It'll help a few units, notably Hormagaunts and Tyrant Guard, but not everything should be beast (why should Zoanthropes and Venomthropes be that fast when they are described as slowly floating over the battlefield).
Overall though it's more like pissing in the wind, the codex needs a total rewrite as large swathes of it are just unusable with poor stats, special rules that hinder far more than they help and some badly overcosted units. Changing everything to beasts wont make a bad codex good.
Make all their units cheaper in general to represent the endless tide.
Current problem with the nid codex is the units are in line with 5th ed rules, in 7th ed, they are to expensive for how gakky they are. If you dropped the price on every unit and maintained the exact same stats, it would make them fine.
Backspacehacker wrote: Make all their units cheaper in general to represent the endless tide.
Current problem with the nid codex is the units are in line with 5th ed rules, in 7th ed, they are to expensive for how gakky they are. If you dropped the price on every unit and maintained the exact same stats, it would make them fine.
I do not think just making everything dirt cheap is the right way to go. I mean it's not like they have no good units. The biggest thing nids are missing is anything with AP3 or better for ranged stuff. If the impaler cannon was made AP3 and heavy venom cannon were large bast I think it would do a lot more to fix the codex other then just making stuff cheaper.
Backspacehacker wrote: Make all their units cheaper in general to represent the endless tide.
Current problem with the nid codex is the units are in line with 5th ed rules, in 7th ed, they are to expensive for how gakky they are. If you dropped the price on every unit and maintained the exact same stats, it would make them fine.
I do not think just making everything dirt cheap is the right way to go. I mean it's not like they have no good units. The biggest thing nids are missing is anything with AP3 or better for ranged stuff. If the impaler cannon was made AP3 and heavy venom cannon were large bast I think it would do a lot more to fix the codex other then just making stuff cheaper.
i agree its not that they dont have good units, because they do, its that they are over priced for what they do.
Their entire codex suffers from the same problem we have with terminators. Terminators are not inherently a bad unit. Its that their price for what they do, is awful.
Make most things a bit cheaper, address the internal imbalance between things like flying hive tyrants vs. walking hive tyrants and twin-linked devourers with brainleech worms vs. other bioweapons, and the codex is fine.
They're not supposed to have low AP shooting; they're not a shooting army. The point of Tyranid antitank weapons, I think by design, is to suppress enemy vehicles (shake them, stun them) to allow the real melee tank killers to close. They're just fine at doing that. They're just overcosted, or rather the platforms they are mounted on are overcosted. If Carnifexes were 80-100 points, and Tyrannofexes 150 points, heavy venom cannons and rupture cannons would be much more effective.
This would be a change for the positive, definitely. But it wouldn't be enough, and honestly, is probably a bit TOO far in the good movement direction. I would give them a rule like Dunestrider from the Sicarians. +3" to movement, not a full 12".
This would be a change for the positive, definitely. But it wouldn't be enough, and honestly, is probably a bit TOO far in the good movement direction. I would give them a rule like Dunestrider from the Sicarians. +3" to movement, not a full 12".
They're still easy to kill and don't have transportation outside an expensive drop pod. They need the buff desperately.
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me why a 4 ppm model should have the beast USR.
You continue to missunderstand why exactly USR are for in 40K. They ARE NOT (generally speaking) a "bonus mechanics". They are focus/variety mechanics (often abused, I don't deny that), because current core rules+statline is not enough to represent a full spectrum of possible units across all available factions. A little exercise for you: please write down a unit using no USRs, only model+weapon statlines, that has it's peak efficiency targeting/surviving T4-5 multiwound creature with a 3+ save, which will not be, at the same time, effective against either T3/sv- hordes, T6-8/sv3+ MCs or tanks. A quick answer is - you cannot, because statline based system is linear and APvsSV is a threshold... You have to make some kind of USR for this purpose. (to elaborate: increasing ROF/attacks will linearily increase both antihorde and antiMC capabilities, no matter the weapon statline. AP3 will drop one dice roll against MC so even S4 will hurt them (and you need at least S4 to hurt T5 units better than T6 units). You are left with only one option - S10/ap- weapon and a strenght ID core rule. But now you have an ultimate (within a statline system) tank killing unit... Even introducing a "core USR" of ID will not help here, as ID will hurt MCs badly, and you don't want it in this case).
But getting to point: Hormagaunts were fast beasts since 2nd ed and if you have actually ever played against Endless Swarm Tyranids you would know, that this is how this army SHOULD feel when played against - a countless mass of bodies that you cannot simply table. You should always have to play objectives or have to focus fire on synapse aganst Tyranids and endless beast gaunts feel exactly like this.
There are definitely a number of units that SHOULD be beasts. No doubt about that. But it's not even close to the real problems with nids unfortunately.
GW has thrown a few extra kits that all make 2 units at the nids since 7th rolled around in an attempt to patch up some of the nids holes in their codex. In some ways this worked but it was only a band aid over the bigger issues and results in nids having a bloat of unit selection.
Many of the nids units need to be cut down and condensed.
Couple this with the fact that almost every nid is either kind of crap at it's intended job or has weapons/rules that are contradictory to that job. Hivecrone... air superiority fighter, has a drool cannon can only target ground units and only really great against troops.
Then get into how their army wide special rules just don't function. Shadow in the Warp is literally useless. IB is a shackle. Synapse provides fearless, but I am more and more of the opinion that it shouldn't (there are other still fluffy ways to provide nids with great moral checks when in synapse that doesn't just remove whole mechanics of the game from them).
And then look at their costs! The norn crown costs 40 points to increase Synapse by 6". Insane! If you're synapse web is only hanging on because one synapse creature has an extra 6" of synapse range then you have already lost the game.
You cannot make nids competitive with any 1 change. They need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Other armies use transports to get their infantry from place to place, which allow units to travel significantly faster than footslogging, while providing a fair bit of extra protection. Given that tyranids have to do without them, they need something to make up for it. Speed seems like a good answer, and the beast unit type is very thematically fitting.
Tyranids actually were faster than most other armies back around 4th edition and earlier. Before running was introduced as a core mechanic that everyone could do, most tyranids had Fleet of Claw, which did basically the same thing (also allowing assaults afterwards IIRC).
When 5th edition came along, suddenly everyone could run, and tyranids were no faster than anyone else. They never got that speed back.
Ynneadwraith wrote:Give all Tyranid organisms the BeastUSR.
This may be a stupid question, but what IS the Beast USR?
Are you speaking of the Beast Unit Type? That's a different thing. If you make the Beast Unit Type global, then you have to add in all sorts of USRs in to the Monstrous Creatures that currently exist and the Harpy and Hive Crone would have to have their rules rewritten. In addition, there are some units which probably should not have such movement capacity.
As has been said, some should be changed from Infantry to Beasts, and some could use a Monstrous Beast rule akin to what they did with the Chaos Maulerfiend's movement, but that is not as quick a fix to the army as is actually needed.
But their "Wargear", point tallies, and Special Rules are what needs to be addressed the most, with a stat here and there as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: To be fair about the Norn Crown, there's lots of relics that are pretty overpriced. That's not an issue unique to them.
To be fair about other relics, the rest of them actually do something.
LOL like that 25 point bad power fist for Guard? Or that gak sword for Dark Angels when the Mace is readily available? The Armor Indomitable LOSING rules and staying the same price?
Please don't pretend all the other relics really do something. Every codex has a good relic that stands out and one that's just balls awful.
As with a lot of understrength codexes (Dark Eldar come to mind), it's definitely not a quick fix, and going back and rewriting the codex to fit 7th is probably the best way forwards.
I definitely agree that some units don't fit the Beast unit type (apologies, it's not a USR, that's my mistake). Zoanthropes, Venomthropes, Carnifexes etc. probably shouldn't be moving 12" a turn. TBH Zoanthropes should be hanging around at the back like other HS choices, but they're pressed into synapse duty by the fact that Warriors are pants.
The thing one simple rules change is that it can be enacted as a patch in an easily produced supplement, bridging the gap between a codex rewrite.
I guess it's wishful thinking either way, but I was definitely wondering how much of an effect it would have if you house-ruled it or something.
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me why a 4 ppm model should have the beast USR.
Because that 4 point model isn't good currently and could use a buff?
How good do you want a 4 point model to be? A termagaunt should be less than a third as good as a tactical marine with boltgun. If it's EVEN a third as good, it's undercosted. It should be LESS than a third as good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote:Explain to us why they should have to pay for beasts when no one else pays for there special rules
Termagaunts are 4 ppm.
A tactical marine with boltgun is 14 ppm.
A guardsman with lasgun and no upgrades is 5 ppm.
A chaos cultist without upgrades is 4 ppm.
I'm sorry, but NO. A termagaunt should not be a beast at only 4 ppm. Then they would be OP in comparison to things like cultists and guardsmen.
Everytime I fought Nids in 7th that wasn't spore field cheese or flyrant spam it basically boiled down to the following.
1. Overwhelming numbers that I gun/chop down but they are also cutting through my own guys.
2. Synapse units start to die
3. Nid army falls to pieces because they go from combat effective to pants on head garbage and get swept.
Having more speed would help them against shooty armies but across the board their biggest weakness is how easy it is to kill those synapse creatures which makes the bulk of the rest of the army useless. Granted I don't encounter Nid players very often so my experience is limited but it just doesn't seem like the right fix to help the faction. Personally I would like to see what impact would giving things in synapse Eternal Warrior would have.
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me why a 4 ppm model should have the beast USR.
Because that 4 point model isn't good currently and could use a buff?
How good do you want a 4 point model to be? A termagaunt should be less than a third as good as a tactical marine with boltgun. If it's EVEN a third as good, it's undercosted. It should be LESS than a third as good.
I want a 4 point model to be worth its 4 point cost. Termagants are currently are worth less then that
As with a lot of understrength codexes (Dark Eldar come to mind), it's definitely not a quick fix, and going back and rewriting the codex to fit 7th is probably the best way forwards.
I definitely agree that some units don't fit the Beast unit type (apologies, it's not a USR, that's my mistake). Zoanthropes, Venomthropes, Carnifexes etc. probably shouldn't be moving 12" a turn. TBH Zoanthropes should be hanging around at the back like other HS choices, but they're pressed into synapse duty by the fact that Warriors are pants.
The thing one simple rules change is that it can be enacted as a patch in an easily produced supplement, bridging the gap between a codex rewrite.
I guess it's wishful thinking either way, but I was definitely wondering how much of an effect it would have if you house-ruled it or something.
I wonder how much you understand Tyranids? You say a Carnifex shouldn't be moving 12", and maybe that is a bit too much, but for a unit that has always meant to be melee focused only being able to move 6" has been a huge liability for it, it needs to be much faster so that it can get into combat. And Zoanthropes have always been a Psychic support unit, using Synapse and it's psychic powers to support the army with short range psychic attacks, it has never been meant as a back line HS unit.
As with a lot of understrength codexes (Dark Eldar come to mind), it's definitely not a quick fix, and going back and rewriting the codex to fit 7th is probably the best way forwards.
I definitely agree that some units don't fit the Beast unit type (apologies, it's not a USR, that's my mistake). Zoanthropes, Venomthropes, Carnifexes etc. probably shouldn't be moving 12" a turn. TBH Zoanthropes should be hanging around at the back like other HS choices, but they're pressed into synapse duty by the fact that Warriors are pants.
The thing one simple rules change is that it can be enacted as a patch in an easily produced supplement, bridging the gap between a codex rewrite.
I guess it's wishful thinking either way, but I was definitely wondering how much of an effect it would have if you house-ruled it or something.
I wonder how much you understand Tyranids? You say a Carnifex shouldn't be moving 12", and maybe that is a bit too much, but for a unit that has always meant to be melee focused only being able to move 6" has been a huge liability for it, it needs to be much faster so that it can get into combat. And Zoanthropes have always been a Psychic support unit, using Synapse and it's psychic powers to support the army with short range psychic attacks, it has never been meant as a back line HS unit.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Carnifex being able to move, Run in the Shooting Phase, and still be able to charge. That actually seems like a happy medium between the 12" move distance.
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me why a 4 ppm model should have the beast USR.
Because that 4 point model isn't good currently and could use a buff?
How good do you want a 4 point model to be? A termagaunt should be less than a third as good as a tactical marine with boltgun. If it's EVEN a third as good, it's undercosted. It should be LESS than a third as good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote:Explain to us why they should have to pay for beasts when no one else pays for there special rules
Termagaunts are 4 ppm.
A tactical marine with boltgun is 14 ppm.
A guardsman with lasgun and no upgrades is 5 ppm.
A chaos cultist without upgrades is 4 ppm.
I'm sorry, but NO. A termagaunt should not be a beast at only 4 ppm. Then they would be OP in comparison to things like cultists and guardsmen.
A space Marine is 14pts, free chapter tactics, free frag/krak, free atsknf.
20/25pts per model of rules and gear before we factor in stat line
4pt gaunt with beast and then still has to pay for everything....
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me why a 4 ppm model should have the beast USR.
Because that 4 point model isn't good currently and could use a buff?
How good do you want a 4 point model to be? A termagaunt should be less than a third as good as a tactical marine with boltgun. If it's EVEN a third as good, it's undercosted. It should be LESS than a third as good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote:Explain to us why they should have to pay for beasts when no one else pays for there special rules
Termagaunts are 4 ppm.
A tactical marine with boltgun is 14 ppm.
A guardsman with lasgun and no upgrades is 5 ppm.
A chaos cultist without upgrades is 4 ppm.
I'm sorry, but NO. A termagaunt should not be a beast at only 4 ppm. Then they would be OP in comparison to things like cultists and guardsmen.
Because that makes up for lack of speed, duh. Do you think before you type?
I wonder how much you understand Tyranids? You say a Carnifex shouldn't be moving 12", and maybe that is a bit too much, but for a unit that has always meant to be melee focused only being able to move 6" has been a huge liability for it, it needs to be much faster so that it can get into combat. And Zoanthropes have always been a Psychic support unit, using Synapse and it's psychic powers to support the army with short range psychic attacks, it has never been meant as a back line HS unit.
Very much this.
This may actually be suprising for some younger players, but when Tyranids were first introduced in 2nd ed, almost entire range of units had 6" movement stat, except for Zoantropes, Biovores and Rippers (basic Eldar movement was 5" back then, with only the fastest units having 6" movement, while Space Marines had 4" movement stat on almost everything). Even Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants were fast monsters and the entire army was a built around fast movement in 3rd and 4th ed. The current codex becomes much more coherent and adequate if you just speed up appropriate units to their previous incarnations. Of course this is not the only thing that the current codex is lacking (and this change alone does not make Nids competetive in modern terms), but it at least begins to have some sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: holding enemies in place while your other units move up is what The Horror and pinning weapons are there for; I'm pretty sure as I mentioned above that the high-S low-AP antitank weapons are designed to do this as well, since they won't kill a vehicle but will render it immobile just fine.
Vankraken wrote: Personally I would like to see what impact would giving things in synapse Eternal Warrior would have.
Now that's interesting. I've long heard the complaint that Warriors really aren't up to the job that they're supposed to do (providing added muscle but primarily expanding the synapse web).
Making them tougher would solve the issue of them being IDed by tons of things, but would bring other balance problems with it.
Giving synapse creatures Eternal Warrior would be a nice little buff that would solve a lot of the gameplay issues with Tyranids by the sounds of things, and again would be simple enough to include as a buff from a formation in a supplement, as that seems to be the direction of travel for GW codex releases recently.
I agree that 6" movement for a Carnifex would be limiting its usability, but I like the idea of the run and charge thing as a happy medium.
I kind of liked the idea of making it so all nids in synapse gain FNP 6+ (including the synapse creature) while giving the actual synapse creatures EW.
The entire army is guaranteed a tee shirt save because of it (which gives the horde a small measure of survivability) and the Synapse creatures become immune to instant death which means they still get their FNP on high str weapons.
I also think they should loose fearless and gain a rule: Driven By the Hive Mind: Any friendly tyranid unit with a model at least partially within synapse range uses the unmodified leadership of the nearest synapse creature for all rules purposes.
Now they can go to ground, can fail moral checks, must make all the tests everyone else does. But is generally making those tests on a 10 ld with stubborn. It's fluffy without making the army immune to entire core mechanics of the game.
Formosa 706837 wrote:A space Marine is 14pts, free chapter tactics, free frag/krak, free atsknf.
20/25pts per model of rules and gear before we factor in stat line
4pt gaunt with beast and then still has to pay for everything....
1. How'd you do the math? I certainly agree that chapter tactics, grenades and ATSKNF is worth something, but how did you come up with that number?
And even if you're doing the math right, did you take into account the law of diminishing returns?
2. Do you really want to say that a marine is 5-6+ times as good as a termagaunt? 5-6+ times as good as a chaos cultist with ccw and pistol? 4-5 times as good as a guardsman with lasgun?
How do you figure? Does a marine with boltgun hold objectives 4-6 times as better? Does he shoot 4-6 times better? Does he assault 4-6 times better?
And do you really want to assert that a termagaunt with the beast unit type would be EXACTLY as good as a chaos cultist with ccw and pistol and only SLIGHTLY inferior to a gaurdsman with lasgun?
I agree that termagaunts aren't great. But again, we're talking about something that's 4 ppm and benefits from synapse. 10 termagaunts is already better (and CHEAPER!) than 10 chaos cultists without upgrades.
Lance845 wrote: I kind of liked the idea of making it so all nids in synapse gain FNP 6+ (including the synapse creature) while giving the actual synapse creatures EW.
The entire army is guaranteed a tee shirt save because of it (which gives the horde a small measure of survivability) and the Synapse creatures become immune to instant death which means they still get their FNP on high str weapons.
I also think they should loose fearless and gain a rule: Driven By the Hive Mind: Any friendly tyranid unit with a model at least partially within synapse range uses the unmodified leadership of the nearest synapse creature for all rules purposes.
