PDA

View Full Version : Tyranid rant



Pages : 1 [2]

Theocracity
14-02-2014, 22:07
Torrent within 2" of the pipeline? When pyrovores were first introduced you could pod them in and even then it was very hard to justify the cost (and that combo is a similar cost). Using the pipeline you'd have to find a way to entice the enemy into range (since you can't drop them into enemy lines), so on the surface it less attractive than podding. Worse, it competes against most of the rest of the army since 'Nids don't really have a problem killing infantry at short range.

It's an interesting effort trying to find creative ways to use units that are not regarded well, but to justify them it seems like they should do something better than the units they are competing against or at least better than enemies they would be competing against. Failing that, they worth the extra cost to fill a role that cannot be filled elsewhere.

Usually the last problem I have is killing infantry and if I was worried about it, there's other MCs you can tack a chest template weapon.

Yeah, those are all good points. That being said, I think it might be an interesting way to protect objective point campers if the rest of your list is notably aggressive. If most of your forces are busy in the opponent's deployment zone it might be nice to burn out deep strikers or outflankers trying to take your objectives.

In general you're right, but I still think it'd be worth testing out for fun in the right situation.

AngryAngel
14-02-2014, 23:04
I appreciate people finding neat and innovate uses for units, but the pipeline plus pyrovore, while fun maybe once, I don't think will find much use. Some units are, outside very exact set ups, bad. Like guard conscripts for instance, terrible, I use them and found a use for them, but its just because I love the feel, they are a terrible unit however. just because I found a use doesn't make them better. just means if I field the army in an exact way, they might make their pts worthwhile. Just for instance, I've personally found the pyro pretty worthless before and just the smallest step better now. Which it is hard to understand how they couldn't make it truly better and not just a step in that direction.

Would giving them torrent just naturally have broken them beyond all reckoning ?

Ssilmath
14-02-2014, 23:11
Torrent naturally probably wouldn't have broken them, no. But they can serve a role in an army. Somebody loading up on Warriors or Genestealers is going to have less anti infantry firepower, and so having a squad of Pyrovores to provide that and give trouble to things like Terminators (Which are a bad day for Warriors) gives them a use. That is my point. Naloth is saying that he doesn't lack for anti infantry firepower, but that seems to be due to his army composition. Obviously Pyrovores don't work for him, and I wouldn't want to force him to try to find a use for them. But that does not rule out other players finding the unit good for a niche that they desire.

Vipoid
14-02-2014, 23:16
Torrent naturally probably wouldn't have broken them, no. But they can serve a role in an army. Somebody loading up on Warriors or Genestealers is going to have less anti infantry firepower, and so having a squad of Pyrovores to provide that and give trouble to things like Terminators (Which are a bad day for Warriors) gives them a use. That is my point.

The thing is though, they have no transport and can't join squads. Considering their lack of durability, I just don't see them crossing the field safely.

naloth
14-02-2014, 23:23
Naloth is saying that he doesn't lack for anti infantry firepower, but that seems to be due to his army composition. Obviously Pyrovores don't work for him, and I wouldn't want to force him to try to find a use for them. But that does not rule out other players finding the unit good for a niche that they desire.

Aside from me specifically, you can't field troops choice that isn't anti-infantry to some degree and every MC can also do that, so it's role you can't get around having covered already to some degree. Biovores, by comparison, also drop templates like Pyrovores for about the same cost but at a long range. If I needed anti-infantry it would probably be for ranged use making them a bitter niche choice. Sure, they are heavy but elite slots are as contested.

Surgency
14-02-2014, 23:25
Torrent within 2" of the pipeline? When pyrovores were first introduced you could pod them in and even then it was very hard to justify the cost (and that combo is a similar cost). Using the pipeline you'd have to find a way to entice the enemy into range (since you can't drop them into enemy lines), so on the surface it less attractive than podding.

Alternatively, they turn into an area denial unit, just place the pipeline near a spot you want to funnel troops towards, or keep models away from

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Ssilmath
14-02-2014, 23:33
The thing is though, they have no transport and can't join squads. Considering their lack of durability, I just don't see them crossing the field safely.

I also don't see people shooting them very often, considering their overall lower threat compared to everything else in the Tyranid army. They also don't have to be fast, just enough to do their job.

Naloth, if your MC's are equipped for ranged tank hunting then the Pyrovores can free them up to do their job rather than wasting a turn shooting infantry. There's also not much that ignores cover or is AP 4 in troops, and if you want to set your Warriors up for melee then they aren't going to be doing much shooting.

Yes, Nids have plenty of good anti infantry shooting in other units. Somebody who doesn't want to spam Termagants or use up points/shooting for their MC's to kill infantry can use the Pyrovores for that role.

Vipoid
14-02-2014, 23:41
I also don't see people shooting them very often, considering their overall lower threat compared to everything else in the Tyranid army.

I'll take your word for that - having never seen them fielded myself I can't really comment about the average amount of firepower that comes their way. :p


They also don't have to be fast, just enough to do their job.

Well, they have to be fast enough to get within 8" of an enemy unit - closer if they want to hit a decent number of models. Speaking personally, I probably wouldn't shoot them in the early game - since they're not a threat at all for a couple of turns.

I could be wrong, but it seems like they'll just be too easy to remove once an opponent turns his guns on them.

naloth
15-02-2014, 00:00
I also don't see people shooting them very often, considering their overall lower threat compared to everything else in the Tyranid army. They also don't have to be fast, just enough to do their job. They also have to be fast enough to catch their targets as well.


