The new marine codex and models have been announced and for the first time, I heard a figure for the number of datasheets in the codex, which set me off on one of those "how many Delawares" style research jaunts to try and figure out just how many marines are out there.
In this thread, if I say "Marines" I'll be referring exclusively to marine chapters traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines. Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Dark Angels and Blood Angels were considered to be officially full-blooded factions by GW, even if there are some indications they're planning on bringing them at least closer to under the same roof with these releases, so it seems unfair to lump them together when talking about releases, models, and numbers of datasheets.
1) The new marine codex contains 98 datasheets, which is all Codex Space marines datasheets excluding named characters and Forgeworld options. If you exclude Superheavies and named characters, the sum total of the number of datasheets present for all legions in The Horus Heresy is by my count 91. (Based on 1d4chan, I did not comb through all of battlescribe)
2) The new marine codex contains 34 weapons that are or contain variations of boltguns. There is a potential for 2 more if entries in the assembly datasheets are not typos (The single shot heavy bolter on the Invictor, the 30" range normal bolter on Space Marine Veterans). If there are 2 more, there will be as many bolt weapons contained within Codex: Space Marines chapters as there are items in the Tau ranged wargear list.
3) The last model release for Codex Tyranids was November 2014, excluding repackagings such as the reselling of Genestealers as Purestrain Genestealers for Codex Genestealer Cults. Since that time, not counting limited edition releases, there have been 64 kits released for Codex: Space Marines.
4) There was one codex book released between Codex Space Marines 2.0 and Codex Space Marines 3.0. There will be a total of five books containing content for other armies between the release of Saga of the Beast and the release of the new Space Wolves supplement. If one supplement is released per month in 2020 and the Space Wolves supplement is released in november, there will have been 8 months between codex updates for the Space Wolves, almost certainly a warhammer 40k record.
5) If you include the datasheets for chapter-specific units traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines, there will be more datasheets in Codex: Space Marines than in Codex: Chaos Knights, Codex: Imperial Knights, Codex: Harlequins, Codex: Adepta Sororitas, Codex: Adeptus Custodes, Codex: Genestealer Cults and Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus combined.
the_scotsman wrote: The new marine codex and models have been announced and for the first time, I heard a figure for the number of datasheets in the codex, which set me off on one of those "how many Delawares" style research jaunts to try and figure out just how many marines are out there.
In this thread, if I say "Marines" I'll be referring exclusively to marine chapters traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines. Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Dark Angels and Blood Angels were considered to be officially full-blooded factions by GW, even if there are some indications they're planning on bringing them at least closer to under the same roof with these releases, so it seems unfair to lump them together when talking about releases, models, and numbers of datasheets.
1) The new marine codex contains 98 datasheets, which is all Codex Space marines datasheets excluding named characters and Forgeworld options. If you exclude Superheavies and named characters, the sum total of the number of datasheets present for all legions in The Horus Heresy is by my count 91. (Based on 1d4chan, I did not comb through all of battlescribe)
Okay, Space Marines have too many units, zero debate there. The other issue is that they have SEVERE bloat in terms of datasheet that could be wargear options. I mean, a Captain, a Captain in Terminator armor, and a Captain on a bike were 3 different datasheet. The new Storm Speeder? 3 Sheets. Land Raiders? 3 sheets. 2-3 Librarians, 2-3 Chaplains, a couple techmarine(?), at least 2 ancients/banner boys. Like, 4-5 "veteran" datasheets in Sternguard, Bladeguard, Honor Guard, Command Squads, Vanguard Veterans...etc. If they folded these together properly, you'd probably drop 20+ sheets from the codex, easily.
2) The new marine codex contains 34 weapons that are or contain variations of boltguns. There is a potential for 2 more if entries in the assembly datasheets are not typos (The single shot heavy bolter on the Invictor, the 30" range normal bolter on Space Marine Veterans). If there are 2 more, there will be as many bolt weapons contained within Codex: Space Marines chapters as there are items in the Tau ranged wargear list.
This is the absolute worst. Just...awful. Not only does every unit have it's own type of bolter, some units has 5-6 types of unique bolter! (See heavy intercessors). I pity anyone not playing Space Marines as a main army that has to face them, because who knows if that dude with a bolt gun is S4 AP0, 24" rapid fire, or S5, AP-1 Assault 3 with 30+ inch range? There's not enough of a difference to warrant all the variants. I could see maybe a half dozen....12 at the most? It's just pure insanity.
3) The last model release for Codex Tyranids was November 2014, excluding repackagings such as the reselling of Genestealers as Purestrain Genestealers for Codex Genestealer Cults. Since that time, not counting limited edition releases, there have been 64 kits released for Codex: Space Marines.
4) There was one codex book released between Codex Space Marines 2.0 and Codex Space Marines 3.0. There will be a total of five books containing content for other armies between the release of Saga of the Beast and the release of the new Space Wolves supplement. If one supplement is released per month in 2020 and the Space Wolves supplement is released in november, there will have been 8 months between codex updates for the Space Wolves, almost certainly a warhammer 40k record.