Now they can go to ground, can fail moral checks, must make all the tests everyone else does. But is generally making those tests on a 10 ld with stubborn. It's fluffy without making the army immune to entire core mechanics of the game.
While I like this idea as a mechanic - I don't think it's entirely fluffy. For me, what makes the tyranids such a threat is that they do not care about death at all. At no point that I'm aware of in the fluff have tyranids under synapse control fled, been pinned etc. The fact is that they just don't feel the fear that is represented by these tests, I like that under synapse they are immune. (I also like that they are not fearless once that has been removed)
Lance845 wrote: I kind of liked the idea of making it so all nids in synapse gain FNP 6+ (including the synapse creature) while giving the actual synapse creatures EW.
The entire army is guaranteed a tee shirt save because of it (which gives the horde a small measure of survivability) and the Synapse creatures become immune to instant death which means they still get their FNP on high str weapons.
I also think they should loose fearless and gain a rule: Driven By the Hive Mind: Any friendly tyranid unit with a model at least partially within synapse range uses the unmodified leadership of the nearest synapse creature for all rules purposes.
Now they can go to ground, can fail moral checks, must make all the tests everyone else does. But is generally making those tests on a 10 ld with stubborn. It's fluffy without making the army immune to entire core mechanics of the game.
While I like this idea as a mechanic - I don't think it's entirely fluffy. For me, what makes the tyranids such a threat is that they do not care about death at all. At no point that I'm aware of in the fluff have tyranids under synapse control fled, been pinned etc. The fact is that they just don't feel the fear that is represented by these tests, I like that under synapse they are immune. (I also like that they are not fearless once that has been removed)
Yes, but the Hive Mind is also not idiotic. While it is happy to send everything forward in droves it has used tactics to bait people into traps. It does lay ambushes. It will have units go to ground.
In that massive ork battle currently happening the nids will send forward groups to die on purpose. Fall back to look weak and let them get over run. Then start a fight someplace else to pull the orks away. Send in the feeder organisms to gather up the biomass of the fallen nids and any orks they killed to be used to produce more nids, rinse and repeat.
Fearless is powerful because it allows you to ignore mechanics. But it also bottle necks you into doing a single thing. March forward always regardless. The Hive Mind has always been more cunning then that. A very reliable Ld for making all checks allows you to run forward in the same way. But now you CAN take cover and go to ground. You can lay ambushes. You can make use of terrain more effectively.
I like the idea that different synapse creatures could provide different bonuses. For example, maybe Zoanthropes can confer AW on top of the regular bonuses.
I've played against tyrranids quite a bit, and I think that I have a pretty decent feel for how the army operates, for its short-comings, where it shines, etc.
I also play against it with things like missile launchers, sternguard in rhinos, flamethrowers, etc. I don't use bikes, drop pods, grav, centurions or librarians.
The tyrranids army is a relatively slow moving army that relies primarily on short-ranged shooting and the assault phase. It's forced to move relatively slowly because of the synapse special rule. Everything has to stay in a relatively tightly closed formation. Even more so when you have specific creatures granting more rules (e.g., shrouded). Many models have multiple wounds at what seem, at least to me, to be discount rates.
The tyrranids army shines when it comes to close combat and when it comes to 18 range or less shooting. They do very poorly at distances exceeding 24 inches.
The flyrant is the "strongest" unit in the codex since it is practically impossible to kill for most units in the game, since it has synpase (and therefore can go wherever it wants), is a psycher AND can fire TWELVE TWIN LINKED BS 4 S6 SHOTS PER TURN at 18 inch range.
By and large, the tyrranids army works as a cohesive army, or else, it falls apart. From the opponent's perspective, it rewards player skill (like target prioritization) and severely punishes a lack of player skill.
Note, all of this is purely descriptive. I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing, nor am I saying that any of this should or should not change. I'm simply stating the facts thus far.
A big "problem" with the tyrranids army is a big problem with the game in general. 1. A select, small number of undercosted, OP bullgak. Tyrranids crumble to scatter bikes, wraithguard and grav just like practically everything else. 2. The existence of overwatch and the current "tilt" of the game in favor of primarily shooty armies.
If you take out the OP bullgak (e.g., grav, scatter bikes, etc.), tyrranids fare much better, but are still at a disadvantage to shooty armies.
Before I propose solutions, does everyone basically agree with my assessment here?
Traditio wrote: If you take out the OP bullgak (e.g., grav, scatter bikes, etc.), tyrranids fare much better, but are still at a disadvantage to shooty armies.
Unfortunately, OP bullgak, as you put it, DOES exist. This proposed change factors in the "OP bullgak" you did not, therefore your knowledge on Tyranids using an unoptimised build does not reflect the competitive view on 40k, which I assume this thread is addressing.
You say yourself - Tyranids suffer to shooting. This would make them less likely to suffer so badly, by getting them in closer. However, I refuse to base an army's judgement, especially modifiying units which are not an issue, based on a select few which should be modified in some way (perhaps in another thread?).
I would support the idea of having certain Tyranid units (ie Hormagaunts, Ripper Swarms, Termagants) as Beasts, with a small price increase, around 1-2 points. They'll still die rather easy, and force a Tyranid player to consider whether to hold his bugs back in the protective bubble of Synapse and cover clouds, or throw them at the enemy to distract their fire.* It would also make template weaponry much more effective and valuable to take as the Tyranids would be reaching flamer ranges faster.
*As part of that, I would make Synapse less of a hindrance, allowing the Hormagaunts to rush forward heedlessly as per their lore suggests.
I've played against tyrranids quite a bit, and I think that I have a pretty decent feel for how the army operates, for its short-comings, where it shines, etc.
I also play against it with things like missile launchers, sternguard in rhinos, flamethrowers, etc. I don't use bikes, drop pods, grav, centurions or librarians.
The tyrranids army is a relatively slow moving army that relies primarily on short-ranged shooting and the assault phase. It's forced to move relatively slowly because of the synapse special rule. Everything has to stay in a relatively tightly closed formation. Even more so when you have specific creatures granting more rules (e.g., shrouded). Many models have multiple wounds at what seem, at least to me, to be discount rates.
The tyrranids army shines when it comes to close combat and when it comes to 18 range or less shooting. They do very poorly at distances exceeding 24 inches.
The flyrant is the "strongest" unit in the codex since it is practically impossible to kill for most units in the game, since it has synpase (and therefore can go wherever it wants), is a psycher AND can fire TWELVE TWIN LINKED BS 4 S6 SHOTS PER TURN at 18 inch range.
By and large, the tyrranids army works as a cohesive army, or else, it falls apart. From the opponent's perspective, it rewards player skill (like target prioritization) and severely punishes a lack of player skill.
Note, all of this is purely descriptive. I'm not saying that any of this is a good or bad thing, nor am I saying that any of this should or should not change. I'm simply stating the facts thus far.
A big "problem" with the tyrranids army is a big problem with the game in general. 1. A select, small number of undercosted, OP bullgak. Tyrranids crumble to scatter bikes, wraithguard and grav just like practically everything else. 2. The existence of overwatch and the current "tilt" of the game in favor of primarily shooty armies.
If you take out the OP bullgak (e.g., grav, scatter bikes, etc.), tyrranids fare much better, but are still at a disadvantage to shooty armies.
Before I propose solutions, does everyone basically agree with my assessment here?
I'm sorry but are you suggesting one of the reasons Tyranids have it rough is because of Grav?
It is rediculous to argue that a particular army has problems because one faction has access to a partichlar type of gun. You dont see hoe limited a poi t of view that is?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm sorry but are you suggesting one of the reasons Tyranids have it rough is because of Grav?
Absolutely. The Tyrranids codex can be broken up roughly into two sub-groups:
1. Big, expensive multi-wound MCs with 4+ or 3+ armor.
Grav tears that to shreds.
2. Cheap bodies with t-shirt saves.
Bolters tear that to shreds.
Those are only Space Marine weapons, we should keep in mind. A very prevalent faction in the gaming community, sure, but still only one possible explanation to why Tyranids are no good using some of the facts presented.
It is of my personal opinion that basic Tyranid organisms should be faster. Both Termagants and Hormagaunts are very poorly armed and armoured - they should be able to make up for this with numbers and speed.
Formosa 706837 wrote:A space Marine is 14pts, free chapter tactics, free frag/krak, free atsknf.
20/25pts per model of rules and gear before we factor in stat line
4pt gaunt with beast and then still has to pay for everything....
1. How'd you do the math? I certainly agree that chapter tactics, grenades and ATSKNF is worth something, but how did you come up with that number?
And even if you're doing the math right, did you take into account the law of diminishing returns?
2. Do you really want to say that a marine is 5-6+ times as good as a termagaunt? 5-6+ times as good as a chaos cultist with ccw and pistol? 4-5 times as good as a guardsman with lasgun?
How do you figure? Does a marine with boltgun hold objectives 4-6 times as better? Does he shoot 4-6 times better? Does he assault 4-6 times better?
And do you really want to assert that a termagaunt with the beast unit type would be EXACTLY as good as a chaos cultist with ccw and pistol and only SLIGHTLY inferior to a gaurdsman with lasgun?
I agree that termagaunts aren't great. But again, we're talking about something that's 4 ppm and benefits from synapse. 10 termagaunts is already better (and CHEAPER!) than 10 chaos cultists without upgrades.
Frag and krak 5pts per model, atsknf 5pts per model, depending on chapter tactic between 5 and 10pts per model, that's what these things should cost, but that would make marines unplayable, so they get the rules for free, beast for gaunts is the same concept and as other armies don't pay for certain upgrades, why should tyranids be any different.
The best example is elder, blade storm free, extra wound on exarchs free, shoot/run run/shoot free, it just goes on with eldar.
This isn't really fair. 1. Many other units get grenades as part of their model cost. Chaos space marines come to mind. 2. If you're thinking of guardsmen, guardsmen don't pay 5 ppm for krak and frag grenades. At 5 ppm, they come stock with frag grenades. For an additional 10 points per unit (IoW, 1 ppm), you can give the unit krak grenades. So, no, you're just wrong on this.
atsknf 5pts per model
What are you basing this number on?
depending on chapter tactic between 5 and 10pts per model
Again, what are you basing this number on? CSM marks don't cost 5-10 points per model. And even with marks, CSM are generally agreed to be underpowered/overcosted.
that's what these things should cost, but that would make marines unplayable
If it would make marines unplayable, then that's not what those things "should" cost. Ideally, any model with a points cost of x would be exactly on par with any other comparable model of the same points cost. This is what I meant before: you didn't take into account diminishing returns in giving me your number of what marines "should" cost.
Thus my point: I think that units like grots, guardsmen and cultists would have something nasty to say about 4 point termagaunts with the beast unit type.
beast for gaunts is the same concept and as other armies don't pay for certain upgrades, why should tyranids be any different.
The best example is elder, blade storm free, extra wound on exarchs free, shoot/run run/shoot free, it just goes on with eldar.
I'm not objecting to termagaunts getting "free" rules. My point is that 4 ppm would not be a fair assessment of the value of a termagaunt if it had the beast unit type. Again, compare to guardsmen, grots and cultists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote:Those are only Space Marine weapons, we should keep in mind. A very prevalent faction in the gaming community, sure, but still only one possible explanation to why Tyranids are no good using some of the facts presented.
I'm not saying that Tyrranids are "bad" ONLY because of grav. I'm saying that tyrranids are generally "bad" because of things LIKE grav.
Non-flyrant lists can't compete with grav. They can't compete with scatter bikes. They can't compete with wraithknights. They can't compete with wraithguard. They can't compete with wave serpents. They can't compete with the Tau.
I could go on. But ultimately, the list of things that I am going to come up with is going to be in the minority when it comes to the entirety of things that are able to be played.
The tyrranid do not need to be raised to OP competitive levels as a codex.
The OP stuff needs to be nerfed, some core rules need to change to "balance" shooting and assaulting (example: no more overwatch), and the Tau need to be squatted.
That would make things much more fair for tyrranid players...and everyone else.
Illustration of my point:
Can termagaunts compete with tactical marines with bolters? More or less. For 85 points, I get a 5 man tactical squad with a missile launcher...and the tyrranid player gets roughly 21 termagaunts (which are likely going to start the game fearless and shrouded).
That's already fair enough as is. They don't need the "beast" unit type in addition.
It is of my personal opinion that basic Tyranid organisms should be faster. Both Termagants and Hormagaunts are very poorly armed and armoured - they should be able to make up for this with numbers and speed.
No they don't. Again, "4 ppm." Termagaunts are about as good as they should be given their points cost.
I'm not saying that Tyrranids are "bad" ONLY because of grav. I'm saying that tyrranids are generally "bad" because of things LIKE grav.
Nope. You're wrong.
Tyranids are not bad because of things OUTSIDE their codex. If that was the case you could make a few changes in other codexes and Nids would be fixed. Nids are bad because their codex is bad. Grav has nothing to do with it. If you want to see why nids are bad it's between the front and back cover of one book. And then if you want to see why they continue to be bad it's between the front and back covers of 2 other books (IA: Anphelion Project and Shield of Baal Leviathan). You are SO BAD at objectively narrowing down both what the problems with the game are and what the sources of those problems are. SO BAD. It's almost unbelievable.
If you are attempting to tackle the issues of the nid dex by pointing a finger at the issues of the space marine dex you are so misguided, so far off the mark, that nothing you could possibly propose could ever actually address ANY of the issues you made this thread about.
You are wrong.
Overwatch is not what makes shooting more powerful than assault. Removing overwatch will not suddenly make assault viable. The many MANY things that make it so you can get closer to the enemy but then have to wait around a full turn before you can assault is what makes shooting more powerful. The random charge range vs a flat shooting range is what makes shooting more viable. Overwatch is insignificant. A pile of shots that hit on 6s and still need to wound and pass saves is statistically insignificant. It's a waste of all players time for what little effect it actually has on the game.
If I don't make it into assault it's never because of overwatch. It's because I have to move (without running) to get within 7 or less inches of the enemy unit to have a statistically positive chance to assault and then STILL might roll snake eyes and end up staring at the target for another turn.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Unfortunately, OP bullgak, as you put it, DOES exist.
This proposed change factors in the "OP bullgak" you did not, therefore your knowledge on Tyranids using an unoptimised build does not reflect the competitive view on 40k, which I assume this thread is addressing.
That's the thing, though. If you want to take OP bullgak into account, there are two viable ways of dealing with it:
1. Make everything else equally OP.
2. Nerf the OP bullgak.
I don't know whether or not making all Tyrranids beasts would be OP. I do think, however, that it would make at least some tyrranids units undercosted.
4 ppm termagaunts with the beast unit type would be, generally speaking, better than other models of the same points cost.
If the concern is simply which unit is better (and not which is more fluffy or has a better model, etc.):
Would you rather take 50 points of cultists with just auto pistols and ccws? Or 12 and a half termagaunts with the beast special rule?
No contest. You'd take the termagaunts. All day long.
And the simple fact is that if you just give tyrranids codex-wide buffs to make them "competitive" with the OP stuff in the game, then you are only indirectly nerfing other things.
Do my tac marines without grav really need a nerf? Do my assault marines with flamethrowers really need a nerf? Do my sternguard really need a nerf? Do my devastator marines without grav really need a nerf?
You say yourself - Tyranids suffer to shooting. This would make them less likely to suffer so badly, by getting them in closer.
But then you run the risk of imbalancing the game AGAINST shooting armies. And you don't want that either. Assaults, at least in this game, are an extremely delicate/difficult thing to balance because assaults by their very nature are so imbalanced. Yes, it's difficult to get into close combat. But it's also difficult to escape from close combat, and you can't shoot into close combat either.
I would support the idea of having certain Tyranid units (ie Hormagaunts, Ripper Swarms, Termagants) as Beasts, with a small price increase, around 1-2 points.
Depending on the points increase, I would be fine with this. Ultimately, my point is just this: nothing should be OP. Whatever set of rules you end up with, you should have to pay the appropriate points cost for it.
4 ppm termagaunts with the beast special rule are not fine. 6 ppm? Maybe. I'm not sure about that. But definitely not 4 ppm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Nids are bad because their codex is bad.
Balance is relative.
Overwatch is not what makes shooting more powerful than assault.
JNAProductions wrote: They can have guns that have more shots for a single PPM, rather than the 4 PPM it takes on a Termagaunt.
And fire at S3, AP -.
You're missing that point.
They're better in CC base, having 2 attacks rather than 1
Termagaunts have S4 assault guns.
They have a higher leadership, and don't rely on synpase.
Don't "rely" on synapse? That's a complete load of malarky.
Synapse is a blessing, not a curse, at least in the early game. If you kill half of my cultist squad on turn 1, my cultists very well might run off the table. If I shoot your termagaunts on turn 1 and kill half the squad, they won't. And in addition, those termagaunts probably have the shrouded special rule.
They have more options, like flamers and stubbers.
But at that point, you're no longer comparing a 4 point model to a 4 point model. The 4 point model is the ccw + pistol...a 4 point model that MUST be taken in a unit of 10, and a unit that MUST include a 14+ ppm chaos cultist campion.
No need to kill those termagants. Just kill the synapse creatures nearby and they will happily run off the table all by themselves.
Tyranids are not supposed to be a slow army. As previously stated in this thread, in 4th edition and earlier they had possibly the fastest infantry in the game. This is needed, as they're the only army in the game that doesn't have transports for those infantry.
It's only since 5th edition and the much maligned cruddex that they've become this slow plodding force.
Lance845 wrote: Nids are bad because their codex is bad.
Balance is relative.
Cohesive rules are not relative. The Nid dex does not contain cohesive rules. It mostly contains contradictory rules, units with no focus or direct purpose, rules that no longer apply to the current game edition, and rules that are so poorly written it literally means that the entire table suffers hits.
