me the rational responses that I am dismissing.

What backed up response do I need? Should I go out and link to you 100 tournament IG battle reports that show the IG sitting back on their line firing the whole time? That can easily be done. There isn't a person alive breathing right now that would disagree with that, that that is the most common IG tournament build - so you claim there are these other ways to play IG competitively so I asked you to show me the evidence that backs that up and you won't do it.

Keep going though :) Once you come at me with aggressive language, you'll get the same in return.

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:27
I see that in the whacky world of warseer debate its kosher to demand evidence from the opposition, but your word for it should be cool. <snip>
Except that in the real world if one asserts something, one best have the evidence to back it up.

Since the whine fest is on tyranids self impaling themselves on their own thumbs when facing "competitive(powergaming ) lists" and that the book is awful because all you do is swarm forward, then you best hVe some examples of competitive powergaming ig lists that dont just sit back and shoot all day if you're going to claim that the IG list is robust and provides multiple competitive powergaming builds to choose from.
<snip> That's not how debates work.

To be fair, it's also nice to mention what evidence you will accept or to frame how different you consider lists to be to constitute a different strategy. Part of the circles of this running argument is that few can agree what constitutes evidence.

I saw it pointed out in the LVO thread that 'Nids may not have a competitive build that's up to what Eldar can bring. I'm not sure yet as I have yet to play really strong Eldar competitive armies. It looks like an uphill battle based on unit entries. So if that's the standard for a valid build, it may be that 'Nids simply don't have one that competes at the top level.

If your standard is that it must compete against more moderate builds, there's units that perform well. How many you of those lists you consider different strategies is hard to say since even among the LVO armies presented there was a fair degree of overlap in what was taken. Sure, some of that is to be expected but HQ over half the time being a double flyrant? The popularity of Crones? Both seem like go-to choices. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Devilgaunts did very well (similar to my experience using them and padding the front with cheaper bodies) and I may try outflanking two units of them. Low synapse seemed to be also fairly common - relying on either making IB rolls, outflanking/buildings to pass Ld checks - and even stealers (which were not used to engage, but to hide and claim and only since they can outflank to reduce exposure, hide easier, and not have to take IB checks).

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 02:31
To be fair, it's also nice to mention what evidence you will accept or to frame how different you consider lists to be to constitute a different strategy. Part of the circles of this running argument is that few can agree what constitutes evidence.

I saw it pointed out in the LVO thread that 'Nids may not have a competitive build that's up to what Eldar can bring. I'm not sure yet as I have yet to play really strong Eldar competitive armies. It looks like an uphill battle based on unit entries. So if that's the standard for a valid build, it may be that 'Nids simply don't have one that competes at the top level.

If your standard is that it must compete against more moderate builds, there's units that perform well. How many you of those lists you consider different strategies is hard to say since even among the LVO armies presented there was a fair degree of overlap in what was taken. Sure, some of that is to be expected but HQ over half the time being a double flyrant? The popularity of Crones? Both seem like go-to choices. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Devilgaunts did very well (similar to my experience using them and padding the front with cheaper bodies) and I may try outflanking two units of them. Low synapse seemed to be also fairly common - relying on either making IB rolls, outflanking/buildings to pass Ld checks - and even stealers (which were not used to engage, but to hide and claim and only since they can outflank to reduce exposure, hide easier, and not have to take IB checks).

I will say then that the debate on one side says that tyranids cannot hope to compete against either A) a competent player or B) a tournament list. That they are pretty much going to auto-lose to this. That is highlighted by the orange text above and in several other areas.

Much of the complaints are about this... in fact I'd say the majority of complaints I've read are about this, not just on warseer, but everywhere. Its power and how it cant stand up to tournament power lists and that's why its garbage.

The secondary argument, which is what Mr. IG guy was saying I was dead wrong on with his aggressive prod post, was asserted that the tyranid codex is not a bad codex because it can't stand up to power lists, but rather that it is a mono build swarm forward list. My counter point was that IG are pretty much for the most part a sit back on their table edge and roll buckets of dice in your face army but you never hear how the IG codex sucks regardless of this mono-competitive build (and that's because it is my insinuation that the crux of the argument lies in its lack of power build, not in its mono build, which I find that others accept just fine so long as they can "compete"). Now in the 10 years I'v eplayed with and against IG, to include many tournaments, I've never seen an IG list that did NOT do this. It was then asserted by Mr. IG guy that the IG codex has ALL KINDS of awesome builds you can do that aren't sit back and shoot... and that my lack of experience (read: i'm stupid) and lack of imagination showed just how stupid I was... (and then discusses how rational discussion was dismissed by myself ...trololol)

So I asked for evidence. The evidence being a tournament report or battle report or SOMETHING that showed a list like that that did well and is used.

The answer, well, it is posted above in the obfuscation :)

Now I fully agree that it should be kosher to ask me what type of evidence is acceptable and I would have responded with what I just did, in a non aggressive or "trolling" way.

Ssilmath
13-02-2014, 02:32
Alright, in the spirit of a more reasonable discussion...

Naloth, what do you consider to be the difference between different builds and a monobuild? What is your definition? It could be that a lot of our conflict in this thread is based on having different definitions for the same word.

NerZuhl
13-02-2014, 02:33
The more I look over the codex the closer I am getting to judging it to be a poor quality codex. Now before I continue I want define what I quantify as a poor quality codex.
Poor Internal Balance
Non-Functioning Rules
Reduction in Options
Dead Unit Entries
Poor Point Costs

Note that I don't speak to overall power of a codex. By these qualities I judged the Imperial Guard Codex to be of poor quality too. I strongly believed 5th edition nid codex was a horrid codex because it emphasized all of these traits. So here is my break down.

6th Edition Nids
Poor Internal Balance: Check
The HQ and Troop slots suffer from this tremendously. Flyrants are simply heads and shoulders above any other HQ choice available with a begrudging second coming to the Prime (only because of his IC status). In the troop slot, the difference between the choices is far too great. Gants are a good choice followed by warriors (only because of synapse requirements now). Tervigons fall into the third slot, and then finally Guants land. The distance between the choice of Gants and Gaunts is too great in my opinion, rarely will they compete against each other for choice. The guant is usually only chosen to compliment a speedy list, and even then gants can still be viable for that slot. Rippers are such a distant 5th that they might as well be non-existent. If rippers didn't use a force org slot, I am unsure they would even then be used

Non-Functional Rules: Check
Pyrovore in its entirety is non-functional choice.
Trygon tunnel applications.

Inconsistent Rule Applications: Check
Instinctual Behavior doesn't apply uniformly across units. Several units that suffer from feed actually are immune to the negative results making those that aren't immune even further less appealing
No Adrenal Glands and Toxin for Ravenors

Reduction in Options: Null
Armored Shell: Removed, Miasma Biomorph Option: Removed, Special Characters: Removed, Spore Pods: Removed, Ymgarls: Removed, Reserve Manipulation: Removed, 3 units: Added, 3 Biomorphs: Added

Dead Unit Entries: Check
Pyrovore, Rippers, and Skyslashers

Poor Point Costs: No
Warriors, Tervigons, Prime, and Rippers saw a point increases. However, this is balanced out by point reductions across the codex.

Overall, it is a slight improvement over the 5th ed book, which suffered from all of the above and then some. However, I am still leaning to this being a low quality codex.

For further reference here is my list of Poor Quality Codex (judging from the edition they were published in)
Imperial Guard
Sisters of Battle
Dark Angels
Chaos Space Marines

Medium Quality (Have only some problem areas)
Tau
Eldar
Daemons

Good Quality
Dark Eldar
Space Marines

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:36
What backed up response do I need? Should I go out and link to you 100 tournament IG battle reports that show the IG sitting back on their line firing the whole time? That can easily be done. There isn't a person alive breathing right now that would disagree with that, that that is the most common IG tournament build - so you claim there are these other ways to play IG competitively so I asked you to show me the evidence that backs that up and you won't do it.


That's an overly broad generalization... Here's a more interesting view:
http://www.tourneyspy.com/2013/05/40k-mid-year-tournament-results-recap

You can go to individual tournaments to get those results, but really the bottom line is that objective and goals on top of VPs make "sit and shoot" less desirable. Often you need things that can seize and hold objectives.

Apparently IG were among the most desirable allies because blobs are hard to shift:


But what is interesting are the differences in army representation with respect to primary and secondary detachments. In most instances (64%), Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines were taken in secondary detachments, presumably for 50-man blobs and Heldrake support. Conversely, every list featuring Necrons and Daemons used them as the primary detachment.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 02:40
I think you are too stubborn and missing the exact point.
Earlier you asked why do people accept IG while complaining about Nids.
According to your posts, you claimed that IG are JUST like Nids, because they are mono builds,
aka what you said "sit back and fire". And your proof to back that claim up was because " I collected IG for 10 years and I have 4k point army".

Well, not to be rude or anything, but for someone to play with same army for 10 years, and only have 1-2 builds, NO WONDER you have
such a tunnel knowledge to how they play, and its certainly logical that you would compare them to any mono build armies out there.

Anyways, as I said, you are overly defensive over nothing, and getting worked up over nothing. You don't have to like a poster to see the facts.


That's an overly broad generalization... Here's a more interesting view:
Apparently IG were among the most desirable allies because blobs are hard to shift:

The blobs were lead by Ironhand Straken correct?

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 02:42
Apparently IG were among the most desirable allies because blobs are hard to shift:

Absolutely. They park on an objective and lay down firepower. That's their tactic. That, to me, is as mono build as swarm forward and eat whatever comes near you. Typically its sit on the back table edge, pour all of the guns into your face, and then move forward on the fifth turn to claim the second objective (as you are parked on the one in your deployment zone).


aka what you said "sit back and fire". And your proof to back that claim up was because " I collected IG for 10 years and I have 4k point army".

No - that was not my proof to back it up. You asked "do you even IG brah?" and I answered that I played for 10 years and have a 4k point army. I never said that that was my proof to back up anything, I was responding to your question.

And I'm still waiting for the army list and where it does awesome in tournaments where the IG are running around and doing something other than shoot as much as possible until the end of the game and then move forward and claim objective.

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:44
Naloth, what do you consider to be the difference between different builds and a monobuild? What is your definition? It could be that a lot of our conflict in this thread is based on having different definitions for the same word.

Mostly switching up tactics. Using the same units to fulfill the same role doesn't really switch up the tactics used any more than switching up paint colors makes marines play differently. Chapter tactics, on the other hand, can change the role of a given unit to make them more assault oriented, more shooty, more anti-mech, or another variant.

It appears that the most popular 'Nid tactic was the use of Flyrants (FMC), outflanking (to limit target opportunity and maximize short range weaponry), Vector Strikes, and low synapse. Some added Deep Striking (mostly mawlocs) to get MCs stuck or contest objective late in the game. It did not look like anyone that did well tried to power across the table using cover (which I've had moderate success with).

Those currently seem to be the wisest ways to run them and since there's a limited number of ways to fill some roles it's hard to displace say what a Crone or Flyrant can accomplish.

Ssilmath
13-02-2014, 02:44
I wonder if the mods are going to come in and clean up the personal attack posts like they threatened, or if that only applies to people who like the Nid codex.


Mostly switching up tactics. Using the same units to fulfill the same role doesn't really switch up the tactics used any more than switching up paint colors makes marines play differently. Chapter tactics, on the other hand, can change the role of a given unit to make them more assault oriented, more shooty, more anti-mech, or another variant.

And the four examples I gave all had different units fulfilling different styles of roles. One used a rush forward under cover playstyle, one used a take midfield and shoot style, one was all about the outflanking and one was a very fast list that was based not around shooting but melee. Now, they aren't all the most powerful, but that isn't what was being argued. What was being argued is that Nids only have one playstyle.

Unless you are talking competitive, and if that is the case most armies only have one or two competitive playstyles. Even Marines, with their vaunted Chapter tactics providing all this variety for casual play only have a couple of truly competitive builds.

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:45
The blobs were lead by Ironhand Straken correct? Offhand, I would say rarely as an ally, but I would have to check specific tournaments to see what lists did what for how they placed.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 02:47
I wonder if the mods are going to come in and clean up the personal attack posts like they threatened, or if that only applies to people who like the Nid codex.

It usually results in me getting more warnings and banned :)

naloth
13-02-2014, 02:49
Absolutely. They park on an objective and lay down firepower. That's their tactic. That, to me, is as mono build as swarm forward and eat whatever comes near you. Typically its sit on the back table edge, pour all of the guns into your face, and then move forward on the fifth turn to claim the second objective (as you are parked on the one in your deployment zone).

