PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid Codex after 1 year



Vepr
15-02-2011, 20:32
This is a follow up to my 3 month and 6 month poll.

6 month poll http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264529

DarkstarSabre
15-02-2011, 20:40
I still feel it's a very poor cop-out of a Codex compared to what's come after it and also before it. IG, Space Wolves, BA and Dark Eldar blow it well out of the water. Currently the only things I'd say that were 'worse' due to either balance issues or lack of variety are Necrons and Chaos Space Marines.

Still not impressed with it. It's 'bad' for me. Not terrible. But it's painful how all the new shiny things they released were just so much better than existing options. And the FAQ was a cop-out as well. Psykers in vehicles...indeed.

noobzilla
15-02-2011, 20:40
As a bug player who plays a very strong build, I feel that the book is a lot better than everyone claims it is. I just took them to the AdeptiCon Team Tournament primer and our two teams of 2 finished 2nd and 3rd respectively, finishing only behind a nearly flawless first place team.

In addition, I took my own bugs list to an 1850, 3 round tournament and took 1st place. The 2nd place finisher was also bugs.

I really feel that the book has a lot of strengths but also a lot of downfalls. While it has some bad internal balance I feel that in the hands of a competent player, it is a very capable codex. Bug's are not the point and click codex that SW, IG and BA can become, which is why I feel that so many players dislike them.

TheMav80
15-02-2011, 20:47
I'm a non-Nid player considering them as my next army. I won't say the book is "Great". There are obvious internal balance issues and I think the FAQ really made some dumb calls.

I think the book also suffers from too many unique rules. Several different types of infiltrating and deep striking that all differ from each other and the normal rules. Gargoyles having their very own unique poison rule instead of just having the regular Poison USR...for some examples.

That said, I think it is a perfectly good codex that can compete with tough builds from all the other armies.

magicmonkey
15-02-2011, 20:49
they are great in my opinion. they are a very good codex, but there list building and gameplay requires more than add thunderwolves to long fangs and you win, or take 20 tanks and laugh. its just there aren't amny good players out there (that i've seen) to give us a good reputation as a powerful codex.

DarkstarSabre
15-02-2011, 20:55
The main issue is, as pointed out in other threads - internal balance issues. The same issues I have with Chaos Space Marines at the moment.

80% of the units could be considered good.
20% are obvious WTF units or haven't improved the slightest (in some cases got worse) - Lictors, Carnifex,Harpies and Pyrovores, I'm looking at you.

The issue with the codex is that of the 'good' units there are a handful that, regardless of their slot they outshine all their competition so that every army ends up looking pretty much the same. For me that kills its rating. When every army looks the same, is composed the same and generally does the same thing then there is something wrong. Fluffwise 'nids are supposed to be varied (As are Chaos, ironically enough). But gamewise? I see the same composition time and time again. Units get put to one side - not because they are bad but because the other option is just that much better.

daboarder
15-02-2011, 21:07
And here we go again, be prepared for vastly different definitions of good.

Personally: the list is ok, average really even though I'm enjoying the games with nids at the most I run a very meat and potato list without many fun units.

Everything else however is terrible, from the way the codex treated us veterans to the abysmal fluff....have you read the gargoyle entry, apparently they get into a room and then panic to get out....WTF

Overall: bad codex

LonelyPath
15-02-2011, 21:40
It's a good book and it has some good builds, it's nothing truly amazing though. If you look at the bad and the whining people come to the (false) assumption that it is a terrible book, that could not be further form the truth when I've had a good deal of success using its strengths and ignoring the weaknesses.

I'd also like to add that I do field a Harpy roughly half the time and while it's alot of points for how I use it, it's a nice nuisance unit that can quickly become a threat to outflankers and tanks.

ColShaw
15-02-2011, 22:17
I'm not a Nid player. I ranked it as "Good" because I think it's perfectly decent, suffers from some internal balance issues, but has good usability also.

When I play against the Bugs, it's usually an interesting and enjoyable game. And I get to quote Starship Troopers during the game, so that's fun too. :)

Souleater
15-02-2011, 23:11
Nid player.

I voted 'bad'. It works despite itself. Poorly written, feels rushed as if the writers didn't really care what worked and what didn't. The arbitary FAQ didn't help much, either.

PyroSikTh
15-02-2011, 23:16
I'm not a Nid player, but my wife is. My overall impression of it is - Average. And that's the problem. It doesn't even feel Good, merely Average. It's not terrible, by any means. She puts up quite a fight against my Dark Eldar, Nurgle, Space Wolves and Guard.

The problem is that it doesn't feel fantastic. It almost feels as dull and average as the Chaos and Dark Angel codices. It can be competitive, but it doesn't feel very characterful in my opinion.

Wolf Lord Balrog
15-02-2011, 23:19
Looking at the pattern of responses, I think I can explain the situation a bit.

Non-'Nids players probably look at the codex mostly in the light of how effective the 'Nids armies they've played against seemed to be, because that is the majority of their exposure to the particulars of how the codex works.

'Nids players look at it from the perspective of whether or not the codex lets them play the 'Nids they want to play, and the answer seems to be much more mixed.

Taken together, that evidence would seem to suggest that it is a flawed codex. You can build an army that wins, probably even more than one way, but you can't necessarily build the kind of army that you would like to, the kind of army that fulfills your personal vision of what 'Nids should be like.

That's just my analysis from the poll numbers. I don't own a copy of the codex, I don't generally follow 'Nids discussions, and I've only played against 'Nids under the new codex twice.

Angelwing
15-02-2011, 23:45
My opinion of it hasn't changed. Book too rushed, faq half good, half 'eh?'.
However, it still works, just in much the same fashion 3rd ed codexes still work in 5th ed ie. okay but not quite right.

nedius
15-02-2011, 23:50
It's not bad (gargoyles, trygons and hive guard are undeniably good), but it's good points are too heavily constrained by it's good points. It's an average codex released in amongst great codexes. I just hope that the codex gets a quick turn around.

Bestaltan
15-02-2011, 23:51
As a Tyranid player, I'm less than impressed with it, especially when you look at all of the other 5th edition codices. Was rushed, poorly implemented, poorly balanced. Heck, we STILL don't have a second wave of models, 13 months after the release. My guess is DE will get a second wave well before us, if we ever even get one.

UberBeast
16-02-2011, 00:28
I think a lot of the grief is over the sudden decline in what was a long running orgy or tyranid goodness. Basically nids had been getting tons of option and lots of fluffy flexibility in their 3rd and 4th edition books. Suddenly they get a standard book which is still fairly decent, but lacks the rediculous number of customizability options, and the nid players go crazy with rage.

I understand the frustration with comparing your book to BA, Mech IG, or SW, but then again, these books are rediculously over powered and or so badly written fluffwise that you'd be glad not to have to shame your minis with such swill for background. The only real exception is DE and this book was simply magnificent for both fluff and balanced rules. If you're angry that Nids didn't get the same love as DE, then be consoled that you aren't alone. Everyone should be a bit envious of this kind of codex writing.

jason_sation
16-02-2011, 01:04
Ok, I know this isn't going to be helpful to many but I've been interested in getting into fantasy with a Beastmen army, and some of the complaints I see for Tyranids seem similar for Beastmen. I.e. They are average, and nothing really stands out, etc. Is this a fair comparison in some ways?

I don't mean to derail the conversation. I'm just curious for my own sake.

Notanoob
16-02-2011, 03:05
To people who voted "Good" or "Average", I think your standards are stuck in 4th ed. By that I mean you need to compare this dex to other 5th ed dexes. And this kind of comparison shows that a. the fluff bad compared to the old dex, almost par for the course though considering the crons+blood angles b. not nearly as powereful. people say that you need to be a good general or learn the army better, but that isn't a good comparison. If two equally skilled generals faced off one using nids and the other using guard or SW, the nids would loose more often than not, plain and simple. It takes a lot more effort to use. c. It's got some of the worst internal balance of all books, with only Guard having a similar ratio of absolutely useless to under priced units.

Sure, nids are great against 4th or 3rd ed...but they should be ignored for the purpose of this poll and I think that's what the supporters of this dex need to realize. That, and space marine players never needed to replace and re-arm their whole army. We did.

Vaktathi
16-02-2011, 03:15
Well, in all honesty, I'd say the book is about the same.

Not a steaming pile of crap, but not what it should have been. Completely mediocre. Not GW's best showing, especially after Cruddace's IG codex. Feels like a rushed weekend job to make a convenient adversary for Blood Angels.

Lots of terrible internal balance, both in terms of competitiveness, battlefield role, and FoC slot allocation. Elites suffer particularly with lots of critical units and not enough slots. Tyranids are also the first army I've run into problems where I don't have enough Troop slots.

There's also lots of *really* poor or awkward mechanics, and the FAQ exacerbated this, especially the stupid part about not being able to put a Tyranid Prime in a pod with Warriors.

The book very definitely is probably the most restricted in what you can take for competitive play of any of the 5E books so far, and many of the most competitive units still lack models. If really feels like nothing was planned or worked on for this release besides the Trygon and Hive Guard, it most definitely feels like something that was stuff into the schedule and had to be finished ASAP between IG and Blood Angels.

Tzeentch Lover
16-02-2011, 03:32
Tyranid player here voting average. It is a flawed codex. I hate how you simply can't play without hive guard. I have fun with it most of the time, but my views pretty much reflect that of those who have already said negative things about it.

alphastealer
16-02-2011, 07:32
I agree with a lot of what has been said before.

There is a lot of internal and even external balance issues.

I think Cruddance enjoys IG and therefore did a great job with them but the tyranids needed someone with a real flair for how they are played and what issues historically needed to be addressed.

They had a great opportunity to really fix the lictor and warriors and IMO they dropped the ball.

Ulrig
16-02-2011, 08:28
Its beyond me, how anybody can vote "great" or even "good". In my opinion you are a bunch of fan boys refusing to see or acknowledge the truth.
This codex might still work with some nice builds. But there are some huge flaws in it, enormous flaws. Cruddace had a axe to grind, and its a shame its here to stay for a while. Lets not forget the big "F You" F.A.Q via GW.

laudarkul
16-02-2011, 09:12
Non-Nid Player Good
I play guard on foot . Slowly I'll mechanized my army and I'll add some vet squads, so till then I play/played mostly on foot. I find it hard sometimes to deal with those MC's with lot's of wounds and the nid's deepstrikers sometimes put quite huge amount of damage.
Games against this army are always fun but also hard fought.

Doomseer
16-02-2011, 10:16
Average as a non Nid player.

What seems to be a contributing factor to this is the fact that they are an expensive army to collect and a lot of the good options in the book require a competent modeller as there are no existing models for them. I've played against several different nid players and found it to be no challenge whatsoever, mostly due to them fielding 4th edition units and battleforces. When you put 6+ vehicles onto the table and they have a shooty carnifex, 1 Trygon and a bunch of Gaunts, you know it's going to be one-sided.:(

Its a shame Cruddace (and whoever else worked on them) couldn't get it right considering how ridiculously good IG are, it just feels weak when you hold it up to it's 5th Ed peers and its like they have been punished for IG's poor balance/pricing!

