PDA

View Full Version : Current Opinion on Tyranids



Vipoid
19-05-2014, 20:30
It's been a while since they were released, and a lot of people seemed initially disappointed with the codex.

Basically, now that people have had a chance to play with and against them, I'm just curious to hear what the current opinion(s) of the book are.

Are people more positive (or just apathetic :p) now, or is it regarded as one of the worse publications?

Menthak
19-05-2014, 20:39
It's been a while since they were released, and a lot of people seemed initially disappointed with the codex.

Basically, now that people have had a chance to play with and against them, I'm just curious to hear what the current opinion(s) of the book are.

Are people more positive (or just apathetic :p) now, or is it regarded as one of the worse publications?

Is it possible to feel all of them? I think it's got good points (Flying MCs) bad points (General lack of SCs for my taste) and apathy, as I don't really play with or against them often enough. Yet I consider it one of the worse publications.

Mozzamanx
19-05-2014, 20:58
I still consider it a lazy, half-baked piece of rubbish that left gaping holes in the last book untouched and the closest it came to actually fixing units was to simply cut the points. It remains badly balanced internally, removed large amounts of options to the cost of the player, and is pigeon-holed into a few gimmick builds that in no way represent the army as it's described in the fluff.
The Dataslates 'fixed' it in the sense that it gave them a few buy-to-win options that are perfect examples of the thought process behind the book; lazy, hamfisted and simply offering assorted special rules or mixing up the FOC rather than dealing with the issues those units face.

On the other hand, Skyblight is wrecking faces so it's probably a better experience than it was at release...

Inquisitor Shego
19-05-2014, 21:00
I love Tyranids. The concept of those beautiful models being an endless swarm is truly fascinating to me, and they strike me, along with Daemons, as the ultimate antagonists you don't want to face. However, I am offput by the general lack of character in the army.

With Guard and Marines you can theme up your sergeants and add little bits of personality. With the orksies your Nobs and Warbosses and junk-vehicles. Same with Eldar and Dark Eldar having so many interchangable bits. To me a Nid army will always be something lacking face or personality. A beautiful design, but no individuality.

In terms of rules, they're sort of naff and uninspired. Synapse hurts them BAD and some armies exist to just amputate your synaptic nodes. Yet the army isn't as bad as people make out and you can still have a lot of fun with it.

gitburna
19-05-2014, 21:14
Won't know for certain for a few more days but it seems to me the nids were built with eyes on intended game changes for the new edition in mind. EG Lots of psykers, challenge damage supposedly affecting combat results, change to the way powers work when coming on from reserves etc and unbound lists+dataslates allowing for better use of specialised units which follow the background for instance the lictor swarm which is too specialised to work in a standard straight-up fight.

Apart from that, my own nids havn't done too badly, winning three out of three games quite easily with a mix of horde and monstrous creatures (didn't use any of the flyers) Unfortunately my gaming experience has stalled at that point because of planning for my unborn child.

Slayer-Fan123
19-05-2014, 21:15
Bio-Artefacts (nice name) and general lack of good units make it a bad codex. Unbound will make it better competitively but every codex already better than it won't care.