You're presuming that was how they were used. I've seen them used offensively to good effect.

Furthermore, if you pick a given tournament (I browsed a few) you'll see that leafblower (no blobs, but a fair amount of mech/maneuverability/board control) is one of the better standalone strategies and very popular. There was someone that did really well with predominately mechvets roaming the board as well. Offhand, I can't think of the guy's name, but he was a UK guy.

Valkyrie Sky
13-02-2014, 02:49
You asked "do you even IG brah?"
LOL if thats the voice in your head, then I was correct in why your posts were so overly defensive. Sir, it really shows lol.

It usually results in me getting more warnings and banned :)
Nah you wouldn't get banned, this is warseer. Oh, nor have I actually reported you either, so they have no reason to even look.


You're presuming that was how they were used. I've seen them used offensively to good effect.

Furthermore, if you pick a given tournament (I browsed a few) you'll see that leafblower (no blobs, but a fair amount of mech/maneuverability/board control) is one of the better standalone strategies and very popular. There was someone that did really well with predominately mechvets roaming the board as well. Offhand, I can't think of the guy's name, but he was a UK guy.
Would the 2 you mention be the "rend, FNP" blob, and the mechanize vet units with valkyrie/ vendetta/ chimeras?

AngryAngel
13-02-2014, 03:53
Please list me the rational responses that I am dismissing.

What backed up response do I need? Should I go out and link to you 100 tournament IG battle reports that show the IG sitting back on their line firing the whole time? That can easily be done. There isn't a person alive breathing right now that would disagree with that, that that is the most common IG tournament build - so you claim there are these other ways to play IG competitively so I asked you to show me the evidence that backs that up and you won't do it.

Keep going though :) Once you come at me with aggressive language, you'll get the same in return.


If you want to look at some good and mostly competitive Guard lists, I'd suggest just looking at some in the Guard tacita section, there are plenty. As well if you want some effectiveness, guard full boots on the ground can be a pretty competitive set up, however the numbers of models you field makes it not a tournament go to based on time limitations. You do have your Mech vets, and your hybrid as well as Air force and your full troop lists, all of which can be viable and competitive, some by sheer power and others by simple fact of not being able to be handled without really list tailoring. It is hardly sit back and shoot all day, though I've not met the guard player who won't do that now and then as why not ? Myself included in that.

I'd not even comment on this if it didn't seem like the Guard are being seriously done a disservice. Just because you only sit back or sat back and shot all day and its the average doesn't make it all the book is capable of, simply its the easiest to perform and easiest to do within the time constraints of a tournament. Let alone wish to carry around or even purchase which all goes into what people want to pick up and play with.

As well is the sheer fact they have a lot of guns and shoot a lot just going to count as sitting back and shooting all day ? As yes Guard shoot, and I don't know many Guard lists where they wouldn't, but you need to be mobile and have some board control as there are more then your mentioned, objective you sit on in your deployment zone, and the one they need to move up on turn 5 to try and hold.

Mandragola
13-02-2014, 06:54
On this debate, there are two odd things for me. First, nids aren't really mono build, and are far less mono build than their old book was. After all, some people actually didn't take dual flyrants. But also, the mono build complaint can be made against many armies, notably eldar, the current "best" army. Competitive Eldar builds right now comprise wave serpents and seasoning, maybe with a bike council, usually with a wraithknight or two. As much as people love the DE book that's very mono build too.

So my question really is whether something being mono build is actually any kind of criticism. Bugs are supposed to be gribble things that eat you. If they were more effective in other builds, would that be right? It seems that actually there are different combinations of gribble monster you can take, albeit to do pretty similar functions. Is anything even wrong?

gitburna
13-02-2014, 08:34
I don't think there's anything wrong. As you say, its the same issue with every codex. I do find it annoying that people moan that they cant compete with a tournament powerbuild, when what they really mean is it cant compete with the flavour of the month power eldar/taudar lists.

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

Slayer-Fan123
13-02-2014, 08:55
The more I look over the codex the closer I am getting to judging it to be a poor quality codex. Now before I continue I want define what I quantify as a poor quality codex.
Poor Internal Balance
Non-Functioning Rules
Reduction in Options
Dead Unit Entries
Poor Point Costs

Note that I don't speak to overall power of a codex. By these qualities I judged the Imperial Guard Codex to be of poor quality too. I strongly believed 5th edition nid codex was a horrid codex because it emphasized all of these traits. So here is my break down.

6th Edition Nids
Poor Internal Balance: Check
The HQ and Troop slots suffer from this tremendously. Flyrants are simply heads and shoulders above any other HQ choice available with a begrudging second coming to the Prime (only because of his IC status). In the troop slot, the difference between the choices is far too great. Gants are a good choice followed by warriors (only because of synapse requirements now). Tervigons fall into the third slot, and then finally Guants land. The distance between the choice of Gants and Gaunts is too great in my opinion, rarely will they compete against each other for choice. The guant is usually only chosen to compliment a speedy list, and even then gants can still be viable for that slot. Rippers are such a distant 5th that they might as well be non-existent. If rippers didn't use a force org slot, I am unsure they would even then be used

Non-Functional Rules: Check
Pyrovore in its entirety is non-functional choice.
Trygon tunnel applications.

Inconsistent Rule Applications: Check
Instinctual Behavior doesn't apply uniformly across units. Several units that suffer from feed actually are immune to the negative results making those that aren't immune even further less appealing
No Adrenal Glands and Toxin for Ravenors

Reduction in Options: Null
Armored Shell: Removed, Miasma Biomorph Option: Removed, Special Characters: Removed, Spore Pods: Removed, Ymgarls: Removed, Reserve Manipulation: Removed, 3 units: Added, 3 Biomorphs: Added

Dead Unit Entries: Check
Pyrovore, Rippers, and Skyslashers

Poor Point Costs: No
Warriors, Tervigons, Prime, and Rippers saw a point increases. However, this is balanced out by point reductions across the codex.

Overall, it is a slight improvement over the 5th ed book, which suffered from all of the above and then some. However, I am still leaning to this being a low quality codex.

For further reference here is my list of Poor Quality Codex (judging from the edition they were published in)
Imperial Guard
Sisters of Battle
Dark Angels
Chaos Space Marines

Medium Quality (Have only some problem areas)
Tau
Eldar
Daemons

Good Quality
Dark Eldar
Space Marines
Like seriously, did everybody actually ignore this? It points out all the flaws and yet the pro-codex people chose to ignore it.

rolly_321
13-02-2014, 09:29
Okay, I'll bite, haha. That being said, I'm pro codex but only in so far as I don't think it deserves the public flogging it's getting, not in that I believe it to be an exceptional codex.

Internal balance: by and large most of the units are fairly even, with a few 'what was GW thinking moments' I'll admit. Looking at you pryovores. The killer here is that the rest of the units are average with no obvious super under-costed OP units. As such, where with tau or something, no one (or at least less players) cares about ballance because they can take their ion armed Riptides who cares if the heavy burst is awful unless you go farsight enclave? In this sense, there are two forms of bad internal balance, having units that are awful, and having units that are too good. Tyranids got a few crap units and the rest are quite well balanced with no obvious OP options. For tyranid plays this can be annoying, but for the game its by far the better form of imbalance because nid players won't take the bad units as often. Meanwhile, OP units get spammed and abused, which has a follow on effect on the game. If you take a marginally underpowered unit, your generally okay and its not going to break the game, UNLESS, you opponent brings something stupidly OP. Thus, internal balance with weak units damages a codex, internal balance with strong units damages the game but gets less complaints. Meanwhile, most of the nid units aren't that bad, a lot of people just get frustrated coz they can't spam their usual win button. Everyone talks about a flyrant with two devs as mandatory.. but it's not. There are many other tyrant builds.. many of them just as or nearly as effective. But when you opponent has some very obvious choices that are quite a lot more powerful than other choices, people forget them. Bad internal balance in other books doesn't mean that the nids internal balance is worse though, it means the external balance with other armies is off. Personally I think bad balance leaning to over powered options is worse than bad balance leaning to weaker options for the game as a whole because of its role on effects.

Inconsistent rules & None functional rules:.. Yep, this is true.. I won't argue with that. Fortunately, these rules tend to affect the units that are already know for being terrible rather than the other units. Although trygones are an exception as even without a useful hole they still not too shabby.

Point I'm getting at is that the nids book isn't as terrible as the mob would claim. What kicks them in the teeth are the armies where the same issues have lead them to become over powered. In this sense, I would argue that the nids codex is better than say the tau or eldar codexs because it doesn't negatively effect the game with gimmick units they those to codexs do.

NerZuhl
13-02-2014, 09:47
Okay, I'll bite, haha. That being said, I'm pro codex but only in so far as I don't think it deserves the public flogging it's getting, not in that I believe it to be an exceptional codex.

Internal balance: by and large most of the units are fairly even, with a few 'what was GW thinking moments' I'll admit. Looking at you pryovores. The killer here is that the rest of the units are average with no obvious super under-costed OP units. As such, where with tau or something, no one (or at least less players) cares about ballance because they can take their ion armed Riptides who cares if the heavy burst is awful unless you go farsight enclave? In this sense, there are two forms of bad internal balance, having units that are awful, and having units that are too good. Tyranids got a few crap units and the rest are quite well balanced with no obvious OP options. For tyranid plays this can be annoying, but for the game its by far the better form of imbalance because nid players won't take the bad units as often. Meanwhile, OP units get spammed and abused, which has a follow on effect on the game. If you take a marginally underpowered unit, your generally okay and its not going to break the game, UNLESS, you opponent brings something stupidly OP. Thus, internal balance with weak units damages a codex, internal balance with strong units damages the game but gets less complaints. Meanwhile, most of the nid units aren't that bad, a lot of people just get frustrated coz they can't spam their usual win button. Everyone talks about a flyrant with two devs as mandatory.. but it's not. There are many other tyrant builds.. many of them just as or nearly as effective. But when you opponent has some very obvious choices that are quite a lot more powerful than other choices, people forget them. Bad internal balance in other books doesn't mean that the nids internal balance is worse though, it means the external balance with other armies is off. Personally I think bad balance leaning to over powered options is worse than bad balance leaning to weaker options for the game as a whole because of its role on effects.

I actually didn't speak to the Elite section because I didn't think the balance is all that bad there. Baring pyrovores there is some choice there, but overall the elite slot isn't as contested as it once was.
Venomthropes/Zoanthropes>Hive Guard>Haruspex/Lictors>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pyrovores
The HQ Slot (not including deathleaper since the dataslate helps him not to be subject to the HQ tax)
Flyrants>>Primes>>>>Walkrants>>>>>>Tervigons>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Old One Eye
Troops (Gaps are just too large in my opinion)
Gants>Warriors>>Tervigons>>>>Hormogaunts>Stealers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rippers
Fast Attack
Gargoyles/Hive Crone>Harpy>>Shrikes/Spores>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Skyslashers
Heavy Support (I believe to be the best balanced slot)
Carnifex/Mawloc/Biovores>Exocrine/Tyrannofex/Trygon Prime>>Trygon

Granted this is my perception of the choices. I believe the heavy slot in this codex is very well balanced between itself, with everything present being quite an appealing option to choose from with only slight differences between the units. Fast attack and Elites are pretty decent as well, no obvious choice. Troops and HQ are when some choices just become too easy.

Again this is an improvement over the last dex, which was literally nearly 0-2 choices per slot.

Mandragola
13-02-2014, 10:35
I think Rolly's point is a really good one. Weak units aren't really a problem for the game, because actually they don't feature in the game. It's the ones that are too good that mess stuff up. All units have weak units in, like say banshees, but they have no impact on competitive play because they aren't there. For a codex to be playable there need to be decent units to carry out each role, and actually nids do seem to have them.

Currently, the high-level meta is dominated by units (not armies, units) that are either slightly too good or much too good. Wave serpents are much too good. Helldrakes are probably still the outlier in terms of being so much better than they ought to be. Riptides are perhaps somewhere in between. Nids don't have any units that really compare to those.

What they do have is a bunch of stuff that's basically about right. For me personally, as a non-Nid player, I'm glad to see this book. I do agree that it's a bit bland, but less so than the preceding one I think. It isn't as good as eldar and tau, because eldar and tau are better than they should be. A couple of changes to the wave serpent and riptide (say make the shield torrent and remove smash from the riptide (not that GW will do any such thing of course)) and we'd have a much more level playing field.