I've put a list together and I know it will struggle competitively, I'm fine with this as it's a hobby/fun project but if it's your only army then it really isn't funny. They have become that army you don't see very often these days and they've only been out for a year, the FAQ didn't help either. I'd like to think I can change people's perceptions locally but the internet has made it very hard for anyone to realistically consider investing in a Tyranid army anyway and they don't have Chimeras!;)

hawo0313
16-02-2011, 10:16
i voted good as I believe that all of my games against nids include scary well painted (by hobby store staff usually as they have 2 players who run the place) armies that really test target priorities and have high kill counts some really cool abilities but hey i didn'tknow the hell that the owner went through to pick that list so maybe im wrong.

Dreachon
16-02-2011, 10:42
Nid player I voted bad.

- Internal balance issues that haven't solved
- still units were you go WTF
- Faq that is just really a kick in the nuts given it only toned down stuff

And then it's just basicly what other have said, the book is rushed, not properly playtested which is just painfully obvious.
Cruddace and all the others at GW should take a hard long look at the DE codex, there is a codex that is well put together.

Notanoob
16-02-2011, 17:58
i voted good as I believe that all of my games against nids include scary well painted (by hobby store staff usually as they have 2 players who run the place) armies that really test target priorities and have high kill counts some really cool abilities but hey i didn'tknow the hell that the owner went through to pick that list so maybe im wrong.


Non-Nid Player Good
I play guard on foot . Slowly I'll mechanized my army and I'll add some vet squads, so till then I play/played mostly on foot. I find it hard sometimes to deal with those MC's with lot's of wounds and the nid's deepstrikers sometimes put quite huge amount of damage.
Games against this army are always fun but also hard fought.
Just because you're getting beat doesn't mean that the codex is good. If you actually read it or played with it you'd see how ****** it is. No internal balance, no more good fluff, no more mutability, all Hive Guard all the time etc. It's bad, plain and simple. Absolutely ****-tastic compared to the other 5th ed dexes.

doomspittle
16-02-2011, 19:15
Not a Nid player I voted bad. The three players who run them sold theirs and now play marines or quit which is a pity. The thing is the games I have played against them I just don't fear them anymore, I remember back in third the terror of facing hordes of gribblies backed up by huge beasts knowing, if they hit your line you would lose. now I just sit in cover .oh well back to fighting yet another marine army.

DCLXVI
16-02-2011, 19:47
(Sort of) Nid player - I voted bad.

When the dex came out I struggled to try and like it, but just couldn't bring myself to.
There's too many WTF rules and units, horrendous rises in points costs and general bad fluff for my liking.
Also, this may be hard to explain as it's a personal POV, but I just didn't like the 'smell' of it. The designers seemed to be saying 'aren't the new models awesome and the old ones crap'. Raising the cost of spinefist gants and punishing people who spent so much of their hard earned cash on lots of carnifexes for the last edition was a bit off IMHO. In effect, it made you spend a whole load more on what was basically a new army. Of course we'd have spent money on the new shinys anyway, but that just smacked of 'up yours, now buy the new stuff'.
I did buy a trygon to ease myself into it and I still haven't built it yet. I was holding off buying anything until the FAQ came out and it was just so much another kick in the teeth that I haven't bothered with them since (the prime can't ride in a pod with the only unit that can benefit from his buffs, and a couple of inches of steel stops the Shadow in the Warp even though it can shut the Astronomican down as it veers in-system? Yeah ok....)

Shame really as I did like my gribblies - maybe I'll return to them in the future?

MasterDecoy
16-02-2011, 20:52
Its beyond me, how anybody can vote "great" or even "good". In my opinion you are a bunch of fan boys refusing to see or acknowledge the truth.
This codex might still work with some nice builds. But there are some huge flaws in it, enormous flaws. Cruddace had a axe to grind, and its a shame its here to stay for a while. Lets not forget the big "F You" F.A.Q via GW.

I voted good, Im a nid Player, Im probably considered a fanboy, but dispite what you think, you still can run the type of army you want and still win with it, you more than likely just CBF, cause its easier to whine.

I Didnt need to buy anything different when the new codex came out to make a legal army, and my army actually got cheeper, thats not to say I didnt need to convert a few things to get what I wanted.


The units I had mostly got cheeper or better, and I have now converted up some nice new additions.

My army generally runs around a shooty hoard theme backed up by 1 or maby 2 MC's. I use 0 hive gaurd and 0 trygons in any of my lists and in my area they still do exceedingly well. (I generally see a nice varity of lists that include green wall, mech gaurd or mech BA's, footeldar, mecheldar, trukkboyz, salamanders, ect)

I didnt vote great because of the lack of bits required to make the models I want, Im still waiting on trying to trade with my friends some boneswords/lashwips and stacks of adrenal glands and toxin sacs (although I really only need about 3 boneswords and 2 lash whips to finnish my 1k list with no proxys).

My enjoyment level per game didnt decrease and Im fairly sure the enjoyment level per game for my opponents is much higher.

Therefore I can only devise that this book is good.

In summery:
My list didnt really change too much from 4th to 5th.

I didnt need to buy any new models to make a legal army between 4th and 5th.

The fluff (about the battles mainly) seemed way better and fleshed out than the 4th ed book (or even the 2nd ed book which some people seem to think the fluff is like spielburg or somthing, but ITS TERRIBLE)

My enjoyment factor wasnt affected, My opponents enjoyment factor seems higher.

EDIT: I would probably even go as far as to say that the flaws your talking about are also not actually flaws. You get this percived Idea of what makes a good unit and what makes a bad unit based on its stats, sorry to say it doesnt work that way. But then again, who am I, My opinion certainly doesnt matter, even though I regularly use the units classified as crap and get results with them. Hmmm yeah, that must be my problem.......

Razhem
16-02-2011, 22:13
I voted good, Im a nid Player, Im probably considered a fanboy, but dispite what you think, you still can run the type of army you want and still win with it, you more than likely just CBF, cause its easier to whine.

I Didnt need to buy anything different when the new codex came out to make a legal army, and my army actually got cheeper, thats not to say I didnt need to convert a few things to get what I wanted.


The units I had mostly got cheeper or better, and I have now converted up some nice new additions.

My army generally runs around a shooty hoard theme backed up by 1 or maby 2 MC's. I use 0 hive gaurd and 0 trygons in any of my lists and in my area they still do exceedingly well. (I generally see a nice varity of lists that include green wall, mech gaurd or mech BA's, footeldar, mecheldar, trukkboyz, salamanders, ect)

I didnt vote great because of the lack of bits required to make the models I want, Im still waiting on trying to trade with my friends some boneswords/lashwips and stacks of adrenal glands and toxin sacs (although I really only need about 3 boneswords and 2 lash whips to finnish my 1k list with no proxys).

My enjoyment level per game didnt decrease and Im fairly sure the enjoyment level per game for my opponents is much higher.

Therefore I can only devise that this book is good.

In summery:
My list didnt really change too much from 4th to 5th.

I didnt need to buy any new models to make a legal army between 4th and 5th.

The fluff (about the battles mainly) seemed way better and fleshed out than the 4th ed book (or even the 2nd ed book which some people seem to think the fluff is like spielburg or somthing, but ITS TERRIBLE)

My enjoyment factor wasnt affected, My opponents enjoyment factor seems higher.

EDIT: I would probably even go as far as to say that the flaws your talking about are also not actually flaws. You get this percived Idea of what makes a good unit and what makes a bad unit based on its stats, sorry to say it doesnt work that way. But then again, who am I, My opinion certainly doesnt matter, even though I regularly use the units classified as crap and get results with them. Hmmm yeah, that must be my problem.......

That or your local scene is crap, just saying.

MasterDecoy
17-02-2011, 00:21
That or your local scene is crap, just saying.

Ill need you to define crap.

Cause to the best of my knowladge we all have fun, we have a wide varity of armys that oppose us, and we dont play to lose.


If your definition of good is seeing carbon copy armys of whatever codex was released last (or is considered most OP) than I really feel sorry for you.

We generally buy units we think look cool or like the fluff off best, then learn how to use them the most efficently.

No one player at our club dominates the scene and is considered unbeatable (aye, some may be tougher than others, but Id say the curve is about equal).

Paedan
17-02-2011, 00:41
@MasterDecoy Ok, but if you look at the statistics (I also did a survey myself, you can find all related threads in the Warseer Forums) the vast majority of Tyranid Players aren't happy, and for good reason. The results in the OP poll are actually generous. If you think the current codex is good, then I'm happy for you.

But I've already shown statistically that an overwhelming amount of material/units in this codex is sub-par. Yes, it is possible to field a competitive and/or fun Tyranid army with a sub-par codex. The problem is that we shouldn't have to put up with it.

Just out of curiosity, what does your list look like, and how many points? My eyes just pop when I see 0 Hive Guard and 0 Trygons.

Notanoob
17-02-2011, 00:43
Ill need you to define crap.

Cause to the best of my knowladge we all have fun, we have a wide varity of armys that oppose us, and we dont play to lose.


If your definition of good is seeing carbon copy armys of whatever codex was released last (or is considered most OP) than I really feel sorry for you.

We generally buy units we think look cool or like the fluff off best, then learn how to use them the most efficently.

No one player at our club dominates the scene and is considered unbeatable (aye, some may be tougher than others, but Id say the curve is about equal).What he meant by crap was not tourney lists/ultra-competitive stuff, and that seems to be what you've said. I would love to have a softer LGS like yours, but if you're playing with fluffy bunnies than the deficiencies in our army list don't seem so bad. So yeah, using you as a barometer isn't perfect.

However, I'd like to ask what you ran in 4th ed, because all of the usual choices (Flyrants, Boomfexes, Sniperfexes, fexes at all, shooty warriors, spinegaunts, Feeder Tendril Genestealers, supper-stealers) got worse.

Finally, anyone going off about 2nd ed fluff is probably just nostalgia'ing about something kooky that got changed or made more grimdark, 3rd/4th ed is where it's at for more serious fluff.

MasterDecoy
17-02-2011, 06:01
My new standard 1k list runs:
A prime with 2 boneswords, spitter and adrenal glands
3 Bonesword lashwip warriors with spitters and toxin sacs
2x12 fleshgants with toxin sacs
2x 1 zoans
venomthrope
tyrannofex with rupture cannon, cluster spines, dessicator larvae
3 biovores

My old list used to use (cant remeber exactly, it was a while ago)
4 units of 8 WoN fleshgants
Tyrant with Bonesword and lashwhip
3 zoans
2 biovores with acid mines
Filler units

Our average games are between 1k and 2k
after 1k I just add in units I like and increase unit sizes.

We also hold a monthly 1k tournement that regualy sees between 8 and 16 people (the prize is the $10 entry fee's in a pool).

alphastealer
17-02-2011, 07:54
What concerns me is that while a tyranid army is playable and even slightly competative in the hands of a skilled general, it is by no means a good choice for a new player or even a mediocre player to choose.

There is a distinct lack of good options which makes the competative builds quite similar, sort of like a fantasy dwarf army.

The 5th ed codexes all seem to have perfect options to counter nids without trying too hard, thinks like mass poison and AP2 lances (DE), JAWS and split fire missile launchers, (SW), mass ordinanace, free shots at deep strikers, fast flyers with lascannons, h/bolters, mass AV12 transports (IG), fast transports and gun tanks, mephiston (who makes everything short of a swarmlord die), lots of FNP (BA).