5) If you include the datasheets for chapter-specific units traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines, there will be more datasheets in Codex: Space Marines than in Codex: Chaos Knights, Codex: Imperial Knights, Codex: Harlequins, Codex: Adepta Sororitas, Codex: Adeptus Custodes, Codex: Genestealer Cults and Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus combined.
The neglect of some of the xenos races is painful. I play tyranids in addition to my marines, and I don't think I've bought a new unit for nids in nearly 10 years. On the other hand, I have like 30 more marines to paint ATM. From a collector's stand point, there's just so much more to do with marines. From a gamer's perspective, the marines have so many units, chapter tactics and characters that you can play 25+ games and play nearly a completely different army every time. After the first 4-5 with tyranids, it's back to the basics.
It feels like someone with some sense needs to clean up the space marine codex, and shift at least a portion of the marine production team to non-imperial marines. If non-imperial marines got 2 kits kits for every imperial marine kit I'd be happy.
I think the thing that boggles my mind with Tyranids in particular is the sheer lack of any kind of thought or creativity that has gone into their current ruleset. If you look at the Haruspex, Toxicrene, Trygon, Hive Tyrant, Maleceptor and Tervigon, they have nearly IDENTICAL defensive profiles and damage outputs with just the very slightest variation. They're also just, just bad. If any of them were Chaos Daemon Engines, they'd be the worst chaos Daemon Engine.
And basically all their special 'unit shticks' are less exciting than a fart in a wet paper bag.
The Mawloc is a 125-point gigantic worm monster whose whole shtick is that it Ant-Lions up out of the ground directly underneath squads, devouring them from below! And how is that represented in game? Well, it can deep strike anywhere more than 1" from enemy units, and any units within 2" of it take, most likely, one. single. mortal wound.
Oh and it can't charge that turn and when it does charge the next turn you find out its damage output is next level, I'm talking an average of two guardsmen or 1.2 wounds to a standard vehicle, NEXT LEVEL bad.
How is it possible that you could sit a Games Workshop designer next to something that looks as objectively bitching as a Mawloc or a Maleceptor and he's not able to come up with more interesting rules than Primaris Sword Guy #21352?
The neglect of some of the xenos races is painful. I play tyranids in addition to my marines, and I don't think I've bought a new unit for nids in nearly 10 years. On the other hand, I have like 30 more marines to paint ATM. From a collector's stand point, there's just so much more to do with marines. From a gamer's perspective, the marines have so many units, chapter tactics and characters that you can play 25+ games and play nearly a completely different army every time. After the first 4-5 with tyranids, it's back to the basics.
It feels like someone with some sense needs to clean up the space marine codex, and shift at least a portion of the marine production team to non-imperial marines. If non-imperial marines got 2 kits kits for every imperial marine kit I'd be happy.
At least the Nids models have aged well. Us Guard players are stuck with...
At least the Nids models have aged well. Us Guard players are stuck with...
Best. Post. Ever.
Far as the new marine dex - I'm REALLY hoping that they get this out of their system by the end of October and we can look forward to 12-18 months of consistent updates for ALL of the other armies in the game. It's absolutely shameful that the army with the most (by far) unit entries is still getting releases while armies like Dark Eldar have only LOST units since their last major update in 5th ...
We've gotten some really just incredible human-scale models recently in the form of blackstone fortress, rogue trader, necromunda, and the LE catachan models and it's gotta be almost a crime at this point that the backbone of the military trained guard models are still the current catachan and cadian models.
That'd take like, what, six kits to fully update the plastics on?
Just release the catachan characters you've already made as regular sculpts you can buy, make fist guy the company commander, make bolter lady the platoon commander. And make these kits new in plastic:
1 - Cadian infantry squad - include helmeted heads and officer cap heads
2 - Catachan Infantry Squad - include bare heads and scarved heads
3 - Cadian Command Squad
4 - Catachan Command Squad
5 - Cadian HWT 6 - Catachan HWT.
And then release a huge, kickass conversion guide for kitbashing various combos of bits and kits between all the various Necromunda, GSC, Admech and guard bits.
Do you want your guardsmen to be ragged frateris militia? Combine the new scarved-head catachan bits with Necromunda Cawdor gang bits?
Do you want them to be drafted workers from an industrial forge world? Combine Genestealer Cults and Orlock Ganger bits!
Do you want them to be highly trained spec ops? Combine bits from Palanite Enforcers and Militarum Tempestus!
Do you want them to be amazonian warrior women? Combine the female bits and weapons from the new Catachan kits and Escher gangers!
the_scotsman wrote: 2) The new marine codex contains 34 weapons that are or contain variations of boltguns. There is a potential for 2 more if entries in the assembly datasheets are not typos (The single shot heavy bolter on the Invictor, the 30" range normal bolter on Space Marine Veterans). If there are 2 more, there will be as many bolt weapons contained within Codex: Space Marines chapters as there are items in the Tau ranged wargear list.
My sig is looking awfully spicy in light of these numbers
the_scotsman wrote: 2) The new marine codex contains 34 weapons that are or contain variations of boltguns. There is a potential for 2 more if entries in the assembly datasheets are not typos (The single shot heavy bolter on the Invictor, the 30" range normal bolter on Space Marine Veterans). If there are 2 more, there will be as many bolt weapons contained within Codex: Space Marines chapters as there are items in the Tau ranged wargear list.