Overwatch is not what makes shooting more powerful than assault.
The OP stuff needs to be nerfed, some core rules need to change to "balance" shooting and assaulting (example: no more overwatch), and the Tau need to be squatted.
t
This isn't really fair. 1. Many other units get grenades as part of their model cost. Chaos space marines come to mind. 2. If you're thinking of guardsmen, guardsmen don't pay 5 ppm for krak and frag grenades. At 5 ppm, they come stock with frag grenades. For an additional 10 points per unit (IoW, 1 ppm), you can give the unit krak grenades. So, no, you're just wrong on this.
atsknf 5pts per model
What are you basing this number on?
depending on chapter tactic between 5 and 10pts per model
Again, what are you basing this number on? CSM marks don't cost 5-10 points per model. And even with marks, CSM are generally agreed to be underpowered/overcosted.
that's what these things should cost, but that would make marines unplayable
If it would make marines unplayable, then that's not what those things "should" cost. Ideally, any model with a points cost of x would be exactly on par with any other comparable model of the same points cost. This is what I meant before: you didn't take into account diminishing returns in giving me your number of what marines "should" cost.
Thus my point: I think that units like grots, guardsmen and cultists would have something nasty to say about 4 point termagaunts with the beast unit type.
beast for gaunts is the same concept and as other armies don't pay for certain upgrades, why should tyranids be any different.
The best example is elder, blade storm free, extra wound on exarchs free, shoot/run run/shoot free, it just goes on with eldar.
I'm not objecting to termagaunts getting "free" rules. My point is that 4 ppm would not be a fair assessment of the value of a termagaunt if it had the beast unit type. Again, compare to guardsmen, grots and cultists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote:Those are only Space Marine weapons, we should keep in mind. A very prevalent faction in the gaming community, sure, but still only one possible explanation to why Tyranids are no good using some of the facts presented.
I'm not saying that Tyrranids are "bad" ONLY because of grav. I'm saying that tyrranids are generally "bad" because of things LIKE grav.
Non-flyrant lists can't compete with grav. They can't compete with scatter bikes. They can't compete with wraithknights. They can't compete with wraithguard. They can't compete with wave serpents. They can't compete with the Tau.
I could go on. But ultimately, the list of things that I am going to come up with is going to be in the minority when it comes to the entirety of things that are able to be played.
The tyrranid do not need to be raised to OP competitive levels as a codex.
The OP stuff needs to be nerfed, some core rules need to change to "balance" shooting and assaulting (example: no more overwatch), and the Tau need to be squatted.
That would make things much more fair for tyrranid players...and everyone else.
Illustration of my point:
Can termagaunts compete with tactical marines with bolters? More or less. For 85 points, I get a 5 man tactical squad with a missile launcher...and the tyrranid player gets roughly 21 termagaunts (which are likely going to start the game fearless and shrouded).
That's already fair enough as is. They don't need the "beast" unit type in addition.
It is of my personal opinion that basic Tyranid organisms should be faster. Both Termagants and Hormagaunts are very poorly armed and armoured - they should be able to make up for this with numbers and speed.
No they don't. Again, "4 ppm." Termagaunts are about as good as they should be given their points cost.
Frag/krak were 2 /3 pts respectively so the cost is accurate, marines started getting them for free, then so did everyone else.
Atsknf is pseudo fearless , give over run immunity and auto regroup, 5pts is more than fair for those abilities.
Chaos should not pay for Mark's as marines do not pay for chapter tactics, or both should pay, hit and run plus scout is easily worth 10pts per model, fnp6+ iwnd is easily worth 10pts, others are easily worth between 5/10pts per model, but are free.
Grots guard and cultists all have other things going for them and could do with buffs of there own, except maybe cultists, but this discussion is about beast for nids, I'd happily discuss buffing the others in another thread.
Assigning points values to rules and such is trying to look at the rules in a vacuum and not in their application. Should counter attack on a Gretchen cost the same as counter attack on Meganobz? Should furious charge cost the same for Gaunts, Flayed Ones, Chapter Masters, Dreadnoughts? I could slap on every USR on a Gretchen but at the end of the day its a T2 1 wound model who dies to a stiff breeze (at least stealth + shrouded would help a lot ). It is also the reason while certain power weapons are garbage on a tactical marine but are auto takes on something like a captain or thunderwolf cav which has a better stat line to utilize that 15 point upgrade. Again giving a Grot a Power Klaw is not the same as giving a Klaw to a Nob or Warboss.
Don't "rely" on synapse? That's a complete load of malarky.
Synapse is a blessing, not a curse, at least in the early game. If you kill half of my cultist squad on turn 1, my cultists very well might run off the table. If I shoot your termagaunts on turn 1 and kill half the squad, they won't. And in addition, those termagaunts probably have the shrouded special rule.
The whole Synapse, Instinctive Behavior, and the generally garbage leadership on the small bugs is why they rely on Synapse and one of the huge Achilles heel of the army. In a game of SWs vs Nids I went from being stuck in a slog of CC slowly losing to a flood of gaunts to wiping the board almost entirely in one because an Iron Priest killed the last Zoanthroap and I think my Wolf Scouts sniped out a Tyrant or some other big bug. Boom just like that the Nid army went from winning the grind to completely dead because synapse fell which made the army get obliterated. Little bugs rely on Synapse to stay alive and without it they are more pointless than Gretchen with Eternal Warrior.
Non-flyrant lists can't compete with grav. They can't compete with scatter bikes. They can't compete with wraithknights. They can't compete with wraithguard. They can't compete with wave serpents.
If there is enough terrain on the table so it is not a flat wasteland, list-tailored Tyranids can compete easily (point-to-point) with anything on this list except for Wraithknights (which take a bit too much poison attacks and army focus to kill to call it "easily" but is perfectly doable). Combi-assault of one unit of Gargoyles/Skyslashers and one unit of Toxin Sacs Hormagaunts shred D-Scythes Wraithguard to pieces and Wraithguard generally is a poor choice against horde Tyranids. Wave Serpents can be hunted down by CC Shrikes and rear-glanced to death. And if you're having troubles with scatter bikes you took to few DS ripper swarms/skyslashers or CC bodies to glue bikes to the ground. Almost anything Craftworld can be shredded by Devourer Termagaunts in a Tyrranocyte and the list can easily go on... Take it from someone who's main matchup is Eldar vs Nids and have played a close to a hundred games with various builds on both sides.
The problem with horde Tyranids is because you HAVE TO build synapse net, you end up with a poor TAC lists (so almost nothing of the above will happen if you have to build a tournament, not tailored list), which are higly vulnerable to pinpointing crucial nodes - something that no other army have to worry about. So the only competetish builds are Nidzilla or Flyrant spam armies, because they are usually all-synapse. Nids will almost always lose on flat terrain, even with a lot of Venomtropes or Malantropes to provide Shrouded, but can be a formidable opponent on terrain heavy tables - but that is not a typical competetive context.
You would know all this, if you had any real experience with Tyranids. You would know all this, if you ever played Nids by yourself. And you would know the most basic fact that you repeatedly ignore - Instinctive Behaviour IS a liability and Fearless within Synapse (while powerfull) is not an equlizer, so basic point costs of all basic gaunts must factor their dependency on other units. This is why you cannot directly compare Cultists or Guards to Termagaunts the way you do it.
And seriously, if you knew antyhing about history of this army in previous editions (not fluff, but tabletop "feel"), you would know that Hormagaunts or Genestealers were THE stand-alone troop choices and that Termagaunts are a thing because of Tervigons and that Tyranids are not intended to be a "slow, shooty, tightly deployed army" but a the fastest CC army with acces to cheap Drop Pod equivalent and good close range shooting with very scarce backfield units.
But you cannot comperhend that, because you think that everything should work and be costed like Space Marines/IG with differently looking models and only then we would have ballance. Seriously, go educate yourself on ballancing asymetric games already, as you repeatedly and completely miss the point in your "analysis" of various WH40K problems... A hint on where to look: in asymetric free-pick games each faction should have their unique unit availability structure (separate from point costs), factoring in all their strenghts and weaknesses and be ballanced predominantly on army-to-army structure level, with unit-to-unit point efficiency levels compared only to prevent large discrepancies (not provide "statistical equality of any unit in the game") and definately not on upgrade-to-upgrade point cost level... Your beloved "flat rate upgrades/USRs" approach is THE WORST POSSIBLE way to resolve ballance issues in asymetric games...
I dont want a Tyranid "quick fix" GW tried that with many formation, WD's and other books, "Quick Fixes" dont work when the Core rules of the army are completely out of whack.
Can termagaunts compete with tactical marines with bolters? More or less. For 85 points, I get a 5 man tactical squad with a missile launcher...and the tyrranid player gets roughly 21 termagaunts (which are likely going to start the game fearless and shrouded).
That's already fair enough as is. They don't need the "beast" unit type in addition.
For 85 points you get a Tac squad with missile launcher. I get 21 termagants with NO support. If you factor in the Venomthrope and Flyrant, you have to factor in other units for your Tac Squad.
Can termagaunts compete with tactical marines with bolters? More or less. For 85 points, I get a 5 man tactical squad with a missile launcher...and the tyrranid player gets roughly 21 termagaunts (which are likely going to start the game fearless and shrouded).
That's already fair enough as is. They don't need the "beast" unit type in addition.
For 85 points you get a Tac squad with missile launcher. I get 21 termagants with NO support. If you factor in the Venomthrope and Flyrant, you have to factor in other units for your Tac Squad.
@traditio: if you want to compare termagaunts with fearless counted in, then for 90 points you get 10 fleshborer termagaunts and a Zoantrope to babysit them (the cheapest synapse). Now do the math: about 4 of those Termagaunts survive moving through your bolter fire range (one voley of far range bolter fire and one voley of rapid fire range, not including missile launcher shot) and the only thing that has enough durability to actually kill at least a single Marine in this encounter is a lone Zoanthrope. That is if you even target Termagaunts. If you target Zoantrope instead, then he dies in a second turn of shooting (he has a small chance of throwing a single small blast at you, killing a single marine) and then Termagaunts either flee or die to bolter fire as above. There is absolutely no scenario in which Termagaunts will win such encounter on a flat table. And if you are smart and move your marines back each turn Termagaunts will never reach their shooting range (even ona a "typical" ruins table your Marines are fast enough to always controll the range and not let Termagaunts reach you). You need heavily cover/LOS blocking terrain to utilize 12" single shot fleshborers and in this entire scenario their fearless rule you pay almost 50 points for in a"Zoantrope tax" just delays the inevitable.
This scenario changes drastically if you either give Termagaunts "Fleet of Claw" back (ideally making it work as "battle focus"); or make them Beasts; or give them Mycetic spore back. Then they have a chance to actually win such encounter sometimes.
I think some units should be Beasts (Hormaguants, Rippers, Trygon/Mawlocs, etc). And before anyone comments, why not have MC-Beasts. Afterall, Jet-pack MCs, Jump MCs, Jet-pack Cavalry all exist, so precedent has been set for models with multiple unit-types
Termagaunts & Warriors probably shouldn't be Beasts, but should have Fleet at least.
Actually Fleet & MTC should be universal for all Nids (except spore mines).
Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.
I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts.
Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.
Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.
Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.
Deadnight wrote: Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.
I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts.
Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.
Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.
Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.
That's good in a narrative game, but in 40k actual, or the tournament scene? Not at all. There needs to be chance for an army to win against Tyranids on the standard tabletop, and constantly regenerating units (which don't generate any kill points) and nigh-unkillable MCs would make them DOMINATE the Maelstrom scene. Fluff has to give to crunch, unfortunately.
Deadnight wrote: Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.
I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts.
Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.
Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.
Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.
I houseruled Tyranid hordes to be just like that - Hormagaunts are Beasts, Termagaunts have "battle focus-esque" rule of run&shoot and both have Endless Swarm rule built in (automatic, without having to roll). And I don't play Kill Points (Modified Maelstrom mostly) so it really forces you to think heavily on grabing enough objectives and manouver your forces so they don't drown in bodies...
And I like your idea of mass wound/low armour MCs, but I think it would have to have some multiwound dealing mechanics built in to compensate for low AP weapons - they should be more usefull against MCs. But I can picture this rule easily with some Starship Troopers scenes
Deadnight wrote: Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.
I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts.
Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.
Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.
Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.
That's good in a narrative game, but in 40k actual, or the tournament scene? Not at all. There needs to be chance for an army to win against Tyranids on the standard tabletop, and constantly regenerating units (which don't generate any kill points) and nigh-unkillable MCs would make them DOMINATE the Maelstrom scene. Fluff has to give to crunch, unfortunately.
With reasonable unit pricing returning gaunts aren't unbeatable but do provide immersive experience and nice challenge - see my comment above. And c'mon, there are Scatterbikes which are exactly on pair with such endless swarm in objective grabbing, there are things like Gladius free ob-sec transports, unkillable necrons, and Tau can still win games by mass-murdering entire waves of gaunts with skyhigh amount of firepower and sneaking upon objectives... And you already have massive numbers in summoning Demons lists and with Genestealer Cultists and people do find ways to win against them.
What Nids need is:
A) some units to be beasts, like Hormagaunt, Trygon/Mawlocs
B) a mega-formation detachment that's bonus is Endless Swarm Termiguants, Hormagaunts & Gargoyles. Units come back on a 3+
That's good in a narrative game, but in 40k actual, or the tournament scene? Not at all. There needs to be chance for an army to win against Tyranids on the standard tabletop, and constantly regenerating units (which don't generate any kill points) and nigh-unkillable MCs would make them DOMINATE the Maelstrom scene. Fluff has to give to crunch, unfortunately.
Why not? When I talk about 'you don't win against tyranids, you merely try to survive another day', I mean it figuratively. I fully understand fluff giving way to crunch, I completely respect and understand thst - I respect a lot of what yOu say smudge, and for what it's worth, I play tournament games too and understand it's requirements.
You can win against them. It just won't be by killing them all. Grab the objectives. And you will be able to kill the mc's. They might have lots of wounds (in my head, at least) but when even bolters and heavy bolters are capable of getting a very reasonable return on wounds against these things start being a lot more manageable. Recursion (bringing things back from the dead, effectively) can be a factor in games, and learning to deal with it is entirely possible as well. there are plenty armies in warmachine for example built around this idea. In fact, it was in 40k too -in earlier tyranid codices, gaunts had an unending wave ability as an option (it cost x per model though - I can't remember the precise costs though) as do some guard units - with chenkov, I believe? Also, in wfb, during one of the last big worldwide campaigns, didn't archaon have that special rule where an army led by him took twice the points value of its opponents, to represent the size and scale of his horde and his threat.
Imateria wrote: ^Why would Mawlocs need to be Beasts? Their whole point is Terror from the Deep, Beast would have no effect on that and be completely wasted.
Mawlocs are made from the same kit as Trygons and have the same body shape. Trygons are an evolution of Raveners (which are currently Beasts). Ergo, Trygons should be Beasts and Mawlocs as well for consistency. A player can still choose to exploit Terror form the Deep. My point is that units with the snake-like body shape should be Beasts.
Backspacehacker wrote: Was reading through this and saw it was suggested that grav is actually good against nid armies, please say that was put to rest lol
Seeing as Nid armies can have quite a few big 3+ save MCs, why would it be surprising to say that Grav is a good choice against them? Just because a group of players (including myself) think that Nids should be played all swarmy with lots of little gribblies, does not make that the most common way to play them, In 40k it is often the opposite that is true (that fluff armies are not the competitive way to play)
Backspacehacker wrote: Was reading through this and saw it was suggested that grav is actually good against nid armies, please say that was put to rest lol
Grav is effective against most of the heavy hitters of the Tyranid Army. But it has been a while since 'Nidzilla was the way to go. If the average Wound count per model of a 'Nid player's Army is 4 or higher, Grav can be amazing (assuming it can hit those Flyrants), and is far more effective than it would be against an Armour Company. However, it has been ages since that was the best way to run the Bugs.
Most of the current armies I have seen focused on the Flyrants with Termagants for Troops, Venomthropes to get everyone across the field, and maybe a couple of Big Bug Broods (sometimes Forgeworld) for some additional punch. And that was from a guy who rarely lost with 'Nids against a very competitive meta. Sure, Grav can be helpful in getting down the couple of big gribblies, but it seriously suffers when comes time to kill the Termagants.
Ohhh ok we are assuming Vs mc and such, I was gonna say, if you are saying grav is good against a sarm army...lol ok, sure I'll let the endless swarm charge at your grav, enjoy wounding on 5 and 6 lol
A side point about taking Grav against Nids is that the main platforms for Grav also come with plenty of bolter shots too, whether Hurricane bolters on Centurians, or the good ol' Bolt gun of the Tac Marines. So if you bring Grav and see loads of Gaunts, you still have a good answer.
Galef wrote: A side point about taking Grav against Nids is that the main platforms for Grav also come with plenty of bolter shots too, whether Hurricane bolters on Centurians, or the good ol' Bolt gun of the Tac Marines. So if you bring Grav and see loads of Gaunts, you still have a good answer.
This was basically the point that I'm making. In the Tyrranids army, what grav cannons can't kill with ease, for the most part, bolters can.
Galef wrote: A side point about taking Grav against Nids is that the main platforms for Grav also come with plenty of bolter shots too, whether Hurricane bolters on Centurians, or the good ol' Bolt gun of the Tac Marines. So if you bring Grav and see loads of Gaunts, you still have a good answer.
This was basically the point that I'm making. In the Tyrranids army, what grav cannons can't kill with ease, for the most part, bolters can.
Generally that happens to most armies, it's not specific to nids
Galef wrote: A side point about taking Grav against Nids is that the main platforms for Grav also come with plenty of bolter shots too, whether Hurricane bolters on Centurians, or the good ol' Bolt gun of the Tac Marines. So if you bring Grav and see loads of Gaunts, you still have a good answer.