Even orks, who were the first 5th ed codex have 3 attack boyz at 6pts!
Claws and teeth in the nid codex counts as a single base attack...come on..nobody worries about a marine biting them in cc and they get 1 base attack, the gaunts have 2 sets of limbs and teeth, surely they will try to claw AND bite their enemies?

Tyranids are only really competative against older codexes, and there lies the rub. Every codex being brought out now makes us drop another level on the ladder, it is only a matter of time until we are at the bottom. The same cannot be said of other 5th ed releases who seem to be well balanced against each other.

Ulrig
17-02-2011, 08:23
It should be noted that we are not voting on a poll of the army, but of the codex of said army.

So, when you take a long hard look at rules, point values, stats, fluff, synergy

how does it make you vote

A great vote for example,
"Wow....Cruddace really took his time and put out a great product, and this product was heavily peer reviewed and play tested, It could not possibly be better balanced and this codex will last for years to come"

A terrible vote for example,
"What the ******* was Cruddace smoking when he sloppily put this waste of toilet paper together. Synergy doesnt work, point values dont add up with the stats, A good amount of rules just simply do not work when applied in a real game. Did anybody even play test any of these horrendous rules"

Another thing, a codex does not half to be all emperor smashing powerful like blood angels or space wolves to be good. How good the army performs has little to do with the rating of a codex. I would say for example the space wolves codex is bad even though they do very well in tournaments. The army is generally considered overpowered and broken, that is why it is a bad codex imo.

Paedan
17-02-2011, 08:55
But doesn't it seem that all the 5th Edition Codexes out are better than the Tyranid's Codex, and not just by a bit? As Alphastealer put it, the Tyranids are falling down the ladder one rung at a time due to "power creep". When the 5th Edition Grey Knights hit the shelves in the next few months, I can bet you anything that they'll be on top of the Tyranids too.

It so sad (but true) that our 5th Edition Tyranids Codex is only competitive against older Codexes. It's like we have to pick on players with "Old Codex Syndrome", then get beaten up in return due to "Crap Codex Syndrome".

I would ask for some amendments/improvements to bring them back up a few rungs on par with the other updated 5th Edition Codexes. Nobody wants Emperor smashing powerful here, just something on par with the rest of the updated armies.

easternheretic
17-02-2011, 09:34
Nid player here. Like most out there, it is a flawed Codex. I voted average.

From a purely gaming point of view, it is decent enough, you can easily build a competitive list.

From a background translating into game wise point of view, it is bad. They've changed some things that did not need changing, removed some options that should not have been removed, and the FAQ further limited the builds. All very strange, and all counter intuitive to the background that they created as the blue print of the army.
Just a few examples here.
-Why are there no options for flesh hooks (frag grenades) for the designated assault units (stealer), but equivalents available to the oddest of units (Harpy)? :wtf:
-Why change the warriors ability for taking mixed weapons, to all must be armed the same?

From a integration with the entire game system point of view, it is bad as well.
Just a few examples here.
-The option to build a number of lists that can function (I don't even mean competitive here) is limited.
-The claim to stream line the armoury because it confused non nid players only holds true to this codex. Subsequent newer releases in codex have equally confusing armourys with odd names, but no need to stream line?
-Many codexes have eternal warrior or invuln saves liberally strewn throughout various entries, but very few entries are in the nid dex have these rules. Must be some odd conversations and justifications to not include, even though purely from a game balance point of view, these options must be in all codexes.

The whole thing smacks of a rushed job, and last minute changes. Not properly play tested and an overall mess. A friend of mine said that the 5th ed nid dex was actually quite different from what was finally released. According to him, the codex was modified half way due to the higher ups not happy with dex as they believe it to be overpowered. I sometimes wonder if he's right, as Cruddance last effort in 40K is the overpowered IG codex. His grapevine? A friend working in the art department of GW.

Overall, I'm actually not displeased:rolleyes:;), a boat load of new models to collect and paint can't be all bad, even if some are useless games wise. An average dex pushes me to work harder for the win when gaming. I rather enjoy the effort, I'm pleased even if I go down swinging. Which happens to me a fair bit as I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Cheers!

ehlijen
17-02-2011, 10:57
easternheretic:

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just throwing out what may possibly the reasons for those things you list.

Fleshhooks: Against all or mostly stealer armies, opponents tended to never bother with cover as it gave no advantage in previous editions. All it did was slow them down while trying to step back/into RF range and leave the stealers in cover to their shooting after they killed a unit, so it was better not to sit in cover. Now it does give direct benefits to the defensive unit against stealers.
As for fleshhools, I guess they wanted to keep them, but only for units that would actually credibly do the whole spear-and-pull-away thing (lictors, flying monsters...). The carnifex kept them because it apparently is designed to batter through cover as if it wasn't there.

Mixed warriors: GW learned from the fiasco that is wound allocation on Nobz?

EW and Invul saves. Nid's have been traditionally underequipped with invul saves for a most of their existance. The regeneration biomorph is meant to take that place, though I agree that it's not as powerful. EW isn't really needed with most multiwound nids being T5 or higher and ID thus being difficult to achieve. Warriors suffer, true, but they should never have been immune. Tau battlesuits are great without EW, as are Ork Nobz, and those are even flimsier than warriors.

DarkstarSabre
17-02-2011, 11:12
Tau battlesuits are great without EW, as are Ork Nobz, and those are even flimsier than warriors.

Tau Battlesuits - 3+ save and ability to take 4+ invuln Shield Drones. Oh, and jet packs too.
Ork Nobz - Ability to take a Painboy in the Mob, transport options.

Both Tau Battlesuits and Ork Nobz are faster and more maneuverable than Tyranid Warriors. They are also not as 'key' to the army's survival as your Tyranid Warrior tends to be. If the last battlesuit or Nob dies there's no chance it's going to cause the rest of the units around it to go out of control.

Aluinn
17-02-2011, 11:12
In terms of the power level of the book as a whole, I'm voting "average". That may be misleading, though, because there are certainly a couple of builds that I find very scary; it's just that there are also builds which are, on the other hand, almost laughably bad, and finding the strong ones doesn't seem all that intuitive even for long-time 'Nid players.

So I think the problems with it are essentially counterintuitiveness and pretty terrible internal balance, but those don't make it a "bad" codex by every metric. By some standards (i.e. how competitive a list can be built with it, if optimized) I would say it is solid, only being really put to shame by armies and builds that I would judge to be overpowered. My criticism is more that it is poorly-written, rules-wise, but not in the sense of being weak all-around, and for all that, there are plenty of enjoyable games to be had with 'Nid armies.

(I am a non-'Nid player, by the way.)

Dux
17-02-2011, 11:14
No Nid player:
I voted average.
Internal balance is bad (but many codexes have problems here, even Guard).
But there are still lists that do really good.

In our gaming area, everybody has his 2k army he fields against every enemy (2 Guard, 1 Wolves, 1 DE, 1 Necron, 2 SM, 1 Templar, 1 Nid, 1 Ork).
Most of the time the games are quite balanced. Sometimes the Nid player roflstomps his enemy sometimes he gets roflstomped by the same army. 40K is still about dice.

ehlijen
17-02-2011, 11:49
Tau Battlesuits - 3+ save and ability to take 4+ invuln Shield Drones. Oh, and jet packs too.
Ork Nobz - Ability to take a Painboy in the Mob, transport options.

Both Tau Battlesuits and Ork Nobz are faster and more maneuverable than Tyranid Warriors. They are also not as 'key' to the army's survival as your Tyranid Warrior tends to be. If the last battlesuit or Nob dies there's no chance it's going to cause the rest of the units around it to go out of control.

But both have less wounds. And battlesuits are quite 'key'. If they're gone, most of the Tau armies' specialist firepower is gone as well.

And neither can achieve the same overall power at range and melee as warriors. And they aren't scoring.

Warriors are plenty tough and killy for their points. Sure ID kills them. It's what ID is meant to do and will do to many other units as well.

Reflex
17-02-2011, 12:49
to be honest, i feel the codex is average... I dont play nids and i dont get to play nids. this is what makes me feel it is average. I used to love playing against nids, they were always good fun, but know I dont see any armies so I feel that the codex must be somewhat average if people dont wish to play it.

Im not interested in buying/buidling bugs, Im simply saying im disapointed that others who like bugs dont play them, which I feel is the fault of the codex.

Paedan
17-02-2011, 12:52
I don't know about comparing to Tau and Ork units, as they haven't been updated to 5th Edition yet....

With the way things are going now, I wouldn't be surprised if both Tau and Ork Codexes end up better than the Tyranids Codex. It's like the Tyranids Codex is the "don't do it like this" Codex for 5th Edition.

Ventus
17-02-2011, 14:57
The nid dex is a bad codex. I cant see how anyone could vote good or great. Forget that there are strong units and strong builds can be made and games can be won. The book has so many problems as others have mentioned that it cannot stand up to the other 5E dexes with equal generals. If the nid dex is a good dex - what would you consider a bad dex to be????

nedius
17-02-2011, 16:47
I'm a 'nid player who selected average.

This is because the codex is not devoid of all worth.

Tervigons are a strong unit (I just don't like them), Gargoyles are amazing for their points (possibly one of the best point for point units in the game), trygons are great. Hive guard are also very good.

Using these units, you can make an ok army. So it's not bad, becuase you can make a good army with it.

However, it has enough bad units to make sure that I couldn't say this is a good codex. It certainly has many more problems that any new dex; poorly written rules, bad units, overly obvious 'buy the new thing instead' nerfs (cough... carnifex...). When each of the other 5th Ed codexes came out, people lept on the "OMG this is so overpowered!!" bandwagon. When nid's came out everyone jumped on the "It's not as bad as the nid players are saying" bandwagon - a complete reversal.

Over a year later, there as STILL threads complaining about how bad the dex is. Most of the "OMG so overpowered threads" have died off as most people have found counters to the overpowered units, or don't think they are so bad afterall. Nid's? People are still unhappy.

Because of this, it CANNOT be a good codex. It's not entreily unplayable, so it's not bad.

However, as I've said before, 'average' is now well below par. If I get my performance at work assessed as average, that is considered a bad thing, and I'd have to go to meetings to discuss improving my performance.

I really hope that there have been some meetings in GW-HQ reviewing the codex and it's success and that they have taken a very hard look at the responce it recieved. I even think that the delay in getting an FAQ out, and that a year on there is still no strong signal of a 2nd wave (when other codexes that came out after have had a second or even third wave...) is indicative of a decision to give the nid's a 'cooling off' period before they try to market them again. If the codex had been well recieved, I think 2nd waves would have been hurried along to make the most of strong demand.

So, not a total loss - but certainly not good.

Torpedo Vegas
17-02-2011, 16:57
I don't play nids as a regular army, but am using a friend's army for a bit, and I have to say, the nid book is very solid, I don't understand what a lot of the hate is over. Lots of solid build options. It may sound odd, but I think that Tyranids are a finesse army. Every unit has its place, and if used in conjunction with each other, giving mutual support, they can be unstoppable.


the fluff is lacking but then again, how do you give character to a completely alien race that doesn't think like any known organism? They could have played up the cosmic horror aspect, but that may take away from the Necrons theme.

Bonzai
17-02-2011, 19:02
I voted bad. While in terms of power, I would say that it is about on par with C:SM's minus Vulkan. But the codex it's self, especially post FAQ is fairly badly done.