But basically Nids are in the mix and you can build armies that work. It's just not totally obvious how you do it. When picking an eldar army you probably start with 4+ wave serpents, then start thinking about wraithknights, bike councils etc, then finally think about what goes inside the wave serpents - for which you get two picks, between dire avengers and guardians. Nids seem to be in a fun place where there are an awful lot more options on the table, at least until things get figured out. I certainly don't claim to know what their best build is, but I'm actually tempted to have a go with them to try and find it... or make a death korps army when the new IG book drops. Or daemons. Dunno.

Vipoid
13-02-2014, 10:39
I think Rolly's point is a really good one. Weak units aren't really a problem for the game, because actually they don't feature in the game.

They're not a problem for the game in general, but they're a problem for the codex that's stuck with those crap units.

Mandragola
13-02-2014, 11:15
They're not a problem for the game in general, but they're a problem for the codex that's stuck with those crap units.

Not really, at least in tournament play, if there are other units you can take instead. It's certainly a problem when you buy something without checking the rules or, worse still, if you get a new codex and your units are trashed, but if you buy only after seeing rules it's basically ok. Almost all codexes, including many of the strongest ones, have units that are bad.

Banshees (for example) are a problem for a casual player who may buy them for fluff reasons or whatever, and struggle as a result. I do feel bad for people who feel like they've wasted money and time painting stuff that doesn't work in the game.

I keep coming back to tournament play because that seems the only context relevant to the discussion of the Nid codex's power. In casual games it looks like it should be totally fine, and only really struggle against the very top tier tournament lists.

rolly_321
13-02-2014, 12:54
I agree with Mandragola's statement. And to flof a dead horse the reason why I think the tryanid book fairs badly at the ultra competitive level is because the nids don't have any ridiculous units to get spammed, which is what tourney winning armies tend to have. This in my opinion is a flaw with the other books not the nids.

It does somewhat suck not just when you've bought useless models (I remember buying a unit of woodelf eternal guard and any fantasy players here will feel my pain) but when you look at a unit and just know you can't take it coz it's useless.. but every army has at least one.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 13:46
I keep coming back to tournament play because that seems the only context relevant to the discussion of the Nid codex's power. In casual games it looks like it should be totally fine, and only really struggle against the very top tier tournament lists.

Really that's what most of the complaints I've read stem from. Playing the game on extreme-mode and the tyranid codex will struggle in extreme-mode.

NerZuhl
13-02-2014, 13:50
Really that's what most of the complaints I've read stem from. Playing the game on extreme-mode and the tyranid codex will struggle in extreme-mode.
Really? Cause I could swear a discussion relating to non-power levels has been going on for the last two pages (well between the personal attack posts)

The average complaint about the codex does NOT stem from a lack of power.
It comes from blandness, poor rules, nonsensical removals, and a move from assault strength to shooting strength.

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 13:54
Really? Cause I could swear a discussion relating to non-power levels has been going on for the last two pages (well between the personal attack posts)

The average complaint about the codex does NOT stem from a lack of power.
It comes from blandness, poor rules, nonsensical removals, and a move from assault strength to shooting strength.

We can agree to disagree.

Ssilmath
13-02-2014, 14:40
Really? Cause I could swear a discussion relating to non-power levels has been going on for the last two pages (well between the personal attack posts)

The average complaint about the codex does NOT stem from a lack of power.
It comes from blandness, poor rules, nonsensical removals, and a move from assault strength to shooting strength.

If this wasn't about power then you wouldn't have people discussing tournament results.

Thrax
13-02-2014, 14:44
What I find curious about this topic is that the people with generally less experience playing the Tyranid army are the biggest proponents of the latest codex.

To constantly harp on the codex’s power is missing so much of the point. The work is a swing and a miss, as too many units are simply chaff or don’t make sense: the trygon’s tunnel deployment, lictors, rippers, etc. It’s not that other units can’t compensate somehow for these shortcomings; it’s more that the book was so callously written with no insight to what makes it fun to play this type of army. Many of the glaring mistakes from the last codex are simply repeated which is why this effort is so galling.

Some pages back there was discussion of tourney results and mention of some really good Tyranid players; I’d be more interested to know if those players LIKE the codex, not just if they believe it to be viable competitively. Because in the end that’s what really matters for someone to truly enjoy playing it.

naloth
13-02-2014, 14:47
We can agree to disagree.

That's fine, but it overlooks a large body of comments. Two of the things I founds most interesting in the dakka thread about the LVO event (where many of the comments were by the players that placed well) was that a) that the 5e codex fared as well or better than the 6e codex given the limited data we have and that b) most of the lists revolved around many of the same units or tactics (double flyrant, crone, outflanking troops).

So touting it as an improvement in power is premature (as many of the players placed higher previously in similar tournaments using the 5e book rather than the 6e book and that the overall 5e win ratio was higher) and the previous book was generally thought to be a step down from the more average books.

As far as the second issue (multi vs mono build), it's more of how much of a sacrifice you make by adopting other tactics and how much you can really alter the play style before compromising the army. Individually these aren't bad but they limit how you can play the army:
- 'Nids mostly have short range shooting and even their longer range shooters pay to be good at CC.
This is the "how do I close into my shooting/CC range without being shot to pieces" - LVO showed that the predominate way was FMCs, outflankering, and Mawlocs to pop up inside enemy lines. That was pretty effective especially where armies were lacking anti-air. The few alternates seems to try "bodies for cover", but those were much less popular and somewhat less successful.

- 'Nids do not have transports, so there's move a slower unit around the board.
Likewise, the same elements allowed for units to get "stuck in" faster either by coming in close to the enemy or because the enhanced move allowed you to move faster than ground marching would have allowed.

- Quite a few units require babysitting to function.
Low synapse was another comment element combined with units arriving not needing IB checks to behave when the came on. There's apparently also benefits to using fortifications (which I haven't explored yet, since we were still using the 5e ruling until it was FAQed) to help out with reserves and IB.

- 'Nids cannot ally, so they have to make do with what's in their codex.
Just worth noting that there is less choice on how to fill certain roles and heavy competition for some slots.

Going back to our 'stealer discussion, a fairly well ranking player used several cheap as he could buy them stealer units to fill out core. They served to capture objectives, avoided the enemy by hiding and staying in reserve at possible, while he used Mawlocs & Flyrants to prevent enemies from holding objectives. Cooper took the more aggressive approach of using Devilgaunts and outflanking them with apparently quite a bit of success. This strikes me as a more interesting and dynamic way to use your troop allotment.

naloth
13-02-2014, 14:52
If this wasn't about power then you wouldn't have people discussing tournament results.

I could care less about tournament results, but it was the only medium of proof accepted by many of the parties involved in the discussion.

If you can't support a discussion with mathhammer, codex analysis, historical knowledge, anecdotal or other examples, what do you have left to offer?

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 14:52
That's fine, but it overlooks a large body of comments.

The context of my statement comes not just from warseer, but from several other forums and facebook groups, where the majority of complaints center around tournament players being upset that the tyranid codex can't compete with the power eldar and tau builds.

naloth
13-02-2014, 14:55
The context of my statement comes not just from warseer, but from several other forums and facebook groups, where the majority of complaints center around tournament players being upset that the tyranid codex can't compete with the power eldar and tau builds.

If you read the rest you'll see that my comments come from several other places and groups, with support from the tournament sources you pointed us back to a few pages ago.

Surgency
13-02-2014, 14:59
That's fine, but it overlooks a large body of comments. Two of the things I founds most interesting in the dakka thread about the LVO event (where many of the comments were by the players that placed well) was that a) that the 5e codex fared as well or better than the 6e codex given the limited data we have and that b) most of the lists revolved around many of the same units or tactics (double flyrant, crone, outflanking troops).

So touting it as an improvement in power is premature (as many of the players placed higher previously in similar tournaments using the 5e book rather than the 6e book and that the overall 5e win ratio was higher) and the previous book was generally thought to be a step down from the more average books.

Two players(how many games total? ) does not make a large enough sample size to say "it did better". At most you can say it did as well, but that's even a stretch. The variance in the win percentage is so small with such a small sample size that it could be accounted for by any number of factors.



Going back to our 'stealer discussion, a fairly well ranking player used several cheap as he could buy them stealer units to fill out core. They served to capture objectives, avoided the enemy by hiding and staying in reserve at possible, and trying to eek out victories by using Mawlocs to prevent enemies from any objectives. Cooper took the more aggressive approach of using Devilgaunts and outflanking them with apparently quite a bit of success. This strikes me as a more interesting and dynamic way to use your troop allotment.

What happened to there only being one way of paying Nids, and only one way of building the army properly?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Ssilmath
13-02-2014, 15:02
Hah. Naloth, the only reason I don't have support is because you wave your hands and say "Aha, it does not count" and move onto the next thing. Or just ignore when a point is made.

the_picto
13-02-2014, 15:29
- 'Nids mostly have short range shooting and even their longer range shooters pay to be good at CC.


Not sure this is true. What do you consider a long range shooter and what do you consider being good in combat? Hive guard and biovores are not good in combat, exocrines and tyrannofexes are good at combat in the same way a riptide is. I think the only long range shooters who pay for combat abilities are the ones where you get to choose their loadout. Warriors, fexes and tyrants can all play the long range game, but also have stats geared towards combat.

naloth
13-02-2014, 15:31
Two players(how many games total? ) does not make a large enough sample size to say "it did better". At most you can say it did as well, but that's even a stretch. The variance in the win percentage is so small with such a small sample size that it could be accounted for by any number of factors.

The two contexts to take it in is that a number of players that did well with the 5e codex were placing better historically vs similar armies and that the overall win percentages of the (admittedly very small sample size) were similar between the 5e and 6e armies after after a lot of the well placing players migrated to the 6e codex at this one tourney.

I specifically agree that it's premature to draw any conclusions about tournament and overall performance, but it's leaning to be more of a vertical shift rather than moving up or down in overall power.


What happened to there only being one way of paying Nids, and only one way of building the army properly? I never said or implied that there was "one true way" and if you deviated from that you would be struck down from on high. The codex lends to a given play style which is close range shooting, followed by assaults. You obviously don't try to outrange/outshoot because 'Nid weapons aren't suited for that. You don't try pure assault because 'Nids aren't suited for that either.

Now, I was pleasantly surprised (and am coming around to) the idea that it may be better to get into short range by outflanking rather than using bodies for cover. That seemed more successful in this last outing and it's worth trying. It's also worth noting that allowing fortifications and Dataslates changes things up a bit. It's a 5e stigma (largely since we have a mix playing with the 5e codex and the 6e codex) that the 5e ruling that 'Nids shouldn't be using fortifications stands until it's stated otherwise in my local area.

Theocracity
13-02-2014, 15:43
Now, I was pleasantly surprised (and am coming around to) the idea that it may be better to get into short range by outflanking rather than using bodies for cover. That seemed more successful in this last outing and it's worth trying. It's also worth noting that allowing fortifications and Dataslates changes things up a bit. It's a 5e stigma (largely since we have a mix playing with the 5e codex and the 6e codex) that the 5e ruling that 'Nids shouldn't be using fortifications stands until it's stated otherwise in my local area.

I'm glad to hear it!

One fortifications tactic I heard of the might be useful to Nids is the Poor Man's Land Raider. The basic idea is you take a Bastion with the Escape Hatch and Assault Door (or whatever its called) feature from Stronghold Assault. Place the Bastion forward where you'd like to go, and place the escape hatch in your deployment area. Infiltrate a unit (say, stealers) into the bastion and have one standing by the escape hatch.

On your turn, move the occupiers out (either from the door or onto the battlements) and have your other unit enter the Bastion through the escape hatch. You just got a 12 inch move up the board into an AV14 bunker, and next turn you can disembark and assault in the same turn if you'd like.

Obviously it's called 'poor man's' for a reason - it's much more static, the units inside are more vulnerable than they would be in a transports, etc. But it might be a fun way to slingshot some otherwise slower critters up the board. I'm thinking of using it as a transport substitute for my footslogger Ork lists.

naloth
13-02-2014, 15:44
Not sure this is true. What do you consider a long range shooter and what do you consider being good in combat? Hive guard and biovores are not good in combat, exocrines and tyrannofexes are good at combat in the same way a riptide is. I think the only long range shooters who pay for combat abilities are the ones where you get to choose their loadout. Warriors, fexes and tyrants can all play the long range game, but also have stats geared towards combat.

Biovores aren't built for CC. Hive Guard aren't equipped for CC, but with similar stats as Tyrant Guard (-1 WS -1 AS) they are hardly bad at it. T6 and cost makes them almost as durable as many of the MCs. WS4 S5 A2 aren't bad stats either.