My sig is looking awfully spicy in light of these numbers
I just like to imagine little timmy deciding to start the hobby, cracking open his brand new marine codex, army that is intended to be newbie-friendly and going
"what..........the fething feth?"
"hey dawg we went ahead and made marines so much easier for you dont need to worry about gluing a plasma gun or a melta gun or a flamer on your one guy don't even wooooooooorry about it we took caaaaaare of it it's so straightforward now
so um.
You are gonna need to decide whether you want your troops to have
the_scotsman wrote: I think the thing that boggles my mind with Tyranids in particular is the sheer lack of any kind of thought or creativity that has gone into their current ruleset. If you look at the Haruspex, Toxicrene, Trygon, Hive Tyrant, Maleceptor and Tervigon, they have nearly IDENTICAL defensive profiles and damage outputs with just the very slightest variation. They're also just, just bad. If any of them were Chaos Daemon Engines, they'd be the worst chaos Daemon Engine.
And basically all their special 'unit shticks' are less exciting than a fart in a wet paper bag.
The Mawloc is a 125-point gigantic worm monster whose whole shtick is that it Ant-Lions up out of the ground directly underneath squads, devouring them from below! And how is that represented in game? Well, it can deep strike anywhere more than 1" from enemy units, and any units within 2" of it take, most likely, one. single. mortal wound.
Oh and it can't charge that turn and when it does charge the next turn you find out its damage output is next level, I'm talking an average of two guardsmen or 1.2 wounds to a standard vehicle, NEXT LEVEL bad.
How is it possible that you could sit a Games Workshop designer next to something that looks as objectively bitching as a Mawloc or a Maleceptor and he's not able to come up with more interesting rules than Primaris Sword Guy #21352?
You should take a look at Psychic Awakening: Blood of Baal. For example, the Mawloc received a Stratagem where you can make sure it's going to party a little bit harder underneath those enemy squads. Tervigons have a very different defensive stat line than Hive Tyrants, they are completely different in damage output and they have completely different roles and capabilities. I have absolutely no Idea why you would think any of these units are the same, to be honest. Did you even take a look at their abilities? Mawloc rules are way more creative than the rules than Bladeguards have. They need the stratagem, to be fair, but then they're a) worthwhile and b) the mechanic is still more interesting than anything that Bladeguards offer. They're just Sword&Board Primaris dudes. That's as basic as it gets.
As long as GW continues its current development model, where rules come after sculpts, and where space marines get one new sculpt for every one new sculpt the entire rest of the game gets combined, the situation is only going to get worse and worse as they're forced to find even more ridiculous rules to tack onto the new kits to give them a niche in an army that can already do everything and even more ridiculously fine hairs to split on wargear to distinguish their various kits.
What needs to happen is GW needs to put short-term profits aside for the moment and spend a couple years asking not "what faction can we make the most money from making a new sculpt for?" and instead ask "what factions need new sculpts most?" In the long run, it's going to be better for the game and better for profits to have a game people actually want to play than a game where everyone plays space marines and tries to find that that rare non-space-marines-playing unicorn with their 20 year old models to beat up on.
This is the absolute worst. Just...awful. Not only does every unit have it's own type of bolter, some units has 5-6 types of unique bolter! (See heavy intercessors). I pity anyone not playing Space Marines as a main army that has to face them, because who knows if that dude with a bolt gun is S4 AP0, 24" rapid fire, or S5, AP-1 Assault 3 with 30+ inch range?
I see much BS potential against casual players and noobies in this. Like the Marine player deciding "in the heat of battle" to roll with the variant that has one AP more, or one hit roll more or whatever instead of the one he equipped because it would be favorable in that particular situation. Is someone whose knowledge of Boltguns amounts to the distinction "Pistol version - rapid fire version - heavy version" going to instantly recognize this and say "STOP! That's Boltgun flavor Nr 25 you're using, not Boltgun flavor 21!"
the_scotsman wrote: I think the thing that boggles my mind with Tyranids in particular is the sheer lack of any kind of thought or creativity that has gone into their current ruleset. If you look at the Haruspex, Toxicrene, Trygon, Hive Tyrant, Maleceptor and Tervigon, they have nearly IDENTICAL defensive profiles and damage outputs with just the very slightest variation. They're also just, just bad. If any of them were Chaos Daemon Engines, they'd be the worst chaos Daemon Engine.
And basically all their special 'unit shticks' are less exciting than a fart in a wet paper bag.
The Mawloc is a 125-point gigantic worm monster whose whole shtick is that it Ant-Lions up out of the ground directly underneath squads, devouring them from below! And how is that represented in game? Well, it can deep strike anywhere more than 1" from enemy units, and any units within 2" of it take, most likely, one. single. mortal wound.
Oh and it can't charge that turn and when it does charge the next turn you find out its damage output is next level, I'm talking an average of two guardsmen or 1.2 wounds to a standard vehicle, NEXT LEVEL bad.
How is it possible that you could sit a Games Workshop designer next to something that looks as objectively bitching as a Mawloc or a Maleceptor and he's not able to come up with more interesting rules than Primaris Sword Guy #21352?