Naloth, if your MC's are equipped for ranged tank hunting then the Pyrovores can free them up to do their job rather than wasting a turn shooting infantry. There's also not much that ignores cover or is AP 4 in troops, and if you want to set your Warriors up for melee then they aren't going to be doing much shooting. It's not really an either or. MC Devourers on a Tyrant or 'Fex are good against both light vehicles and infantry. If you need a template you can also upgrade one of those for 1/4 the cost of a pyrovore. Many of the heavy weapons (stranglehorn or VC) have templates that you could bring to bear on infantry.

Sure, troops don't ignore cover but for the cost Devilgaunts seem more killy. As for Warriors, melee seems like a strange (risky/expensive) kit for them - you're just asking to get fisted in a bad way. ;)


Yes, Nids have plenty of good anti infantry shooting in other units. Somebody who doesn't want to spam Termagants or use up points/shooting for their MC's to kill infantry can use the Pyrovores for that role. The point isn't if they are good or bad, just that the are limited. You can't take special/heavy weapons with troops like most other armies. Troops are anti-infantry versions of CC gaunts, ranged gaunts, a MC producing gaunts, rippers (CC?), stealers (CC), and warriors that you can kit for CC, shooting, or a mix of both. After you field a few choices you've pretty much satisfied what you need to deal with opposing infantry including area denial.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 00:38
Torrent naturally probably wouldn't have broken them, no. But they can serve a role in an army. Somebody loading up on Warriors or Genestealers is going to have less anti infantry firepower, and so having a squad of Pyrovores to provide that and give trouble to things like Terminators (Which are a bad day for Warriors) gives them a use. That is my point. Naloth is saying that he doesn't lack for anti infantry firepower, but that seems to be due to his army composition. Obviously Pyrovores don't work for him, and I wouldn't want to force him to try to find a use for them. But that does not rule out other players finding the unit good for a niche that they desire.

First let me flavor my concern with the topic in being, I'm rather neutral to the new book. I see some good things and some bad and some eh. Losing options always feels bad and leaves a sting which leads to some of the upset. I can see what your saying with the pyrovore, it has gotten better since the last book and I can see a niche he'd fill. However is trying to press him into the niche worth the effort ? Is the pyro simply a nice unit or an awful one you can really press to make room for ? A matter of opinion, however I wouldn't say someone was wrong for saying its bad when the niche is a narrow less then inspiring one it fills.

While units people would consider good, lend themselves to many builds and many lists without needing to, find a place for them. As well are they worth using in that niche next to other units that may do it better or be more versatile ? This is all just in talking of the pyro of course.

frosty1580
15-02-2014, 01:53
I don't have nids but always enjoy playing against them, genestealers get on my nerves, but i rarely see them being used anymore... have they been downgraded or are there just better options for nid players now?

rocdocta
15-02-2014, 02:27
well they are just too weak now. previously you could fleet and assault after outflanking. now no matter what, the enemy get at least 1 round of shooting and the stealers are toast. there are just better and simpler ways of killing things ie dev gaunts. can get almost 2 for 1 stealer. you can have cheap gaunts as ablative wounds.

Dev gaunt has 3 shots at S4. stealer on the charge has 3 S4 attacks. the only bonus is rending. Generally the enemy are in cover so the stealers have to weather a round of firing and if they have 1+ flamers then you take cas. dev gaunts are just better.

IcedCrow
15-02-2014, 02:35
I just watched a tyranid army with gene stealers tonight whip up on some space marines.

The genestealers beat a tac squad and then contributed to wiping a stern guard squad.

We all felt the internet's boiling rage watching over the game the entire time.

On another table there were not one but TWO dreadnoughts that lived to turn 5!

The internet warpstorm of rage thankfully never swallowed our soul; i was sure it was about to. My prayers of protection to the emprah were heard.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 03:06
As well we're all thrilled to hear your tales of afternoon delights, with zero details but maximum instigation with zero net gain. Any details to these marvels of warhammering ? Perhaps things people could learn from other then hearsay of a couple of games you saw once ? ( by once I mean today ). Or in fact anything to do with the comments posted ? Aside from Dreads as I don't think they've been talked of once in this thread. Just curious.

IcedCrow
15-02-2014, 03:09
I'm pretty sure it was just that the space marine player was a total bufoon and didn't know what he was doing. That and I'm sure the tyranid player had 3000 points to the marine player's 1500. If the marine player had been pro-warhammer calibre I'm betting he would have won.

The dreadnought thing was just to point out that we had broken the internet twice, because dreadnoughts are supposed to commit sepuku on turn 1 and just die.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 03:14
Well without knowing the details of any of these stories, you've not broken the internet twice, you've seen a random situation spouted without idea of the context other then, it was in a game I saw. For what purpose exactly, if I may ask, do you share such pearls of wisdom with us all ?

IcedCrow
15-02-2014, 03:18
To contribute to everyone else's anecdotal evidence of why the codex sucks.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 03:23
Well to add, I've seen a dread kill a blood thirster before in CC. I've also seen genestealers kill many marines in CC. So apparently I've seen the likes of miracles as well.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 03:32
I think the point, Angry Angel, is that actual experience has a tendency not to follow internet wisdom.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 03:49
The point further was, the comments had no place, especially when everyone was for the most part, at that very moment, getting along. Of course internet wisdom is not gospel, nor is it part of the Great Nid debate of our time. That's what I am getting at, such insights offered nothing and came seemingly for no reason.

Am I right in that ? Wrong ?

Zothos
15-02-2014, 04:25
He was offering his anecdote about Tyranids in a thread about Tyranids. I fail to see how his comments were at all out of place.

It's not like he popped in talking about how his Necrons beat up some Tau...

naloth
15-02-2014, 04:39
He was offering his anecdote about Tyranids in a thread about Tyranids. I fail to see how his comments were at all out of place.