I wholly agree that a Riptide is better rounded than an Exocrine or Tyrannofex, but most people think Riptides are undercosted as well. In the context of roles CC, a T-fex and Exocrine have MC stats similar to a Mawloc which is designed to pop up and get stuck in, so it's hard to justify they are "bad" in CC if you believe a Mawloc is capable of that role. They cost a bit more but you're paying for the additional shooting benefits. I've seen quite a few advocates of marching both of these up the board especially if you have onslaught to help out.

Langdon
13-02-2014, 15:50
5e codex were placing better historically

How that affects the power level of the current codex is moot. Historically leafblowers and DraigoWing fared well.. I see them played ALL the time now... /sarcasm



but it's leaning to be more of a vertical shift rather than moving up or down in overall power.

Vertical is an up or down shift..



The codex lends to a given play style which is close range shooting, followed by assaults.

as does DE, Eldar, KrootTau, Daemons and other codecii.. apparently so does the IG you run.. but alas no proof on that so far.



You obviously don't try to outrange/outshoot because 'Nid weapons aren't suited for that.

You can try with differing builds if you want



You don't try pure assault because 'Nids aren't suited for that either.

Odd because that is exactly how 'Nids were designed to be.



It's a 5e stigma (largely since we have a mix playing with the 5e codex and the 6e codex) that the 5e ruling that 'Nids shouldn't be using fortifications stands until it's stated otherwise in my local area.

Then it is your meta that is playing with house rules that affect your view on the codex, rather than the power of the codex.

way to stay objective

naloth
13-02-2014, 16:24
How that affects the power level of the current codex is moot. Historically leafblowers and DraigoWing fared well.. I see them played ALL the time now... /sarcasm
If you have players that could wield the 5e codex as or more effectively it's not really fair to say that 6e is performing better. Also, if the codex settles into the same slot as the 5e codex on the power scale, then it will be a notch below the current crop of 6e.


Vertical is an up or down shift.. Yes, multitasking and typing can lead to obvious mistakes.


as does DE, Eldar, KrootTau, Daemons and other codecii.. apparently so does the IG you run.. but alas no proof on that so far. So do you accept those options exist or do you want supporting evidence that they are effective builds for them?


You can try with differing builds if you want <snip> Odd because that is exactly how 'Nids were designed to be.
Sure, you can try and see how they work as well. I agree that it's odd that 'Nids started as one of the best CC armies (with ranged support) and have evolved into something quite a bit different, but hey, it is what it is.


Then it is your meta that is playing with house rules that affect your view on the codex, rather than the power of the codex.

It's a point of disagreement since 'Nids were FAQed differnetly before. Dataslates aren't universally allowed since there have been balance issues. This particular tournament accepted both, but it's entirely possibly that others will not. Lots of FW stuff that you don't normally see allowed was also present and performed pretty well in the top ranking lists, so it's fair to say that this event might have allowed things that other tournaments or clubs would not.


way to stay objective As long as the context is clear, you know how to take the information provided. I've been pretty clear I've been discussing out the codex stands on its own merits. SW, for example, lack skyfire in their current codex. It's a fair to point out that you have take Allies or fortifications to cover that niche well. 'Nids don't have allies and were restricted from using fortifications. If it's FAQed, GW could rule either way and might lean towards keeping the 5e precedent.

NerZuhl
13-02-2014, 16:25
Odd because that is exactly how 'Nids were designed to be.


Actually, nids in their current iteration are a close range shooting army that follows up with assault. The only army designed with a pure assault aspect is Daemons. To further harp on it, pure assault armies haven't been viable since 4th edition.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 18:07
I would actually suggest that the real problems with the codex are as follows:

1 - There's only one list that works right. I predicted it above before the LVO lists came in: a focus on FMCs and MCs, with one or two gaunts units and other min warrior troops to camp objectives. Hey, guess what lists did okay-ish at the LVO? Exactly that. I think that's the best list you can build out of this book.

2 - The fact that I can accurately peg the best tournament list is not because I'm a fantastic gamer. I'm pretty good, but 40k is definitely not my best game. It's because roughly 2/3rds of the units in the book are straight up garbage. Rippers, Hormagaunts (which, individually, are not terrible, but are essentially obsoleted by the other troops choices), Pyrovores, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on. The punch line is that the book is, like the 5th ed book, carried by a handful of units while 2/3rds of the models should not be used.

3 - This is a very limiting result for people. Not being able to use the majority of your stuff without experiencing genuinely subpar results ("narrative" gaming or not, things not being worth their points against the average 40k unit means that unless your "narrative" includes giving the Tyranids more points because they suck, they will lose more often than not in the hands of equally skilled players) is going to harm sales, variety, and most annoyingly, lead to more marine armies (of which we have enough) and less Tyranid armies (of which we don't have enough) being played.

So, in short: horrible internal balance = predictable monolists to play at a reasonable or competitive level (where, I think finishing in the top half/third is about the cap for this book, and that's exactly what happened at LVO, because you have zero answers to the top tier lists) = frustration when using the rest of the book for casual gaming = lower model sales and less army variety.

This is bad for everyone, GW included.

insectum7
13-02-2014, 18:55
I predicted it above before the LVO lists came in: a focus on FMCs and MCs, with one or two gaunts units and other min warrior troops to camp objectives. Hey, guess what lists did okay-ish at the LVO? Exactly that. I think that's the best list you can build out of this book.


Wow. . . a book with MCs in nearly every FO slot and access to extremely cheap gaunts makes lists with MCs and a couple troop choices of gaunts?

I predict effective marine armies will include, um, marines and a smattering of vehicles. Bingo! I can sure pat myself on the back for that one!

Zothos
13-02-2014, 19:08
I predict effective marine armies will include, um, marines and a smattering of vehicles. Bingo! I can sure pat myself on the back for that one!

I did not believe in psychic powers.

Until now!

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 19:31
Wow. . . a book with MCs in nearly every FO slot and access to extremely cheap gaunts makes lists with MCs and a couple troop choices of gaunts?

I predict effective marine armies will include, um, marines and a smattering of vehicles. Bingo! I can sure pat myself on the back for that one!

Funny, but look more closely: Double Flyrant, troops that minimize the impact of synapse, and then mobile MCs. Carnis/Flyers/Mawlocs. That's the good list. Period.

naloth
13-02-2014, 19:37
Wow. . . a book with MCs in nearly every FO slot and access to extremely cheap gaunts makes lists with MCs and a couple troop choices of gaunts?

I predict effective marine armies will include, um, marines and a smattering of vehicles. Bingo! I can sure pat myself on the back for that one!

The runner up to the LVO was a marine bike army with two Stormtalons and thunderfire guns, which is a bit different than I usually see (no transports, no infantry). I'm guessing if you were to sit down and write out lists a good deal less of a marine army would match exactly that what you pick from the 'Nid codex.

We can take the example of 'Nid HQ selection. It's not terribly surprising that many (perhaps most, haven't been able to find a list of all 9 new armies) favored dual Flyrants with devourers. It's faster, synapse, offers skyfire, and a good package deal. Certainly you could go with a walking Tyrant or a Prime but cheap wings for flying/speed/skyfire is hard to pass up and there's limited places where you can get those elsewhere. I'm not sure it's a no-brainer choice yet, but I can certainly see the appeal. I run at least one Flyrant equipped just like that for the utility it brings and if I had another I'd probably run 2.

naloth
13-02-2014, 19:45
Hah. Naloth, the only reason I don't have support is because you wave your hands and say "Aha, it does not count" and move onto the next thing. Or just ignore when a point is made.

Honestly, I'm not sure what point you're referring to. I specifically addressed your reply about why we went to discussing tourney results: Icecrow (IIRC) pointed to it as an indication of how well the book performed at LVO. It seemed like a point of reference we could all look at, unlike personal experience and local meta.

insectum7
13-02-2014, 19:56
Funny, but look more closely: Double Flyrant, troops that minimize the impact of synapse, and then mobile MCs. Carnis/Flyers/Mawlocs. That's the good list. Period.

Double Flyrant has been a popular one for a long time, and does not force players to use the same engagement strategies, nor is the inclusion of gaunts particularly mono-list-ic. Since there are so many different MC's, I'm going to be unconvinced of your predictive abilities until I see direct side by-sides of each army. during the months and years to come.

Nor would I hinge the quality of a codex based on how it does in the artificial settings of the tournaments. The time restrictions, the lack of terrain, etc. etc. Your statement should more appropriately read, "That's (maybe) the best tournament list you could make", but maybe not the best list you could make if not for the restrictions of tournaments?

Even then, I'd say it's still too early to say, since players only had a few weeks to adjust their army for the tournament anyhow. How many models/units can you test, prep and finish in a month?



The runner up to the LVO was a marine bike army with two Stormtalons and thunderfire guns, which is a bit different than I usually see (no transports, no infantry). I'm guessing if you were to sit down and write out lists a good deal less of a marine army would match exactly that what you pick from the 'Nid codex.

I think it's safe to say that the Marines are one of the most developed armies there is, probably even overdevelopled. (Centurions) A bike army coming doing well surprises me a bit, though Chapter Tactics opens things up quite a bit for some play styles. Even so I think the point of my original statement remains valid. Predicting MCs in a book filled with MCs doesn't take any profound insight.

However, I'll still point out that said army is still "Marines and a smattering of vehicles".



We can take the example of 'Nid HQ selection. It's not terribly surprising that many (perhaps most, haven't been able to find a list of all 9 new armies) favored dual Flyrants with devourers. It's faster, synapse, offers skyfire, and a good package deal. Certainly you could go with a walking Tyrant or a Prime but cheap wings for flying/speed/skyfire is hard to pass up and there's limited places where you can get those elsewhere. I'm not sure it's a no-brainer choice yet, but I can certainly see the appeal. I run at least one Flyrant equipped just like that for the utility it brings and if I had another I'd probably run 2.

See, I don't even know if I would take the Flyrant, personally. Grounding checks are just so harsh for it, it seems a liability for a tournament setting.

But even so, the Tyranid codex wouldn't be the only codex with a no-brainer out there (if it were actually a no-brainer). Wave Serpents?

I understand where you are coming from in terms of lack of choice, but I honestly think there's more to the book than it's being given credit for.

Slayer-Fan123
13-02-2014, 20:00
Wow. . . a book with MCs in nearly every FO slot and access to extremely cheap gaunts makes lists with MCs and a couple troop choices of gaunts?

I predict effective marine armies will include, um, marines and a smattering of vehicles. Bingo! I can sure pat myself on the back for that one!
I found this mildly humorous, but it's to the extent of what's ran in each slot. You have more flexibility in each slot for a competitive Space Marine army compared to the Tyranid codex. Reinholt should have been more specific true.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 20:04
I found this mildly humorous, but it's to the extent of what's ran in each slot. You have more flexibility in each slot for a competitive Space Marine army compared to the Tyranid codex. Reinholt should have been more specific true.

How so?

I am aware that some choices are naff (pyrovore). I still see quite a few nice choices in the different slots.

That's a genuine question, not trying to be snarky.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 20:07
How so?

I am aware that some choices are naff (pyrovore). I still see quite a few nice choices in the different slots.

That's a genuine question, not trying to be snarky.

The genuinely good choices all share the same combination of traits:

1 - Immune to synapse or synapse producing.
2 - Mobile in their own right (flyers, mawloc) or extremely tough for the price (carnis, as an example).

This actually eliminates most of the units in the book. Not just the genuinely poor ones, but one step forward to things like Hive Guard, etc, which would be fine except synapse. Basically it leaves you with MCs, FMCs, and one or two troop blobs because you need them. Thus, it creates very predictable lists where most slots have 1-2 things that are "best". Flying Tyrants, Tervigons, Harpy/Crone being the most obvious offenders, but you add that up, and that's most of your army right there plus a Mawloc or two.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 20:10
So you are saying that unless it is synapse or immune to synapse it is not worth it?

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 20:23
For the majority of the list, you're going to see that; if you make a list with many units that are synapse-vulnerable, the dominant strategy becomes "kill the synapse" because the rest of the army immediately ceases to function. By fighting 1/3rd of the list, you beat all of the list, so to speak.

The ways around this are things which are themselves synapse creatures, or things which are relatively immune to the downsides of synapse (the most notable of which are some of the MCs, which ignore the worst results or have very high leadership compared to the gribblies). This is not to say you can never take anything which relies on synapse, but that if you take more than a little bit, you are creating a win condition for your opponent that dominates all other concerns and is unfortunately often very achievable.

Theocracity
13-02-2014, 20:23
So you are saying that unless it is synapse or immune to synapse it is not worth it?