This was basically the point that I'm making. In the Tyrranids army, what grav cannons can't kill with ease, for the most part, bolters can.
Generally that happens to most armies, it's not specific to nids
Agreed. Mass rounds of lower AP weapons to kill lower sv hordes or super effective weapon against higher sv multi wound models. Surprise. It's effective.
You didn't say "cohesive." You said "bad." Non-cohesive rules aren't necessarily "bad." If all models in the game had equally non-cohesive rules and everything was just hideously "bad," then everything would be "good" and the game would be balanced just fine.
The Nid dex does not contain cohesive rules. It mostly contains contradictory rules, units with no focus or direct purpose, rules that no longer apply to the current game edition, and rules that are so poorly written it literally means that the entire table suffers hits.
What do you even mean by this? Provide examples.
Overwatch is not what makes shooting more powerful than assault.
The OP stuff needs to be nerfed, some core rules need to change to "balance" shooting and assaulting (example: no more overwatch), and the Tau need to be squatted.
t
What I said: "Things like overwatch are part of what make Tyrranids less effective."
What you think I said: "Overwatch, overwatch in particular, and ONLY overwatch, is the ONE thing that makes Tyrranids less effective."
Galef wrote: A side point about taking Grav against Nids is that the main platforms for Grav also come with plenty of bolter shots too, whether Hurricane bolters on Centurians, or the good ol' Bolt gun of the Tac Marines. So if you bring Grav and see loads of Gaunts, you still have a good answer.
This was basically the point that I'm making. In the Tyrranids army, what grav cannons can't kill with ease, for the most part, bolters can.
Generally that happens to most armies, it's not specific to nids
Yes. That's literally what I said in the posting that people are criticizing:
I quote myself, bolding and underlining added for emphasis:
"A big "problem" with the tyrranids army is a big problem with the game in general. 1. A select, small number of undercosted, OP bullgak. Tyrranids crumble to scatter bikes, wraithguard and grav just like practically everything else."
Do people even read the things I write before they respond to them?
The Nid dex does not contain cohesive rules. It mostly contains contradictory rules, units with no focus or direct purpose, rules that no longer apply to the current game edition, and rules that are so poorly written it literally means that the entire table suffers hits.
What do you even mean by this? Provide examples.
By outdated rules he probably meant the 'Shadow in the Warp' rule, which was designed for older edition when Leadership penalty actually reduced enemy chance to use psychic powers.
And unit with no focus or purpose is Pyrovore, that footslogging heavy flamer dude.
The Pyrovore's rules state that when it gets instakilled in cc, 'every unit on table suffers hits equal to number of models around the Pyrovore'.
You didn't say "cohesive." You said "bad." Non-cohesive rules aren't necessarily "bad." If all models in the game had equally non-cohesive rules and everything was just hideously "bad," then everything would be "good" and the game would be balanced just fine.
LOL What? Are you joking? If everything had non-cohesive rules then everything would be bad and the game would be a bigger mess then it is now. I would love for the nid dex to be balanced. But at this point the games balance is so out of whack there is no real benchmark to balance it against. I want the codex to function. In order to do that it needs cohesive rules.
Cohesive rules are not relative to other codexes. If every dex was a mess with no synergy between units and rules/weapons that made no sense then every codex would be a mess.
If your actual opinion is that if all codexes were a cluster fethed mess then they would all be "good" than 1) it would explain a lot about your recent post history and 2) You should just stay out of rules discussions.
The Nid dex does not contain cohesive rules. It mostly contains contradictory rules, units with no focus or direct purpose, rules that no longer apply to the current game edition, and rules that are so poorly written it literally means that the entire table suffers hits.
What do you even mean by this? Provide examples.
Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.
Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.
Carnifex. Supposed to be anti vehicle heavy hitter. Too slow to catch any vehicle.
Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.
OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.
Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?
Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.
Spore mines, garbage
Exocrine, +1 BS if it doesn't move. Gun is only 24" range. Maybe you get that bonus half the game because of short range gun.
Gargoyles, basically worthless
Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs
Ever hear of a diamacheron? It has an ability to jump over terrain and enemy units. It's jump move range is shorter than it's base. So it always end up landing in terrain/ cannot jump over enemy units anyway.
Pick a damn unit in the nid dex. They are basically all a mess.
Overwatch is not what makes shooting more powerful than assault.
The OP stuff needs to be nerfed, some core rules need to change to "balance" shooting and assaulting (example: no more overwatch), and the Tau need to be squatted. t
What I said: "Things like overwatch are part of what make Tyrranids less effective." What you think I said: "Overwatch, overwatch in particular, and ONLY overwatch, is the ONE thing that makes Tyrranids less effective."
What I said was that overwatch doesn't make ANYONE less effective. Overwatch doesn't acomplish anything. Nids are no more hampered by overwatch then anyone else. Snapshots are so ineffective that it just doesn't even matter.
"A big "problem" with the tyrranids army is a big problem with the game in general. 1. A select, small number of undercosted, OP bullgak. Tyrranids crumble to scatter bikes, wraithguard and grav just like practically everything else."
Do people even read the things I write before they respond to them?
Lance845 wrote:LOL What? Are you joking? If everything had non-cohesive rules then everything would be bad and the game would be a bigger mess then it is now.
If bullgryn were the only unit in the game, the game would be much more balanced than it is now.
If chaos space marine squads consisting of 1 chaos space marine champion with bolt pistol and chainsword, 3 guys with boltguns, 4 guys with boltpistols and chainswords, a guy with a meltagun and a guy with a missile launcher...and oh heck, let's throw in a chaos space marine rhino with all kinds of perfectly pointless upgrades...if that unit were the only available unit in the game, the game would be much more balanced than it is now.
Non-cohesive and a mess does not necessarily equate to being a cause for game imbalance.
I would love for the nid dex to be balanced. But at this point the games balance is so out of whack there is no real benchmark to balance it against. I want the codex to function. In order to do that it needs cohesive rules.
We should have both.
Chaos space marine squads need the combat squads special rule, for starters.
Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.
Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.
Carnifex. Supposed to be anti vehicle heavy hitter. Too slow to catch any vehicle.
Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.
OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.
Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?
Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.
Spore mines, garbage
Exocrine, +1 BS if it doesn't move. Gun is only 24" range. Maybe you get that bonus half the game because of short range gun.
Gargoyles, basically worthless
Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs
Ever hear of a diamacheron? It has an ability to jump over terrain and enemy units. It's jump move range is shorter than it's base. So it always end up landing in terrain/ cannot jump over enemy units anyway.
Pick a damn unit in the nid dex. They are basically all a mess.
I'll return to this later after I actually examine these things, but I wish to dispute, from the get go, 2 points:
1. In point of fact, I've lost rhinos to carnifexes. And carnifexes aren't just good against vehicles. They're good against basically anything that they can catch that isn't specifically a cc specialist. Plus they can get 12 BS 3 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range, and still be able to charge. Plus you can drop-pod them in (I know it's technically not a drop pod, but it's very much like a drop pod).
Also, they don't explode when they get shot at by melta guns.
I tell you what. Let's suppose you were presented the offer:
Tyrranids can have dreadnoughts. We'll (we, as in, "the space marines players") take carnifexes.
We got a deal?
2. Gargoyles can hold objectives and can get there pretty fast.
What I said was that overwatch doesn't make ANYONE less effective. Overwatch doesn't acomplish anything. Nids are no more hampered by overwatch then anyone else. Snapshots are so ineffective that it just doesn't even matter.
I didn't say it's the only thing that makes Tyrranids less effective. It's just one more rule out of several that tilt the game in favor of shooting armies and against assault armies. How big does it contribute to that imbalance? Maybe a lot. Maybe a little. Maybe somewhere in between. But it does contribute.
I'll return to this later after I actually examine these things, but I wish to dispute, from the get go, 2 points:
1. In point of fact, I've lost rhinos to carnifexes. And carnifexes aren't just good against vehicles. They're good against basically anything that they can catch that isn't specifically a cc specialist. Plus they can get 12 BS 3 twin-linked S6 shots at 18 inch range, and still be able to charge. Plus you can drop-pod them in (I know it's technically not a drop pod, but it's very much like a drop pod).
I tell you what. Let's suppose you were presented the offer:
Tyrranids can have dreadnoughts. We'll (we, as in, "the space marines players") take carnifexes.
We got a deal?
2. Gargoyles can hold objectives and can get there pretty fast.
There is a reason it's called "Distraction Carnifex". Carnifex are good at crushing what they can catch. They also die relatively easily for what they are supposed to do and thus only really act as a distraction against any competent opponent. The carnifxes only purpose in any game with an opponent who realizes what a carnifex is is to take shots off of other things. Primarily Carnfexes job in the current meta is to take bullets and not a lot more. If your rhino got caught. You fethed up.
Yes, they can take tldwblw. One of the best options for them. Yes you can fit 1 inside of a 75 point drop pod so that it cannot charge the turn it pops out and the enemy can most likely lay it to waste over the next turn. Since models cannot charge from Deepstrike it just kind of sits there for a turn without the real durability it needs to survive. An upgrade option for 2+ armor would help a lot. Also, hey. It's not a synapse creature. So drop podding them into the back field is a good way to lose control of it.
Gargoyles, like everything, can hold objectives. But without synapse to make sure they stay there it doesn't actually matter does it?
Both units you mentioned require a second unit to stay functioning in all of the places where they should be most effective.
Synapse is a shackle and it makes any nid unit that can deepstrike and any delivery method for the nids gak when they don't have synapse to support them.
Genestealers and Lictors are the only non synapse units in the game that can survive on their own... Well... besides spore mines.. But lets face it. they don't count.
What I said was that overwatch doesn't make ANYONE less effective. Overwatch doesn't acomplish anything. Nids are no more hampered by overwatch then anyone else. Snapshots are so ineffective that it just doesn't even matter.
I didn't say it's the only thing that makes Tyrranids less effective. It's just one more rule out of several that tilt the game in favor of shooting armies and against assault armies. How big does it contribute to that imbalance? Maybe a lot. Maybe a little. Maybe somewhere in between. But it does contribute.
Again. I disagree. Overwatch doesn't have enough impact to effect anything enough to contribute to an imbalance.
I tell you what. Let's suppose you were presented the offer:
Tyrranids can have dreadnoughts. We'll (we, as in, "the space marines players") take carnifexes.
We got a deal?
I admit I'm amused by the thought of space marine players excitedly throwing a bunch of carnifexes in their armies.
"What do you mean they have to pass a LD7 test every turn to fire their guns?!" "Noooo, the enemy I want you to kill is that way. Come back!" "Now they're killing each other? Aaaaah, stop!"
Arson Fire wrote: I admit I'm amused by the thought of space marine players excitedly throwing a bunch of carnifexes in their armies.
"What do you mean they have to pass a LD7 test every turn to fire their guns?!"
"Noooo, the enemy I want you to kill is that way. Come back!"
"Now they're killing each other? Aaaaah, stop!"
lol Yup. And that is why Deepstriking carnifex doesn't work.
I tell you what. Let's suppose you were presented the offer:
Tyrranids can have dreadnoughts. We'll (we, as in, "the space marines players") take carnifexes.
We got a deal?
I admit I'm amused by the thought of space marine players excitedly throwing a bunch of carnifexes in their armies.
"What do you mean they have to pass a LD7 test every turn to fire their guns?!"
"Noooo, the enemy I want you to kill is that way. Come back!"
"Now they're killing each other? Aaaaah, stop!"
Arson Fire wrote: "What do you mean they have to pass a LD7 test every turn to fire their guns?!"
"Noooo, the enemy I want you to kill is that way. Come back!"
"Now they're killing each other? Aaaaah, stop!"
A horrible thought popped into my head that somebody at GW might think that this sounds like how Orks behave and will change Mob Rule into this.
I mean Killa Kans already run away, it's not that large of a stretch from there.
"My Gorkanaut just failed its Ld test and has shot my battlewagon, destroying it. Now it's my assault phase... oh look it has failed another Ld test and charged my Meganobz, killing all of them except the attached Warboss. And now my Warboss has killed my Gorkanaut. My Turn 1 is over and I now concede."
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I mean Killa Kans already run away, it's not that large of a stretch from there.
Kanz luckly don't run away, they just get scared and get the shakes which makes aiming those grotzookas impossible......
"My Gorkanaut just failed its Ld test and has shot my battlewagon, destroying it. Now it's my assault phase... oh look it has failed another Ld test and charged my Meganobz, killing all of them except the attached Warboss. And now my Warboss has killed my Gorkanaut. My Turn 1 is over and I now concede."
My god that played out like some GW "Forge the Narrative" tripe and now I'm scared.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Did Traditio really suggest that Vanilla Chaos Marines get Combat Squad? You know, the rule that's almost never used, as a plausible fix for them?
Traditio has a very loose grasp on what is actually happening in the game. So yes.
Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.
I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts. Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.
Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.
Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.
That would be awesome, too awesome for GW to implement.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.
I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.
Like I said, I'm all for using the 4th ed pseudo EW. Force, weapons still work, but no ID from double toughness. Which would apply to a few MCs, and Warriors.
Happyjew wrote: Like I said, I'm all for using the 4th ed pseudo EW. Force, weapons still work, but no ID from double toughness. Which would apply to a few MCs, and Warriors.
I play with modified ID (and especially double toughness ID is severly nerfed) and this in fact help Nids a lot.
[SIDENOTE: just to be clear, as I forgot to mention it earlier - in this entire thread I'm speaking from position of playing AGAINST Tyranids - they are my main opponent, not my own army of choice. But I came up with a great deal of house rules and changes we apply to them. It was necessary to have close and interesting games against my Eldar.]
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.
I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.
But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.
Because the Hive Mind pushes them on long after their body gives out. Given the Hive Mind in game is more of a punishment than a buff it would balance the scales a bit.
Also the people who write this game have no problem handing out ridiculous power for fluff's sake to Eldar and Marines all day. Be nice if there wasn't a clear division between the favourites and the NPC races.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.
I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.
But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.
As was said. Tyranid individual organisms are barely functioning without the hive mind to drive them. The hive mind doesn't care about physical pain or battle damage. It will push every body forward regardless of the wounds it suffers until it literally falls apart or stops being capable of motion all together. EW is a good way to represent the direct connection to the Hive Mind pushing that organism through even the most grievous wounds while FNP represents the same to a lesser extent even to organisms that are being driven by the synapse creatures.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.
I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.
But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.
This was a vital part of 4th ed Tyranid codex, and was explained with the following sentence "so potent is the iron will of the Hive Mind, that it can effectively controll it's thralls even after they suffered a grievous wound." All models within synapse (including Synapse creatures themselves) except for rippers were immune to strenght ID.
Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:
Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.
I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.
You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.
Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.
Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.
Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.
I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?
My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.
Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.
Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.
Use more than one?
OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.
How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.
Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'
Venomthropes are cheaper.
Also, while we're at it:
3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?
Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.
Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.
Gargoyles, basically worthless
They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?
Would you rather have assault marines?
Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs
This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: What is Tyranids Battle Focus? ATSKNF? Chapter Tactics?
You want space marine stats and rules? Ok. Then I expect you to pay space marine points costs.
You want "good" gargoyles? Fine. Then I expect you to pay 17 ppm for a gargoyle.
If space marine players had the same model, minus the synapse rule, and could deploy it in a rhino or a drop pod, yes, people would probably complain that pyrovores are undercosted. Tyrranids, Orks and IG players would complain the loudest.
If space marine players had the same model, minus the synapse rule, and could deploy it in a rhino or a drop pod, yes, people would probably complain that pyrovores are overcosted. Tyrranids, Orks and IG players would complain the loudest.
Which is like saying Eldar aren't OP at all. You just take away X units.
Traditio wrote: Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:
Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.
I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.
You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.
Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.
Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.
First, Nid drop pods carry 20 infantry or up to 1 MC. So the nid drop pod can carry a whole brood of pyrovore but only 1 MC. So... learn your drop pods first.
Second, synapse. Pyrovores without synapse you loose control over. They cannot shoot their guns if they cannot pass their ld check.
Third, The point of the volatile rule is how poorly it is written. No person in their right mind would ever let a player cause 30 wounds to every unit on the table. It's obvious that you are supposed to deal a number of wounds to each unit equal to the number of models they have within d6". But that is not what the rule says. It is so poorly written that it just blows up the table. While bad rules writing is kind of GWs thing. This is GWs rule writing at some of it's worst. When nids got their FAQ this poorly written rule was not addressed.
Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.
I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?
My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.
Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.
1) I, and the forum, do not agree with your flak missile argument.
2) It's incoherent (the correct word!) because if it's built for air superiority then it shouldn't have all of it's ranged weapons to attack air vehicles be 1 use only. If you cannot understand how that is a detriment to it doing it's intended job then please PLEASE go take a class or 2 on game design. Read a book. Exercise critical thinking skills.
Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.
Use more than one?
Each of which will have the same problems.
OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.
How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.
It's not the ONLY issue with OOE. But it's more an issue with how poorly put together the entire dex is. You cannot address the dex by looking at a hand full of rules as separate rules. Each rule in the dex is part of a (in)cohesive whole. The fact that this is a possibility for Nids is part of what makes the dex so poorly put together.
Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'
Venomthropes are cheaper.
Also, while we're at it:
3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?
The Malanthrope is GREAT. It's one of maybe 5 units you can point at in the nid line up and say "Yes... this is absolutely usable". It also makes venomthropes redundant. Which is the issue I was getting at. Shrouded, or shrouded + synapse. It's a no brainer.
Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.
Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.
Raveners do not get swallow whole. The red terror does. The red terror needs to hit with 4 attacks, and then give them all up, to swallow whole. And again, without a synapse unit to support it, you could just loose control of the whole group and easily get no attacks. Congratz on not addressing at all the issues I brought up with raveners.