You should take a look at Psychic Awakening: Blood of Baal. For example, the Mawloc received a Stratagem where you can make sure it's going to party a little bit harder underneath those enemy squads. Tervigons have a very different defensive stat line than Hive Tyrants, they are completely different in damage output and they have completely different roles and capabilities. I have absolutely no Idea why you would think any of these units are the same, to be honest. Did you even take a look at their abilities? Mawloc rules are way more creative than the rules than Bladeguards have. They need the stratagem, to be fair, but then they're a) worthwhile and b) the mechanic is still more interesting than anything that Bladeguards offer. They're just Sword&Board Primaris dudes. That's as basic as it gets.
Oh man, don't defend Nids MC rules, please. Yes, let's start with the Mawloc. Okay, it gets that cool PA strat, great! But... why's it T6? Why's it so bad at melee? Why does it have the same talons as the little dudes with the talons from a rules perspective even though the talons are clearly bigger and scarier? Why doesn't it get extra attacks for all of its talons? Why can't it burrow with enemies near it? Why does it degrade like it does? Why did GW give one of the fastest movement speeds to an MC that will always be deep striking and won't make use of that?
the_scotsman wrote: I think the thing that boggles my mind with Tyranids in particular is the sheer lack of any kind of thought or creativity that has gone into their current ruleset. If you look at the Haruspex, Toxicrene, Trygon, Hive Tyrant, Maleceptor and Tervigon, they have nearly IDENTICAL defensive profiles and damage outputs with just the very slightest variation. They're also just, just bad. If any of them were Chaos Daemon Engines, they'd be the worst chaos Daemon Engine.
And basically all their special 'unit shticks' are less exciting than a fart in a wet paper bag.
The Mawloc is a 125-point gigantic worm monster whose whole shtick is that it Ant-Lions up out of the ground directly underneath squads, devouring them from below! And how is that represented in game? Well, it can deep strike anywhere more than 1" from enemy units, and any units within 2" of it take, most likely, one. single. mortal wound.
Oh and it can't charge that turn and when it does charge the next turn you find out its damage output is next level, I'm talking an average of two guardsmen or 1.2 wounds to a standard vehicle, NEXT LEVEL bad.
How is it possible that you could sit a Games Workshop designer next to something that looks as objectively bitching as a Mawloc or a Maleceptor and he's not able to come up with more interesting rules than Primaris Sword Guy #21352?
You should take a look at Psychic Awakening: Blood of Baal. For example, the Mawloc received a Stratagem where you can make sure it's going to party a little bit harder underneath those enemy squads. Tervigons have a very different defensive stat line than Hive Tyrants, they are completely different in damage output and they have completely different roles and capabilities. I have absolutely no Idea why you would think any of these units are the same, to be honest. Did you even take a look at their abilities? Mawloc rules are way more creative than the rules than Bladeguards have. They need the stratagem, to be fair, but then they're a) worthwhile and b) the mechanic is still more interesting than anything that Bladeguards offer. They're just Sword&Board Primaris dudes. That's as basic as it gets.
Man you are trying really hard to sell the Mawloc here, their best use in 9th is just to hold an objective because they are not terrible at it...
Do you really think that a stratagem that allows a Mawloc to do 3 MW on a 4+ makes them decent all of a sudden? For feths sake a psyker casting smite can do that every turn. Outside of that MW the Mawloc is garbage in offense and defense, it is just a bag of wound that can hold a late game objective decently.
Also, he is right. Tyranid monsters are almost universally T7 with a 3+ save, a few have a 4+ save and a few more have at best a 4+ invul save. The only difference is the amount of wounds they have. Now I don't know how much 9th you have played but how hard do you think it is to kill a T7 3+ model? Ask guard players how well a T7 3+ survives, at least the Leman Russ has some shooting power to hit back with. Most Tyranid monsters have to walk across the table to get into melee.
Tyranid monsters all suffer from a complete lack of identity, they all boil down to run forward and hit with big stick. They each have a little unique rule that makes them different but the majority of them are absolutely worthless. Tervigons can only spawn in new unit of gaunts if you have points saved for it, which is garbage. Toxicrene cause mortals wounds in melee on a 6. Maleceptor does a mortal wound within 6" on a 2+ and 3 on a 6. Almost universally Tyranid special rules are just weaker version of other armies special rules which makes them feel like they have no real identity.
Devilfish and Predators are T7 3+, and I'm sure you can tell how many of those you've seen since even 8th started New improved melta haha yeah hope you like your Nid char grilled.
I don't think many old school SM players agree with how GW is making things with Marines. They're getting new models, but:
- The lore is utterly destroyed by those new Primaris.
- The army has no flavor at all, it's a mess of ruleset that leeches from all the other factions playstyle.
- The army is no longer accessible to new players, outside of how easy is to find the models, of course. But I agree, opening that Codex has to be hell.
the_scotsman wrote: I think the thing that boggles my mind with Tyranids in particular is the sheer lack of any kind of thought or creativity that has gone into their current ruleset. If you look at the Haruspex, Toxicrene, Trygon, Hive Tyrant, Maleceptor and Tervigon, they have nearly IDENTICAL defensive profiles and damage outputs with just the very slightest variation. They're also just, just bad. If any of them were Chaos Daemon Engines, they'd be the worst chaos Daemon Engine.