Perhaps it was the soul swallowing, the felt heat of the internet rage, or internet breaking under the weight of the events of that game? It seems a touch dramatic.

Zothos
15-02-2014, 04:50
Perhaps it was the soul swallowing, the felt heat of the internet rage, or internet breaking under the weight of the events of that game? It seems a touch dramatic.

Lol, true. The undertone of the post could have been better.

In all fairness though, he was trying to prove a point. Could have been an attempt at humor without vitriol.

Tone is difficult in text.

As an aside, I spoke with some Tyranid players who were refusing to even try genestealers in the the new book.

I was actually shocked that they were counting a unit out, without even giving it a go a couple of times.

For the Tyranid players here, have you tried stealers yourselves? If so how did it go?

naloth
15-02-2014, 05:11
I was actually shocked that they were counting a unit out, without even giving it a go a couple of times.

For the Tyranid players here, have you tried stealers yourselves? If so how did it go?

I've fielded a unit here and there, but not structured core around them. I think I put this in the other thread, but I see 3 uses: they allow you to respond later in the game (somewhat useful for an army lacking transports), the broodlord seems pretty good, and aren't affected by IB. It's seldom useful to infiltrate (you're ahead of your cover) and other units are more cost effective as distractions or dedicated CC. They don't perform against enemy troops on their own despite being independent of synapse.

Perhaps 9e will help CC only units (especially pop-up surprise units) but right now they just don't perform as well as points spent elsewhere.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 05:26
I can understand people disliking a unit. I agree however it is a bit naff to just call a unit trash and not even try it out a few times first. Not every game needs to be battle of the hard armies. If they are useable for the highest level of competitive, perhaps so, perhaps not, nothing lost in trying them out before placing them away to collect dust, if you already have them of course.

Carnage
15-02-2014, 06:30
Well to add, I've seen a dread kill a blood thirster before in CC. I've also seen genestealers kill many marines in CC. So apparently I've seen the likes of miracles as well.

I think the point, Angry Angel, is that actual experience has a tendency not to follow internet wisdom.

I think internet wisdom tend to follow LIKELY trends. A dreadnought CAN beat a Bloodthirster, and Genestealers CAN cause havoc.....it's just unlikely unless super randomness kicks in, or there's some really bad play involved. I don't think you will see many people suggest charging a bloodthirster with a dread is a good idea in most cases.

The problem is no one can play enough games, and remember the out comes of all of them, to have a perfectly statistically balanced representation of a units average performance. People will see those 96 splinter cannon shots wipe 5 MCs off the table first turn, or that 1 melta-gun blow up the land raider, or 75 slugga boy attacks do no wounds every so often, and these unlikely experience stick in our memories a lot more often than "My 10 bolter shots killed 1 marines....exactly average!". This is why math hammer is so heavily relied on, as anyone can spout any random story about the time Draigo was solo'ed by an imperial guardsman, but the math will show that that is not very likely.


I can understand people disliking a unit. I agree however it is a bit naff to just call a unit trash and not even try it out a few times first. Not every game needs to be battle of the hard armies. If they are useable for the highest level of competitive, perhaps so, perhaps not, nothing lost in trying them out before placing them away to collect dust, if you already have them of course.

I don't need to taste a steaming pile of poop to know it won't taste good, some units just don't need testing. As your knowledge and grasp of game mechanic and math-hammer improves, and more and more stories of a unit's performance show up in battle reports you can get a REALLY good idea of how effective each unit is before it sees the tabletop. My poor 50 genestealers haven't left my case in over 2 years now, and I don't see them coming out this edition either, and I don't need to play a half dozen games with them to realize they are bad either.

AngryAngel
15-02-2014, 06:57
Fair enough but eating some poop and playing with a model you own are very different things. For a fun game, a non tournament game, nothing wrong with playing some sub par units to see what you can do with them. GW isn't good enough rules wise to make them all near equal, so why not on occasion get some use out of old models is my thinking on it. If you don't want to of course, then don't it's just an idea for some. As math hammer is a valid tool for finding the averages but I'd still try it for myself as well. Then again, I like hard battles, sometimes even desperate battles against impossible odds so your mileage will likely vary.

Zothos
15-02-2014, 07:01
Even the best theories need experimentation to prove or disprove. Is every game you play so competitive that you risk losing something besides a game?

I am not saying you are wrong, but insisting you are right so vehemently without even trying seems odd.

Slayer-Fan123
15-02-2014, 10:57
I can understand people disliking a unit. I agree however it is a bit naff to just call a unit trash and not even try it out a few times first. Not every game needs to be battle of the hard armies. If they are useable for the highest level of competitive, perhaps so, perhaps not, nothing lost in trying them out before placing them away to collect dust, if you already have them of course.

I don't have to test Warp Talons to know they aren't worth it. Sometimes it is just about observation. I faced an army earlier tonight and I'll tell of my adventures when I'm not on my phone.

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 11:17
Even the best theories need experimentation to prove or disprove.

Indeed, but you can also infer a lot from using comparable models.

To take the pyrovore example, Warriors have a similar cost and armour save, but have 50% more wounds. Therefore, if warriors have survivability issues, you can reasonably infer that the same will also be true for pyrovores.

You could also compare the ability of warriors to get within charging distance of an enemy (6-7"), to the ability of a pyrovore to get within flaming distance of an enemy.

Obviously such evidence isn't perfect, but it is still reasonable evidence as to a pyrovore's survivability and likelihood of flaming an enemy.

Draconis
15-02-2014, 14:00
Glad to see that after a day off, this thread has got nowhere closer to "helping" naloth and his buddy solve their NerdRage over the Codex.