1. Fluff... enough said.

2. Internal Balance?
There are some obvious stand out choices in the codex (Trygons, Tervigons, etc..) and there are some stinkers (Pyrovores, Carnefex, etc..). Then there are the things that make you scratch your head and wondder what the heck they were thinking. Same goes with upgrades.

3. External Balance?
The FAQ put a real kink in this department. Things that are a given in other codex'es, are inexplicably nerfed in this one.

Over all, I can't give them a passing grade on this one. To many issues all around.

Dreachon
17-02-2011, 21:57
The nid dex is a bad codex. I cant see how anyone could vote good or great. Forget that there are strong units and strong builds can be made and games can be won. The book has so many problems as others have mentioned that it cannot stand up to the other 5E dexes with equal generals. If the nid dex is a good dex - what would you consider a bad dex to be????

I have to agree, if I were to produce a product with so many meh and WTF points in it I would called to my chef's office and better have a damn explanation as to why the product is not according to established tolerances.
I will be forced to make the product again in my own time and it better be right this time or I'm out.

TheMav80
17-02-2011, 22:25
I find the Fluff argument moot.

Not because it doesn't matter, but because the fluff in all the new books has been Average to Horrible.

The units aren't as bad as everyone says either. Well, barring the Pyrovore. I'm not really seeing a plethora of horrible units. Not any more than any other book at least. When was the last time you saw Space Wolves use Blood Claws, Sky Claws, or Bikes?

Paedan
18-02-2011, 00:01
Wow, there are lots of participants here who obviously care about the Tyranids Codex... could I ask you all to participate in some data collection and R&D I'm doing?

If interested please following these threads from beginning to end in order:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292660
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292789
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292843
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293642
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293915

We are currently up to the 5th thread, which is the 2nd Draft. Your responses would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, and cheers!

noobzor
18-02-2011, 00:36
as an eldar player who faces nids pretty regularly and part of a nid team going to adepticon I vote great.

Fluff in general has gotten stupider over the years so I don't really pay attention to it. All I care about is that there are bugs attacking me anyways.

Yeah, the internal balance is bad, but what codex has good balance? Mine sure doesn't.

At the end of the day it has some units that have some pretty cool rules, but it is unfortunate that some others get pushed to the sidelines. That's GW for you.

Notanoob
18-02-2011, 01:13
as an eldar player who faces nids pretty regularly and part of a nid team going to adepticon I vote great.

Fluff in general has gotten stupider over the years so I don't really pay attention to it. All I care about is that there are bugs attacking me anyways.

Yeah, the internal balance is bad, but what codex has good balance? Mine sure doesn't.

At the end of the day it has some units that have some pretty cool rules, but it is unfortunate that some others get pushed to the sidelines. That's GW for you.
That's the most rediculous post I've read. So nids are great because their fluff is so bad you ignore it and it's got obvious internal balance issues to people who don't even play the army? Just because you've got a 4th ed dex doesn't mean you've got to hold ours to a crappy standard. If anything, you saying that it's problems are universal means that you should have voted average.

Seriously, what are you thinking?

TheMav80
18-02-2011, 02:26
He is saying (as I did) that the writing in all the codexes has gotten bad. I'm sure you noticed all the hate from Space Marines and Blood Angels in particular.

I don't play lots of armies, that doesn't mean I can't look at units in a codex and know that they aren't as great as other entries. It isn't rocket science.

I think the Tyranids are just as good as every other 5th edition book.

Paedan
18-02-2011, 04:29
as an eldar player who faces nids pretty regularly and part of a nid team going to adepticon I vote great.

Fluff in general has gotten stupider over the years so I don't really pay attention to it. All I care about is that there are bugs attacking me anyways.

Yeah, the internal balance is bad, but what codex has good balance? Mine sure doesn't.

At the end of the day it has some units that have some pretty cool rules, but it is unfortunate that some others get pushed to the sidelines. That's GW for you.

I play Eldar as well, and I can tell you that there is something wrong if a 4th Edition Eldar book was done better than a 5th Edition Tyranids book. Codex quality should get better, not worse!

Put yourself in the shoes of a Tyranid player/collector. What if the 5th Edition Codex for the Eldar comes out next year but has the same problems as the Tyranids Codex 'updated' from 4th to 5th Edition? Would you turn a blind eye to the problem? Sweep it under the rug? Sell your Eldar collection?

Didn't think so.

Paedan
18-02-2011, 04:31
I think the Tyranids are just as good as every other 5th edition book.

Look at all the polls and surveys. I don't think that is true at all. Look at the Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard.

fantasypisces
18-02-2011, 09:35
I think the Tyranids are just as good as every other 5th edition book.

Really? Because I would take Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and even Dark Eldar (which are not necessarily an overpowered army, but it is a very well balanced army) over nids any day.

I was thinking about starting nids (and I still might, debating between them or an empire fantasy army), and only after skimming through the book I noticed a plethora of units I would never use. I'm not talking about just not use in competitive builds, I'm talking never even bother buying the models.

Someone earlier mentioned how often do Space Wolves take blood claws, etc etc. In a competitive build, never, but every book has models that are not competitive. But how many armies have units that are just so bad, so terrible, that a player would never under any circumstances consider getting them? I can think of very few things. Nids on the other hand have quite a few, so many it is actually upsetting.

Now I liked the idea of warriors and ravenors, and I tried very hard to fit them into a list I was thinking of (to see what I would need to collect when I start the army), but the ID problem was just to much a liability for the unit.

Someone said ID is a fact of life in the game, and that's true. But 90% of things in the game that can ID'ed are either one wound troopers, whoopdie do, IC's which hide in units, or other elite infantry such as nobs and such. But most of those elite infantry, especially the ones with multiple wounds, will generally have some type of protection from ID. Whether a better armor save, invulnerable save, etc. Warriors and Ravenors do not.

And that's just one example (truthfully, the one I'm most bitter about).

So essentially, I'm a non-nid player and I voted bad. There are a few builds that can work, but unless your a terrific player who knows every army inside and out (and I know a few of them who have won some cons with nids, they were actually the ones I talked about the nid book with) then good luck...

Paedan
18-02-2011, 11:06
@fantasypisces *Applause*... and I bet we'll be adding Grey Knights to that list soon.

I feel that the current Nids book is so bad compared to the others (it's like all the others are cloud high, and the Nids are stuck on the groud) that it should get an amendment/improvement done ASAP.

TheMav80
18-02-2011, 15:56
Really? Because I would take Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and even Dark Eldar (which are not necessarily an overpowered army, but it is a very well balanced army) over nids any day.

I was thinking about starting nids (and I still might, debating between them or an empire fantasy army), and only after skimming through the book I noticed a plethora of units I would never use. I'm not talking about just not use in competitive builds, I'm talking never even bother buying the models.

Someone earlier mentioned how often do Space Wolves take blood claws, etc etc. In a competitive build, never, but every book has models that are not competitive. But how many armies have units that are just so bad, so terrible, that a player would never under any circumstances consider getting them? I can think of very few things. Nids on the other hand have quite a few, so many it is actually upsetting.

Now I liked the idea of warriors and ravenors, and I tried very hard to fit them into a list I was thinking of (to see what I would need to collect when I start the army), but the ID problem was just to much a liability for the unit.

Someone said ID is a fact of life in the game, and that's true. But 90% of things in the game that can ID'ed are either one wound troopers, whoopdie do, IC's which hide in units, or other elite infantry such as nobs and such. But most of those elite infantry, especially the ones with multiple wounds, will generally have some type of protection from ID. Whether a better armor save, invulnerable save, etc. Warriors and Ravenors do not.

And that's just one example (truthfully, the one I'm most bitter about).

So essentially, I'm a non-nid player and I voted bad. There are a few builds that can work, but unless your a terrific player who knows every army inside and out (and I know a few of them who have won some cons with nids, they were actually the ones I talked about the nid book with) then good luck...

Polls on Warseer? Sorry, I don't put much stock in those. I've seen plenty of discussion around and army lists with battle reports that Tyranids are not as bad as people on here think. I also own the book and have read through it several times (Nids might be my next army...still need to finish those Orks though...) and played against it a few times.

In a properly built army, Warriors being able to be ID'd is not that big of a deal. There should be enough threatening monstrous creatures on the board that your opponent would rather shoot his/her S8+ weapons at them.

Summation: Nids are not as bad as Warseer would have you believe and SW and IG aren't as good.

doomspittle
18-02-2011, 16:44
It doesn't help when half the competitive choices haven't even got models. Just shows really GW lack of support for anything but marines.

Torpedo Vegas
18-02-2011, 16:54
Look at all the polls and surveys. I don't think that is true at all. Look at the Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard.

I know that IG are a very powerful army, almost an easy button, but are you suggesting that DE are OP? Really? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

To contribute to the topic, I have to say that the fluff is really lacking. I wouldn't say "bad" but just not there. It all basically comes down to "Hive Fleet X did horrendous damage to X worlds, but was eventually destroyed." The only fleet that I think was given above average fluff was Jorgamundr (not sure if I spelled it right.)

Ironfather0
18-02-2011, 17:10
As a tyranid player i believe that the book is average leaning to poor. Don't get me wrong it is possible to win with it, i've done it plenty of times. However the book is poorly written. I understand that all the 5th ed codex have been lacking options and customization of units, however i believe tyranids are the one army that should be the exception to that rule. Tyranids have always been about the customization of units with biomorphs. and in this dex the only two that are really available are sacs and adrenal glands which IMO isn't enough to customize your 'nid army. and lets not forget the useless options. I can take a twinlinked devourers on a carnifex for 15 points or a death spitter which is much weaker for the same cost :wtf:

kaimarion
18-02-2011, 17:25
Nid player.

I voted 'bad'. It works despite itself. Poorly written, feels rushed as if the writers didn't really care what worked and what didn't. The arbitary FAQ didn't help much, either.

What he said, it's certainly not a weak book but IMHO it is a horribly bland book, they done this to CSM's as well.



Kaimarion out.

Ulrig
18-02-2011, 18:01
If this book is "good", then what are "bad"?
Some wins here and there tournament scene means nothing.
Of course there are some viable builds.
Of course the book still looks like a half ass rush job.

TheMav80
18-02-2011, 18:19
If this book is "good", then what are "bad"?
Some wins here and there tournament scene means nothing.
Of course there are some viable builds.
Of course the book still looks like a half ass rush job.

I don't think there has been a "bad" book since 5th.

I would consider the Dark Eldar book to be the best they have ever written for sure, but I don't think any of the others are bad.

Telki
18-02-2011, 18:49
I picked up Nids to play an army with huge numbers.

Now I have to field monstrous creatures or else I might as well not try.

Also, the nerf to the Lictor and it not being able to assault out of deepstrike made it utterly useless.

Notanoob
18-02-2011, 19:20
I know that IG are a very powerful army, almost an easy button, but are you suggesting that DE are OP? Really? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

To contribute to the topic, I have to say that the fluff is really lacking. I wouldn't say "bad" but just not there. It all basically comes down to "Hive Fleet X did horrendous damage to X worlds, but was eventually destroyed." The only fleet that I think was given above average fluff was Jorgamundr (not sure if I spelled it right.)
I think that what he means is that those are the best two books in 5th yet, DE being extremely well balanced and Guard being able to play all sorts of lists successfully.

fantasypisces
18-02-2011, 19:40
I should have clarified (I don't want to edit an older post)... Tyranids are "bad" compared to all the other books that have come out in 5th.