And basically all their special 'unit shticks' are less exciting than a fart in a wet paper bag.
The Mawloc is a 125-point gigantic worm monster whose whole shtick is that it Ant-Lions up out of the ground directly underneath squads, devouring them from below! And how is that represented in game? Well, it can deep strike anywhere more than 1" from enemy units, and any units within 2" of it take, most likely, one. single. mortal wound.
Oh and it can't charge that turn and when it does charge the next turn you find out its damage output is next level, I'm talking an average of two guardsmen or 1.2 wounds to a standard vehicle, NEXT LEVEL bad.
How is it possible that you could sit a Games Workshop designer next to something that looks as objectively bitching as a Mawloc or a Maleceptor and he's not able to come up with more interesting rules than Primaris Sword Guy #21352?
You should take a look at Psychic Awakening: Blood of Baal. For example, the Mawloc received a Stratagem where you can make sure it's going to party a little bit harder underneath those enemy squads. Tervigons have a very different defensive stat line than Hive Tyrants, they are completely different in damage output and they have completely different roles and capabilities. I have absolutely no Idea why you would think any of these units are the same, to be honest. Did you even take a look at their abilities? Mawloc rules are way more creative than the rules than Bladeguards have. They need the stratagem, to be fair, but then they're a) worthwhile and b) the mechanic is still more interesting than anything that Bladeguards offer. They're just Sword&Board Primaris dudes. That's as basic as it gets.
Yes, there are major variations in damage output primarily driven by WS and Attacks and seemingly only extremely loosely correlated to the point cost of the model or the value of its abiliites....but it doesn't really change that GW put out seven melee-only creatures and the best they could do to differentiate them were such mind-blowingly incredible abilities as:
-Deep strike
-Poops out a 50-point min size infantry unit
-Heals 1 of its 13 wounds if it kills something in melee, an ability so exciting GW gave it to all daemon engines for free by default
-Is a basic 2-power psyker for 170pts
-Does a bunch of gak that does 1MW on a 6 to models within 1" of it.
"Sword guy" i was referring to was the Justicar, whose "fight last" ability is more impactful than any of the unique special abilities on any of the 160-180 point gigantic nid creatures with their various super exciting usually "mortal wound on a 6" based abilities.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And this is why, for the sake of new players, they're going to have to remove a bunch of Marine datasheets in the next version of the Codex.
So, in order to bring us close to a rational number of Bolt weapons, they're going to ditch the Primaris stuff?
Tyel wrote: Not going to lie, when I saw the Heavy Intercessors have 5 brand new boltweapon stand ins, I thought of you.
I didn't. I'd lost track of whose turn it was to create the latest spam thread about space marines.
Its somewhat perverse, I admit, but the more I see the same dozen-or-so people make the same complaints about marines over and over again, the more convinced I become that GW's approach is a good one. Just for the sheer lack of restraint to the opposition approach, and sheer annoyance level of the ceaseless arguments.
Carnage43 wrote: Okay, Space Marines have too many units, zero debate there. The other issue is that they have SEVERE bloat in terms of datasheet that could be wargear options. I mean, a Captain, a Captain in Terminator armor, and a Captain on a bike were 3 different datasheet.
But the thing is, I only have one datasheet for my canonness because she doesn't have access to a better armor, and she doesn't have access to a bike. It's not marine units being more artificially separated into different datasheet than other armies. It's them having more options.
Not disagreeing with the rest of the stuff said, Tyranid rules are in general obnoxious, pointlessly conditional, uninspiring, pre nerfed to n-th degree, and failing at implementing anything resembling the actual Nid lore.
But those "missing" attacks on Tyranids with triple pairs of scything talons are all hidden in their base attack characteristics. Raveners have more attacks than dual scything talon warriors, Trygons have 7 attacks with talons and Mawlocs what, 8? I haven't actually physically attacked anything with a Mawloc in ages.
Kitane wrote: Not disagreeing with the rest of the stuff said, Tyranid rules are in general obnoxious, pointlessly conditional, uninspiring, pre nerfed to n-th degree, and failing at implementing anything resembling the actual Nid lore.
But those "missing" attacks on Tyranids with triple pairs of scything talons are all hidden in their base attack characteristics. Raveners have more attacks than dual scything talon warriors, Trygons have 7 attacks with talons and Mawlocs what, 8? I haven't actually physically attacked anything with a Mawloc in ages.
Yeah this is true, I was being hyperbolic there. But I will say in general, Nids are the only army I know of where you frequently have fewer attacks than arms/weapons.
Kitane wrote: Not disagreeing with the rest of the stuff said, Tyranid rules are in general obnoxious, pointlessly conditional, uninspiring, pre nerfed to n-th degree, and failing at implementing anything resembling the actual Nid lore.
But those "missing" attacks on Tyranids with triple pairs of scything talons are all hidden in their base attack characteristics. Raveners have more attacks than dual scything talon warriors, Trygons have 7 attacks with talons and Mawlocs what, 8? I haven't actually physically attacked anything with a Mawloc in ages.