At this point, i will just sit back and enjoy the B-Movie as it unfolds. No point arguing with someone that won't listen to you, got more luck getting Westboro to denounce God


But the question remains, why are we trying to help angry people get over their non-existing anger issues? They didn't create the thread, so you can just ignore them :)

Langdon
15-02-2014, 15:09
But the question remains, why are we trying to help angry people get over their non-existing anger issues? They didn't create the thread, so you can just ignore them :)

They are very existent is you bothered to read the thread and the other one that went on for 45 pages. There was also Reinholts infamous thread too

The problems that Naloth and especially Roc attributes to the codex is barely justified beyond them going "It doesn't beat Taudar, the codex is crap". While Nal is starting to come round to the idea that the codex isn;t entirely useless, there are still others beating their head against the wall in anger.

So as I said, I will just sit back and watch and wait for another 30 pages to count up and then another thread being started and another and another. I figured Chaos whine threads were bad, at least in those there were people who hated the codex at least admits there are differing styles of play to succeed, that isnt just 2-3 BaleDrakes.


I would hasten to add that YOU too don't have to participate in the argument either, so why pick a fight with a person who is ducking out?

Reinholt
15-02-2014, 16:16
I find it telling that we have a stream of people complaining about complaining about the Tyranid codex (after voluntarily reading such complaints for free - do you hit yourselves in the face and then complain that you were hit in the face?), but we don't have anyone with significant experience with the Tyranid codex showing up with solutions or highly positive commentary like we did for Eldar, Tau, Space Marines, etc.

Obviously nobody will like everything; even the Tau and Eldar codices have detractors. However, it's the spread of comments between positive and negative that prove most telling. I'm not finding nearly as much positive from Tyranid players as I am from Eldar and Tau players (and I also play Eldar, in fairness). That and the only counterpoint being the self face-punchers only reinforces my belief that this was a very poor codex effort from GW.

Langdon
15-02-2014, 16:29
I am not saying it isnt a poor codex effort from GW, just that it isn't the end of the world like SoB turned out to be.

Its mediocre in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to run the army.. i don't think many new players will be gotten after the grace period of Tyranids is over (until the next 40k thing).

It can be a pain to take on 6-7 High Toughness Multiwound MC's and in the right hands it will places fairly high in tournies.

It just isn't the point, click and roll a bucket (or three) of dice that has dominated since end of 4th.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 16:41
I don't have to test Warp Talons to know they aren't worth it.

Really? Cause I've actually used Warp Talons and I can tell you that they aren't that bad, especially in the more built up environments I play in.

Zothos
15-02-2014, 16:58
Really? Cause I've actually used Warp Talons and I can tell you that they aren't that bad, especially in the more built up environments I play in.

Same here.

Seriously people. TRY these things. There is a ton more to the game than Math Hammer.

If you try, for instance, Genestealers, and they suck, then ok. We can debate it, but at least you will have some evidence to your credit.

Otherwise it becomes like arguing with a religious zealot.

IcedCrow
15-02-2014, 17:08
I have a unit of warp talons. They've never self imploded on me. Just like maulers. I've used both, and have done great with them. The internet tells me they should never do anything useful though. That they are horrible. This is outright wrong. :) What they aren't is a crutch or a broken unit.

naloth
15-02-2014, 17:19
I am not saying it isnt a poor codex effort from GW, just that it isn't the end of the world like SoB turned out to be. If there was less "the 'dex is fine, you are the problem" and more "sure, it's a poor codex, here's how you can make do" I suspect there would be a much closer consensus.


Its mediocre in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to run the army.. i don't think many new players will be gotten after the grace period of Tyranids is over (until the next 40k thing).

It did mediocre in the hands of exceptionally good players many/most of which had won or places in the top 10 with the 5e codex against similar armies.

Langdon
15-02-2014, 17:35
If there was less "the 'dex is fine, you are the problem" and more "sure, it's a poor codex, here's how you can make do" I suspect there would be a much closer consensus.

and that is what i meant by good. I have said from the start that this codex is in the middle. not the best, not the worst. You can make an army that will faceroll if you put your mind to it.

You can also take taudar and fail horribly because you are not taking 4 MC's, Jetseer and Farsight



It did mediocre in the hands of exceptionally good players many/most of which had won or places in the top 10 with the 5e codex against similar armies.

and this codex has made it cheaper to filed the same army... Sure you have lost Doom and synapse is awkward, but this codex is still better off than the hugely panned 5e codex.

naloth
15-02-2014, 17:53
and this codex has made it cheaper to filed the same army... Sure you have lost Doom and synapse is awkward, but this codex is still better off than the hugely panned 5e codex.

Things that went down in price generally took hits in stats, special rules, and/or didn't feature in lists before. Primes, for example, went up and Tervigons both went up and got smacked with the nerf bat. So we can discuss that, but overall it's not a significant change in power since for what they giveth they also taketh away.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 17:56
If it's not a significant change in power, then people who did well before should do just as well now.

naloth
15-02-2014, 18:32
If it's not a significant change in power, then people who did well before should do just as well now. That's fairly consistent with the LVO results, allowing for experienced players coming in a touch lower since they haven't played with the new 'dex that long.

Crow's experiences aside, that's not the only issue players have taken with the new book. The new focus, internal balance, loss of units (unusual for 6e), and issues that were not addressed (trygon holes/pyrovore) are things that could have been done quite different. It also didn't help that Dataslates came out on the heels of the 'dex giving adding rules that make some units simply work better.