I still say the same thing about beastmen... when they were released people thought "wow, that's not that great, maybe they were built with 8th in mind?" Then 8th rolled around the corner and the response was "well, they got a bit better, but so did everyone else".

There always seems to be one book that just doesn't get the same attention as other books when it comes to rule designs. Unfortunately it went to the tyranids.

I also like Ulrig's response, if this books is "good" then what is "bad"... heck for those that consider this book "average" what is considered "bad"?

I just felt the tyranid book had a lot of stuff that was overlooked. Expensive warriors/shrikes/ravenors that get ID'ed. Lictors not being able to assault when they turn up, changing flesh hooks, putting hive guard AND zoanthropes into elites, carnifexes and tyrannofexes being way too expensive (the latter may be more my opinion), Hive tyrant basically needing tyrant guard in order to survive two turns (unless you go flying route), tyranid primes not being able to join a brood of warriors in a drop spore, shadow in the warp not working in vehicles (but psychic hoods do), the strongest gun randomly having a -2 on vehicle damage chart (even though tyranid players pay the same price for the strength that another army with a comparable gun would).

I mean I could go on, something I can't really do with other codexes.
Is the army fun, yes I imagine the army could be a lot of fun, but fun does not equate to balance which is what this discussion is about.

And I feel the tyranid book is not balanced to other books previously listed, and certainly not balanced within itself.

Just to reiterate, all my discussion is based around solely books released in 5th, not older edition books ala Witch Hunters, Tau, Dark Angels, etc.

ghoulio
18-02-2011, 20:14
Here are a couple of examples of why I greatly dislike this book and why I feel it is so flawed, so here it goes!

1) There are only 2 units in the book with Frag Grenades. One of them is initiative 1, and the other just shows up and does nothing the turn it arrives and is generally though of as one of the worst units in the codex aka Lictors. Why oh why couldnt Genestealers get frag grenades? I understand stripping hormies down so they are super cheap but THE premiere assault unit in the game? Really?

2) There are only 3 units in the codex with BS 4. One has no eyes, one has no ranged weapons and no ability to get ranged weapons and the last has only psychic powers and NONE of them is the most evolved unit in the book, the Hive Tyrant.

3) We are the only codex in the game with a SHOOTING psychic power that you have to shoot at your own unit. So if you cast it you cant assault that turn (onslaught from the tervigon). Why? Why isnt this just a regular power?

These are just 3 of the many many examples of why this codex is poor. I, like many long time Nid players dislike this codex not because I cant win with it but because it is incredibly rushed, horribly written and has the worst internal balance I have seen in any GW product. Nid moaning will get substantially worse once the Grey Knight book has come out. For some reason they get an MC with WS5, Str 7, T7, W4 and a 2+/4++ save and two guns for 130pts...but we get something that has worse stats in almost every category, no invuln save for a 160pts with NO guns (DE also got this in regards to the talos, only 100pts). With each new marine book that comes out I am finding my interest in 40k vanishing. I started picking up fantasy models only because there is no marine army in the game.

MasterDecoy
18-02-2011, 20:47
The gaurd book in my opinion isa bad codex.

Every game I have played against them left me uninspired and thoughrly unentertained.

The book has worse internal balence than the nid book, I have to date only seen about 3 varients (to the 6 or 7 nid variants ive seen) across at least half a dozen players. (2 of which are mech varients), the units that are good are only good because they are horribly undercosted. (which fyi is why the trygon is considered good, its not that the carnifex is too expensive, the trygon is just too cheap)

Finnaly playing against gaurd for me is a matter of going through the motions, its not that I cant beat them, they are very beatable, the games are just so predictable.

The carnifex is probably appropriatly costed and on par with a dreadnaught or killer kan, you just seem cut that it's not a cut above the rest.

MasterDecoy
18-02-2011, 20:48
The gaurd book in my opinion isa bad codex.

Every game I have played against them left me uninspired and thoughrly unentertained.

The book has worse internal balence than the nid book, I have to date only seen about 3 varients (to the 6 or 7 nid variants ive seen) across at least half a dozen players. (2 of which are mech varients), the units that are good are only good because they are horribly undercosted. (which fyi is why the trygon is considered good, its not that the carnifex is too expensive, the trygon is just too cheap)

Finnaly playing against gaurd for me is a matter of going through the motions, its not that I cant beat them, they are very beatable, the games are just so predictable.

The carnifex is probably appropriatly costed and on par with a dreadnaught or killer kan, you just seem cut that it's not a cut above the rest.

Archibald_TK
18-02-2011, 21:34
I think the Tyranids are just as good as every other 5th edition book.
Everybody has his own standard to judge a book. By mine I rate the 5th Edition Codexes from the best to worst: Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Tyranids. Isn't that interesting? Because if you ask me what Codex can do the most powerful army, the one that can fight against basically everything on equal term without having glaring Achilles heels, I will tell you IG and SW, the two books that would be the worst in my eyes save for the Tyranids. Those who value higher the ability to produce the most powerful list possible and those who value higher fluff and storytelling will have different ratings from mine.

The Tyranid Codex to me exemplify mediocrity in game design, it takes the mistakes of the IG one and amplify them (Both are from the same author). On the other hand DE are an evolution, they correct a lot of the mistakes made with the SW (both are also from the same author).

When I compare two books and between other things one has less internal balance problems, or point pricing, ineffective rules, redundant units, FoC overload issues, allows more build variety, or has an identity that sets it apart from other similar Codexes then it is the better book. I will not be politically correct toward a bunch of inanimate paper pages, they are not equal in my eye, too bad for one of them.

TheMav80
18-02-2011, 21:58
Those marine books don't fit any of your criteria! Space Wolves and Blood Angels in no way have "an identity that sets it apart from other similar Codexes".

No one takes Chapter Masters, Chaplains, TechMarines (including the Thunderfire), Assault Marines (or Tacticals if you are BA), Vanguard Veterans (unless you are BA). Venerable Dreads are not worth the points. Standard Land Raider is not worth the points. No one takes Demolishers. Tactical Terminators are grossly overshadowed by Assault Terminators. No one takes Vanilla Devastators because they are overcosted. No one takes Legion of the Damned or Death Company. Blood Claws are left at home if you are playing Space Wolves.

All the books have bad internal balance. The Guard one only looks worse because it has so many entries in the first place.

The DA is, I agree, exemplary. The only units I can think of that are overshadowed are Mandrakes and Wracks (or it might be grotesques...I can't ever remember which is which).

DragonManlol
18-02-2011, 22:45
I think the tyranid book has good and bad parts. The good parts include the army builts (e.g. swarm, flank, combat beasts or surprisingly gunny) however some units (mainly the pyrovore which has to get close even thought it is bad in close combat to do anything and blows up in your face) are pointless.
The fluff is good for saying how the tyranids got there name as well as showing their activites during the history of 40K, however I don't like the way they overpower them by saying things like unless all races work together the tyranids will wipe them out, that ruins the feel of a gridlock war I understand the 40k universe to be in. On the whole I liked it thought.

DragonManlol
18-02-2011, 22:50
Those marine books don't fit any of your criteria! Space Wolves and Blood Angels in no way have "an identity that sets it apart from other similar Codexes".

Spacewolves and blood angels both have mutations that course them to work differently to codex marines, even codex chapters are different to each other more so for the sons of different primarchs.

Besides sw have more charater:evilgrin:

TheMav80
18-02-2011, 23:41
The difference between how Space Wolves and Blood Angels and Dark Angels and Vanilla Marines fight are insignificant compared to the differences between all the other books.

Vaktathi
18-02-2011, 23:48
Indeed. Look at the differences between Blood Angels and C:SM. They outright share 80% of their units.

80% of their units are identical. That's a rather impressive indicator right there.

Between the two books, there are only three units that are not shared or variants on something else, not counting Special Characters. These three are Sanguinary Guard (even these are still rather close to Vanguard Vets/Honor Guard), Stormravens, and Thunderfire Cannons. Everything else has an equivalent or very close proxy (e.g. Ironclads and Furioso's).

That's it. Three units are truly unique if you want to include Sanguinary Guard as not being Honor Guard with Jump Packs. And Stormravens & TFC's are unique simply for the sake of being unique. Who wants to bet that at least one if not both of these see expanded access in 6E?

Paedan
19-02-2011, 00:40
I think that what he means is that those are the best two books in 5th yet, DE being extremely well balanced and Guard being able to play all sorts of lists successfully.

Yes, that's what I meant. Was I not clear enough? Look at the Tyranids Codex.... it's not balanced at all, and doesn't offer that many different types of lists that can be fielded successfully. I mean come on, doesn't it seem wrong that almost all the Tyranid Lists fielded automatically field Hive Guard, Zoanthroapes, Tervigons (if you have your own converted model), Gargoyles and Trygons?

TheMav80
19-02-2011, 00:52
Doesn't it seem wrong that almost all the Space Wolf lists field Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Thunderwolf Cavalry (if you have your own converted models), and Longfangs?

Want me to do the rest of them too?

Bestaltan
19-02-2011, 03:02
Doesn't it seem wrong that almost all the Space Wolf lists field Wolf Guard, Grey Hunters, Thunderwolf Cavalry (if you have your own converted models), and Longfangs?


Yes, but the gigantic difference is those units are taken because they are so darn good. In the case of hive guard and zoanthropes, they are taken because there is little chance of surviving the 5th edition metagame without them.

Now don't get me wrong. Tervigons are taken because they are so darn good (I'd also make the case for the broodlord delivery system.....er.....genestealers). But even our darn good units have massive weaknesses that most other army's darn good units don't have (case in point, it's not fun to watch your 6-wound tervigon easily vaporize to a JotWW that is immune to Shadow in the warp just because the librarian sat in a car).

Also, you mentioned earlier that the Bugs aren't as bad as Warseer makes it out to be. I don't think you quite get what the big complaints are. For that, look at my sig. Very, very few Bug players here on the forums would say that you can't win with Bugs. Our complaint is that the codex is just horribly written, with horrible support from GW. Almost every complaint I see runs along the lines of horrible fluff, poor model support, obvious little internal balancing, a horrible FAQ, etc. I rarely ever see a "Tyranids can't win" complaint.

Simply put, GW screwed up the Tyranid release. Big time. And nothing supports this more in recent GW history than watching as a codex released three months AFTER us gets their second wave of models BEFORE us. :rolleyes:

TheMav80
19-02-2011, 03:19
I would agree that the internal balance is bad. I don't think I could argue otherwise. My only point is that even the books that people are considering really good have bad internal balance.

Even the books that people consider really good have bad fluff. You can't read through Warseer without tripping over someone whinging about the Space Marine fluff, for example.

I don't see JotWW as being a problem with the Nids. It is a ****** power that never should have been made and the FAQs for it make no sense. Jetbikes are effected because "technically" they are classified as bikes? Nice one. The stupid ruling on Shadow in the Warp is another one. I agree, but I'm not sure that one can be pinned on Cruddace and the codex itself.