Its not that impressive when a basic Primaris has 3 attacks. Assault intercessors have 4. Outriders have 5 on the charge ect ect.
The nids stats still live in a world where a marine had 1 attack.
Nids have awesome lore and models and are nice and easy to paint on top of that. I wish they had more fun rules. I think their thing should be absolute buckets of low to medium quality attacks and shots, and their mid sized creatures and monsters should have tons of wounds at the expense of armour saves and toughness. Make them seem overwhelming to face.
Hive Tyrant: S6 Ap-3 D3 and variations // if winged can fly, can move much faster than any of the others. 4++, Psychic Powers, synapse, lots of options for wargear.
Carnifex: S6 AP-3 D3 // not nearly as tough as the others since it has only 8 wounds. Can use Sx2 weapons, has many unique wargear options (eg cysts), is basically a walking bag of tools
Tervigon: S7 Ap-3 Dd6 // unreliable AF in melee, doesnt do gak at range. pretty slow, is only there to command termagants
Haruspex: S7 AP-1 Dd6 or S14 Ap-3 Dd6 // incredibly short ranged, has regeneration abilities and a ton of attacks in melee
Maleceptor: S7 AP-3 Dd6 // weird psyker thing
Toxicrene: S7 Ap-2 Dd3 RR wounds // no idea, mortal wounds? actually don't see much of a point to this one, but i've seen enough hentai to know this has a purpose ;-)
Trygon: S7 Ap-3 D3 // drop pod that also charges into melee.
Yes, there are major variations in damage output primarily driven by WS and Attacks and seemingly only extremely loosely correlated to the point cost of the model or the value of its abiliites....but it doesn't really change that GW put out seven melee-only creatures and the best they could do to differentiate them were such mind-blowingly incredible abilities as:
-Deep strike
-Poops out a 50-point min size infantry unit
-Heals 1 of its 13 wounds if it kills something in melee, an ability so exciting GW gave it to all daemon engines for free by default
-Is a basic 2-power psyker for 170pts
-Does a bunch of gak that does 1MW on a 6 to models within 1" of it.
"Sword guy" i was referring to was the Justicar, whose "fight last" ability is more impactful than any of the unique special abilities on any of the 160-180 point gigantic nid creatures with their various super exciting usually "mortal wound on a 6" based abilities.
OK, so the Justicar is about as creative as the Toxicrene, since that also has an ability that affects the melee activation order, but the Toxicrene has additional abilities.
Going by your logic Marines are just T4 bodies with minor stat line changes (+1 W here, +1 T there, +1Sv over there) and they even have the audacity to have the same BS/WS across basically all non-HQs. Sure, some have some weird abilities like "is a basic 2 power psyker" or "can revive another T4 body on a 3+". Super boring, needs way more diverse units and abilities!
Note how I never talked about these units being GOOD or BAD in the meta. I just said there's more to a Tyranid monster than it's Strength characteristic.
Do you really think that a stratagem that allows a Mawloc to do 3 MW on a 4+ makes them decent all of a sudden?
I didn't say anything about their viability, just that there's a ton of stuff in that book and if you're calculating without the Strat, you're underselling Mawlocs. But to answer that: Being able to come up next to multiple units, a 4+ 3MW per enemy unit in range is decent for the price in my opinion. It's certainly nothing game-breaking, but it's not useless either.
I've played about 20 games of 9th so far, including as and versus Tyranids, Guard, Marines and Sisters (and quite a few others on the "vs" part). Noone forces you to bring just the melee monsters, if you want shooting you can bring Exocrines or Hive Guard. Why are you planning to use Tervigons to create new squads instead of replenishing existing blobs of Termagaunts?
I really can't tell you much about Maleceptors and Toxicrenes since I don't own them, and I've only ever played against a Maleceptor once in 9th (got torn apart by a LR Achilles of mine, IIRC).
Being able to upgrade 2 of your units due to PABoB is also pretty useful.
Oh man, don't defend Nids MC rules, please.
I just said they're not all the same, and - since who I was responding to was calculating without the strat - pointed to BoB for new rules. Reading isn't that hard either, c'mon. What you're listing has nothing to do with what I posted. The Mawloc isn't like a Tervigon. I still wonder why anyone would think it's basically the same.
Just to stop you from another rant: I'd love to see the Mawloc become much beefier, and yes - it's much less scarier in melee than what it looks like as a model, there's a disconnect there.
But you can't have it charge from its current DS capabilities, not with an improved profile. once you give it better stats and the special deep strike ability to a regular 9 inch DS you've got yourself a Hive Tyrant, though. So yeah, THEN, at THAT point, you could argue it's just like a hive tyrant.
Snake Tortoise wrote: Nids have awesome lore and models and are nice and easy to paint on top of that. I wish they had more fun rules. I think their thing should be absolute buckets of low to medium quality attacks and shots, and their mid sized creatures and monsters should have tons of wounds at the expense of armour saves and toughness. Make them seem overwhelming to face.
Would be nice, especially considering just how little damage all those big grooblies do compared to similarly priced big things from other armies.