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 18:40
I've only played a couple of games against the new nid codex, so this might well change in the future. However, from what I've seen so far, the book seems reasonable power-level wise. Although, so far it's only been used in 2v2s and in games that aren't particularly optimised - so, it might well fare worse in more competitive environments. Anyway, so far Synapse hasn't been a problem (the list used 2 Primes in different gaunt squads, 2 zoanthropes and a trygon prime) - with 2 venomthropes (behind LoS-blocking terrain) to give them cover. The Primes in particular are pretty hard to bring down, though the reliance on the venomthropes does restrict his army's movement.

However, where the book falls down for me is that it just seems very bland. For a start, its variety is limited right off the bat with no allies and no rulebook psychic powers. But, I can accept that; or rather, I could have accepted it - if we'd actually got some more options to compensate. Instead, for everything that got added, something else seemed to be removed. We lost the Parasite, the Doom and, most importantly, Spore Pods. Yet, with regard to the latter, we got no new deployment methods or pseudo-transports to compensate. Similarly, if we're going to be cut off from allies and psychic powers, could we not have some more biomorphs back? Finally, other armies have gotten some interesting army-wide rules - Eldar can fleet and shoot, tau can mass-overwatch etc. Tyranids... got nothing.

Now, there are other things that bug me about the codex, but this is the main one by far. It just feels like there's been very little innovation - mostly just price tweaks and obligatory 6th edition psychic powers and warlord traits. it just seems more fitting of a WD update than a proper codex.

*Shrugs* That's just my opinion though. And, no, I'm not angry or raging - just disappointed.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 18:43
I think it's arguable that the dataslate makes the units work better. It makes them work differently, and is pretty clearly designed for scenarios. As for Trygon holes, I don't know. I've really got no defense of why it stayed the same, but at the same time I'm not that put out that it did. I don't view it as a strategy to work around and see it more as a bonus to use if it become available.

A lot of the issues people have with the codex stem entirely from how they view them. I mean, with Genestealers you're apparently never going to accept that they can be used for more than objective grabbing and a distraction. Maybe for you, in your environment or in a tournament shooting gallery environment, you are right. For me, in a terrain heavy environment where there is lots of opportunity for them to get to the juicy bits they want to charge and not bring relegated to charging Grey Hunters sitting in area terrain...they'll do just fine. So we have different perspectives. I'm just not sure why I'm in the wrong for showing you my perspective in order to challenge your steadfast conviction that your perspective is the one, only and definitive one.

Carnage
15-02-2014, 18:51
and that is what i meant by good. I have said from the start that this codex is in the middle. not the best, not the worst. You can make an army that will faceroll if you put your mind to it.

You can also take taudar and fail horribly because you are not taking 4 MC's, Jetseer and Farsight

and this codex has made it cheaper to filed the same army... Sure you have lost Doom and synapse is awkward, but this codex is still better off than the hugely panned 5e codex.


Things that went down in price generally took hits in stats, special rules, and/or didn't feature in lists before. Primes, for example, went up and Tervigons both went up and got smacked with the nerf bat. So we can discuss that, but overall it's not a significant change in power since for what they giveth they also taketh away.

If it's not a significant change in power, then people who did well before should do just as well now.

I'm with Naloth here. The new book broke the back of the old power list (Doom, tervigonsx3, 2xwinged tyrants, biomancy everywhere), which I don't consider bad, but didn't replace it with anything. The "points reductions" were almost all accompanied by significant nerfs. With the exception of carnifexes, pyrovores and harpies getting marginally better, and venomthropes getting WAY better, everything else was a side grade at best (mawloc, gaunts/gants, zoans, Tyrants) , a straight up nerf (primes, tervigons, trygons, swarmlord), or just didn't get any changes at all (Stealers, warriors, rippers, shrikes, raveners, biovores....etc).

All the book accomplished was to break what worked and reshuffle the deck so to speak. The hard counters for us are still out there, and the new tools we have been given (Crones, exocrines, haruspex...lol) haven't really evolved the army enough in an edition where Riptides and Wraithknights, plasma talon and grav-bikers, dakka banners and markerlights, fliers, super heavies and fortifications are now wide spread.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 18:53
You know, if people keep bringing up Riptides and Wraithknights, then there's no way you're going to convince me that this isn't about sheer tournament power. In fact, every time somebody brings those up I'm more and more convinced that the words "boring" or "not about power" are straight up lies.

Langdon
15-02-2014, 19:08
You know, if people keep bringing up Riptides and Wraithknights, then there's no way you're going to convince me that this isn't about sheer tournament power. In fact, every time somebody brings those up I'm more and more convinced that the words "boring" or "not about power" are straight up lies.

its because they are lies

MasterDecoy
15-02-2014, 20:02
Indeed, but you can also infer a lot from using comparable models.

To take the pyrovore example, Warriors have a similar cost and armour save, but have 50% more wounds. Therefore, if warriors have survivability issues, you can reasonably infer that the same will also be true for pyrovores.

You could also compare the ability of warriors to get within charging distance of an enemy (6-7"), to the ability of a pyrovore to get within flaming distance of an enemy.

Obviously such evidence isn't perfect, but it is still reasonable evidence as to a pyrovore's survivability and likelihood of flaming an enemy.

Correct me if I'm wrong. My book is not at hand. But didn't pyros and bios get 3 wounds in the New Codex?

Sent from my GT-I9507 using Tapatalk

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 20:36
Correct me if I'm wrong. My book is not at hand. But didn't pyros and bios get 3 wounds in the New Codex?

Entirely possible - in which case the comparison is even easier.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 20:39
Entirely possible - in which case the comparison is even easier.