Bestaltan
19-02-2011, 03:29
I don't see JotWW as being a problem with the Nids. It is a ****** power that never should have been made and the FAQs for it make no sense. Jetbikes are effected because "technically" they are classified as bikes? Nice one. The stupid ruling on Shadow in the Warp is another one. I agree, but I'm not sure that one can be pinned on Cruddace and the codex itself.

Jaws isn't a problem......for certain builds. A build heavy in tervigons, however, you might as well just shake the SW player's hand and say "good game".

Course, when the Grey Knights come out, we'll think fondly of the good old days of regular Jaws. :rolleyes:

Paedan
19-02-2011, 04:13
Yes, there is no problem winning with the current Tyranids Codex.... it's just that there tends to be an over-reliance on the better units (Hive Guards, Gargoyles, Trygons and Tervigons for example).... which flies in the face of good Codex design. I feel that a Codex should never be so strapped for viable/playable choices.

Personally I'm not too afraid of Jaws since my list uses mostly Monstrous Creatures with decent Initiative, the usual targets for Jaws. In my list actually the most vulnerable to Jaws are the Hive Guard and Venomthroapes.

Comrade Penguin
19-02-2011, 06:36
Tyranid player that voted bad.

It can make powerful lists, but nine times out of ten those lists will include tervigons, hivegaurd, and trygons. The new hotness completely overshadows the old hotness. And for those people who say carnifexs are great because you can take three of them, I say go play a game against them. They are laughably easy to take down or avoid. I have never had a problem dispatching my opponent's overpriced 5ed carnis.

All these things have been rehashed many times before, but there is one new thing that I have noticed that really upsets me. People used to look forward to playing bugs. Seeing tons of lil critters swarming around big bugs made for awesomely cinematic and fun games. Now people groan when you tell them you have nids. They expect you to have maxed out tervigons and trygons/mawlocs. To me, this is the worst consequence of Cruddace's mess.

azimaith
19-02-2011, 09:11
The tyranid seems to have given rise to one stupid list. Its not a bad competitive list but I don't think it matches the tyranid idiom. (The list by the way is: HT+3TG, 3-6 HG, 3 Zoanthrope, 1 Doom in a pod. 20 termas, 2 tervigons, trygon.)

That's like 34 models. Even with lots from the tervigon it typically crests at like 60. Man my list with 4th ed Tyranids started with a minimum of 60 models.

The internal balance is irritating, like they didn't even try, the background I personally don't like but that's more my opinion (narwhals.)

I think they did some cool thematic things (for example Shadow in the Warp on synaptic creatures) but overall I feel the codex is a big let down. What could have gone truly into making a very thematic tyranid style army with a couple big stompies in an overwhelming sea of little buggers has become a hackneyed netlist inducing mess that is essentially "Godzilla v2"

The codex screams "lack of effort or desire" to me. But then again, its author did the same shotgun approach with IG (make enough stuff and you'll have enough acceptable stuff to cover the absolutely horrible stuff.)

For example: Hive Tyrants. Why did they go and make them some crazy WS8 thing? Hive Tyrants are big nasty support leader type monsters. They didn't need a huge price hike much less a WS hike. Sure, they're scary in CC, but they were never supposed to be the same thing as say a daemon prince. I'd sooner have a cheaper HT with worse stats than a Daemon Prince or greater daemon than a more expensive one with stats near it.

Warriors: They could have been expanded to fill lots of neat roles, they could have made tyranid mid level shooting viable or made them cheap but easy to blow apart (2 wound, T5, 4+ or even 5+ save but numerous.) Instead they get a third wound and become more expensive?

Venomthropes: Huge possibilities here, very tyranid, great imagery, terrible execution.

Lictor: Failed yet again to make them fit their background well.

I just don't get how they can keep missing something as clearly written as the tyranid theme and background.

Can you imagine the tyranid assault on Macragge with the current set up:
"The ice was sparsely dotted with a bloated tervigon following a dozen of his tiny cousins. Occasionally it would stop to squeeze out a handful more until it burst a vessel. Behind the tervigons, a mighty hive tyrant directed his swarm of 30 minions. The ultramarines shuddered, they would be outnumbered if 90% of their force decided to go on vacation elsewhere."

nedius
19-02-2011, 15:46
Can you imagine the tyranid assault on Macragge with the current set up:
"The ice was sparsely dotted with a bloated tervigon following a dozen of his tiny cousins. Occasionally it would stop to squeeze out a handful more until it burst a vessel. Behind the tervigons, a mighty hive tyrant directed his swarm of 30 minions. The ultramarines shuddered, they would be outnumbered if 90% of their force decided to go on vacation elsewhere."

Love this SOOO much! :)

I'm not sure I've seen the 'tyranid question' summed up so appropriately.

-Loki-
20-02-2011, 09:31
My main issue with the Tervigon is it shouldn't have replaced WoN.

Hell, the Trygon tunnel makes a perfect addition to WoN - any units that are replaced can deploy through the tunnel. The Tervigon would have still made a perfect support unit if it lost its spawning ability, and had its buffing abilities affect all gaunt genus units.

Paedan
21-02-2011, 14:19
I think that it would make more sense for the Tervigon to give it's Spawned Termagaunts Adrenal Glands and Toxin Sacs permanently as soon as they are Spawned (not dependent on range), but it would not be able to "give" the ability to just any unit of Termagaunts in it's vicinity. But the problem would be keeping track of which unit of Spawned Termagaunts have what upgrades if there is more than one Tervigon fielded, that are upgraded differently.

Does that sound better or worse than what is in the Codex right now?

TheMav80
21-02-2011, 17:03
The Tervigon is way better than having WoN.

Way way better.

Starwolf
21-02-2011, 23:13
Good man following up with this OP. Nids are my second army, and they are never going to a tournament anytime soon.

Once again, nid players think it's weaker than non-nid players. That being said, I wonder if that would be the same for any army.

Paedan
22-02-2011, 10:00
Well, if you define the 'strength' of the army as it's ability to build a competitive list and win with it, then the current Tyranids Codex is fine.... problem is that there is like one or two practical builds at most, using the same Hive Guard, Gargoyle and Trygon units considered good.

More likely, you're like me, gauging the 'strength' of the army by it's versatility and balance (within the Codex itself or in between the various current 5th Edition Codexes). If you look at it this way then the Tyranids 5th Edition Codex is so **** poor that it sucks harder than a black hole (ok I know it's gravity and not sucking, but you get the idea). Many of our models are overcosted in terms of points, and if the upcoming Grey Knight's Nemesis Dreadknight is any indication, our best stuff (mostly our Monstrous Creatures) are also inferior in terms of quality as well as costing more points. Besides the Greater Daemons, the Tyranids should have the best Monstrous Creatures.... right guys?

TheMav80
22-02-2011, 16:20
You can make a competitive list without Trygons or Gargoyles. I'll grant that you pretty much need either Hive Guard or Zoanthropes for anti-tank but Tyrannofex can help with that too.

Ventus
22-02-2011, 17:07
There was no need for so many of the units. T-fexes should not exist and its role in anti-tank should have been part of the carnifex (and scrap the brood idea). Just thinking about the tervigon makes me want to puke. This creature is ridiculous and it has psychic powers that are better than most of the Hive Tyrant powers (not paroxysm of course). The swarmlord should not exist and should have been upgrades to the Hive Tyrant and the HT should have gotten 18" synapse rather than the same 12" as a warrior.

The list goes on and on with bad rules, units, points in this poorly written codex that seems very rushed and not playtested much at all. If someone working for me had handed me such a product they would have gotten a kick in the hibatchi. After a stern rebuke this product would have gone back to be redone. Was there actually an editor in GW's process to look for errors/quality control? I doubt it.

And the worst part is that GW will not take responsibility for releasing such a poor product and provide a substantial errata to fix some of the obvious problems that could be quickly corrected. No nid players will have to wait for 4+ years to get a new codex that may be just as bad. Really encourages players to keep buying the product doesn't it.

Luisjoey
22-02-2011, 20:23
still a tough bone to crush... i love nids!

TheMav80
22-02-2011, 21:28
I thought about this the other day. Say the Tyrannfex wasn't a new unit, but you could make one by buying the proper upgrades for your Carnifex.

I would place money that there would be less complaining. Even though it is the same damned thing.

Souleater
22-02-2011, 22:29
I think that can be said of several of the new nid units. Existing things were nerfed, shiny new models were made in their stead.

Zanzibarthefirst
22-02-2011, 22:41
I voted bad.
Its got to the point where i will not even use my nids. There are a few exceptionally good units like trygon primes, hive guard, tervigons and gargoyles but everything else is meh. The weapons got messed up and there is no little variety in builds

Paedan
23-02-2011, 00:00
For what it does right now the Tyrannofex is WAY overcosted.... poor guy doesn't even come with the Rupture Cannon.

DarkstarSabre
23-02-2011, 05:25
I thought about this the other day. Say the Tyrannfex wasn't a new unit, but you could make one by buying the proper upgrades for your Carnifex.

I would place money that there would be less complaining. Even though it is the same damned thing.

But the difference here is that you would then hypothetically be able to take perhaps some of those upgrades and not be lumped into taking all of them. You'd be able to customise the Carnifex to a degree.

And that's where a lot of this Codex fell down. The units that are so overpriced seem to factor in a whole bunch of things we wouldn't necessarily take and rather than giving us options to exchange them they instead charge us for anything else added on top.

Yes, a Carnifex rerolling all it's to-hit rolls is worth some amount of points. But the moment I buy any weapon I lose that - why am I still being charged for it?

Compared to the Trygon it is in fact a joke.

2 points more WS, more attacks, Fleet, the ability to Deep Strike and not scatter onto enemy as well as a respectable shooting attack and higher initiative. And more wounds. The only thing the Trygon loses out on is Strength. I'm seriously having trouble seeing where the Trygon really 'suffers' compared to the Carnifex. To get one even vaguely similar to the other you start paying through the nose.

I really would have liked to see how Cruddace worked this Codex out. I really would have. What possessed him to make some units blatantly better than others? What possessed him to ramp up the prices for the Monstrous Creatures as he did? Sure, putting Carnifexes in Broods was a clever idea. It solved the Saturation issues that the last Codex had. But ramping their price up? Seriously?

TheMav80
23-02-2011, 05:38
You could say the same for every unit that starts with a weapon and has it replaced.

I think a Carnifex with Devourers has a place in lists and the Trygon isn't an automatic include. At least not anymore so than any popular unit in any of the other books.

You can make perfectly good armies without using Trygons or Tervigons or Hive Guard. You really really can.

DarkstarSabre
23-02-2011, 05:47
You can make perfectly good armies without using Trygons or Tervigons or Hive Guard. You really really can.

No, generally you can make average armies.

And then someone shows up with one of the current power-gems of 5th edition and your army falls down on its face.

In theory you could even use Pyrovores.

Or Lictors.

Or even a brood of Carnifexes.

Just like you can use Vanguard Veterans in a SM army.

But the difference between those units and their Force Org rivals is huge. The rivals are more points effecient, more viable and generally better all round.

Sure, I could use a Carnifex with Devourers. I will say the Devourers fire more shots and are higher strength. I could even give it a Spore to DS with.

But for the same points cost I could just get a Trygon Prime. SitW, MORE shots from a better weapon with better AP, better WS, still retaining my rerolls to hit, fleet and not giving my opponent a free KP for any bored power fist or krak missile.