BTW, Red Terror gets 4 attacks. 5 on the charge. So... yeah. Good luck getting swallow whole to happen.
Gargoyles, basically worthless
They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?
Would you rather have assault marines?
Kind of? I mean gargs are 6ppm, with the worst gun in the nid line up, no upgrade options for a better gun, a near worthless blind attack in assault, the ability to deep strike and then become worthless as they no longer exist inside the synapse web. Yeah, I would rather have a unit that can actually function as a fast moving deep striking objective grabbing unit with a purpose. As it stand, I could take Devilgants for 8 ppm and get 3 shots per model and just keep them in synapse. Or regular gants for 4ppm that do the same thing as gargs without the wasted deepstrike rules.
Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs
This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.
NOT THE POINT. The point is how directionless the nid dex is. Each entry is more proof of the disorganized mess the codex is. Cohesive. That is the word I used. The Nid dex is a disorganized mess. The harpy has no place in a list. That makes it a null choice.
Traditio wrote: Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:
Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.
I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.
You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.
Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.
Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.
Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.
I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?
My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.
Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.
Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.
Use more than one?
OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.
How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.
Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'
Venomthropes are cheaper.
Also, while we're at it:
3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?
Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.
Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.
Gargoyles, basically worthless
They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?
Would you rather have assault marines?
Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs
This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: What is Tyranids Battle Focus? ATSKNF? Chapter Tactics?
You want space marine stats and rules? Ok. Then I expect you to pay space marine points costs.
You want "good" gargoyles? Fine. Then I expect you to pay 17 ppm for a gargoyle.
Lance845 has broken this down point by point, but may I just add, that this entire post of yours just screams "I have no idea how Nids work or what their problems are, but I'll try to act smart anyways." Seriously - you failed to even understand the points you tried to address (the most obvious are Pyrovore Volatile rule writing; OOE (and even more so a non-fearless Deathleaper) as HQ choices; useless Trygon holes (your answer to this is out-of-scale incompetent); and obsolete Raveners (those are, for all intents and purposes, worse Shrikes without Synapse and with worse customisation options for the same point cost FFS!!!) with Red Terror being a relic from previous editions, when Trygons or Dimacherons have not yet existed).
1. If you want to say that the Tyrranids codex has poor internal balance, has poorly written rules, etc., then I am just going to agree with you all day long.
But that's not just the Tyrranids codex. That's the current state of 7th edition Warhammer 40k. Thus one of my points: The tyrranids as a whole suffer for the same reasons pretty much most of the games suffer. Power creep, scale creep, poor and vague rules writing etc.
If my sole goal is to win, why should I run anything other than a white scars grav spam battle company? Why should I run anything other than flyrant spam? Why should I run anything other than wraithknights and scatterbikes?
The answer isn't to make more things OP. The answer is to nerf the ever living feth out of the things that are OP and bring them into line with the rest of the game.
2. But note, even if that's true, it doesn't follow that x, y and z units in the tyrranids codex are bad. Venomthropes aren't necessarily bad. Malanthropes are OP. Harpies aren't necessarily bad. Flyrants are OP.
To my mind, it's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, I have no reason to take harpies...so lets make harpies just as OP as flyrants, except with a different specialization!" It's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, let's make Carnifexes practically immortal."
Because guess what: do you know what would happen if you had 2+ armor save carnifexes with the beast special rule, dakka flyrants, malanthropes, etc?
I'd refuse to play with you. My sternguard and missile launchers aren't going to kill that. My plasma cannons can't put out enough shots to take those things down.
If you buff the tyrranids codex, then once again, you are nerfing non-competitive armies. A 2+ carnifex is a nerf to missile launchers and sternguard. So to beat you, I'd have to run OP bullgak myself. I'd have to bring that white scars grav cannon battle company.
And sorry, but that's not the game that I want to play.
See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).
JNAProductions wrote: See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).
And that's the problem with 40k. People have grossly unreasonable expectations about what their models should be able to do. If a unit isn't ridiculously killy or nigh invincible, it's just not worth taking. That's why tyrranids players like Flyrants. It's both ridiculously killy and nigh invincible.
That's why space marine players don't like tactical marines. They are reasonably durable and have OK damage output for their points, but they aren't an auto-win.
That's why 40k is dying. That's why people are leaving the hobby. Because roughly half of the player base refuses to play without their automatic win buttons, and the other half don't like playing against automatic win buttons.
You remember the movie Incredibles? You remember what Syndrome said? (If not, GO WATCH IT! IT'S SUCH A GOOD MOVIE!)
"If everyone is super... No one will be."
In other words, if everything is OP (to the same degree), nothing is.
I don't want an unbalanced game. I want a high-powered game. To that end, stuff like tactical marines need a buff or a points drop. Basically, we both want balance-I (and most others here) just want balance by bringing everything that's subpar UP, whereas you want to bring the powerful stuff DOWN. (Which isn't to say you're wrong-you are, on a lot of things, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a low-powered game. It's just that people here disagree with you on that, including me.)
JNAProductions wrote: See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).
And that's the problem with 40k. People have grossly unreasonable expectations about what their models should be able to do. If a unit isn't ridiculously killy or nigh invincible, it's just not worth taking. That's why tyrranids players like Flyrants. It's both ridiculously killy and nigh invincible.
That's why space marine players don't like tactical marines. They are reasonably durable and have OK damage output for their points, but they aren't an auto-win.
That's why 40k is dying. That's why people are leaving the hobby. Because roughly half of the player base refuses to play without their automatic win buttons, and the other half don't like playing against automatic win buttons.
People don't like Tactical Marines because they are the opposite of what you claim them to be.
This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.
1. If you want to say that the Tyrranids codex has poor internal balance, has poorly written rules, etc., then I am just going to agree with you all day long.
But that's not just the Tyrranids codex. That's the current state of 7th edition Warhammer 40k. Thus one of my points: The tyrranids as a whole suffer for the same reasons pretty much most of the games suffer. Power creep, scale creep, poor and vague rules writing etc.
No. It's not the same. Orks are in the same boat as nids. Chaos marines and to an extent deamons are. But it's just the same boat. Because of synapse Nids have their own special deck of the boat with their own unique internal issues. The things that impact the way nids function is very different from any other army in the game and their issues grow exponentially worse with each poorly thought out units because of it.
If my sole goal is to win, why should I run anything other than a white scars grav spam battle company? Why should I run anything other than flyrant spam? Why should I run anything other than wraithknights and scatterbikes?
The answer isn't to make more things OP. The answer is to nerf the ever living feth out of the things that are OP and bring them into line with the rest of the game.
This.. is SO INCREDIBLY WRONG. Some VERY FEW things in the game need to be brought down. Most things need to be brought up to a happy medium. I don't want every other dex to be turned into the nid dex. That is a hell nobody deserves.
2. But note, even if that's true, it doesn't follow that x, y and z units in the tyrranids codex are bad. Venomthropes aren't necessarily bad. Malanthropes are OP. Harpies aren't necessarily bad. Flyrants are OP.
To my mind, it's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, I have no reason to take harpies...so lets make harpies just as OP as flyrants, except with a different specialization!" It's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, let's make Carnifexes practically immortal."
Nobody suggested those as solutions. I have often proposed my own solutions for bringing HT down a peg to reasonable.
Reduce HT cost by 30 points. Walkrants are currently overcosted. Make wings replace a pair of scything talons. (can't take 2 tldwblw if you only have weapon 1 slot). Suddenly flyrants are less killy and walkrants are more cost efficient.
Carnifexes don't need to be immortal. They need to be able to get across the field quicker so they can get into the melee they should thrive in. 6" move is garbage for their purpose.
Because guess what: do you know what would happen if you had 2+ armor save carnifexes with the beast special rule, dakka flyrants, malanthropes, etc?
I'd refuse to play with you. My sternguard and missile launchers aren't going to kill that. My plasma cannons can't put out enough shots to take those things down.
If you buff the tyrranids codex, then once again, you are nerfing non-competitive armies. A 2+ carnifex is a nerf to missile launchers and sternguard. So to beat you, I'd have to run OP bullgak myself. I'd have to bring that white scars grav cannon battle company.
And sorry, but that's not the game that I want to play.
I have seen the proposed rules you have put out for the game you want to play. It involves the removal of relentless from the game. 4+ only armor on flying vehicles and a lot of other insanity with consequences you cannot see and refuse to acknowledge no matter how many people talk to you about it. According to you Terminators and Pyrovores are under costed monstrosities that dominate the game. I don't think anyone wants to play the game you want to play.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.
Tactical marines are fine when compared to similar models at comparable points costs.
The problem with the game is power creep and scale creep.
Tactical marines are fine against termagaunts, fire warriors, dire avengers, etc.
They are not fine against fething Imperial Knights.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.
Tactical marines are fine when compared to similar models at comparable points costs.
The problem with the game is power creep and scale creep.
Tactical marines are fine against termagaunts, fire warriors, dire avengers, etc.
They are not fine against fething Imperial Knights.
No. You're wrong. The points cost is not a blanket balancing mechanic. The unit does not exist in a vacuum. Tac marines can take 1 each of a number of specialist weapons but they must always choose to shoot at a single target. In making use of their actual strongest element (their ability to bring a number of tools to deal with a number of different threats) they end up wasting most of the units strengths when targeting any particular threat.
If I am correct (I very easily might be wrong. I didn't actually play 4th) back in 4th everybody more or less had split fire. Tac marines were great because you could send a bunch of them forward and they could maximize their effectiveness by bringing to bare their specialist weapons against their intended targets without negating the strength of the rest of the unit.
Tac marines today have all the tools of the tac marines of yesteryear but none of the flexibility that allows them to actually function. Maybe they need split fire? Maybe the game needs to go to some kind of core mechanic that says a unit must select a weapon, THEN select a target and must fire all of the same weapon at the same target. A unit with all bolters fires at a single target unit. A unit with 4 different guns can select 4 different targets, one for each gun. THEN Tac marines would serve the purpose they are designed to serve.
JNAProductions wrote: You remember the movie Incredibles? You remember what Syndrome said? (If not, GO WATCH IT! IT'S SUCH A GOOD MOVIE!)
"If everyone is super... No one will be."
In other words, if everything is OP (to the same degree), nothing is.
I don't want an unbalanced game. I want a high-powered game. To that end, stuff like tactical marines need a buff or a points drop. Basically, we both want balance-I (and most others here) just want balance by bringing everything that's subpar UP, whereas you want to bring the powerful stuff DOWN. (Which isn't to say you're wrong-you are, on a lot of things, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a low-powered game. It's just that people here disagree with you on that, including me.)
1. That would be way more complicated and take far more work than just nerfing the OP stuff. I don't think that most of the game is imbalanced. I think that a small portion of the game is unbalanced, and this small part is what sees the majority of competitive play. If you took superheavies, GMCs, fliers, grav, etc. out of the game entirely, the game would become much more balanced. In fact, if those things existed, but people simply chose not to play with them, games would be much more balanced. If those things existed and people played with them, but they were significantly nerfed where needed, again, the game would be much more balanced.
People could basically bring whatever they want, within reason, and have a fair chance of winning, assuming equal player skill, luck, etc.
So, that's my first objection to buffing the "weaker" stuff. At that point, you're basically talking about a wholesale rewrite, whereas I'm suggesting relatively minor tweaks.
2. In addition to all of that headache in basically rewriting most of the fething game, you'd be doing so to the effect of no real advantage over what I'm proposing. You said it yourself: if everything is OP, then nothing is. If grav cannons are OP killy, but tactical marines are OP durable, then it evens out. Sure, you just fired a bazillion AP 2 shots, but I have a 2++ rerollable X a gazillion (in other words, I just keep rerolling until I don't roll a 1, and I remove no models).
How is that an improvement to you firing a boltgun, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 4+, and then me saving on a 3+? If anything, we've both just saved a ton of time rolling dice if you just fire the fething boltgun and I roll my 3+ armor save.
And fact is, I seriously doubt that most people really want to balance the game by making things stronger. What difference is there between giving your flyrant a 4+ armor save and giving my flakk missiles AP 3? The effect is basically the same.
But a tyrranids player doesn't want either one of those things to happen.
The whole reason you would bring a flyrant is because you want an unkillable killing machine. If everything were as OP as flyrants, then you wouldn't even bother with them, and guess what, all that money and time you spent on buying and painting flyrants has been wasted.
So what am I trying to say? Make everything OP, or nerf the OP stuff, and you end up with essentially the same result. You've lost your automatic win buttons, everything has become just as viable as everything else, etc. The only difference is that you want us to waste more time rolling dice and memorizing special rules.
But wait, something has changed, namely:
3. You don't want to make tactical marines OP, you say, you just want to make them ridiculously cheap? You want 150 point wraithknights and 1 point tactical marines?
Great. You've just massively increased the financial, time, labor, etc. barrier to entry.
What I'm suggesting is much easier, much less of a headache, much less expensive, etc. But the simple fact is that people like their win buttons, and this, in at least some cases, probably to compensate for their own lack of player skill.
And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument by resorting to personal insults
I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.
And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument
I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.
G.A
I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.
Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.
JNAProductions wrote: You remember the movie Incredibles? You remember what Syndrome said? (If not, GO WATCH IT! IT'S SUCH A GOOD MOVIE!)
"If everyone is super... No one will be."
In other words, if everything is OP (to the same degree), nothing is.
I don't want an unbalanced game. I want a high-powered game. To that end, stuff like tactical marines need a buff or a points drop. Basically, we both want balance-I (and most others here) just want balance by bringing everything that's subpar UP, whereas you want to bring the powerful stuff DOWN. (Which isn't to say you're wrong-you are, on a lot of things, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a low-powered game. It's just that people here disagree with you on that, including me.)
1. That would be way more complicated and take far more work than just nerfing the OP stuff. I don't think that most of the game is imbalanced. I think that a small portion of the game is unbalanced, and this small part is what sees the majority of competitive play. If you took superheavies, GMCs, fliers, grav, etc. out of the game entirely, the game would become much more balanced. In fact, if those things existed, but people simply chose not to play with them, games would be much more balanced. If those things existed and people played with them, but they were significantly nerfed where needed, again, the game would be much more balanced.
People could basically bring whatever they want, within reason, and have a fair chance of winning, assuming equal player skill, luck, etc.
So, that's my first objection to buffing the "weaker" stuff. At that point, you're basically talking about a wholesale rewrite, whereas I'm suggesting relatively minor tweaks.
The fact that you think the issues with 40k can be fixed with "relatively minor tweaks" means you don't understand what the issues are with 40k. That's it. You just don't. The issues run deeper then these few minor tweaks. You cannot fix 40k with your few small adjustments.
2. In addition to all of that headache in basically rewriting most of the fething game, you'd be doing so to the effect of no real advantage over what I'm proposing. You said it yourself: if everything is OP, then nothing is. If grav cannons are OP killy, but tactical marines are OP durable, then it evens out. Sure, you just fired a bazillion AP 2 shots, but I have a 2++ rerollable X a gazillion (in other words, I just keep rerolling until I don't roll a 1, and I remove no models).
You continue to not understand what people are asking for.
And fact is, I seriously doubt that most people really want to balance the game by making things stronger. What difference is there between giving your flyrant a 4+ armor save and giving my flakk missiles AP 3? The effect is basically the same.
But a tyrranids player doesn't want either one of those things to happen.
People suggested flak missiles should be lower cost or free. Everyone generally agreed. Flak missiles are not your is all to end all answer.
The whole reason you would bring a flyrant is because you want an unkillable killing machine. If everything were as OP as flyrants, then you wouldn't even bother with them, and guess what, all that money and time you spent on buying and painting flyrants has been wasted.
Nobody (well.. not NOBODY) brings flyrants because they are OP. People bring Flyrants because they are one of the only things that actually functions. Flyrants by being synapse remove themselves from synapses shackle. They have the durability to survive long enough to accomplish something and they have guns, that though they have no ap, are strong enough with enough shots to actually get gak done. The fact that a HT can be built in such a way that it can be given a purpose AND it's actually capable of acomplishing that purpose on the table is a rarity in the nid line up. It's abused because we have almost nothing else that does that.
So what am I trying to say? Make everything OP, or nerf the OP stuff, and you end up with essentially the same result. You've lost your automatic win buttons, everything has become just as viable as everything else, etc. The only difference is that you want us to waste more time rolling dice and memorizing special rules.
But wait, something has changed, namely:
3. You don't want to make tactical marines OP, you say, you just want to make them ridiculously cheap? You want 150 point wraithknights and 1 point tactical marines?
Great. You've just massively increased the financial, time, labor, etc. barrier to entry.
I have never seen anyone say this either.
What I'm suggesting is much easier, much less of a headache, much less expensive, etc. But the simple fact is that people like their win buttons, and this, in at least some cases, probably to compensate for their own lack of player skill.
What you are suggesting IS easier, IS also a MASSIVE headache, AND creates new problems while not actually addressing the old ones.
You cannot fix the problem by attacking it's symptoms. You need to fix the problem.
If you can't discuss something politely, regardless of how frustrated you may be getting, then you're better off not discussing it. "I don't care anymore" is not a valid reason to break Rule #1 of Dakka Dakka
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.
Tactical marines are fine when compared to similar models at comparable points costs.
The problem with the game is power creep and scale creep.
Tactical marines are fine against termagaunts, fire warriors, dire avengers, etc.
They are not fine against fething Imperial Knights.
No. You're wrong. The points cost is not a blanket balancing mechanic. The unit does not exist in a vacuum. Tac marines can take 1 each of a number of specialist weapons but they must always choose to shoot at a single target. In making use of their actual strongest element (their ability to bring a number of tools to deal with a number of different threats) they end up wasting most of the units strengths when targeting any particular threat.
If I am correct (I very easily might be wrong. I didn't actually play 4th) back in 4th everybody more or less had split fire. Tac marines were great because you could send a bunch of them forward and they could maximize their effectiveness by bringing to bare their specialist weapons against their intended targets without negating the strength of the rest of the unit.