Of course, that is ignoring the other targets that they may need to shoot at, terrain, weapons available to your opponent (If they don't have a lot of Str 8, like autocannon spam, that ups survival a lot) and positioning. I'm probably forgetting other factors as well that ties into survivability, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

naloth
15-02-2014, 20:48
I think it's arguable that the dataslate makes the units work better. Perhaps you would agree that additional abilities, and upgrades to rules (infiltrate with a 6" range, preferred enemy one some) generally make units better?


It makes them work differently, and is pretty clearly designed for scenarios. How so? While they only function in certain niches, places that allow FW and dataslates should accept these in normal armies.


A lot of the issues people have with the codex stem entirely from how they view them. I mean, with Genestealers you're apparently never going to accept that they can be used for more than objective grabbing and a distraction. Maybe for you, in your environment or in a tournament shooting gallery environment, you are right.I actually consider pricey to use as a distraction, it was actually someone extolling their virtues that suggested setting them up for target practice.


For me, in a terrain heavy environment where there is lots of opportunity for them to get to the juicy bits they want to charge and not bring relegated to charging Grey Hunters sitting in area terrain...they'll do just fine. So we have different perspectives. I'm just not sure why I'm in the wrong for showing you my perspective in order to challenge your steadfast conviction that your perspective is the one, only and definitive one.

I'm not trying to convince you, I just simply don't understand that perspective and when I seem to present questions to that situation (if it's terrain heavy, why aren't the 'stealers charging into terrain? Is there really enough LOS blocking terrain that they can get within assault distance without getting into LOS with any enemy shooting, consistently every game? How do you avoid snapshots, especially if you're outflanking or infiltrating ahead of support units? Does no one use vehicles to mitigate vulnerability to such charges? Wouldn't X work better for that role?) rather than discussions it meets less than constructive responses.

In any case, I'd also venture that the pro-stealer view is as zealously projected as "the one, only and definitive one" by those that hold it.

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 21:08
Of course, that is ignoring the other targets that they may need to shoot at, terrain, weapons available to your opponent (If they don't have a lot of Str 8, like autocannon spam, that ups survival a lot) and positioning. I'm probably forgetting other factors as well that ties into survivability, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

I grant you the first one (since warriors are synapse and pyrovores aren't), but I don't see how the comparison ignores terrain, weapons available and positioning.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 21:11
Perhaps you would agree that additional abilities, and upgrades to rules (infiltrate with a 6" range, preferred enemy one some) generally make units better?

Since those improvements still don't allow assaults on turn 1 (That I am aware of), the extra infiltration is nice but not a massive upgrade. Certainly nothing I would include in the main rulebook, because...


How so? While they only function in certain niches, places that allow FW and dataslates should accept these in normal armies.

The dataslates are intended to either provide a bit of bonus and a different playstyle to people who choose to go with that particular build or to help facilitate a campaign based around the invasion of a planet. You may not have noticed, but GW has been putting a lot of emphasis on communication between players prior to the game. People can decide to just show up and play whatever, but that doesn't seem to be the intent. Purely my opinion and speculation there, though.


I actually consider pricey to use as a distraction, it was actually someone extolling their virtues that suggested setting them up for target practice.

And you took that and ran with it. Mind you, you don't acknowledge people using Stealers as backfield assassins going after support units because you won't acknowledge that people can use them for that, which leads me to...


I'm not trying to convince you, I just simply don't understand that perspective and when I seem to present questions to that situation (if it's terrain heavy, why aren't the 'stealers charging into terrain? Is there really enough LOS blocking terrain that they can get within assault distance without getting into LOS with any enemy shooting, consistently every game? How do you avoid snapshots, especially if you're outflanking or infiltrating ahead of support units? Does no one use vehicles to mitigate vulnerability to such charges? Wouldn't X work better for that role?) rather than discussions it meets less than constructive responses.

Terrain does not always mean area terrain. Battlefields are more than just forest clumps or ruins so beat up that you can see through them with no problem. Yes, there should be enough LOS blocking terrain that units can move around (Maybe with a bit of risk, like not making a run move) that they can get from safety to safety against an opponent who just sits still and shoots. If the board is not set up that way, then the shooty army has a massive terrain advantage.

As for snapshots, the obvious answer is not to charge Genestealers into something that will hurt them a lot on Overwatch. Go after Longfangs with Missile Launchers, or vehicles. You may lose a bit to Overwatch, but that's an acceptable risk to me. Outside of that kind of solo work, you can always hang back, hugging the LOS blocking terrain and denying areas (Nobody wants to get close enough to risk being charged) until the rest of the army catches up. Once some Gaunts or Gants are engaged nearby, send the Stealers to clean up the combat next turn.

You also have to consider the rest of the army. A squad of Tactical Marines in a Rhino is not a good target for a lone squad of Stealers. That same squad, shot out of their Rhino by (Hive Guard, anything with a Heavy Venom Cannon, Zoanthropes), shot at by something else (Any of the plethora of anti infantry Nids have) and possibly pinned (By vehicle exploding, Biovore bombardment and/or the Horror) is going to be rolled up by the Genestealers.


In any case, I'd also venture that the pro-stealer view is as zealously projected as "the one, only and definitive one" but those that hold it.

Not really. You may find some people stating that Stealers are good like it is unquestionable fact, but most people are going to be showing why or how Stealers can be good. If your game environment doesn't facilitate that, of course they aren't going to be good.


I grant you the first one (since warriors are synapse and pyrovores aren't), but I don't see how the comparison ignores terrain, weapons available and positioning.

Because survivability relies heavily on those things. If facing Autocannon spam instead of Missile Launcher spam, those Warriors/Pyrovores/whatever aren't going to be as squishy. Not every list or even army throws out so much Str8 that Warriors die quickly. As above, the amount and type of terrain has a significant influence on
how well those things survive. Positioning is a part of that, but if your opponent is packing lots of say...melta? as their anti tank/MC, you can position other units so that they can't even get into range to shoot the Warriors.

naloth
15-02-2014, 21:13
I grant you the first one (since warriors are synapse and pyrovores aren't), but I don't see how the comparison ignores terrain, weapons available and positioning.