I think that goes back to the underlying assumption of any tournament list - anything that reduces probability's hold on a list gets an inordinate amount of value. Not that that isn't a valuable trait, but it's particularly valued in a tournament - it's a high pressure setting with hypothetically equal skill opponents and multiple games to play.

In a causal game it's easier to let probability take its course, which opens up your play options - as it has from anecdotal Tyranid reports in casual settings. But if reliable wins are your concern, you gravitate towards the units that don't need to roll dice to be effective.

naloth
13-02-2014, 20:29
So you are saying that unless it is synapse or immune to synapse it is not worth it?

Not at all, but there is a notable design effort to minimize the effect of IB. You can either try to go for synapse coverage, units that aren't affected much by IB, fewer checks (putting them in a fortification or outflanking).

Freman Bloodglaive
13-02-2014, 20:39
This is a game played with dice, which makes everything unreliable enough. Adding another layer of unreliability like Instinctive Behaviour or Orc and Goblin Animosity means you end up fighting your own army as well as your opponent.
Removing or reducing IB as much as possible means one less thing that can go wrong.

insectum7
13-02-2014, 20:42
For the majority of the list, you're going to see that; if you make a list with many units that are synapse-vulnerable, the dominant strategy becomes "kill the synapse" because the rest of the army immediately ceases to function. By fighting 1/3rd of the list, you beat all of the list, so to speak.

The ways around this are things which are themselves synapse creatures, or things which are relatively immune to the downsides of synapse (the most notable of which are some of the MCs, which ignore the worst results or have very high leadership compared to the gribblies). This is not to say you can never take anything which relies on synapse, but that if you take more than a little bit, you are creating a win condition for your opponent that dominates all other concerns and is unfortunately often very achievable.

I understand that from a particular point of view this might be limiting. But there's a clear flipside, and that's to man up and go all in on Synapse. If it's only a third of your army, I'd argue that you're half-assing it.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 20:47
I understand that from a particular point of view this might be limiting. But there's a clear flipside, and that's to man up and go all in on Synapse. If it's only a third of your army, I'd argue that you're half-assing it.

So... having to take all synapse and almost nothing else is not limiting from what point of view? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; this is very limiting and if there is another option, I'd like to know. If you go "all in" on Synapse, this means you are not taking many other things in the book, or you are taking many of the synapse units which are themselves sub-par (warriors, as an example).

I'm genuinely not sure what you are advocating as a solution other than what people already do: minimize synapse impact.

insectum7
13-02-2014, 20:59
So... having to take all synapse and almost nothing else is not limiting from what point of view? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; this is very limiting and if there is another option, I'd like to know. If you go "all in" on Synapse, this means you are not taking many other things in the book, or you are taking many of the synapse units which are themselves sub-par (warriors, as an example).

I'm genuinely not sure what you are advocating as a solution other than what people already do: minimize synapse impact.

That's exactly what I'm advocating, ditching a lot of the shiny stuff. But ditching it for maximum synapse impact, taking advantage of clouds of fearless gaunts. That's where I'd start.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 21:04
That's exactly what I'm advocating, ditching a lot of the shiny stuff. But ditching it for maximum synapse impact, taking advantage of clouds of fearless gaunts. That's where I'd start.

How exactly do you make them fearless? Synapse creatures. What, on average, are relatively vulnerable to the enemy? Synapse creatures. What, on average, will your enemy shoot at instead of those gaunts? Synapse creatures. What will die, and then your gaunts will run away harmlessly? Synapse creatures.

So either you have to over-purchase synapse, which harms your ability to achieve mission objectives just to make your units not eat themselves or run away, or you avoid purchasing units with a downside where they self-destruct when another semi-fragile unit type dies.

Yes, purchasing a ton of synapse, to the point where your enemy cannot always wipe them (and some still will at the high end), will keep those gaunts on the table. But now you have a ton of gaunts and synapse creatures; what are you going to achieve with this? How do you counter flyers? How do you have the hitting power to take on gunlines? Mobile Tau or Eldar? You've paid a ton of points for things where the main cost is synapse, not hitting power (outside, maybe, of Flyrants). So purchasing a ton of synapse to babysit non-synapse also prevents you from taking things you need to do actual work in missions. You create a semi-durable wimpy army, essentially.

I suggest you play a bunch of games with this against other good players and see what happens. I tried and it just didn't work for me; I rolled over to mostly MC builds and my Tyranids are very boring but actually win a decent amount of the time, though I still have no counters to some of the strong builds.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 21:23
I find myself wondering how multi wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures are considered so vulnerable. Speaking for myself only, I find multiple Monstrous creatures are a real pain to take out.

Doesn't target dilution help?

insectum7
13-02-2014, 21:25
How exactly do you make them fearless? Synapse creatures. What, on average, are relatively vulnerable to the enemy? Synapse creatures. What, on average, will your enemy shoot at instead of those gaunts? Synapse creatures. What will die, and then your gaunts will run away harmlessly? Synapse creatures.

So either you have to over-purchase synapse, which harms your ability to achieve mission objectives just to make your units not eat themselves or run away, or you avoid purchasing units with a downside where they self-destruct when another semi-fragile unit type dies.

Yes, purchasing a ton of synapse, to the point where your enemy cannot always wipe them (and some still will at the high end), will keep those gaunts on the table. But now you have a ton of gaunts and synapse creatures; what are you going to achieve with this? How do you counter flyers? How do you have the hitting power to take on gunlines? Mobile Tau or Eldar? You've paid a ton of points for things where the main cost is synapse, not hitting power (outside, maybe, of Flyrants). So purchasing a ton of synapse to babysit non-synapse also prevents you from taking things you need to do actual work in missions. You create a semi-durable wimpy army, essentially.

I suggest you play a bunch of games with this against other good players and see what happens. I tried and it just didn't work for me; I rolled over to mostly MC builds and my Tyranids are very boring but actually win a decent amount of the time, though I still have no counters to some of the strong builds.

I understand your concerns about it, but there are a lot of Synapse creatures to go around. At least one for near every FOC slot. If I had access to the models for it I'd play it, absolutely.

You say you tried it, that's fair. But I don't know how good you are and by your own admission 40K isn't your best game. Just every time I look at the codex, and every time I hear people gripe about it, I have this feeling that they just aren't looking at Synapse the right way, and that the philosophical approach to the codex is backwards. Round peg, square hole.

Surgency
13-02-2014, 21:30
I find myself wondering how multi wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures are considered so vulnerable. Speaking for myself only, I find multiple Monstrous creatures are a real pain to take out.

Doesn't target dilution help?

Because it's convenient to the argument :p

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Losing Command
13-02-2014, 21:39
I find myself wondering how multi wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures are considered so vulnerable. Speaking for myself only, I find multiple Monstrous creatures are a real pain to take out.

Doesn't target dilution help?

I once asked the same question, and I was told all Monsterous Creature's are better than the ones Tyranids for some reason :rolleyes: Appearantly if it are multiple Tyranid monsters they all die the instant they move away from LoS blocking terrain because the whole enemy army can shoot at every single one of them the same instant :eyebrows:

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 21:47
I once asked the same question, and I was told all Monsterous Creature's are better than the ones Tyranids for some reason :rolleyes: Appearantly if it are multiple Tyranid monsters they all die the instant they move away from LoS blocking terrain because the whole enemy army can shoot at every single one of them the same instant :eyebrows:

Please, it's a strawman to say that people think the Tyranid MCs are somehow extra weak. They are the only thing holding up the book, and the same was true of them in 5th ed. Flyrants are generally accepted to be the best (or at least one of the best) things in the book, followed by the Mawloc and the non-synapse MC fliers in some order. Behind them are the heavily nerfed Tervigon and the Carnifex.

The problem is that the Tyranid MCs are not as good as some of the others (like if I could take three riptides instead of three mawlocs, I would), while the rest of the book is terribad, so you end up overworking the MCs to compensate for everything else. Even so, Tyranid MCs are not the problem. Synapse and non-MCs are.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 21:52
I fail to see the "terribadness" of all Tyranid non monstrous creatures.

From what I have seen they seem pretty good.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 22:01
I fail to see the "terribadness" of all Tyranid non monstrous creatures.

From what I have seen they seem pretty good.

That's fine - I'd like to see battle reports or army lists and discussions from skilled tyranid players (or those playing against them) demonstrating this. Right now the LVO showed the best tyranid lists were very MC-heavy, but if there are other options, I'm sure the community would like to see them.

insectum7
13-02-2014, 22:06
but if there are other options, I'm sure the community would like to see them.

Heh. The community does not want to accept them.

naloth
13-02-2014, 22:07
I fail to see the "terribadness" of all Tyranid non monstrous creatures.

From what I have seen they seem pretty good.

All, is an exaggeration. Some, of course, are better than others. Could you be more specific on your opinions?

Zothos
13-02-2014, 22:08
That's fine - I'd like to see battle reports or army lists and discussions from skilled tyranid players (or those playing against them) demonstrating this. Right now the LVO showed the best tyranid lists were very MC-heavy, but if there are other options, I'm sure the community would like to see them.

I have an idea.

How about the community tries some things on their own?

Some lists will do well in some environments. Some lists will not. There is no magic bullet.

Reinholt
13-02-2014, 22:10
I have an idea.

How about the community tries some things on their own?

Some lists will do well in some environments. Some lists will not. There is no magic bullet.

This is rich, especially as I've been playtesting the Tyranids myself. So you have no evidence, but you have strong opinions, and when people ask for the reasoning or evidence from you, you tell them to figure it out on their own?

Something doesn't add up.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 22:12
All, is an exaggeration. Some, of course, are better than others. Could you be more specific on your opinions?

Certainly.

I have seen termagants, hormagaunts and gargoyles be rather effective. As well as Tyranid warriors, Hive Guard, venomthropes and Zoanthropes. Those are the only Tyranid Non Monstrous choices from the new codex I have seen in action to this point. I will speak on the others when I see them in action.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 22:15
This is rich, especially as I've been playtesting the Tyranids myself. So you have no evidence, but you have strong opinions, and when people ask for the reasoning or evidence from you, you tell them to figure it out on their own?

Something doesn't add up.

Holy crap, when did this become a court of law? You want documents notarized in triplicate for someone to express an opinion?

I expressed an opinion based on what I have seen. Nothing more. Anecdotal evidence is the best I can do. Accept it at face value or don't.

What doesn't add up is the condescending, entitled attitude some seem to adopt.

naloth
13-02-2014, 22:25
Heh. The community does not want to accept them.

Success is arguably the most convincing argument. When armies such as Leafblower came and demonstrated what worked, it had an effect. If you can back your sentiments with sound advice or a winning record, I'm sure you'll find interested parties.

Your advice above paraphrased - well, there's synapse in every FOC, so you should be able to take plenty - that isn't really a plan to build an army around. Synapse doesn't win scenarios, it's just keeps your more unruly army elements in check. Many of the available synapse choices aren't taken for good, stated reasons. I covered why Flyrants are usually the go-to HQ choice. Zoanthropes seem good on paper, but in play it's hard to keep them alive and get them in good position. Tervigons are much more expensive now and mostly an objective sitter. Warriors - aside from being synapse - don't contribute anything that can't be better filled elsewhere. Shrikes are somewhat fragile and expensive. If you kit them to be good in CC, they can be quite good (providing you can keep them alive), but they suffer if they wipe out their opponents and are left open to being shot. Worse, many other FA options simply seem to work better (FMCs and gargoyles). Trygon Primes are interesting, but are a heavy investment (Mawlocs are cheaper for DS into the enemy and as durable) and contest other valuable slots.

naloth
13-02-2014, 22:45
I have seen termagants, hormagaunts and gargoyles be rather effective. As well as Tyranid warriors, Hive Guard, venomthropes and Zoanthropes. Those are the only Tyranid Non Monstrous choices from the new codex I have seen in action to this point. I will speak on the others when I see them in action.

Only about half of that meshes with my experiences, but some of that could be due to the match-ups. I've had luck with gaunts (cover or mixed devil units), gargoyles (throw away pressure unit that supplies cover), and Venomthropes (hidden out of LOS behind advancing waves). Zoeys look good on paper but tend to get killed before doing what I want them to. Warriors don't seem to really have a specialty (anti-infantry stuff abundant, synapse you can buy elsewhere, expensive/risky to kit for CC, and as objective holders other are either more durable or cheaper). Hive Guard used to be one of my go to units but I find their roles better filled with (reduced cost) MCs these days. Hormaguants aren't really very good unless you kit them with upgrades at which point they are somewhat expensive things to sacrifice running towards the enemy. I also find their IB troubling (eat each other).

insectum7
13-02-2014, 22:47
So you have no evidence, but you have strong opinions

The only "evidence" that you appear to have is results of a tournament environment. Tournament environments are usually quite a bit different than ye olde gameshop/hobbyroom environment, and yet you yourself have seemed to claim that this tournament environment has proven the codex to be a poor codex, despite the fact that some numbers suggest that overall the Tyranid codex appears to have done better than expected.