Just like I could take a flying Hive Tyrant and give it the ability to help my reserves and give a unit outflank.... Sure it's more mobile. But for a few points more I could get a Swarmlord which does the same but better, with more useful weapons and pulls off two psychic powers a turn.

Or better still, 2 Tyranid Primes and a brood of something to go with them.

I'm not saying you can't make lists with other units. A good player can make just about any list works.

But a good player with a mediocre list facing a good player with an excellent list....

You do the maths there.

Paedan
23-02-2011, 05:57
I agree, it's not that we can't make a list that works well (and we can argue until tomorrow but the good lists will inevitably include Hive Guards, Gargoyles and/or Trygons), the problem lies in the quality of units available to us when compared to the other 5th Edition Codexes out right now (mostly unbalanced against the Tyranids), generally overpriced, underpowered and just not much fun.

We Tyranid players shouldn't have to put up with a flawed Codex. I would really want to see what Mr. Cruddace has to say. Did the book come out exactly as he wanted it, or did it suffer from an editor's butcher knife? If you ask me it looks like the Codex got messed up by a back alley surgeon or something.

Pushing for Amendments/Improvements, playtesting now....

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293915

Angelwing
23-02-2011, 06:20
I thought about this the other day. Say the Tyrannfex wasn't a new unit, but you could make one by buying the proper upgrades for your Carnifex.

I would place money that there would be less complaining. Even though it is the same damned thing.

I think people just hate the name and a previously unknown creature being shoehorned into the background.

I say try this:
Background stuff: Many battle tank sized creatures have been seen in the vanguard of the tyranid swarms. They show much mutability and have many nicknames among the imperial guard such as malefactor and exocrines depending on their battlefield role. Most commanders refer to them as tyrannofexes.

Rule stuff: statline, but weapon options that turn them into each 'type'. So tfex + rupture cannon = exocrine. Tfex + cluster spines + acid spray = haruspex. This is in the same fashion as the 3rd and 4th ed codexes that had named examples and what internet posters do when referring to a particular set up.
This is what I do with my old armorcast models of said creatures. I'm not saying the tyrannofex entry is perfect, but it allows me to roll out these models in pick up games. :D

KarlPedder
23-02-2011, 06:46
Well Ive been looking at putting togethor a new army I was intrigued by Tyranids cause ive never done a horde army and I will play any xenos army over imperial ones but once I read the codex I no longer wanted to play nids they suffer from much the same problem as Necrons a unit in each category that makes the others pointless. That these units seemed to be all new units with new models while not effecting me still left a bad taste in my mouth. Then there is the whole WTF the Tervigon has no model and that 2 armies that have been released after nids have/are getting their second waves first. Oh yeah and making spores a model (again with no model) that was real nice of them.....

TheMav80
23-02-2011, 06:56
No, generally you can make average armies.

And then someone shows up with one of the current power-gems of 5th edition and your army falls down on its face.

In theory you could even use Pyrovores.

Or Lictors.

Or even a brood of Carnifexes.

Just like you can use Vanguard Veterans in a SM army.

But the difference between those units and their Force Org rivals is huge. The rivals are more points effecient, more viable and generally better all round.

Sure, I could use a Carnifex with Devourers. I will say the Devourers fire more shots and are higher strength. I could even give it a Spore to DS with.

But for the same points cost I could just get a Trygon Prime. SitW, MORE shots from a better weapon with better AP, better WS, still retaining my rerolls to hit, fleet and not giving my opponent a free KP for any bored power fist or krak missile.

Just like I could take a flying Hive Tyrant and give it the ability to help my reserves and give a unit outflank.... Sure it's more mobile. But for a few points more I could get a Swarmlord which does the same but better, with more useful weapons and pulls off two psychic powers a turn.

Or better still, 2 Tyranid Primes and a brood of something to go with them.

I'm not saying you can't make lists with other units. A good player can make just about any list works.

But a good player with a mediocre list facing a good player with an excellent list....

You do the maths there.

A Carnifex with Devourers plays totally different from a Trygon Prime and is much cheaper. It gives your army some vehicle supression at range, which we all know is harder to come by for the 'Nids.

The only problem Lictors really have is that they are in the Elite slot. They are a good unit that you would see way more of if they were in Fast Attack (for example).

I've probably already repeated myself a dozen times in this thread, so I'm done. You guys want to continue with the martyr complex go ahead.

thanoson
23-02-2011, 07:02
Tyranid player and I voted great. Reasons:

I can make any type of list I want without restrictions. Horde, shooty and zilla. No SC's to unlock anything.

Basic troops got cheaper. Hormies are incredible.

Squads of carnifex's is a good thing. Dakka fexex do a lot of damage to infantry. Plus it's more wounds to take the squad down.

Trygon is a beast that can kill troops or vehicles. Last 2 games with LR's, he's taken out 3.

Mycetic Spores. These were needed to give us a chance against gunlines. MC's that can fire 2 weapons when they land are good. Plus I can drop Zoans, devourergants or a carnifex behind the lines.

Stealers and warriors as troops. Wanna play an all warrior list? There you go. Stealers as well? No problem. And both are very good choices.

Tervigons are probably the coolest things out of the codex. Very useful in the right hands.


This codex is a very balanced codex but has issues vs mech and armor. Like it should. Every army should have a nemesis or a flaw. It's ok. The problem I think is these later and newest codex's are probably the ones that are flawed. They are TOO good for what they should be. SW's are such an over the top gimmicky codex. JAWS? Thunderwolves? C'mon, those were not needed. STormraven's were also something that didn't need to be made. I think powercreep is the real culprit here, not the fact Tyranids is a balanced codex.

Are there some throwaway units? Yes, just like in every other codex. However, you can still make a good balanced AND competitive list using this codex. I'm a casual player and always try to play fun balanced list. I play against ultracompetitive tourny guys. I beat them more than they beat me. Because I'm a competent player who understands my strengths and weaknesses of my army. They are not orks, so you can't just rush them into hth. They are not marines, so you can't just be out in the open with gunfights. I use every bit of cover to my advantage. This is why it's not a noob friendly codex. You actually need strategy insted of just rolling buckets of dice. This applies to eldar as well. They fall into the same boat.

My 2 cents.

battybattybats
24-02-2011, 04:20
Seems to me that some units that people consider worthless were dealt with with Planetstrike and Cities of Death in mind!

Also i don't get why people undervalue the Venomthrope.. a mobile invulnerable (ie cover) save + defensive grenades + dangerous terrain for your opponent that can protect any of your units you put it with. And which can be put behind the MCs to cover them and get cover from them.

If the Venomthropes aren't selling or aren't valued by players then GW haven't sold them well enough to those players cause they are great minis and have great rules.

That said, removing some of the biomorph options that are still on the sprues was foolish and nonsensical. Why can't most Tyranid assault units get assault-grenades? At the very least Genestealers should have them for an upgrade cost!

big squig
24-02-2011, 04:58
The only problem Lictors really have is that they are in the Elite slot. They are a good unit that you would see way more of if they were in Fast Attack (for example).



Under no force slot would the lictor ever be of any use. Frail, expensive, and powerless. And that's ignoring it's useless special rule. If it were an HQ I'd gladly take a prime over it, if it were a troop I'd gladly take anything over it, if it were a fast attack I'd gladly take gargoyles over it, and if it were support I'd gladly take even a carnifex over it and those are just as useless. This is coming from a nid player who started in 2nd ed.

freddieyu
24-02-2011, 05:18
Voted "good" in the wrong category (as a nid player, by mistake, since I'm not a Nid player)...

I hate "ambush" and all reserve Nid armies, especially Mawlocs...how I hate Mawlocs, and the havoc they can wreak, since if i play against them I cannot castle up in a corner which I normally do...

-Loki-
24-02-2011, 05:49
This codex is a very balanced codex but has issues vs mech and armor. Like it should. Every army should have a nemesis or a flaw. It's ok.

While true, armies should have a flaw, it's hard to be accepting of this when the Tyranids flaw is the way 5th edition has been engineered - mechanized armies.

Most army flaws are say, against strong shooting, or strong melee. Those builds themselves have weaknesses - exploiting a weakness while also exposing a weakness. The problem with your flaw being against a playstyle that doesn't have many weaknesses simply because the game, not an army, but the game, emphasises that kind of build is hard to swallow.

Blink
24-02-2011, 09:21
Tyranid's issues with mech could have been fixed with a few logical changes to the rules.

The Mawloc more easily stunning/immobilizing a vehicle it pops up under for instance would be a great way to allow the monsters the ability to assault it and rip it apart without making Tyranid any more shooty than they have to be.

Some easy reasonable changes to the codex would be to allow frag grenade options for +1 point (reasonable cost, adds up fast with numbers), much like they did in 4th... Make the monsters and their upgrades more reasonably costed.

Crushing Claws is statistically a WORSE option than keeping Scything Talons in close combat, and it's 25 points...

(Scytal Fex charges, 5 attacks, 2.5 hits, 3.75 hits after rerolls, 3.125 wounds... Crushing Claws Fex charges, gets 6.5 attacks, 3.125 hits, 3.65 hits after rerolls of 1s, 3.04 wounds... That is extremely sad for something that costs 25 points)

Poison on monsters is a joke, the codex has no invulnerable saves is very light on the armor saves and toughness, and is extremely overcosted compared to other Monstrous Creatures across many codexes.

And before any proponents bring up saturation ("Well the Tyranid can have 20 Monstrous Creatures in one list!"), that's not always a good thing. The FOC balances out saturation. If the Heavy Support slot has 10 absolutely fantastic monsters... that's great. The FOC only allots for 3. Choose well. Balance doesn't have to mean each slot must have a no brainer and several sub-par choices.

The Tyrannofex is such a sad model... It is really hard to justify 250 points spent on that model. Standard, it's a gun base that is meant to get up close and personal with the enemy, and yet it even fails as a gun base with highly situational and avoidable weapons and a low BS. It is easily tied up in combat and mitigated entirely and the Fleshborer Hive is an absolute joke. Why would anyone pay 10 points for that? You're paying 10 extra points on TOP of your 250 point model to exchange your high powered ranged flame template for 20 12" bolter shots at BS3... It's just hilariously bad.

The Carnifex should have the option to increase its toughness (or for the price you pay, it should already have it), or it should have fleet. That way you have more reasonable options in the Codex and it's not so much of a no brainer to go with the Trygon...

Eternal Warrior should be allowed by the Tyranid Prime to mitigate damage done models it is joined to. That would make Warrior lists much more viable since as it is, the damage is far too severe from the all too common S8 weaponry.

Lictors should auto come in on a turn 2 and be placed in the fast attack slot and work similar to Ymgarls for the same price. They are already very expensive and their ability is far too situational to be taken seriously.

As well, units should be able to elect to come out of the Trygon's hole the turn it arrives, much like how Necron Warriors work from the Monolith's Portal.

Pyrovores and Venomthropes are actually a good model as they are, but the Elite slot is so crowded it's hard to use them without losing the much needed tankbusting ability.