Maybe the intent of the Pyrvore is to look like a tempting target for high S weapons? You have it within say 3" of a few 'gaunt units and there's motivation for your opponent to fire a few S8+ weapons that direction. That seems like a strange thing to want to pay points for, but it fits the rules...

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 21:15
Maybe the intent of the Pyrvore is to look like a tempting target for high S weapons? You have it within say 3" of a few 'gaunt units and there's motivation for your opponent to fire a few S8+ weapons that direction. That seems like a strange thing to want to pay points for, but it fits the rules...

Is that one of the strategies utilising the 'nuclear blast' of the pyrovore (due to bad RAW)?

naloth
15-02-2014, 21:35
Since those improvements still don't allow assaults on turn 1 (That I am aware of), the extra infiltration is nice but not a massive upgrade. Certainly nothing I would include in the main rulebook, because... That's more about how easy it is to deny good deployment spots. When enemy units are a 6" bubble they simply cannot prevent you from deploying in as many locations. It's a useful but not a massive upgrade.


You may not have noticed, but GW has been putting a lot of emphasis on communication between players prior to the game. In contrast to how it's been for the last 20-30 years, I really don't see that change. In fact I'd venture to say that since Rogue Trader, it's become steadily less hobbyist and more commercial.


And you took that and ran with it. Mind you, you don't acknowledge people using Stealers as backfield assassins going after support units because you won't acknowledge that people can use them for that, which leads me to... As part of the discussion I did spent a fair amount of time presenting why I didn't think it was a good idea... I certainly didn't run with it in the "do this" type sense.


Terrain does not always mean area terrain. Battlefields are more than just forest clumps or ruins so beat up that you can see through them with no problem. Yes, there should be enough LOS blocking terrain that units can move around (Maybe with a bit of risk, like not making a run move) that they can get from safety to safety against an opponent who just sits still and shoots. If the board is not set up that way, then the shooty army has a massive terrain advantage.

I just don't get that from the description of the terrain set up rules on p120, d3 random pieces per 2x2' section isn't going to give you LOS blocking such that you can make it down the length of the battlefield avoiding LOS. In fact with alternating selection - unless your collection is very unbalanced by only having LOS blocking pieces - the opponent should be free to make up to half of the terrain on the board non-LOS blocking stuff. You shouldn't be able to average more than one LOS blocking piece per 2'x2' section and it would also need to be 3" from any other piece. Certainly you could agree differently or ignore the terrain deployment rules entirely, but the situation you're describing above seem to be deploying against the rule book assumptions in a way that directly favors one army.


As for snapshots, the obvious answer is not to charge Genestealers into something that will hurt them a lot on Overwatch. Go after Longfangs with Missile Launchers, or vehicles. You may lose a bit to Overwatch, but that's an acceptable risk to me. Outside of that kind of solo work, you can always hang back, hugging the LOS blocking terrain and denying areas (Nobody wants to get close enough to risk being charged) until the rest of the army catches up. Once some Gaunts or Gants are engaged nearby, send the Stealers to clean up the combat next turn. Once again this goes back to the simple problem: where's the rest of the army such that the 'Nid player can sit back and take a unit out of the action for a few turns, approach those support units undisturbed (really, backfield units that don't have something in front?), or such that the 'Nid player can concentrate many time the value in 'Nids to take out a single target.


Not really. You may find some people stating that Stealers are good like it is unquestionable fact, but most people are going to be showing why or how Stealers can be good. If your game environment doesn't facilitate that, of course they aren't going to be good. "Showing" sounds a lot like "here I set forth the gospel, now accept it" rather than you've put forth your own assertions that should be tested or analyzed with the same scrutiny as any anti-stealer statements. If you're willing to concede that you have your reasons, I have mine, we can discuss and state why we feel differently that's fine. At the point you're saying "showing how or why they are good" prevents anyone from bring up negatives, that is saying you believe that is fact that you will not question.

naloth
15-02-2014, 21:36
Is that one of the strategies utilising the 'nuclear blast' of the pyrovore (due to bad RAW)?

Lol, no. I specified "within 3" of a few gaunt units" which would be the only things hit by the ID explosion. I did not intend for it to hurt everything on the board.

Ssilmath
15-02-2014, 21:55
Naloth, you are not reading the rules for terrain correctly.

Honestly, you're stuck in a single way of thinking. And I can't get through to you if you won't leave the box you're thinking in. Apparently I play on a much more fluid and dynamic battlefield than you do, and as such nothing I say can have any application to your games.

Langdon
15-02-2014, 22:31
Naloth, you are not reading the rules for terrain correctly.

Honestly, you're stuck in a single way of thinking. And I can't get through to you if you won't leave the box you're thinking in. Apparently I play on a much more fluid and dynamic battlefield than you do, and as such nothing I say can have any application to your games.
nothing any of us can say will change a stubborn mind.

Nal will not convince me this codex is pointless to play, Roc wont convince anyone that he doesn't have a stick rammed up somewhere and i doubt anything you will say will changes Nal's mind.


Welcome to the internet, where everything's made up and the points don't matter!

Menthak
15-02-2014, 22:41
Welcome to the internet, where everything's made up and the points don't matter!

Oh my god, that's hilarious, you must be the first person to ever use that.


nothing any of us can say will change a stubborn mind.

And yet you still spoke.

naloth
15-02-2014, 22:47
Naloth, you are not reading the rules for terrain correctly.