I see strong opinions, and not much evidence. . . something doesn't add up indeed.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 22:51
As I stated, I am merely saying what I have seen.

As an opponent of Tyranids, I find that I am spending a lot of time choosing targets that are immediate threats to sensitive areas. So things like Flyrants and other fast things take up most of my attention. The issue is that when they do, there is then a horde of Gribblies wanting to eat my face that I have a hard time dealing with all at once.

Your mileage may vary. As I said, this is what I have seen locally. Your mileage may vary. :)

Theocracity
13-02-2014, 22:57
The only "evidence" that you appear to have is results of a tournament environment. Tournament environments are usually quite a bit different than ye olde gameshop/hobbyroom environment, and yet you yourself have seemed to claim that this tournament environment has proven the codex to be a poor codex, despite the fact that some numbers suggest that overall the Tyranid codex appears to have done better than expected.

I see strong opinions, and not much evidence. . . something doesn't add up indeed.

I think a lot of pain in the community comes from the mismatched expectations between these environments. Tournament players judge things based on a tournament context, even when the conversation isn't about tournament games. A codex becomes boring because the units are written off if they don't perform in a tourney environment, even when that kind of environment doesn't exist.

The same goes for fluffy players who want their idealized army to somehow defy math and compete at a tourney level.

Obviously there's some middle ground there, but it requires good communication between players in order to bridge it - whether it's in the form of fair comp rules or the acceptance that a favorite unit doesn't have a role in certain games. The internet might be the worst place for that kind of in-depth communication to occur....

Vipoid
13-02-2014, 23:06
I find myself wondering how multi wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures are considered so vulnerable. Speaking for myself only, I find multiple Monstrous creatures are a real pain to take out.

Well:
- Lack of 2+ saves (which is problematic against missile launchers, poison, force weapons, all power weapons etc.)
- Lack of invulnerable saves (a pain against most weapons people use against MCs)
- Can no longer easily guarantee FNP to help mitigate the above

As I understand it, it's not that nid MCs are weak per se - but they lack the defences of most other armies' MCs (e.g. 2+/5++ saves, T8 etc.), without (for the most part) being particularly cheap to compensate. The real problem is with the synapse MCs - which can't get good defences, but carry severe penalties if lost.


Doesn't target dilution help?

Somewhat. But, a) Not everyone wants to fill their lists with MCs, b) as above, synpase MCs are the real targets - since their destruction can shut down non-synapse MCs. It's also dependent on what army they face - some are much better at tackling multiple MCs than others (DE don't see a Carnifex - they see 4 marines ;)).

ehlijen
13-02-2014, 23:16
I for one find the large number of wounds Tyranids get on the creatures a chore to get through. Yes, I could spam krak missiles, but I'd rather not be confined to a 1 dimensional gunline list.

The vast majority of attacks conducted in most games are S3-5 without ID. The nids are very resilient against those thanks to getting 3 wounds per warrior and 6 for most MCs. Especially if you remember to shuffle the wounded models in the units to the back each movement phase.

Zothos
13-02-2014, 23:17
Well:
- Lack of 2+ saves (which is problematic against missile launchers, poison, force weapons, all power weapons etc.)
- Lack of invulnerable saves (a pain against most weapons people use against MCs)
- Can no longer easily guarantee FNP to help mitigate the above

As I understand it, it's not that nid MCs are weak per se - but they lack the defences of most other armies' MCs (e.g. 2+/5++ saves, T8 etc.), without (for the most part) being particularly cheap to compensate. The real problem is with the synapse MCs - which can't get good defences, but carry severe penalties if lost.



Somewhat. But, a) Not everyone wants to fill their lists with MCs, b) as above, synpase MCs are the real targets - since their destruction can shut down non-synapse MCs. It's also dependent on what army they face - some are much better at tackling multiple MCs than others (DE don't see a Carnifex - they see 4 marines ;)).

Seriously, thank you for a well thought out, non snarky response. I agree with some of what you have said, not all. I do not have time at the moment for a long post.

But thanks again. Civility is nice to see!

IcedCrow
13-02-2014, 23:19
I for one find the large number of wounds Tyranids get on the creatures a chore to get through. Yes, I could spam krak missiles, but I'd rather not be confined to a 1 dimensional gunline list.

The vast majority of attacks conducted in most games are S3-5 without ID. The nids are very resilient against those thanks to getting 3 wounds per warrior and 6 for most MCs. Especially if you remember to shuffle the wounded models in the units to the back each movement phase.

Keep in mind the context of most complaints; extreme army lists which will spam those.

gitburna
13-02-2014, 23:34
I've been looking at Hormagaunts and they've done pretty well for me. I'm considering a 2nd brood but will need to playtest first. I don't think that there too expensive to run forward really. I can only assume that other players not finding them to be really useful don't have any decent cover to shield with. I've been using 90critters so far but want to go up to 120. I looked at the maths and once you go for toxin sacs, you are just piling on the wounds to marines just as easily as to wraithlords or wraithknights. I've had places to hide my synapse out of sight and the dominion power for cheap hidden zoanthropes is brilliant

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

naloth
14-02-2014, 00:09
I've been looking at Hormagaunts and they've done pretty well for me. I'm considering a 2nd brood but will need to playtest first. I don't think that there too expensive to run forward really. I can only assume that other players not finding them to be really useful don't have any decent cover to shield with. I've been using 90critters so far but want to go up to 120. I looked at the maths and once you go for toxin sacs, you are just piling on the wounds to marines just as easily as to wraithlords or wraithknights. I've had places to hide my synapse out of sight and the dominion power for cheap hidden zoanthropes is brilliant

Sure, let us know what you're successful against.

YMMV, but I find that they lack any recourse against mech'ed or mobile opponents. You end up chasing and spreading out to where you're trying to cover the bulk of the board with synapse and the lost of each synapse creature is pretty serious. On the other end of the spectrum you might hit a few IG blob armies (a few hundred flashlight shots might not scare MCs much, but they melt gaunts pretty well) or even Marine infantry armies (bolter mashup, then a numbers game in CC).

Cover is also a double edge because if there's enough for you to get cover saves there's probably enough for your opponent to hide in and make you strike last.

rocdocta
14-02-2014, 00:13
I would actually suggest that the real problems with the codex are as follows:

1 - There's only one list that works right. I predicted it above before the LVO lists came in: a focus on FMCs and MCs, with one or two gaunts units and other min warrior troops to camp objectives. Hey, guess what lists did okay-ish at the LVO? Exactly that. I think that's the best list you can build out of this book.

2 - The fact that I can accurately peg the best tournament list is not because I'm a fantastic gamer. I'm pretty good, but 40k is definitely not my best game. It's because roughly 2/3rds of the units in the book are straight up garbage. Rippers, Hormagaunts (which, individually, are not terrible, but are essentially obsoleted by the other troops choices), Pyrovores, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on. The punch line is that the book is, like the 5th ed book, carried by a handful of units while 2/3rds of the models should not be used.

3 - This is a very limiting result for people. Not being able to use the majority of your stuff without experiencing genuinely subpar results ("narrative" gaming or not, things not being worth their points against the average 40k unit means that unless your "narrative" includes giving the Tyranids more points because they suck, they will lose more often than not in the hands of equally skilled players) is going to harm sales, variety, and most annoyingly, lead to more marine armies (of which we have enough) and less Tyranid armies (of which we don't have enough) being played.

So, in short: horrible internal balance = predictable monolists to play at a reasonable or competitive level (where, I think finishing in the top half/third is about the cap for this book, and that's exactly what happened at LVO, because you have zero answers to the top tier lists) = frustration when using the rest of the book for casual gaming = lower model sales and less army variety.

This is bad for everyone, GW included.

as always thank you for putting this well written post up. And again +1 to the above.

Ssilmath
14-02-2014, 00:15
Two solutions to that, Naloth. First is to factor that into your plans, and expect to lose a few models before the rest get to strike. As long as you've factored in enough that the survivors can do what they need to do (Even if that is engage for a couple turns so the Stealers can charge and do their thing). The other is to use less area terrain, more hard terrain, or put the area terrain more towards the middle of the board (Either through choosing the terrain you place in the 'taking turns' system, or discussing that with your opponent and setting the terrain that way).

naloth
14-02-2014, 00:23
Keep in mind the context of most complaints; extreme army lists which will spam those.

Spam and extreme have such a negative context... How many of a unit do you have to take to earn that?

An infantry heavy army usually isn't considered spam - it's just filling out your troops with troops. I'm not sure that most people even look down on most transports either even though a Chimera or Razorback sport a decent weapon. I know Waveserpent currently get a lot of static for being too good, but they seem like more then exception. '

It seems to me if you bulk up on SM troops, split team them, get your special (melta/plasma/flamer) and a heavy (krak?) buy a transport (Rhino/Razorback) you intend to use for the sarge, special, and his three buds you've embraced what the Astartes were intended to play like. Filling just your troops would give you 6 heavy, 6 special, and possibly 6 vehicle mounted weapons - enough firepower to knock out a few MCs or quite a bit of other Nids. I'm guessing no one objects to things like this because there's more effective things to buy?

rocdocta
14-02-2014, 00:25
I find myself wondering how multi wound toughness 6 monstrous creatures are considered so vulnerable. Speaking for myself only, I find multiple Monstrous creatures are a real pain to take out.

Doesn't target dilution help?

I have found that people without T5 or T6 MCs are almost in awe of them. Whereas players with them ie nids have found that T6 is wounded by S8 krak just as easy as T1. Still a 2+. So vendettas with 3 TL lascannon and heavy bolters peel wounds off or kill in 1 round so things like regen mean nothing. With out average MC save being AP3 even massed bolters can shave wounds without too much difficulty. Posion is death to MCs. Target saturation is a nice idea but MCs just don't have the speed to get across the board fast enough.

what army do you use that you have probs taking multiple MCs out? I could offer suggestions.

naloth
14-02-2014, 00:34
Two solutions to that, Naloth. First is to factor that into your plans, and expect to lose a few models before the rest get to strike. As long as you've factored in enough that the survivors can do what they need to do (Even if that is engage for a couple turns so the Stealers can charge and do their thing). The other is to use less area terrain, more hard terrain, or put the area terrain more towards the middle of the board (Either through choosing the terrain you place in the 'taking turns' system, or discussing that with your opponent and setting the terrain that way).

The first presumes that hormagaunts are cost effective enough to do that. If they aren't throwing in more points just increases how much you're losing by.

The second is limited by available terrain and sounds dangerously close to stacking it solely for my benefit as opposed to setting up "fair" terrain in accordance of how the rule book describes it. I suspect if you ask a 3rd party they would accuse you of something not very nice.

Neither allows for if you face mech/mobile armies that can outmaneuver that particular type of unit.

There's an obvious 3rd alternative, select units that suit that just work better which isn't new. Often there's particular units in each FOC that just perform better in most situations.

Ssilmath
14-02-2014, 00:43
The first presumes that hormagaunts are cost effective enough to do that. If they aren't throwing in more points just increases how much you're losing by.
That does indeed require the presumption that they are. I suppose that is entirely dependent on what those Gaunts are charging, and I'd posit is hardly a constant value.


The second is limited by available terrain and sounds dangerously close to stacking it solely for my benefit as opposed to setting up "fair" terrain in accordance of how the rule book describes it. I suspect if you ask a 3rd party they would accuse you of something not very nice.
The book describes that the primary way of setting up terrain is to set things up so that it looks cool and both players want to play on it. They assume you are talking with your opponent and discussing the upcoming game. So there must be some form of compromise between players for how to set it up. Maybe you can set up some area terrain that is beneficial to both players?


Neither allows for if you face mech/mobile armies that can outmaneuver that particular type of unit.
That's what the rest of the army is for, I guess.

naloth
14-02-2014, 01:00
That does indeed require the presumption that they are. I suppose that is entirely dependent on what those Gaunts are charging, and I'd posit is hardly a constant value. Sure.


The book describes that the primary way of setting up terrain is to set things up so that it looks cool and both players want to play on it. They assume you are talking with your opponent and discussing the upcoming game. So there must be some form of compromise between players for how to set it up. Maybe you can set up some area terrain that is beneficial to both players?
There's the 2x2 grid for alternating and the "narrative terrain". I usually opt for alternating at a store as it gives a semblance of allowing each player to set how they want. Depending on the setting you may be limited in what's available/allowed or a 3rd party may have set/pre-set tables (what I often see at many public venues).