Tac marines today have all the tools of the tac marines of yesteryear but none of the flexibility that allows them to actually function. Maybe they need split fire? Maybe the game needs to go to some kind of core mechanic that says a unit must select a weapon, THEN select a target and must fire all of the same weapon at the same target. A unit with all bolters fires at a single target unit. A unit with 4 different guns can select 4 different targets, one for each gun. THEN Tac marines would serve the purpose they are designed to serve.
1. I have a copy of the 4th edition rulebook. It's not true that everything had splitfire in 4th edition. If anything, there were much heavier restrictions on shooting in 4th edition. Here's the process you had to go through:
A. Pick a unit with which to shoot.
B. Pick a unit against which to shoot.
B1. All of your models must fire against the same unit.
B2. You must fire at the closest unit. If you want to fire at a unit that is not the closest unit:
B2a: You must pass a leadership test.
B2b. If you fail that leadership test, you must fire instead at the closest unit.
Snapshooting did not exist in 4th edition. And you couldn't fire a rapidfire weapon on the go. If you moved in the movement phase, the only thing your tactical marine could do is rapidfire. You can't shoot at 24 inch range.
2. Tactical marines are currently no worse, in my opinion, than IG heavy weapons teams. The difference is that tactical marines are more expensive, but also much more durable, stand half a chance in melee combat against most basic infantry units, and can bring relatively decent firepower to bear against things that get too close.
If you have a carnifex at 48 inch range, I'm shooting it with a krak missile. If you place a drop pod next to that tactical squad, I'm shooting krak, throwing krak and rapidfiring bolters.
motyak wrote: If you can't discuss something politely, regardless of how frustrated you may be getting, then you're better off not discussing it. "I don't care anymore" is not a valid reason to break Rule #1 of Dakka Dakka
I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.
Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.
If someone's driving you up the wall on Dakka, end the conversation. Might as well run into a brick wall over and over rather than discuss with someone who's already made up their mind on something. Venting your feelings not only solves nothing, but also destroys any argument you had previously.
General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Yes, and I basically agree with this.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:
High powered game. Low powered game.
What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.
Personally, I'd prefer the option that involves memorizing fewer special rules, less randomness, rolling fewer dice, buying fewer models, fewer books, etc.
And you'll say that players who use flyrants would feel "cut out of the deal." Ok. But what about people who use termagaunts? If you massively nerf wraithknights and scatterbikes, guess what? You've just massively buffed termagaunts indirectly.
I mean, if you only play with wraithknights and scatterbikes, then yes, you are going to be royally PO'ed if those things get nerfed. But if you run a general TAC list that doesn't spam the most OP stuff in your codex, then your army would actually be receiving an indirect buff.
Again, this is why players really started to leave 40k from 6th edition onwards. When things like wraithknights, riptides, flying hive tyrants (and fliers in general), Imperial Knights etc. hit the shelves, in addition to being massively OP in their own right, the entire existing meta also received a massive indirect nerf.
Leeman Russes, Landraiders, IG infantry platoons, tactical squads etc. became a joke.
In other words:
The entire existing player base "got cut out of the deal."
General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Yes, and I basically agree with this.
Glad we agree
Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:
High powered game. Low powered game.
What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.
I mean yeah, I see where you're coming from; the problem is the unforseen consequences when you buff up a single unit like you see when a Codex gets updated, and whether or not such changes will be apparent against certain units. That Flyrant can still use a Heavy Venom Cannon to get through the Marine's save, no matter how much better at killing things they are. Some things will stay the same, and even on theoretically terrible units, that will still make them viable choices. And now you have the reverse effect where Marines don't feel very strong at all.
Personally, I'd prefer the option that involves memorizing fewer special rules, less randomness, rolling fewer dice, buying fewer models, fewer books, etc.
Come check out either my blog or my profile page where I'll be posting up my own 40k game, that pretty much fits your description perfectly, sometime next year - Christmas will be coming late, I'm afraid
And yes, I'm 100% serious. Unfortunately.
Speaking of serious, I don't think 40k will ever become a game like the one you described. It's why I picked up a pen and some paper in the first place. 40k 7th is the way it is, and I don't feel confident that 8th will make much difference.
And you'll say that players who use flyrants would feel "cut out of the deal." Ok. But what about people who use termagaunts? If you massively nerf wraithknights and scatterbikes, guess what? You've just massively buffed termagaunts indirectly.
I mean, if you only play with wraithknights and scatterbikes, then yes, you are going to be royally PO'ed if those things get nerfed. But if you run a general TAC list that doesn't spam the most OP stuff in your codex, then your army would actually be receiving an indirect buff.
Again, this is why players really started to leave 40k from 6th edition onwards. When things like wraithknights, riptides, flying hive tyrants (and fliers in general), Imperial Knights etc. hit the shelves, in addition to being massively OP in their own right, the entire existing meta also received a massive indirect nerf.
Leeman Russes, Landraiders, IG infantry platoons, tactical squads etc. became a joke.
In other words:
The entire existing player base "got cut out of the deal."
This is roughly the same point as I made above about unforseen consequences. The best solution is to buff everything up to a level where units with similar roles on the field feel fair against each other (when they're matched correctly in terms of points, of course), rather than let an imbalance created by buffing/nerfing something balance the game for you. That can theoretically work, but probably won't. If it did, I'm sure a lot more of those "quick fix" threads would be popping up here, and 40k as a system would have a lot less glaring flaws and opportunities for abuse.
General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Yes, and I basically agree with this.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:
High powered game. Low powered game.
What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.
omg... No. It doesn't work that way.
If everything has 2+ armor then everything becomes much harder to kill and less actually gets done in the game. Every turn becomes a slog with every unit firing volley after volley of shot for little to no effect. If everyone gets nerfed down to 6+ armor then suddenly everything dies to a stiff breeze and the game becomes a significantly different experience. Suddenly everything dies in droves. Positioning probably becomes really important.
Saying that buffing everything up and nerfing everything down is effectively the same thing is wrong on EVERY. SINGLE. LEVEL.
There is a VERY practical difference and NEITHER option is good. This is why your simple fix philosophy doesn't work. There are no simple fixes. Once again, the issues with 40k run deeper and you are attacking symptoms not the source of the issues.
And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument
I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.
G.A
I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.
Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.
At least you get any replies, Traditio has never, ever replied to any of my posts adressing any of his nonsense...
And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument
I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.
Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.
It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.
G.A
I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.
Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.
At least you get any replies, Traditio has never, ever replied to any of my posts adressing any of his nonsense...
He also avoids addressing me when I prove him wrong.
Second, synapse. Pyrovores without synapse you loose control over. They cannot shoot their guns if they cannot pass their ld check.
Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.
Second, synapse. Pyrovores without synapse you loose control over. They cannot shoot their guns if they cannot pass their ld check.
Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.
Excellent. So you spend 40 ppm to have a unit whos primary purpose is to be beaten to death and (hopefully) take some people with him. Watch out everyone. Pyrovores are gunna getcha!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.
Excellent. So you spend 40 ppm to have a unit whos primary purpose is to be beaten to death and (hopefully) take some people with him. Watch out everyone. Pyrovores are gunna getcha!
I'm not saying it is a good choice, but that it is probably not intended to be a heavy flamer platform primarily; it's a bomb.
I disagree greatly. The Pyrovore is most definitely intended to be a heavy flamer platform. It's just so poorly built that it might as well just be a bomb.
Of all the many poorly built units in the nid dex the pyrovore is the worst.
Second, synapse. Pyrovores without synapse you loose control over. They cannot shoot their guns if they cannot pass their ld check.
Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.
He is not built around Acid Blood or Maw - those are "self defence" ideas that GW trew at him, because Pyrovores are single model units that cannot hide themselves by joining units like IC can. Pyrovores have their use - they were probably designed to be guardian creatures for Biovores and they are quite good on massively cluttered tables against non Power Armour armies, but this is so niche application (and definately non-competetive), that it rarely sees play. A formation of Biovores, Pyrovores and Zoanthropes could be quite nice and fluffy pre-plastic-MC-outbreak "Artillery Node" for casual power level.
The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.
Imateria wrote: The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.
I don't really think that Volatile rule RAI hit everything on a table (and that this hit is multiplied by nearby creatures). It is just purely worded ID Acid Blood-like ability without initiative test... And RAW? Just drop three Pyrovores in Tyrannocyte near a large squad, deploy it 1" from it and then this enemy squad with as many low BS Heavy Venom Cannons you can fit in the army... With carefull placement you can "chain reaction" half of the table this way with just a bit of luck... Just keep enough bodies in reserves. Or for even better trolling: combi-charge Pyrovores and Mucolids at anything (and maybe some Gargoyles first to sponge overwatch) - the perfect living atom bomb...
But as my little poll indicates, almost no one plays RAW.
Imateria wrote: The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.
I don't really think that Volatile rule RAI hit everything on a table (and that this hit is multiplied by nearby creatures). It is just purely worded ID Acid Blood-like ability without initiative test... And RAW? Just drop three Pyrovores in Tyrannocyte near a large squad, deploy it 1" from it and then this enemy squad with as many low BS Heavy Venom Cannons you can fit in the army... With carefull placement you can "chain reaction" half of the table this way with just a bit of luck... Just keep enough bodies in reserves. Or for even better trolling: combi-charge Pyrovores and Mucolids at anything (and maybe some Gargoyles first to sponge overwatch) - the perfect living atom bomb...
But as my little poll indicates, almost no one plays RAW.
Thats the point Lance was making though, it's obviously not intended to wound everything on the table but it's so badly worded that it's not fit for purpose. The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.
Imateria wrote: The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.
I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...
Imateria wrote: The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.
I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...
What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?
Imateria wrote: The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.
I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...
What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?
I am also interested in hearing about your studies. Please let us know what you found.
Imateria wrote: The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.
I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...
What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?
I am also interested in hearing about your studies. Please let us know what you found.
First, I must say that my goal was quite specific - to ballance Tyranids against Eldar without nerfing Eldar to the ground. We also predominantly play Maelstrom and wanted every unit type to be usefull (in both armies), so we don't have to stick to monobuilds and can utilize any models we like aesthetically. And not all this ballance comes from improving Tyranids per se. No matter how good those alterations are in achieveing desired goal, scenario type and terrain layout can significantly alter the ballance - on an open tabletop without enough terrain Tyranids still have a hard time. One more thing - we like our games to catch a "feel" of the army as described in an overall fluff. So Eldar should be significantly outnumbered and rely on pinpointing objectives, not stomping the enemy, and Tyranids should overhelm in numbers and be near unstopable in direct "wipe-everything-out-to-win" clash. So probably a lot of those changes wouldn't satisfy the "balanced, competetive meta" players.
A bit of analysis of unmodified codex first - it is completeley non-fluffy mess of usually non-working units, which double- or triple-up their intended purposes or have no purpose at all. Small bugs are completely useless gainst almost anything, and usually pose no threat at all (unless they are equipped with toxin sacs and play against Wraith army, then Wraith army have it really, really uphill). Warriors/shrikes are too slow or too fragile to fullfill their role well, Zoantropes are unreliable offensively and work almost solely as overpriced Synapse nods. All Elite medium bugs must compete against each other for list slots at army building stage which seriously harm usefullness of each type: Zoantropes as independent synapse nods, Biovores and Hive Guards as artillery backup, Venomthropes as support units... Large bugs are either quite decent, with just some minor tweaks to make them work in intended way or don't work at all in any real in game situations. The whole army suffers from almost hard cap of AP4 and really does not have good anti heavy infantry weapons.
[Some bigger picture of relevant core rules changes we utilise is also required to understand how this army now works: you can assault from non-standard deployment and deep strike after succesfull LD roll and charge range varies from Initiative value minimum to 2d6 maximum. Run distance is either flat Initiative or d6 roll. Fleet gives you +1" run distance, not a reroll. Blast Weapons scatter only after initial To Hit roll misses (and can still hit on scatter dice hit result). Tabling gives only additional VPs but is not an automatic defeat. We use more than that, but those are important here (overall the game we play is faster by increased mobility, more important deployment/scout/infiltration decisions and faster reserves, so this time gain can be utilised for some detailed in-game and scenario mechanics)]
Now to the actual list of Tyranid changes (without going into exact details)
- Army wide Move Through Cover. Synapse creatures have double toughness ID immunity and can explode spore mines remotely instead of their shooting attack (a single cluster per creature, not all in 24" radius as in 4th ed). Spore mines interact wth Overwatch by exploding on the spot instead of in base contact and their stat increase depending on the number of mines is different: one: s4ap4, two: s5ap4, three: s5ap3. Shadow in the warp changes harnessing to one point worse and has -2Ld penalty, both within synapse range (so is increasable by Dominion etc) [I don't want to shut down psychic phase completely with Shadow].
- Gaunts: Termagaunts and Hormagaunts get small point reduction and can purchase 4th ed "Without number" rule. Gargoyles change to Jet Pack Infantry and get their 2nd ed Flamespurt. "Endless swarm" formation works as long as Warriors live and is a bit more unreliable alternative to paying points for "Without number", but those gaunts can "mutate" on the come back to different type/loadout within standard point cost of entire unit, so there is more "endless" and not "resurecting" feeling to it. And Hormagaunts are Beasts (they lose Bounding leap), which makes them the ultimate "tactical glue", which gives the army a lot of it's intended "hive mind will rearranging the battlefild landscape at whim" feel.
- Genestealers get old fleshhooks (fight at initiative) and Patriarch is a Codex Tyranids creature, which blessings can only target Genestealer squads [this was before Genestealer Cult codex though, I'm still thinking at what to do with Brood Mind powers and haven't tested him with Biomancy].
- medium bugs: Warriors are sv3+, Shrikes are sv 4+ (shrikes with lashwhips become deadly, warriors can finally guard artillery or backfield on their own). All Elite bugs can be bought as one squad but deployed separately. Zoantropes change their role completely and are now cheaper and have only toned down Maleceptor-like power and Dominion. Biovores are unchanged (but Spore Mines are), Pyrovores get Torrent, Hive Guards get to choose ammunition on the fly (as Missile Launchers) from either S8AP4 homing or S5AP3 homing. Venomthropes are unchanged.
- Deathleaper gets back it's disappear ability back, so he can relocate and no longer works solely as Mawlock homing device... (I haven't dwell deeper into Lictors yet..)
- Malanthrope is unchanged (one of the very few units that are well designed with a clear goal in mind).
- flyers: Hive Crone utilises 6th ed Vector Strike and has endless supply Tentaclids. Harpy benefits from changes to how Blast Weapons and Spore Mines work, Sonic Screech works as a -3I Vector Strike.
- big bugs: Trygons are MC Beast and Trygon Prime is an HQ choice. They have +1 to their reserve roll and if Tyranid player goes second, he can roll for entry in his first turn on 3+ (in other words, they have one turn shift in reserve roll). One-unit-per-turn limit stays. Exocrine is unchanged, Tyrannofexes Acid Spray is AP3 and Rupture Cannon is cheaper and is S10AP3 and changes to a single sDap2 if both hits score (we play with toned down '6' on D table - 2d3 wounds with inv/cover saves still possible), Fleshborer Hive is 10xDevourerTermagaunt equivalent [but Tyrannofex hasn't been playtested enough yet, just a couple of games]. Mawlock is unchanged. I haven't dwell on Tervigon or Toxicrene and Haruspex is beyond salvage, as is Maleceptor (I have an idea of complete overhaul for him, but still in concept phase). Carnifex: with LD charge after unusual deployment, just use a stonecrusher in a Tyrannocyte really [I have some working "standalone" Carnifexes, but they those are very detailed fixes working under heavily modified core rules, with basically 2nd ed Carnifex in mind] Tyrannocyte has a near Drop Pod cost. Dimacheron is Jump Gargantuan Creature [but sitll insuficiently playtested].
- Flyrant must trade a single pair of scything talons for wings but utilises 6th ed Vector Strike rule. Any type of Tyrant has acces to Divination and walking Tyrants and Swarmlords have access to Biomancy (with +2S+2T iron arm modification and a sort of "shield creatures" summoning power instead of Haemorrhage) for a point cost.
- Tyranid prime is an upgrade option for Warriors and Shrikes changing the battlefield role of a squad to HQ. It is obviously a significantly cheaper upgrade
That's about it. There are more minor point and stat tweaks, but this should be enough to draw an image of where I'm going with my "fandex". The feeling of playing against this army is that you really have to focus on achieving specific goals - if you lose focus, you lose the battle by drowning in bodies. Most of our games end with just a couple of Eldar models on the table but usually with very close VP point results. I don't claim that this list, as presented, is universally balanced against each existing faction and every possible scenario, but I think it moves current Nids in a good direction. And one last disclaimer - we don't play any superfriends unkillable deathstar bullcrap, so those are completely out of scope of this fandex balance.
@Nou, yes I said it and I'll say it again, Nids cant be fix with any "quick" updates, they need a full over haul.
I like some of your ideas, other I feel there are better solutions.
I truly am hugely opinionated that Trygon Prime should be a GMC and nothing else changed to his rules other than GMC update.
And I like the Synapse that was talked about in IB topic, units that need synapse and are in synapse uses the LD of the Synapse model (LD 10) has FnP 6+ also (Models with Synpase has 5+ FnP).
If a Trygon Prime becomes a GMC then it would need a 100pt increase, just because of the 12" movement, Stomp, immunity to Instant Death, Poison and Sniper and the base Feel no Pain.
Amishprn86 wrote: @Nou, yes I said it and I'll say it again, Nids cant be fix with any "quick" updates, they need a full over haul.
I like some of your ideas, other I feel there are better solutions.
I truly am hugely opinionated that Trygon Prime should be a GMC and nothing else changed to his rules other than GMC update.