I simplified a bit, but would you care to point out the incorrect parts? p120 describes "mutually agreed upon" referred to as Narrative (which presumes, you will have a balanced approach to terrain set up or are arranging a specific scenerio) or Alternating which gives each play similar input in an attempt to stop one from unduly favoring their army. Since Narrative relies on either an impartial party or accepting that it may favor someone, I chose Alternating as a better example of giving both players the similar influence on set up.


Honestly, you're stuck in a single way of thinking. And I can't get through to you if you won't leave the box you're thinking in. Apparently I play on a much more fluid and dynamic battlefield than you do, and as such nothing I say can have any application to your games. If you're worried that I'm a lost cause in need of saving, worry not. I play in a variety of venues and adapt reasonably well. If you have more support than "accept this, for thus I say" I'm more than willing to discuss ideas. Comments such as the above (you're reading the rules wrong) that don't carry any support aren't really very convincing. I can misread rules and honestly terrain generation is often either handled by a 3rd party, fixed on the board (some shops), or otherwise limited by what's handy. I have enough trouble safely transporting armies. I don't tend to carry around lots of my own custom terrain to support my army.

Langdon
15-02-2014, 23:02
Oh my god, that's hilarious, you must be the first person to ever use that.



And yet you still spoke.

Thanks for the wonderful insight.

Fancy leaving now?

Don;t let the door hit you on the ass.

AngryAngel
16-02-2014, 23:09
Hey hey, we don't limit who can be snarky here, you had your comments, he had his, alls fair. Only difference is his were at least somewhat polite.

Langdon
17-02-2014, 01:27
Hey hey, we don't limit who can be snarky here, you had your comments, he had his, alls fair. Only difference is his were at least somewhat polite.

No need for yours or his comments at all.

ones designed to get a rise from me, i consider to be trolling. I am sure the mods will think the same.

AngryAngel
17-02-2014, 02:13
Well your own " It's useless !! " comments are hardly worthwhile either, nor are you claiming people have sticks shoved somewhere. As for the need for anyone to comment, I don't think there is a need for anyone to really comment on anything posted on a forum, they do it because they want to.

Langdon
17-02-2014, 02:54
Well your own " It's useless !! " comments are hardly worthwhile either, nor are you claiming people have sticks shoved somewhere. As for the need for anyone to comment, I don't think there is a need for anyone to really comment on anything posted on a forum, they do it because they want to.
well his and yours added nothing to the thread.

at least mine was aimed at the atmosphere at large.

He went straight for the jugular without contributing anything else at all to the commentary and you seem to be brown nosing. Is there something you want from him?

thanoson
17-02-2014, 03:27
No. Do not do this. I'm no fan of Chapterhouse, but this is not their problem. If GW wants to remove the pods to pull the rug out from under CH, that's fine. In fact, the ruthless businessman in me actually supports that move.

However, do not punish your customers for this. You are attacking a competitor, not your customers. Replace the pods with other options (a Trygon tunnel that actually works properly, more outflanking options, maybe a venomthrope/lictor type creature that disguises other units and allows them to infiltrate, maybe a flying Tervigon that deep strikes in with gaunt blobs exploding from it, whatever). It doesn't matter what those options are in particular, just that they exist. Removing things that allow movement and deployment options and not bothering to add new ones or create variety is GW's fault.

What this guy said. Furthurmore, I blame GW for not making a model in the 1st place. That would have stuck it to Chapterhouse and given them money.

thanoson
17-02-2014, 03:56
3000 point game vs my buddies Iyaden yesterday. My list went

tyrant w/ lash boneswords, twin devourer, electrogrubs
tyrant guard standard
2 venomthropes
3 hiveguard 1 with shockcannon
3 zoans
14 stealers with Broodlord standard
30 termagants
tervigon
3 warriors boneswords devourers and toxin sacs
20 hormagants toxin sacs
10 devigants
3 carnies 2 dakkafexes, 1 screamer killer
3 carnies 2 HVC, 1 twin linked devorers with crushing claws
crone
10 gargoyles with toxin sacs

1st 2 rounds he destroyed my left flank of tervigon, mommas termagant squad and the gargoyles. Serpent shields are hideous to the small bugs. Genstealers ate up 2 squads of wraithguard, plus the wraithseer. I even used the trygon hole to bring in the devigants to shoot down a serpent in turn 3. Venomthropes really kept my MC's alive. After turn 2 I put the hammer down on him using my crone and carnies to knock stuff down.

AngryAngel
17-02-2014, 05:13
well his and yours added nothing to the thread.

at least mine was aimed at the atmosphere at large.

He went straight for the jugular without contributing anything else at all to the commentary and you seem to be brown nosing. Is there something you want from him?

I'm pretty sure yours also added nothing. As for wanting something from him, yes, I want a cookie.

naloth
17-02-2014, 05:55
nothing any of us can say will change a stubborn mind. Opinioned perhaps, but not closed. It's just that a lack of support and unwillingness to discuss don't really offer any reason why I should change my opinions.


Nal will not convince me this codex is pointless to play, Roc wont convince anyone that he doesn't have a stick rammed up somewhere and i doubt anything you will say will changes Nal's mind.
I have stated that the quality was poor and the codex, not up to the caliber of recent releases but not that it was pointless to play the army. I even further said I could probably win with it fairly consistently as I did with the 5e codex and prior. Taking something bad and putting it to good use doesn't mean that it wasn't bad or that you love it - it's just making the best with the tools at hand. Given the choice between shelving a rather sizable investment in the army for the next few years or using it, I'll probably make do as best I can. So, discussion of what's best and what works is relevant even if it only occurs here sporadically.