That's what the rest of the army is for, I guess. Sure, but it depends how much you're investing. Above it was suggested 90-120 of those buggers possibly with toxin. That's well over 1/3 of most games and probably more like half your army. Often there is not the points to invest like that in stuff that is only good against that subset of enemy units.

Valkyrie Sky
14-02-2014, 01:13
As tempting as the upgrades are for the little buggers, with the lack of mobility I really dont think they'll survive to put them to use.
The upgrade costs are like 40-50% also... isn't exactly cheap. Thus my current army list is more or less (around 2k)
30 Termigaunt 3 Tervigon 3 Venom thrope 6 Zoanthrope 3 scream fex with bioplasma, 3 daka rend fex, 2 plain fex ( haven't decided what arms to glue)
1 harpy, 60 gargoyles.

Reinholt
14-02-2014, 02:15
I actually own a crapload of hormagaunts and I will say that if you end up playing mostly immobile, non-IG infantry lists (IG are an interesting problem because the bone stock Leman Russ is the ideal warrior slaughtering machine, and much of their other artillery is even better), they are going to serve you very well. Like against a foot marine list, they will wreck face. Against immobile Tau, I'd expect similar results, and so on.

However, when you face other opponents, you have problems. Highly mobile forces tend to avoid the gaunts and snipe your synapse; once you neuter the synapse, the gaunts go bonkers and eat each other, or at least misbehave in predictable ways. Highly mechanized forces just straight up ignore them to kill your synapse. Alpha strike armies target the synapse first.

I've found good opponents realize killing the gaunts is pointless, but instead kill the things that keep the gaunts from killing themselves if you spam gaunts. Now, one large unit of termies or hormies is actually probably a good idea; more than that, and whatever synapse you have baby sitting them has a giant, giant bullseye on it. Other than the Tervigon (which gets pricey fast if you want multiples), I also haven't found good babysitters for them. Warriors and Zoans die very fast. Tyrants want to be mobile and don't wait for the gaunts. Trygon Prime would be a waste babysitting blobs.

I played three games with the hormies and stomped someone once (infantry marines), got viciously tabled by semi-mechanized eldar, and had a good but not great game against Orks (and when I swapped armies, because the ork player is a friend, tabled my tyranids, because I had much better discipline about killing the synapse). So they work against some lists, but as a general all-comers inclusion, I'm highly dubious, as they will also produce a decent number of "auto-lose" (by which I mean you are at a severe disadvantage against an equal player) situations against some lists.

Draconis
14-02-2014, 02:19
great to hear that someone is having fun with the new codex. I also hear that people have fun flipping coins or playing guess who. I can see by your excitement at playing 3 games that you are new to nids. Lets us know if you are still as excited playing your 50th game with the same restrictive tactics of rushing everything forwards on foot...over and over again.

The world is negative enough, people like you don't need to respond because you're opinion does absolutely nothing and helps nobody, and I realize this is hard for your ego to handle, but nobody is interested.

As for the OP, I agree with you. The new nids are fun and much better than the last dex. All my friends that play nids like it as well, one even got 160 more points to play with after he built his usual list with the new dex. He absolutely loves the special edition digital codex. If they come out with a new CSM or Necron dex like that, I might have to pick up another ipad.

Valkyrie Sky
14-02-2014, 03:06
The new nids are fun and much better than the last dex.
If its not much trouble, could you give us a few pointers and tips to which you find better?
much appreciated!

ronin_cse
14-02-2014, 06:49
There were 11 Nid lists, 2 used the 5th ed book. They ended up all over the place in the rankings, with the highest being in the 12th spot.

As someone who was actually there this sounds accurate. Obviously they only did well because people don't know how to plat against them right ;)

Edit: guess I fail at seeing how old a post is, sorry if this was addressed already.

rocdocta
14-02-2014, 07:41
The world is negative enough, people like you don't need to respond because you're opinion does absolutely nothing and helps nobody, and I realize this is hard for your ego to handle, but nobody is interested.

As for the OP, I agree with you. The new nids are fun and much better than the last dex. All my friends that play nids like it as well, one even got 160 more points to play with after he built his usual list with the new dex. He absolutely loves the special edition digital codex. If they come out with a new CSM or Necron dex like that, I might have to pick up another ipad.

Well thanks for the advice draconis but even though as you pointed out that I don't need to respond, I reserve the right to. I don't really care if a bunch on internet nobodies takes my advice or thoughts on the subject seriously. I don't care if they are happy playing with a second rate codex. If I am negative its because when one is given the proverbial; you don't accept it and say thank you sir can I have some more.

Its been shown time and time again that its just a cop and paste job. Its been shown by releasing a dataslate 2 weeks after the book dropped that nid players are being played for fools that want to throw money at good units that could and should have been in the book. You may call me cynical (I give you permission to do that) but I have found that cynics are just optimists with real life experience.

I am a tourney player. I prefer for my games to be a challenge. I don't like that challenge to be from using a second rate book. But hey if you make it work well then good for you. Bask in the knowledge that you have made something terrible and bland into a competitive and striking codex able to hold its own against any and all before it.

With your keen observations and thought provoking insight that "The new nids are fun and much better than the last dex" I really have no comment. If rolling lots of dice and putting models in a box is really fun well that is true I suppose. I am glad all of your friends that play nids like it as well. Good for them. They must not have opponents that stretch their tactical limitations. What the fanboys just don't seem to get is that a cheaper model does not mean better if the model is correspondingly worse. its like buying milk for $2 a litre but now they have a special on milk for 500mls for $1! What a bargain!

I am glad your friend likes the special edition digital codex and I found this extremely thought provoking. Lets hope they do bring out a new CSM or Necron dex so that you can get a new ipad. My thoughts are with you and wish you well.

I on the other hand am angry that after waiting for the terribad 5th ed codex to be fixed...something even worse was dropped. Now its just another 4 or so years until we get Nid 6th ed codex with

- 2 point gaunts with stats of 2 but if they lose synapse the whole army bursts into flame and dies
- Even cheaper MCs but even worse utility.
- the pyrovore actually will have BS0 and WS0 and no gun. if it dies you roll a dice and then roll another one and then another one until you roll a 1 and then pack the model away.

Enjoy being shafted and drinking the Kool Aid.

gitburna
14-02-2014, 08:11
Rocdocta, man, that burst ulcer must really be giving you gip.

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

Langdon
14-02-2014, 12:29
Rocdocta, man, that burst ulcer must really be giving you gip.

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Tapatalk

at this point, I think you may be right

Grocklock
14-02-2014, 14:11
Having played and talked to people well into the 10+ group of games with the new Tyranid codex, here is what I am seeing:

1 - If you are doing narrative / non-competitive gaming and nobody accidentally brings a counter list, the codex is fine.

2 - If you run into people who built semi-competitive lists (much less tournament level ones), or who accidentally brought a counter list (such as the flyer-heavy list that just tabled one of my friends), if you don't have a large disparity in player skill favoring the 'nids, the 'nids do not win.

3 - If you hit tournament level players and equivalent skill, the 'nids get annihilated.

It all comes down to three recurring themes that I have seen:

1 - Synapse. It's a big deal. When you face players who understand how the 'nids work, and underestand how to kill synapse, that's a big problem with no obvious answer (other than "don't take things where Synapse is a problem").

2 - Lack of mobility. The flyers are fast, the mawloc moves around in interesting ways, but the lack of mobility particularly hurts the 'nids when they either have to navigate ugly fire lanes or chase around fast armies (I saw a hysterical game where a Ravenwing army prevented the 'nids from getting into CC for virtually the entire game - obviously the Ravenwing are good at this kind of thing in general, but it's exacerbated when the other side doesn't even have the option to take bikes or transports).

3 - Player skill disparity or lack of understanding of the 'nids appears to be the driver in most of the games where the 'nids are winning that I've seen. When you are watching a game and witness someone stubbornly shooting into gaunt mobs not realizing that just waxing the synapse creature makes the gaunts nigh-harmless, and you can play in more optimal ways, you know it's a skill issue. Mirror matches also reveal this, or army swapping (I've played several games with good friends where we trade armies and play again, and each time, 'nids were stomped on both sides of that trade).

The one army list I seem to have that works decently is flyrants / MCs / min warriors / maybe one blob of gaunts / gargoyles. Everything else seems pretty much not worth taking, which is sad, because like 75% of the book should never see the table if you are playing someone decent. Certainly the list above with the genestealers only for troops is going to get wrecked; a good opponent will just wax the stealers (which are super fragile) and you have no troops, which basically means you auto-lose many missions. The lack of any troop-based durability outside of the now overcosted Tervigon is hugely harmful to the 'nids.

So I remain seriously unimpressed with this codex and I'm basically shelving my army, because I get much better results with my marines (even dark angels!), my eldar, and my necrons where I don't feel like I'm fighting against my own codex to win.

To be clear - I can see how people would win with this army against average to sub-average players, and average to sub-average armies, but I don't like investing in a force, spending time painting / modeling / collecting and have a hard counter be "the other guy knew what he was doing and brought a solid army list". I don't have that problem with any of my other 40k armies. To that end, 'nids are very sub-par to me overall. They may work in some local areas, but as people are saying in this thread, when you start running into the stronger armies, you auto-lose (witness previous comments about "I was doing great until I played Tau / Eldar / strong marines / etc.", and for me, it's not been an issue of win less, but not winning at all, even against players and lists I can easily beat with some of my other armies).

Synapse can be a problem but it is not the be all and end all you discribe it to be. As far as losing synapse I am yet to really lose it other then on my biovores. But beings as most of the time there still shooting anyway I can deal with this.
Synapse creatures are either too tough to be killed out right by missiles or they can get a cover save from the gaunts around them (then Zoe's have a nice 3+ invulnerable). So they not that easy to take out. Also any good Nid player worth his weight has a group of synapse units to allow them to offer rings of over lapping protection.

Biovores as already mentioned are great they can sit at the back of the board and just bombard the foe. They prity much instant kill blob guard out of transports or fire warrior gun lines. The roge spore mines you get for free are also great as always. Not meany armies can get free units. The foe has to dedicate time to take them out which is less shooting coming your way, and it they charge it is prity good.

Geanstslers I have used them as daisy pickers. At the back of the board holding my objectives unless there is a good terrain on the board and use them as a denial unit or a threat unit. There good at tearing up static tanks you gane in these gun lines.

Weight of numbers is key just like in the fluff swamping your foe is the wat to go.

You mentioned the bike army but when I spread across the board and run down the board you can drive up and down in front of me but that space is gong to get pritty small.

Also you have some fast units that can catch them such as gargles, harpy, raveners, harpy.

You also seam to be implying that nids have no shooting to do any damage. But Nids is qauntity over quality. Yes they don't have units that can do 5 missile shots but they can have 30 termigaunts at 18" which is nasty. In my eyes if I'm not in combat by turn 3 then your bit playing it right.

Gaunts are great at slacking up damage. And if they are not then they are giving most of your force a 4+ cover save which means there wasting there shots. Once there in combat and fearless the enemy might eat though them but remember for each one of there's is three of yours. Big then down till the combat creature gets in them to finish them off.

I'm not saying nids are the best army out there but I don't think they are easily disassembled as people tend to imply.

Draconis
14-02-2014, 15:27
I'm sorry Roc, I didnt bother to read your post because I assume it's full of complaining and sarcasm. But I did glance through and picked up the line about throwing dice and putting models in a box. You do realize that is how 40k is right? It's not exactly the most strategic of games.... you figure out what the objectives are and how you want to interact with your opponents army. Everything else is the dice. But I understand there's no arguing with you or your kind since you'll never be happy with what you get up until the point you're given a golden egg of a codex that just face melts everything. And even then, when all the other nid players realize their codex is crap because it's easy to win and it leaves a barren, ashen taste in their mouths, you'll still be sitting on top of your mountain screaming about "skillz".

As for what I like/don't like to answer, I personally only have 2 games in while playing the nids, the rest are from my friends perspectives. I like the over-all drop in points cost across the board for the most part, but don't care for the increase in regeneration to a flat rate. I like the idea that it was mostly on part with the 5th edition codex in that they didnt change too much this time and it feels like the nid codex is finally being built up as a confident codex that doesn't have to fear too much change in it's next edition. I know that doesn't make sense, but when you know a new ultramarine dex is coming out, you can kinda expect what you're going to get because it's reliable. With the nid dex, for better or for worse, GW has never had a "set in stone" approach for them but now it finally feels like the nids are getting where GW wants them to be.