And I like the Synapse that was talked about in IB topic, units that need synapse and are in synapse uses the LD of the Synapse model (LD 10) has FnP 6+ also (Models with Synpase has 5+ FnP).
Trygon being GMC does not adress it's useless tunnel digging... But yes, Tyranids should have at least one GMC that is cheaper than 500pts, but I prefer Dimacheron in that role.
And as much as I like LD10 synapse with FNP approach (I even tested some games with Gaunts having FNP 6+ stock, but this change is really so minor increase in practical durability, that I have dropped it in favour of "Without end"), I like the feel of having to manouver between fearless gaunts - just a personal preference. I usually play AGAINST Tyranids, not with them.
As with all "proposed rules" threads, this really boils down to individual playstyles, I don't think for a moment, that I have discovered "the only true way of saving Tyranids".
Amishprn86 wrote: @Nou, yes I said it and I'll say it again, Nids cant be fix with any "quick" updates, they need a full over haul.
I like some of your ideas, other I feel there are better solutions.
I truly am hugely opinionated that Trygon Prime should be a GMC and nothing else changed to his rules other than GMC update.
And I like the Synapse that was talked about in IB topic, units that need synapse and are in synapse uses the LD of the Synapse model (LD 10) has FnP 6+ also (Models with Synpase has 5+ FnP).
Trygon being GMC does not adress it's useless tunnel digging... But yes, Tyranids should have at least one GMC that is cheaper than 500pts, but I prefer Dimacheron in that role.
And as much as I like LD10 synapse with FNP approach (I even tested some games with Gaunts having FNP 6+ stock, but this change is really so minor increase in practical durability, that I have dropped it in favour of "Without end"), I like the feel of having to manouver between fearless gaunts - just a personal preference. I usually play AGAINST Tyranids, not with them.
As with all "proposed rules" threads, this really boils down to individual playstyles, I don't think for a moment, that I have discovered "the only true way of saving Tyranids".
The Tyrgon tunnel will be fixed with the Trygon, and the Prime will inherently get it, we all know its the worst delivery system in game and will be changed.
Imateria wrote: If a Trygon Prime becomes a GMC then it would need a 100pt increase, just because of the 12" movement, Stomp, immunity to Instant Death, Poison and Sniper and the base Feel no Pain.
Exactly because of the hazard of such detailed debates I have excluded any actual point cost modifications from my post. As history of "proposed rules" threads I've participated in has proved, it is quite easy to discuss "how any particular unit could be made to have clear purpose and intended way of use", but it is quite hard to agree on exact point cost of any changes. In this particular case I do think, that making it GMC would require a point increase, but I also think, that current Trygon Prime is overcosted (judging on practical application and possible synergies, not "USR list" theoryhammer). So 100pts change is a bit too much IMHO.
And fluff wise it is quite hard to imagine, how exactly would serpent-like creature Stomp exactly? I have a rather funny vision of "headbanging metalhead"
Imateria wrote: If a Trygon Prime becomes a GMC then it would need a 100pt increase, just because of the 12" movement, Stomp, immunity to Instant Death, Poison and Sniper and the base Feel no Pain.
Exactly because of the hazard of such detailed debates I have excluded any actual point cost modifications from my post. As history of "proposed rules" threads I've participated in has proved, it is quite easy to discuss "how any particular unit could be made to have clear purpose and intended way of use", but it is quite hard to agree on exact point cost of any changes. In this particular case I do think, that making it GMC would require a point increase, but I also think, that current Trygon Prime is overcosted (judging on practical application and possible synergies, not "USR list" theoryhammer). So 100pts change is a bit too much IMHO.
And fluff wise it is quite hard to imagine, how exactly would serpent-like creature Stomp exactly? I have a rather funny vision of "headbanging metalhead"
I wouldn't think it would be to many points, Its still T6 3+ save, it can still be killed from Bolters, Heavy Bolter, even S3 can wound it, Grav would kill it fast. It would get Anti poison (not much of that anyways) FnP and Stomp and its MUCH needed 12" movement. Its already Fearless and doesn't have Invuls, it can still only shoot 1 unit and charge that 1 unit as well.
I understand that 7th ed has GMC and super heavys but I feel like the rules for those unit types are so out of whack powerful. I am not saying those unit types shouldn't exist or that they shouldn't have a boost over standard vehicles/MC but man... stomp is just stupid broken powerful. The LIST of immunities goes a little too far.
I am often hesitant to make anything but heirodules+ into GMC because of it.
That being said, a lot of interesting ideas in your list of stuff. I have a lot to mull over.
Lance845 wrote: I understand that 7th ed has GMC and super heavys but I feel like the rules for those unit types are so out of whack powerful. I am not saying those unit types shouldn't exist or that they shouldn't have a boost over standard vehicles/MC but man... stomp is just stupid broken powerful. The LIST of immunities goes a little too far.
And it would be possible to use a Special Rule to either reduce or eliminate some of those advantages, such as limiting Stomp to just one Attack (it's a snake that flops on the ground, after all). The immunities may be a concern, though.
To be fair, if a MC were changed to GMC in the codex, it would be moved to a Lord of War just like the Transcendant C'tan was moved from Lord of War to Heavy Support or all those army Infantry moved from HQ to Lord of War. That would limit them with CADs, but not so much when it comes to old Formations. Which means we would also be looking at altering the Formations after that (not that they don't need it or isn't expected eventually, but just a reminder of keeping aware of ramifications).
Lance845 wrote: I understand that 7th ed has GMC and super heavys but I feel like the rules for those unit types are so out of whack powerful. I am not saying those unit types shouldn't exist or that they shouldn't have a boost over standard vehicles/MC but man... stomp is just stupid broken powerful. The LIST of immunities goes a little too far.
And it would be possible to use a Special Rule to either reduce or eliminate some of those advantages, such as limiting Stomp to just one Attack (it's a snake that flops on the ground, after all). The immunities may be a concern, though.
To be fair, if a MC were changed to GMC in the codex, it would be moved to a Lord of War just like the Transcendant C'tan was moved from Lord of War to Heavy Support or all those army Infantry moved from HQ to Lord of War. That would limit them with CADs, but not so much when it comes to old Formations. Which means we would also be looking at altering the Formations after that (not that they don't need it or isn't expected eventually, but just a reminder of keeping aware of ramifications).
I am more inclined to think those unit types need to be rebuilt whole sale. But that is a different discussion and something I am working on in my own home brew game.
GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
Amishprn86 wrote: GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
I could start a new thread, but this seems like a reasonable place to list my current ideas for the Tyranid Codex. All of this is with 7th ed in mind and trying not to make any change be too big. Also note that I don't play tyranids myself, but I play against them pretty often.
Instinctive behavior to become:
This special rule is always followed, in brackets, by a type: either Lurk, Hunt or Feed, which corresponds to the rule of the same name. At the beginning of each of your turns, all Codex: Tyranids units with this special rule that are outside of the synapse range of any friendly Synapse Creatures must take a Leadership test unless they are: engaged in combat, falling back, have gone to ground or arrived from Reserve this turn. If the test is passed, the unit acts normally during this turn. If the test is failed, the effects of the rule must be followed instead:
Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
In the movement phase the unit must move towards the nearest enemy unit that it can wound or glance. If the target unit is 18” or more away this unit must run towards it. If the target is less than 18” away, this unit must walk and then attempt a charge.
Instinctive Behaviour (Hunt)
In the movement phase the unit must attempt to move into range and Line of Sight of the nearest enemy that it can wound or glance. In the Shooting phase, the unit cannot Run and must instead shoot at the closest enemy unit that is within range and line of sight of at least one model in the Tyranid unit. If there is no viable target, the Tyranid unit can do nothing during the Shooting phase. The unit cannot charge in the Assault phase.
Instinctive Behaviour (Lurk)
In the Movement phase, the unit is not slowed by difficult terrain, though its models must take Dangerous Terrain tests as normal. The creature must move towards the nearest cover (which can be area terrain or regular terrain). If the unit is already in cover it may reposition in and around the cover as desired.
Tyranid Prime reduced to 80 points.
Genestealers gain Shred or get reduced to 12 pts/model
Hormagaunts swap Move Through Cover, Bounding Leap, Fleet for the Beast unit type. Or reduced to 4 pts/model
Rippers reduced to 12 pts/base
Tervigon moved to Fast Attack/Dedicated Transport. Reduced to 115 points. Replace gaunt spawning and synaptic feedback with capacity 20 and can only hold termagants.
Tyrannocyte moved to fast attack/dedicated Transport. Reduced to 60 points, wounds reduced to 4.
Venomthrope Spore Cloud changed to read: All friendly models from Codex: Tyranids that are within 6" of one or more Venomthropes gain special rules according to the number of Venomthropes in range. One Venomthrope grants the Stealth special rule. Two Venomthropes grant the Shrouded special rule. Three or more Venomthropes grant the Stealth & Shrouded special rules. The Venomthropes do not need to be from the same unit.
Lictor Chameleonic Skin changed to read: A Lictor can arrive from reserves by being placed anywhere on the table which is at least 3” away from enemy models and is also in base contact with terrain. Unlike other units that arrive from reserves, a Lictor may charge on the turn it arrives. Arriving in this manner counts as its movement during the Movement Phase.
Maleceptor reduced to 150 points, S5, T5, W4. Replaces Psychic Barrier with Warp Field (3++). Psychic Overload changed from 'can be manifested 3 times' to 'assault 3'
Shrikes and Sky Slashers removed until models exist.
Raveners reduced to 25 pts/model
Trygon and Trygon prime arrive by deep strike on turn 1 on a roll of 4+
Exocrine increased to 175 points
Toxicrene reduced to 140 points, T5, W4
Swarmlord moved to Lord of War
Sporocyst moved to Fortifications, can purchase 3 for one slot.
I'm still working out what to do with the rest of the codex.
Amishprn86 wrote: GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
Amishprn86 wrote: GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
Being immune to poison is lame.
Its not Immune, you need 6's to wound.
And then you have to go through 3+/5+++.
It pretty much IS immune. Super Heavy Vehicles aren't suddenly immune to Haywire.
Amishprn86 wrote: GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
Being immune to poison is lame.
Its not Immune, you need 6's to wound.
And then you have to go through 3+/5+++.
It pretty much IS immune. Super Heavy Vehicles aren't suddenly immune to Haywire.
MANY of those have 4+ or 5+ invuls, many have higher AV (I know some dont) and normally can shot multi units with longer and stronger guns. The is give and Take
But like I said very few armies relay on Poison, its a T6 3+ save model, yes it has a 5+ FnP but it still dies just as fast as a Riptide. It cant get invuls or a 2+ save. Hit it with 8 ap3 and its dead. a devastator squad would cause 2-3 wounds instantly on average. HECK, Grav bikes or Centurions will kill it in 1 turn.
If you are so concerned about Poison then as a DE player, use Diss cannons, DL's or Blasters. they all are Ap2 and s5/s8
Amishprn86 wrote: GMC isnt bad, Stomp is the problem, Just make it so it can never hit other units its not in Melee with like all normal attacks.
The 2nd problem is they are to cheap. A Trygon Prime being a GMC still be weak compare to a Wraithknight. the Prime being a GMC would honestly be considered a well balanced model for the points if you compare it to other units.
What do you mean defeats the purpose of poison? Poisons purpose is you always wound on a given number. A str 2 gun could still wound on a 6 against a t8 GMC. That would normally be impossible. Every gun with poison always wounds regardless of str/t.
Lance845 wrote: What do you mean defeats the purpose of poison? Poisons purpose is you always wound on a given number. A str 2 gun could still wound on a 6 against a t8 GMC. That would normally be impossible. Every gun with poison always wounds regardless of str/t.
Yeah IDK why he is so mad about poison, it still can wound and only DE care about it, Me as DE main, I still feel the same....
Zustiur wrote: I could start a new thread, but this seems like a reasonable place to list my current ideas for the Tyranid Codex. All of this is with 7th ed in mind and trying not to make any change be too big. Also note that I don't play tyranids myself, but I play against them pretty often.
Instinctive behavior to become:
This special rule is always followed, in brackets, by a type: either Lurk, Hunt or Feed, which corresponds to the rule of the same name. At the beginning of each of your turns, all Codex: Tyranids units with this special rule that are outside of the synapse range of any friendly Synapse Creatures must take a Leadership test unless they are: engaged in combat, falling back, have gone to ground or arrived from Reserve this turn. If the test is passed, the unit acts normally during this turn. If the test is failed, the effects of the rule must be followed instead:
Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
In the movement phase the unit must move towards the nearest enemy unit that it can wound or glance. If the target unit is 18” or more away this unit must run towards it. If the target is less than 18” away, this unit must walk and then attempt a charge.
Instinctive Behaviour (Hunt)
In the movement phase the unit must attempt to move into range and Line of Sight of the nearest enemy that it can wound or glance. In the Shooting phase, the unit cannot Run and must instead shoot at the closest enemy unit that is within range and line of sight of at least one model in the Tyranid unit. If there is no viable target, the Tyranid unit can do nothing during the Shooting phase. The unit cannot charge in the Assault phase.
Instinctive Behaviour (Lurk)
In the Movement phase, the unit is not slowed by difficult terrain, though its models must take Dangerous Terrain tests as normal. The creature must move towards the nearest cover (which can be area terrain or regular terrain). If the unit is already in cover it may reposition in and around the cover as desired.
I don't like these changes, while the army would no longer fall apart you still loose complete control over it with all actions effectively automated. There is no fun in that.
Tyranid Prime reduced to 80 points.
That would work
Genestealers gain Shred or get reduced to 12 pts/model
I'd go with the points drop, I think it's a good idea having them weaker than the Cult Purestrains but they should also be cheaper.
Hormagaunts swap Move Through Cover, Bounding Leap, Fleet for the Beast unit type. Or reduced to 4 pts/model
I think everyone (that isn't Tradito) would agree that they should never have been changed from Beasts to Infantry in the first place.
Rippers reduced to 12 pts/base
Is a 1ppb reduction really woth bothering with?
Tervigon moved to Fast Attack/Dedicated Transport. Reduced to 115 points. Replace gaunt spawning and synaptic feedback with capacity 20 and can only hold termagants.
I can't see a point to this, Tervigon's are as slow as any other foot sloggin MC, and removing spawning literally takes away their reason for existence.
Tyrannocyte moved to fast attack/dedicated Transport. Reduced to 60 points, wounds reduced to 4.
Fair enough.
Venomthrope Spore Cloud changed to read: All friendly models from Codex: Tyranids that are within 6" of one or more Venomthropes gain special rules according to the number of Venomthropes in range. One Venomthrope grants the Stealth special rule. Two Venomthropes grant the Shrouded special rule. Three or more Venomthropes grant the Stealth & Shrouded special rules. The Venomthropes do not need to be from the same unit.
I can't see a point in nerfing one of the few decent units in the codex.
Lictor Chameleonic Skin changed to read: A Lictor can arrive from reserves by being placed anywhere on the table which is at least 3” away from enemy models and is also in base contact with terrain. Unlike other units that arrive from reserves, a Lictor may charge on the turn it arrives. Arriving in this manner counts as its movement during the Movement Phase.
An interesting change, could make them pretty dangerous.
Maleceptor reduced to 150 points, S5, T5, W4. Replaces Psychic Barrier with Warp Field (3++). Psychic Overload changed from 'can be manifested 3 times' to 'assault 3'
I don't see why the Maleceptor should be made weaker. You also don't seem to understand how Psychic Overload works, though a Witchfire it does not have a shooting profile and wounds by forcing a Leadership check with penalties. Assault 3 is literraly meaningless without completely changing everything about how this power works.
Shrikes and Sky Slashers removed until models exist.
Removing useful units because they don't have models (and Sky Slasher models do exist, they're from Forgeworld) just pisses people off, a terrible way to deal with them.
Raveners reduced to 25 pts/model
I'd go further, 20ppm, as they need upgrades to really work as is.
Trygon and Trygon prime arrive by deep strike on turn 1 on a roll of 4+
An improvement, but why a 4+, thats still only a 50/50 chance of remotely being worth it's 200+ points.
Exocrine increased to 175 points
Why, with it's short range guns it's hard to make use of it as is?
Toxicrene reduced to 140 points, T5, W4
Why nerf a unit that needs a boost?
Swarmlord moved to Lord of War
Thats it? No attempt to make it worth taking.
Sporocyst moved to Fortifications, can purchase 3 for one slot.
Is there a point to this, other than making it impossible to take a Sporocyst in a Hive Fleet Leviathan Detachment?
I'm still working out what to do with the rest of the codex.
I think you really need to play a few games with Nids just to see why it is these units don't work.
I don't like these [instinctive behaviour] changes, while the army would no longer fall apart you still loose complete control over it with all actions effectively automated. There is no fun in that.
I know what you're saying, but this is still a step in the right direction surely? It sounds like you won't be happy until instinctive behavior is removed entirely. I took away some of the negative effects, and some of the 'ran-dumb' rolling. I'm open to suggestions on how to make it less frustrating, but I don't think it should be removed as a concept.
Genestealers gain Shred or get reduced to 12 pts/model
I'd go with the points drop, I think it's a good idea having them weaker than the Cult Purestrains but they should also be cheaper.
Noted, thanks.
Hormagaunts swap Move Through Cover, Bounding Leap, Fleet for the Beast unit type. Or reduced to 4 pts/model
I think everyone (that isn't Tradito) would agree that they should never have been changed from Beasts to Infantry in the first place.
My concern is that being beasts they'd conflict for purpose with raveners. Also they should probably be in Fast Attack then... Hmm.
Rippers reduced to 12 pts/base
Is a 1ppb reduction really worth bothering with?
I was going to drop them back down to 10 pts, but then I realized that they actually got quite a bit of stat increase from the previous codex. They're roughly equivalent in terms of toughness, attacks and wounds as Imperial Guard Conscripts. Would you pick 10 pts or 11 pts? I wouldn't go any lower than that because they're fearless.