The Swarmlord should have Eternal Warrior since it would make sense for him to (Technically, everything SHOULD have that special rule considering in the fluff, gaunts have been known to keep on fighting as nothing more than a torso with legs after having their upper halves blown off. The Hive Mind keeps them moving)

Old One Eye should have much better fluff that's not so lazy, and he should be more survivable, particularly for the price paid. T7 W5 and a 2+ save seems MUCH more reasonable for the price (especially when compared to the new Grey Knight Monstrous creature which pretty much gets that AND an invuln save for half the cost... and they can take 3 of them whereas only 1 Old One Eye is available)

Ripper Swarms should cost far less. They have way too many negative drawbacks to be useful. Biovores should still have the ability to pop tanks. Raveners should be slightly more survivable or have the ability to scout...

And most of this wouldn't overpower the codex but instead it would open up more doors for different styles of play more suited to how Tyranid SHOULD be able to play (For instance, Genestealers shouldn't be losing so many fights in cover with far weaker enemies)... Because as is, the units in the codex are as overcosted as they are ill equipped for what Tyranid do best and the most important aspect of the game, the fun factor, suffers for it.

Blink
24-02-2011, 09:31
I think every disappointed Tyranid player's argument boils down to one thing, and I hope they back me up on this:

Tyranid players can win with the army... but that's entirely besides the point. The point is that it doesn't feel like the army they would LIKE to be winning with.

Souleater
24-02-2011, 13:03
It feels more like Xeno Guard than Nids. :(

Blink
24-02-2011, 19:22
It feels more like Xeno Guard than Nids.

Does it really? This is one argument I don't get. You don't sit back and fire in a Tyranid Codex... in fact you CAN'T sit back and fire with almost any list you build.

DarkstarSabre
24-02-2011, 20:42
A Carnifex with Devourers plays totally different from a Trygon Prime and is much cheaper. It gives your army some vehicle supression at range, which we all know is harder to come by for the 'Nids.

Because relatively low strength with AP- means a healthy -3 to glancing hits. 50% of the time you accomplish nothing.

I seriously don't know what you're facing where you consider a 50% chance to do nothing to a vehicle is better than being blatantly within Assault range of said vehicle or better yet, Zoanthropes or Hive Guard.

You state the Devourer-fex is cheaper. Yes. But it's still horrendously overpointed for what it is, especially when you compare it to a Trygon Prime. For a handful of points more you get something that is -that- much better and furthermore is a Synapse critter to boot.

And I'm sorry but 12 shots with a gun with AP generally tends to be better than a similar number of shots from a gun with no AP.

And really...if I am shooting at a vehicle that's so lightly armoured that Devourers can damage it? I'd much rather smash it into tiny pieces with the Trygon that's within Assault Range of it.

TheMav80
24-02-2011, 21:38
Because relatively low strength with AP- means a healthy -3 to glancing hits. 50% of the time you accomplish nothing.

I seriously don't know what you're facing where you consider a 50% chance to do nothing to a vehicle is better than being blatantly within Assault range of said vehicle or better yet, Zoanthropes or Hive Guard.

You state the Devourer-fex is cheaper. Yes. But it's still horrendously overpointed for what it is, especially when you compare it to a Trygon Prime. For a handful of points more you get something that is -that- much better and furthermore is a Synapse critter to boot.

And I'm sorry but 12 shots with a gun with AP generally tends to be better than a similar number of shots from a gun with no AP.

And really...if I am shooting at a vehicle that's so lightly armoured that Devourers can damage it? I'd much rather smash it into tiny pieces with the Trygon that's within Assault Range of it.

Coming back just to answer this. It is impossible to do "nothing" to a vehicle once you have glanced. At the very least you are keeping it from shooting. Even better for Tyranids, you could keep it from moving. Tyranids don't destroy vehicles with shooting, the stunlock them until close combat.

Rhinos and Razorbacks and Chimeras and DE vehicles are just some examples of things that can be stunlocked with S6. Just trying to hit them in clos combat gets difficult if they keep moving, so you are trying to hit on 6s. Keep it from moving first, then you can wreck it with enough gaunts if you want.

Archibald_TK
24-02-2011, 22:38
While TheMav80 is 100% right on the way MC use their weapons to stop a vehicle in its track, I'd like to point out that the Devourer is really bad against any kind of vehicle that can downgrade Stunned results to Shaken as glancing hits will be unable to stop such a vehicle unless all of its weapons are already destroyed. And since you can only glance AV12...

That plus the short range is why I prefer going Devourer + HVC (which also has the bonus of negating FnP on T4 models) on my Dakkafexes instead of dual Devourer despite the HVC higher cost and inaccuracy. In my mind dual Devourers would be very good on a fast moving MC that can quickly get in range and get rear shots. Too bad only the Hive Tyrant can do it, that would have been interesting for the Harpy to start quite cheaper with such a combo as base weapons, and have the heavy weapons as an upgrade.

Regarding the Trygon Prime being compared to a Dakkafex, I think it's madness to pay the price just for the weapon upgrade. 40 pts if someone need a synapse sure! But 40 pts for the opportunity to land 3 additional S5 shots average a turn? Not the best bang for your bucks if you ask me, especially on a creature that will probably prefer fleeting and charging.

ghoulio
24-02-2011, 22:56
In my mind the codex is a decent first draft of the codex. Like so many people have said its not that you can't win with the book, its that the book is just so horribly written. Like it never received an editing pass. For me, these are the following things I would love to see "FAQ'd/Erratta'd".

- Genestealers (both types) come with flesh hooks (or whatever frag grenade equivalent) and their base cost be increased by 1pt

- Shadow in the Warp works on models in vehicles and is changed so that it is always the range of the Synapse of the creature with it. So, a Swarmlords Shadow in the Warp is 18” while a Tryanid Warrior’s is 12”, etc.

- Change Tyranid Warriors so they are T5, 2W, same cost

- Give the Tyranid Prime an option for Wings at 20-30pts

- Allow Tyranid Primes to join a unit of Tyranid Warriors in a Spore Pod or Outflanking because of Hive Commander

- Give Hive Tyrant the ability “Indescribable Horror” for free (like the last 2 editions) or remove it

- Change The Hive Tyrant’s Psychic Power “Psychic Scream” to always be at 12” instead of 2d6” with only invlun saves possible, possibly at -1 LD if not too OP.

- Change The Hive Tyrant’s Psychic Power “The Horror” psychic power to be 24” and -2 to the leadership penalty or make it a 12” bubble with all units having to check at normal LD (or -1)

- Change the Tervigon’s Psychic Power “Onslaught” to be cast in the movement phase and also include the line “allows unit to either run and shoot or gain “fleet” for that turn”

- Change the Broodlords Psychic Power “Hypnotic Gaze” to be cast in either assault phase (only in here because every last Imperial Power that can be cast during the assault phase can be case in both...so why not nids?)

- Change the Broodlords Psychic Power “Aura of Dispair” to be cast in the movement phase and last till the next movement phase

- Remove the “-1 to damage chart” from the Venom Cannon

- Change Death Spitters to be 24” Str 5, AP5, Assault 1, Blast

- Remove Cluster Salvo as its just a devourer

- Change Twin Linked Deathspitters on MCs to 5 pts

- Make all Termagant basic weapon options free, 5 points for a strangle web and make it str 4

- Change Doom of Malantai to grant only invuln saves but still not effect units in transports (ie units no longer get cover saves from his main ability)

- Change Lictor Deployment to be the same as Ymgarls or give them infiltrate or allow them to assault the turn they show up. Change their reserve bonus to allow one re-roll per Lictor (maybe “d3” for the Deathleaper) and always be allowed as long as the Lictor is alive

- Rework Trygon tunnel so one unit per Trygon can be “stored” in the tunnel. That unit automatically becomes available the turn after the Trygon emerges for both and can move from the tunnel as if coming in from reserves from the board edge (ie act normally). No MCs or units with wings can be stored in the tunnel. Or, another option would be to just roll for reserves for both units and if the unit in the tunnel becomes available at the same time or before the Trygon then they can move out of the hole with the Trygon.

- Give the Mawloc 2 sets of scything talons

- Change Harpy’s to be 120pts and move like jet bikes

- Change Carnifex’s to WS 4 and 130-140pts base

- Change the Venomthrope to be purchased in units of 3, but are then turned into independent characters (ie exactly like Sanguinary Priests). Also, make BS 0 and make them WS 4

- Change Pyrovores to be WS 4, Str 5, T5, 3W, Init 2, 3 A, 4+ save. The heavy flamer reverts to being a regular flamer that is fired exactly like a hellhound. Also, Pyrovore retains acid attacks (ie power weapons) and always has a 50% chance to explode when killed, not just on instant death, taken in units of 3 - 5. Maybe 50-65pts? (**this one is only my idea of what they should be and obviously I haven’t play-tested it. I just think it is WAY more appropriate to what the model and fluff says it should be**)

When you stop and think about it almost all of that is just "common sense" and I can't see much of it really off-setting anything thing balance wise. All it will do is clean the book up, allow for some of the crappiest units to be actual choices you would want to take and allow nid players to play how they want to, instead of how they are forced to. Really though, I would just be stoked if we got the first 2, but I would be over the moon with the others :)

Souleater
24-02-2011, 23:07
Does it really? This is one argument I don't get. You don't sit back and fire in a Tyranid Codex... in fact you CAN'T sit back and fire with almost any list you build.

No, that's not what I'm saying. When I started Nids were the all out 'shoot us before we get to you or die' army.

Nids feel like one of the weaker CC armies. Shooting has to be used to soften up the enemy before attackign them far more, I feel.

While drowning stuff in gaunts isfluffy and viable the fact that I have to load up with a Tervigon and Venomthrope makes it feel very much like it is the special rules doing the work, not the models. Same for Stealers and Toxin Sacs.

On the one hand it is a synergy but on the other the.. .That's what makes it feel like Xeno Guard to me. Not that they hang back and shoot but that the actual models broods themselves seem so weak.

's partly why I'm looking to start Chaos Daemons in the next couple of months. They charge in and rip faces off.

yukimura01
24-02-2011, 23:10
(nid player voted bad)
this is not because you cant make a viable list with the current dex but as many people have already said, you can't realistically make the list you want e.g. ive personally always liked including lictors in my lists as like the background etc but taking them now is just a waste of points, as with many units there spec rules/weapons either dont work the way they should, or theres no need for the option in the first place because its such a no brainer to not take it

the other problem is that some of the nerfs are just so obvious with no forseeable reason, well other than to sell there new models lol
(i understand there a business at the end of the day but they havnt done it to any other recent dex's so why the nid one ?)
also the background in the book is awful art work is as usual wicked tho

it is surprising because the last dex i really liked tbh they streamlined the biomorphs etc to work a lot better and got rid of spec characters which tbh i supported as to me made sense,
at the end of the day were not gonna get a new dex for a long long time so like it or lump it were stuck with it lol

blackroyal
24-02-2011, 23:33
I have a Tyranid army. I no longer use said army because I am not about to buy hiveguard. The only fix I want is for biovores to have some sort of anti armor mine. In far too many games have I have had three of them do nothing because they cannot hurt the transport spam.

nate2010
25-02-2011, 04:22
im really enjoying my nid army...coming back to 40k after years off as an ex marine player, i think theyre a blast. hordes of gaunts, deepstriking fexes, trygons , and zoeys, the occasional venomthrope. havent had horrible troubles w/ mech armies, at least not @ the 1500 point range. i think its a fun codex. Now i agre the fex could use another point of toughness maybe, but really i cant say id change much.