The new models are really good (although I'm still kinda up in the air about the tyrant guad's "lily pad" shoulders, but the hive guard are pretty sexy) and I really like that GW finally dropped the points on some of the monstrous creatures realizing that this game is won in wounds, not size. Seeing the fex come down to it's cost is a relief, knowing that you can actually take a squad now and not run out of points. Some of the new rules seem a bit more balanced, yeah it sucks that bone sabres got the nerf bat, but they were pretty crazy to begin with, I dont care too much for instant death rules and 40k certainly has too many of them. But then I feel the same thing should happen to force weapons too.

I can't predict the future of the nids, but I think they'll do pretty good as some people are reporting them in the tournaments. I understand synapse is a thing and I wish they'd just do away with it, but at the same time I'm glad they didn't. It does add flavor to the army while slightly hindering it. Synapse is a skill that if this was any other game system, would actually drop the points cost to make up for having a drawback. They should at least make synapse better for when you are actually in synapse. While bogging the game down with the synapse rolling, you can still use it to your advantage by going outside of synapse or at least reliably having an idea of what your creatures will do.

naloth
14-02-2014, 16:44
Synapse can be a problem but it is not the be all and end all you discribe it to be. As far as losing synapse I am yet to really lose it other then on my biovores. But beings as most of the time there still shooting anyway I can deal with this.
Synapse creatures are either too tough to be killed out right by missiles or they can get a cover save from the gaunts around them (then Zoe's have a nice 3+ invulnerable). So they not that easy to take out. Also any good Nid player worth his weight has a group of synapse units to allow them to offer rings of over lapping protection.

Cover saves are nice but not guaranteed as quite a few things ignore cover now. Zoe's do have a nice invul save, but shooting at them is a lot like firing at marines with AP4+ weapons. You don't expect to single shot them - you bury them under the weight of fire until they fail. The whole "overlapping rings of protection" doesn't work unless you're either playing big games on a small table or you can cluster your forces. Trying to cover a standard 6x4 table with 12" radius bubbles means that 6 synapse barely overlap. Sure you can bump the size a given bubble a bit (norn, psychics) but that just makes a given node more of a target. True redundancy even if you're covering less then the entire board just gets expensive.


Biovores as already mentioned are great they can sit at the back of the board and just bombard the foe. They prity much instant kill blob guard out of transports or fire warrior gun lines. The roge spore mines you get for free are also great as always. Not meany armies can get free units. The foe has to dedicate time to take them out which is less shooting coming your way, and it they charge it is prity good.
I like biovores but you're painting an overly rosy picture. Most opponent (seeing you have artillery) won't arrange their units into big globs you can template easily.


Geanstslers I have used them as daisy pickers. At the back of the board holding my objectives unless there is a good terrain on the board and use them as a denial unit or a threat unit. There good at tearing up static tanks you gane in these gun lines.
I have to wonder what your opponent's army is doing such that he would let you run up to tanks with infantry and assault them without shooting your 'stealers?


Weight of numbers is key just like in the fluff swamping your foe is the wat to go.

You mentioned the bike army but when I spread across the board and run down the board you can drive up and down in front of me but that space is gong to get pritty small.

Also you have some fast units that can catch them such as gargles, harpy, raveners, harpy.

You also seam to be implying that nids have no shooting to do any damage. But Nids is qauntity over quality. Yes they don't have units that can do 5 missile shots but they can have 30 termigaunts at 18" which is nasty. In my eyes if I'm not in combat by turn 3 then your bit playing it right.

Gaunts are great at slacking up damage. And if they are not then they are giving most of your force a 4+ cover save which means there wasting there shots. Once there in combat and fearless the enemy might eat though them but remember for each one of there's is three of yours. Big then down till the combat creature gets in them to finish them off.

Some of this just doesn't add up. Aside from the fact you're going to dump quite a few points into synapse to keep those gaunts from misbehaving (thus limiting the points you have to spend on #), on a simple cost to cost basis gaunts can't necessarily outshoot or outswamp many armies. Take IG for example, a base spikerifle gaunt is 20% cheaper, but they can put out twice the shots (first rank, second rank) and be blobbed up to 50 men. A devilgaunt is 60% more for for +50% shots at a shorter range and higher S. In either case the IG guys save twice as much (5+ instead of a 6+) as the gaunts. Even Orks playing the shoota game only come out a bit behind and they have overwhelming CC advantages over 'gaunts to compensate. 'Nids just aren't the best at the quantity over quality game.

I like gargoyles but unless you buy them upgrades they aren't really up to taking out most of the things you're suggesting chasing down and they also need synapse that will keep up with them. They work much better as shooting mobile cover that you can also use as a tarpit. If you're having good luck with Raveners, I'm somewhat surprised. They seem awfully fragile.

FMC's are good, but I'm thinking the Crone fills a better role than the Harpy. Either way, multiples work better since you need to be fielding more FMCs than your opponent can deal with. Again, though, once you start buying quantities of MCs you're taking points away from having bodies.

Langdon
14-02-2014, 18:30
Glad to see that after a day off, this thread has got nowhere closer to "helping" naloth and his buddy solve their NerdRage over the Codex.

At this point, i will just sit back and enjoy the B-Movie as it unfolds. No point arguing with someone that won't listen to you, got more luck getting Westboro to denounce God

thanoson
14-02-2014, 19:10
Ok, I'm a non tourney player. I'm not looking for power builds. This book is ok, but it is missing variety in tactics. My main beef is the loss of pods. Pods allowed me something more than just walking into gunfire before I died. I have used blocking and cover, so don't start that up. I used them to give my opponents multiple threats in the backfield, while my main force advanced up field. Way more difficult now to do unless I want to invest in sky slashers, ravenors and shrikes; all of which are easily dispatched with bolter fire. I don't even mind the loss of Doom and the Parasite, even though I made great models. It's just the feeling that I'm shoehorned to march across the table.

Slayer-Fan123
14-02-2014, 19:23
How so?

I am aware that some choices are naff (pyrovore). I still see quite a few nice choices in the different slots.

That's a genuine question, not trying to be snarky.
Another guy answered your question, but in general it IS what he said. It feels like a Kelly codex in that there's only 1-2 good choices in each slot and the rest basically handicapping your army. The internal balance is simply bad.

I'm playing against them tonight I think so I can let you know how that works out.

Langdon
14-02-2014, 19:25
Ok, I'm a non tourney player. I'm not looking for power builds. This book is ok, but it is missing variety in tactics. My main beef is the loss of pods. Pods allowed me something more than just walking into gunfire before I died. I have used blocking and cover, so don't start that up. I used them to give my opponents multiple threats in the backfield, while my main force advanced up field. Way more difficult now to do unless I want to invest in sky slashers, ravenors and shrikes; all of which are easily dispatched with bolter fire. I don't even mind the loss of Doom and the Parasite, even though I made great models. It's just the feeling that I'm shoehorned to march across the table.

blame Chaper House Studios for the loss of Pods, not GW.

Reinholt
14-02-2014, 20:28
blame Chaper House Studios for the loss of Pods, not GW.

No. Do not do this. I'm no fan of Chapterhouse, but this is not their problem. If GW wants to remove the pods to pull the rug out from under CH, that's fine. In fact, the ruthless businessman in me actually supports that move.

However, do not punish your customers for this. You are attacking a competitor, not your customers. Replace the pods with other options (a Trygon tunnel that actually works properly, more outflanking options, maybe a venomthrope/lictor type creature that disguises other units and allows them to infiltrate, maybe a flying Tervigon that deep strikes in with gaunt blobs exploding from it, whatever). It doesn't matter what those options are in particular, just that they exist. Removing things that allow movement and deployment options and not bothering to add new ones or create variety is GW's fault.

Ssilmath
14-02-2014, 20:47
So, I was thinking about the most touted 'useless' units, the Pyrovore and Rippers/Skyslashers today and I am not sure they are entirely useless. No really, just here me out for a minute.

Pyrovores I think are a great escort for things like Hive Tyrants, Carnifexes or Zoanthropes by being a reasonably effective counter to both tarpits (Like blob IG) and elite units that need to get close to work (Like Terminators, Nobs or Sternguard. The templates can do a number on the blob squads or elite infantry, and the Acid Maw attack is a decent way of cutting through heavy armor. More to the point, you cab position the Pyrovores in such a way as to give the units they are protecting an extra turn to survive, to add weight of fire and whittle the threat down further or just to engage and tie up the elite units for a longer time. Think of the Pyrovores as defensive instead of offensive units, and I think they start looking less bad.

Rippers and Skyslashers I see as disruption units. Their whole point is to herd enemy units by preventing them from moving in a certain direction or absorbing incoming fire. I don't recommend taking a whole bunch of them, but a min squad or two is not very expensive and can easily make up their points by keeping a unit from moving away (In the case of units that like to shoot) or towards (In the case of units who want to get close to big gribblies. If they survive the turn they come in, then they can continue herding or just tie up enemy units, absorb overwatch or any number of other things.

Now, I realize that these are kind of niche. I realize that other units in the codex can probably do the same job, or you might not even need those jobs filled. But I'm saying I think there's more to units in the codex than their obvious, up front uses or values.

Theocracity
14-02-2014, 20:53
So, I was thinking about the most touted 'useless' units, the Pyrovore and Rippers/Skyslashers today and I am not sure they are entirely useless. No really, just here me out for a minute.

Pyrovores I think are a great escort for things like Hive Tyrants, Carnifexes or Zoanthropes by being a reasonably effective counter to both tarpits (Like blob IG) and elite units that need to get close to work (Like Terminators, Nobs or Sternguard. The templates can do a number on the blob squads or elite infantry, and the Acid Maw attack is a decent way of cutting through heavy armor. More to the point, you cab position the Pyrovores in such a way as to give the units they are protecting an extra turn to survive, to add weight of fire and whittle the threat down further or just to engage and tie up the elite units for a longer time. Think of the Pyrovores as defensive instead of offensive units, and I think they start looking less bad.

Rippers and Skyslashers I see as disruption units. Their whole point is to herd enemy units by preventing them from moving in a certain direction or absorbing incoming fire. I don't recommend taking a whole bunch of them, but a min squad or two is not very expensive and can easily make up their points by keeping a unit from moving away (In the case of units that like to shoot) or towards (In the case of units who want to get close to big gribblies. If they survive the turn they come in, then they can continue herding or just tie up enemy units, absorb overwatch or any number of other things.

Now, I realize that these are kind of niche. I realize that other units in the codex can probably do the same job, or you might not even need those jobs filled. But I'm saying I think there's more to units in the codex than their obvious, up front uses or values.

Another potential option for Pyrovores: utilizing the Promethium Relay fortification to boost their flamers. It's also a niche role but it might be something to mess around with.

gitburna
14-02-2014, 21:52
As far as Rippers go, i want to try some out next game. I have a couple of ideas i want to try out with them. My regular opponent is an Eldar player, but he plays his necrons and Nurgle marines in the same way - he just loves his big monstrous creatures. I've had a couple of ideas - pseudo t6 creatures to create a buffer in front of my carnifexes that might suck up instant death shots that would otherwise go on my carnifexes or synapse. Same goes for his ridiculous Wraithguard with those instakill Distortion flamers. Suboption of this is giving them toxin sacs to make sure they do get shot at - and they could also be a threat against those units, effectively being a 6 wound monstrous creature for a brood of 6.

Final idea is to deep strike a unit in turn 2/3 (so saving a few turns of casualties) quite far forward, and then use them to assault something like rangers basically anything that they can beat and not suffer too many caualties from with shooting. I think this option will be too situational though, the number of t4 and above units would make slow toxin shields a better option.

naloth
14-02-2014, 21:54
Another potential option for Pyrovores: utilizing the Promethium Relay fortification to boost their flamers. It's also a niche role but it might be something to mess around with.

Torrent within 2" of the pipeline? When pyrovores were first introduced you could pod them in and even then it was very hard to justify the cost (and that combo is a similar cost). Using the pipeline you'd have to find a way to entice the enemy into range (since you can't drop them into enemy lines), so on the surface it less attractive than podding. Worse, it competes against most of the rest of the army since 'Nids don't really have a problem killing infantry at short range.

It's an interesting effort trying to find creative ways to use units that are not regarded well, but to justify them it seems like they should do something better than the units they are competing against or at least better than enemies they would be competing against. Failing that, they worth the extra cost to fill a role that cannot be filled elsewhere.

Usually the last problem I have is killing infantry and if I was worried about it, there's other MCs you can tack a chest template weapon.