Tervigon moved to Fast Attack/Dedicated Transport. Reduced to 115 points. Replace gaunt spawning and synaptic feedback with capacity 20 and can only hold termagants.
I can't see a point to this, Tervigon's are as slow as any other foot sloggin MC, and removing spawning literally takes away their reason for existence.
I could leave them in HQ I suppose, but that just feels weird to me. I get that they're not fast, but I was putting them where nearly all transports go. If it were 6th edition, I'd just mark them as dedicated transports and be done with it. As for the removal of spawning, I ran the statistics. 3d6 stopping on doubles nets you an average of 20-22 termagants for free. So I simply subtracted that value from the cost of the model. I personally hate the whole 'free models' mechanic in all its forms and this has the added benefit of removing some of the pointless rolling from the game.
Venomthrope Spore Cloud changed to read: All friendly models from Codex: Tyranids that are within 6" of one or more Venomthropes gain special rules according to the number of Venomthropes in range. One Venomthrope grants the Stealth special rule. Two Venomthropes grant the Shrouded special rule. Three or more Venomthropes grant the Stealth & Shrouded special rules. The Venomthropes do not need to be from the same unit.
I can't see a point in nerfing one of the few decent units in the codex.
Ah well, the tyranid player in my group specifically asked for a way to have their abilities stack. This was an attempt to achieve that goal. Personally, I think they're a bit too good just now at 45 points for a 12" bubble of shrouded. Needing two to achieve the same result would make them less obnoxious to play against. It's probably worth pointing out that my gaming group isn't a highly competitive 'use all the cheese' group, so tyranids aren't quite as useless as they are in the tournament circuit.
Lictor Chameleonic Skin changed to read: A Lictor can arrive from reserves by being placed anywhere on the table which is at least 3” away from enemy models and is also in base contact with terrain. Unlike other units that arrive from reserves, a Lictor may charge on the turn it arrives. Arriving in this manner counts as its movement during the Movement Phase.
An interesting change, could make them pretty dangerous.
After playing against genestealer cult, the idea of lictors assaulting on the turn they arrive just seems right. In the past I would have argued that it's too powerful, but in the current environment, I really don't think so.
Maleceptor reduced to 150 points, S5, T5, W4. Replaces Psychic Barrier with Warp Field (3++). Psychic Overload changed from 'can be manifested 3 times' to 'assault 3'
I don't see why the Maleceptor should be made weaker. You also don't seem to understand how Psychic Overload works, though a Witchfire it does not have a shooting profile and wounds by forcing a Leadership check with penalties. Assault 3 is literally meaningless without completely changing everything about how this power works.
Ok, I'll admit I got the power wrong, I'll fix that. The point is to make it '3 shots' without needing to manifest 3 times. It's the beast's primary weapon, it shouldn't be that hard to use. Yes, I dropped their toughness by 1. It's a giant exposed brain on legs. How tough should it be?? Besides it's changed from 5++ to 3++. That's a significant boost, and all for the price drop of 55 points.
Shrikes and Sky Slashers removed until models exist.
Removing useful units because they don't have models (and Sky Slasher models do exist, they're from Forgeworld) just pisses people off, a terrible way to deal with them.
Fair enough. I'll reinstate them.
Raveners reduced to 25 pts/model
I'd go further, 20ppm, as they need upgrades to really work as is.
This was just me being conservative. I'm happy to drop them further once I have tested them at this cost.
Trygon and Trygon prime arrive by deep strike on turn 1 on a roll of 4+
An improvement, but why a 4+, that's still only a 50/50 chance of remotely being worth it's 200+ points.
If I were doing a full re-write of the codex or the rule book I'd ensure that you can deliberately put units in the trygon tunnel and have them arrive after the trygon. For now I just wanted to increase the likelihood of things arriving in the correct order.
Exocrine increased to 175 points
Why, with it's short range guns it's hard to make use of it as is?
Personal bias against Assault 6 S7 AP 2 weapons. A very simplistic comparison with the closest equivalent unit I could think of... SM Command Squad all armed with plasma guns. 165 points for 5x rapid fire with gets hot. That's 5 shots instead of 6 at the same range for a 5 point difference. And it's a damn site easier to reduce the effectiveness of that unit than of an Exocrine.
I've removed this change for now. I was also tempted to just reduce it to assault 5 or assault 4 but I thought a 5 point increase was more palatable.
Toxicrene reduced to 140 points, T5, W4
Why nerf a unit that needs a boost?
I don't see why every unit in the codex should be T6 with 5-6 wounds. I'd like to see some actual variety. I thought the accompanying 20 point reduction might have been tempting enough. Looks like I need to go further. I don't think the tyranid player in my group would ever use them anyway (nor would I) simply because he hates the model.
Swarmlord moved to Lord of War
That's it? No attempt to make it worth taking.
One step at a time. I'm not done with this re-write.
How would you feel about giving it Warp Field 3++ at no cost increase?
Sporocyst moved to Fortifications, can purchase 3 for one slot.
Is there a point to this, other than making it impossible to take a Sporocyst in a Hive Fleet Leviathan Detachment?
The point is to make it not take up valuable heavy support slots.
I'm still working out what to do with the rest of the codex.
I think you really need to play a few games with Nids just to see why it is these units don't work.
Agreed. I've been wanting to try them for quite a while. So far this exercise is about getting my ideas down on paper. I fully anticipate that playtesting is required.
I'd like to make a bunch of other changes to warriors, shrikes, hive tyrants, but I can't see those changes getting any traction. For example, the model for Hive Tyrant has the wings replacing a pair of arms. I'd make the rules match, which would mean no more dual twin-linked devourer winged tyrants. I'll save such changes for a full re-write of the codex (in conjunction with the full re-write of the game that I am already working on).
The Sporocyst should be a Heavy support tho, but a Formation with 2-3 would be better than your idea.
Exocrine is over costed now... it needs to be cheaper not more.
Venomthrope is perfect the way it is, it doesn't need to stack with nids, Stealth/shrouded already stacks.
Tervigon please god no, its fine as is other than S6/T6 it should be S5/T7 make it more of a tank
Hormagaunts need beast, no reason they shouldn't be, it wont "conflict" with other units at all it will ACTUALLY have synergy with them, you have screen the Ravagers with them, they can now keep up with them and you can tarpit a unit or 2 while the "Big hitter Ravager" does the damage.
The Nids book is also missing synergy something that is only being talked about from a couple people, Hormagants being Beast gives more synergy between units.
I don't like these [instinctive behaviour] changes, while the army would no longer fall apart you still loose complete control over it with all actions effectively automated. There is no fun in that.
I know what you're saying, but this is still a step in the right direction surely? It sounds like you won't be happy until instinctive behavior is removed entirely. I took away some of the negative effects, and some of the 'ran-dumb' rolling. I'm open to suggestions on how to make it less frustrating, but I don't think it should be removed as a concept.
Genestealers gain Shred or get reduced to 12 pts/model
I'd go with the points drop, I think it's a good idea having them weaker than the Cult Purestrains but they should also be cheaper.
Noted, thanks.
Hormagaunts swap Move Through Cover, Bounding Leap, Fleet for the Beast unit type. Or reduced to 4 pts/model
I think everyone (that isn't Tradito) would agree that they should never have been changed from Beasts to Infantry in the first place.
My concern is that being beasts they'd conflict for purpose with raveners. Also they should probably be in Fast Attack then... Hmm.
Rippers reduced to 12 pts/base
Is a 1ppb reduction really worth bothering with?
I was going to drop them back down to 10 pts, but then I realized that they actually got quite a bit of stat increase from the previous codex. They're roughly equivalent in terms of toughness, attacks and wounds as Imperial Guard Conscripts. Would you pick 10 pts or 11 pts? I wouldn't go any lower than that because they're fearless.
Tervigon moved to Fast Attack/Dedicated Transport. Reduced to 115 points. Replace gaunt spawning and synaptic feedback with capacity 20 and can only hold termagants.
I can't see a point to this, Tervigon's are as slow as any other foot sloggin MC, and removing spawning literally takes away their reason for existence.
I could leave them in HQ I suppose, but that just feels weird to me. I get that they're not fast, but I was putting them where nearly all transports go. If it were 6th edition, I'd just mark them as dedicated transports and be done with it. As for the removal of spawning, I ran the statistics. 3d6 stopping on doubles nets you an average of 20-22 termagants for free. So I simply subtracted that value from the cost of the model. I personally hate the whole 'free models' mechanic in all its forms and this has the added benefit of removing some of the pointless rolling from the game.
Venomthrope Spore Cloud changed to read: All friendly models from Codex: Tyranids that are within 6" of one or more Venomthropes gain special rules according to the number of Venomthropes in range. One Venomthrope grants the Stealth special rule. Two Venomthropes grant the Shrouded special rule. Three or more Venomthropes grant the Stealth & Shrouded special rules. The Venomthropes do not need to be from the same unit.
I can't see a point in nerfing one of the few decent units in the codex.
Ah well, the tyranid player in my group specifically asked for a way to have their abilities stack. This was an attempt to achieve that goal. Personally, I think they're a bit too good just now at 45 points for a 12" bubble of shrouded. Needing two to achieve the same result would make them less obnoxious to play against. It's probably worth pointing out that my gaming group isn't a highly competitive 'use all the cheese' group, so tyranids aren't quite as useless as they are in the tournament circuit.
Lictor Chameleonic Skin changed to read: A Lictor can arrive from reserves by being placed anywhere on the table which is at least 3” away from enemy models and is also in base contact with terrain. Unlike other units that arrive from reserves, a Lictor may charge on the turn it arrives. Arriving in this manner counts as its movement during the Movement Phase.
An interesting change, could make them pretty dangerous.
After playing against genestealer cult, the idea of lictors assaulting on the turn they arrive just seems right. In the past I would have argued that it's too powerful, but in the current environment, I really don't think so.
Maleceptor reduced to 150 points, S5, T5, W4. Replaces Psychic Barrier with Warp Field (3++). Psychic Overload changed from 'can be manifested 3 times' to 'assault 3'
I don't see why the Maleceptor should be made weaker. You also don't seem to understand how Psychic Overload works, though a Witchfire it does not have a shooting profile and wounds by forcing a Leadership check with penalties. Assault 3 is literally meaningless without completely changing everything about how this power works.
Ok, I'll admit I got the power wrong, I'll fix that. The point is to make it '3 shots' without needing to manifest 3 times. It's the beast's primary weapon, it shouldn't be that hard to use. Yes, I dropped their toughness by 1. It's a giant exposed brain on legs. How tough should it be?? Besides it's changed from 5++ to 3++. That's a significant boost, and all for the price drop of 55 points.
Shrikes and Sky Slashers removed until models exist.
Removing useful units because they don't have models (and Sky Slasher models do exist, they're from Forgeworld) just pisses people off, a terrible way to deal with them.
Fair enough. I'll reinstate them.
Raveners reduced to 25 pts/model
I'd go further, 20ppm, as they need upgrades to really work as is.
This was just me being conservative. I'm happy to drop them further once I have tested them at this cost.
Trygon and Trygon prime arrive by deep strike on turn 1 on a roll of 4+
An improvement, but why a 4+, that's still only a 50/50 chance of remotely being worth it's 200+ points.
If I were doing a full re-write of the codex or the rule book I'd ensure that you can deliberately put units in the trygon tunnel and have them arrive after the trygon. For now I just wanted to increase the likelihood of things arriving in the correct order.
Exocrine increased to 175 points
Why, with it's short range guns it's hard to make use of it as is?
Personal bias against Assault 6 S7 AP 2 weapons. A very simplistic comparison with the closest equivalent unit I could think of... SM Command Squad all armed with plasma guns. 165 points for 5x rapid fire with gets hot. That's 5 shots instead of 6 at the same range for a 5 point difference. And it's a damn site easier to reduce the effectiveness of that unit than of an Exocrine.
I've removed this change for now. I was also tempted to just reduce it to assault 5 or assault 4 but I thought a 5 point increase was more palatable.
Toxicrene reduced to 140 points, T5, W4
Why nerf a unit that needs a boost?
I don't see why every unit in the codex should be T6 with 5-6 wounds. I'd like to see some actual variety. I thought the accompanying 20 point reduction might have been tempting enough. Looks like I need to go further. I don't think the tyranid player in my group would ever use them anyway (nor would I) simply because he hates the model.
Swarmlord moved to Lord of War
That's it? No attempt to make it worth taking.
One step at a time. I'm not done with this re-write.
How would you feel about giving it Warp Field 3++ at no cost increase?
Sporocyst moved to Fortifications, can purchase 3 for one slot.
Is there a point to this, other than making it impossible to take a Sporocyst in a Hive Fleet Leviathan Detachment?
The point is to make it not take up valuable heavy support slots.
I'm still working out what to do with the rest of the codex.
I think you really need to play a few games with Nids just to see why it is these units don't work.
Agreed. I've been wanting to try them for quite a while. So far this exercise is about getting my ideas down on paper. I fully anticipate that playtesting is required.
Instinctive Behaviour- I'd like to make a bunch of other changes to warriors, shrikes, hive tyrants, but I can't see those changes getting any traction. For example, the model for Hive Tyrant has the wings replacing a pair of arms. I'd make the rules match, which would mean no more dual twin-linked devourer winged tyrants. I'll save such changes for a full re-write of the codex (in conjunction with the full re-write of the game that I am already working on).
Your right that your change to Synapse is considerably better than the "stay in synapse or your army falls to bits" rubbish we currently have, I'm just not a fan of the idea that complete control of a units actions are taken away from the player and effectively become automated, like I said there's no fun in that. I'm in agreement with Lance that Synapse should hand out bonuses whilst the Instinctive Behaviour rule determines what kind of bonuses, it's a good way to make people want to be in Synapse but still have the army function outside of it.
Hormagaunts- Tyranids are meant to be fast and Hormagaunts are a cheap throw away unit so I don't see them belonging anywhere other than Troops, and as mentioned in the post above they'd actually synergise better with Raveners like this, with Raveners meant to be more of a heavy hitter unit.
Rippers- I'd say 10ppb or just give them Deep Strike as standard and make it 12.
Tervigon- I guess I just don't like the idea of them being transports, they're just far too slow to have any use in that role.
Venomthropes- No real need to change them, whilst very good in their support role they are also very squishy and a prime target.
Maleceptor- This is one of those units that needs a ground up re-work. At present it's vastly overpriced for 205pts, should be closer to 140, and it's unique psychic power is not very good as it eats up Warp Charges for minimul effect that can be better used elsewhere. The points drop is nice but making it weaker means the drop has to got much further (it's an armoured brain on legs), though it's all moot since like I said, this unit is a mess that needs a complete re-write.
Trygon- Given their high cost I'd like to see them come on automatically turn 1, guarantees that the points your paying for that tunnel aren't going to waste and whilst having a big MC pop up in your opponents lines turn 1 might seem nasty, it's no worse than drop podding melta Sternguard and it still wont be able to charge the turn it arrives which makes it a significant risk in itself.
Exocrine- There is no comparison to a SM Command Squad, they fulfil completely different roles. An Exocrine is supposed to be a big gun sitting in the backfield, Symbiotic Targeting supports this, but the silly short range of the weapon means it has to advance to do anything, loosing it's big advantage of being one of the few Tyranids with BS4. And don't be fooled with the T6, 3+ armour save, Tyranid MC's die pretty easily.
Toxicrene- Agreed the Nid dex needs a lot more variety, but I think you'll find most people feel that things need to get tougher, not weaker, particularly on the really big bugs.
Swarmlord- Thats the problem with partial changes, we can't tell if thats all you want to change or not! The Swarmlord is supposed to be an absolute monster, so Eternal Warrior, Fleet and a 4++ that becomes 3++ in combat is what it needs at no cost increase beacuse it's too expensive for what it offers currently.
Lance845 wrote: What do you mean defeats the purpose of poison? Poisons purpose is you always wound on a given number. A str 2 gun could still wound on a 6 against a t8 GMC. That would normally be impossible. Every gun with poison always wounds regardless of str/t.
The purpose is to be able to spam wound regardless of toughness. Making it poison 6+ takes away the spamming part. GMCs need to cost a lot more for what they get in the game.
Lance845 wrote: What do you mean defeats the purpose of poison? Poisons purpose is you always wound on a given number. A str 2 gun could still wound on a 6 against a t8 GMC. That would normally be impossible. Every gun with poison always wounds regardless of str/t.
The purpose is to be able to spam wound regardless of toughness. Making it poison 6+ takes away the spamming part. GMCs need to cost a lot more for what they get in the game.
Then grav should be 20-25pts a gun if you want to think that way. Some of the most powerful units arent LoW's and cost cheaply.
Lance845 wrote: What do you mean defeats the purpose of poison? Poisons purpose is you always wound on a given number. A str 2 gun could still wound on a 6 against a t8 GMC. That would normally be impossible. Every gun with poison always wounds regardless of str/t.
The purpose is to be able to spam wound regardless of toughness. Making it poison 6+ takes away the spamming part. GMCs need to cost a lot more for what they get in the game.
Then grav should be 20-25pts a gun if you want to think that way. Some of the most powerful units arent LoW's and cost cheaply.
I don't understand this. Even with grav priced the way it is, GMCs are way too cheap.
No they are not, I'd rather have many other units than 1/2 the GMC, you mean 1 GMC is undercosted, most are over costed, All the nid ones are for sure.
Just b.c 1 is overcosted and spam doesnt mean they all need a nerf.
). It is also the reason while certain power weapons are garbage on a tactical marine but are auto takes on something like a captain or thunderwolf cav which has a better stat line to utilize that 15 point upgrade. Again giving a Grot a Power Klaw is not the same as giving a Klaw to a Nob or Warboss.