A defiler, not particularly a useful model by anyone's accounting, rocks 5x S16 Ap-3 Dd6 and 3x S12 Ap-2 D3 attacks on the charge, AND gets a twin heavy bolter, AND gets a free battlecannon, for about the same price as one of those big A4 nid lunks with degrading weapon skill.
Hive Tyrant: S6 Ap-3 D3 and variations // if winged can fly, can move much faster than any of the others. 4++, Psychic Powers, synapse, lots of options for wargear.
Carnifex: S6 AP-3 D3 // not nearly as tough as the others since it has only 8 wounds. Can use Sx2 weapons, has many unique wargear options (eg cysts), is basically a walking bag of tools
Tervigon: S7 Ap-3 Dd6 // unreliable AF in melee, doesnt do gak at range. pretty slow, is only there to command termagants
Haruspex: S7 AP-1 Dd6 or S14 Ap-3 Dd6 // incredibly short ranged, has regeneration abilities and a ton of attacks in melee
Maleceptor: S7 AP-3 Dd6 // weird psyker thing
Toxicrene: S7 Ap-2 Dd3 RR wounds // no idea, mortal wounds? actually don't see much of a point to this one, but i've seen enough hentai to know this has a purpose ;-)
Trygon: S7 Ap-3 D3 // drop pod that also charges into melee.
Yes, there are major variations in damage output primarily driven by WS and Attacks and seemingly only extremely loosely correlated to the point cost of the model or the value of its abiliites....but it doesn't really change that GW put out seven melee-only creatures and the best they could do to differentiate them were such mind-blowingly incredible abilities as:
-Deep strike
-Poops out a 50-point min size infantry unit
-Heals 1 of its 13 wounds if it kills something in melee, an ability so exciting GW gave it to all daemon engines for free by default
-Is a basic 2-power psyker for 170pts
-Does a bunch of gak that does 1MW on a 6 to models within 1" of it.
"Sword guy" i was referring to was the Justicar, whose "fight last" ability is more impactful than any of the unique special abilities on any of the 160-180 point gigantic nid creatures with their various super exciting usually "mortal wound on a 6" based abilities.
OK, so the Justicar is about as creative as the Toxicrene, since that also has an ability that affects the melee activation order, but the Toxicrene has additional abilities.
Going by your logic Marines are just T4 bodies with minor stat line changes (+1 W here, +1 T there, +1Sv over there) and they even have the audacity to have the same BS/WS across basically all non-HQs. Sure, some have some weird abilities like "is a basic 2 power psyker" or "can revive another T4 body on a 3+". Super boring, needs way more diverse units and abilities!
Spoiler:
Obviously I'm being sarcastic here and I'm not suggesting that Tyranids are on anything close to the power level that Marines are sitting at right now.
Note how I never talked about these units being GOOD or BAD in the meta. I just said there's more to a Tyranid monster than it's Strength or Toughness characteristic.
Do you really think that a stratagem that allows a Mawloc to do 3 MW on a 4+ makes them decent all of a sudden?
I didn't say anything about their viability, just that there's a ton of stuff in that book and if you're calculating without the Strat, you're underselling Mawlocs. But to answer that: Being able to come up next to multiple units, a 4+ 3MW per enemy unit in range is decent for the price in my opinion. It's certainly nothing game-breaking, but it's not useless either.
Now I don't know how much 9th you have played but how hard do you think it is to kill a T7 3+ model?
I've played about 20 games of 9th so far, including as and versus Tyranids, Guard, Marines and Sisters (and quite a few others on the "vs" part). They're not hard to kill, which is why I like running 3 Fexes and OOE, for example. Having improved terrain rules and smaller boards, as well as Strategic Reserves, actually helps a lot when comparing this to 8th edition.
Noone forces you to bring just the melee monsters, if you want shooting you can bring Exocrines or Hive Guard. Why are you planning to use Tervigons to create new squads instead of replenishing existing blobs of Termagaunts?
I really can't tell you much about Maleceptors and Toxicrenes since I don't own them, and I've only ever played against a Maleceptor once in 9th (got torn apart by a LR Achilles of mine, IIRC).
Being able to upgrade 2 of your units due to PABoB is also pretty useful.
Oh man, don't defend Nids MC rules, please.
I just said they're not all the same, and - since who I was responding to was calculating without the strat - pointed to BoB for new rules. Reading isn't that hard either, c'mon. What you're listing has nothing to do with what I posted. The Mawloc isn't like a Tervigon. I still wonder why anyone would think it's basically the same.
Just to stop you from another rant: I'd love to see the Mawloc become much beefier, and yes - it's much less scarier in melee than what it looks like as a model, there's a disconnect there.
But you can't have it charge from its current DS capabilities, not with an improved profile. once you give it better stats and the special deep strike ability to a regular 9 inch DS you've got yourself a Hive Tyrant, though. So yeah, THEN, at THAT point, you could argue it's just like a hive tyrant.
Boy, you really got me with that observation that marines basically have a ton of identical units with no meaningful distinction of roles between them.
That, yep. Got 'em. I sure...wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with that.
Certainly wasn't pointing out earlier in the thread that having tacticals, intercessors, assault intercessors, infiltrators, inceptors, and heavy intercessors basically all armed with identical weapons with near identical statlines is meaningless fake diversity.
What marines do have is dozens upon dozens of units to fill nearly every conceivable battlefield role. Tyranids do not. Basically every big nid monster is the same kind of anti elite infantry/anti light tank slow moving beefy thing role, with very little meaningful distinction.
The fact that other factions also have that problem in particular areas, like the marine troops role, does not change that. It's just a paticularly egregious example with Tyranids, where not only are they these wild, crazy, awesome looking gigantic monsters, but they're almost all universally regarded as terrible.
except that marines being more or less the same but armed with differant weapons isn't exactly old news dude. hell there is more differance between a Intercessor and an infiltrator then there is between a tactical marine and a devestator.
I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.
With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.
Arschbombe wrote: I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.
With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.
I mean you say this, but I did create kind of a fun alt game mode for new necromunda that pits a single squad of space marines given abilities making them worth 1/2 of the value of a whole gang, vs a huge, GM controlled, semiautomated Chaos or Genestealer Cult.
BrianDavion wrote: except that marines being more or less the same but armed with differant weapons isn't exactly old news dude. hell there is more differance between a Intercessor and an infiltrator then there is between a tactical marine and a devestator.
frankly, their was a time i felt that was a feature, not a bug.
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
now, the feeling i'm getting off people these days is that the only thing marines cant do better than everyone else is run a pure numbers horde army. they can out shoot, out chop and out run everything else. I dont know if thats just pure salt form a minority of the fanbase (and it is worth remembering, we English-speaking, forum-going folks are a minority of the total 40K playerbase), or a reflection of a greater feeling, or something else. i cant find a local gaming group that can actaully meet given the current unplesantness, so its hard to get a feel of what the people and players i'd actually meet and play against think about this all.
anyway, more on the topic of this thread:
i can make a coherent argument for the choice to have a large number of different "bolt" weapons. I can't promise its a good one, or one you think applies in this case, but it goes like this:
one of the major reasons to have identically stat-ed but different named weapons in different lists is so you can indevidually adjust the relative power of each in the name of "balance" ie, you can boost one faction's "Holy Power Swords" to increase their effectiveness, while leaving another's "Infernal Power Swords "alone, or visa versa.
you can apply this same logic to the 30+ "bolt" weapons, as now GW can play with the power and cost of each gun on each unit, so that they can, for example, make one troop choice better or cheaper without disrupting the balance of another type of troop (ie up the cost of heavy intercessors using, heavy bolt rifle, without also upping the cost of regular Intercessors using almost identical one that isnt as OP when they have it)
the other big reason is that you can;t trademark "Bolter", but " Executor Heavy Bolter" is much easier to do.
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.
It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.
It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.
Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.
That's precisely when L2P argument works, because there aren't any hidden levers with them. The rest is down to tactics and using those to leverage maximum oomph out of all the phases they can contribute in.
Basic marine units, while somewhat awkward depending on edition and subfaction, were pretty functional in those older editions. I got great use out of my basic CSM's, especially in early 5E. Needing to win combat by just 1 and being able to wipe an opposing unit was huge, in the current meta having to actually kill everything leaves many CC units far too pillow-fisted. The hidden Powerfist also added a lot more than it currently does.
FW test LD on 7 or 6 rather than 2, and it is far more even in future turns if the FW stick around after the charge. In fact, damn near identical (ws2 and ws3 are countered by 4+ wave and 5+ save, respectively).
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.
It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.
Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.
Hahaha. There is a serious gap in your understanding of L2P then. L2P isn't about gimmiks, its about learning to play.
I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.
This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.
It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.
Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.
Hahaha. There is a serious gap in your understanding of L2P then. L2P isn't about gimmiks, its about learning to play.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.
You're in opposition to GW on that one lol
Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.
The bigger problem with Nids MCs is having 7 or 8 attacks that hit on 4+ means you will only get about 3 or 4 hits. and with saves maybe 1 attack actually does damage.
So a Haurspex can kill roughly 1 marine a turn. That beast should eat squads a turn.
Not to mention the boost to marines wounds have made our elite troops a joke. a Tyranid warrior used to be roughly equal to 3 marines. now some marine have as many wounds as a tyranid warrior... wtf , this no longer a war game. its a pay to win collectible minis game.
In the grim dark future, there is only Imperial victory.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.
You're in opposition to GW on that one lol
Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.
Strats are problematic in that they aren't Strategic. Certain ones are, sure, but then we get straight up offensive and defensive ones that require less than a thought to use. Then we got ones that make no sense because just one Space Wolves squad figured out they could shoot their Bolters in melee or just one Dreadnought realized "Hey I can lower damage going at me!"
Insectum7 wrote: I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:
Spoiler:
Not gonna lie, I miss those goofy looking buggers. I get why they were redesigned, but I much prefer them to the new ones simply because of the size, and little else.
Genoside07 wrote: We...don't have a clue what is going on with kill team.
I think we do. We just don't want to really acknowledge it. Kill Team is complete. There's nothing else coming for the current version. We might get another version released in 2 or 3 years.
Insectum7 wrote: I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:
Spoiler:
Not gonna lie, I miss those goofy looking buggers. I get why they were redesigned, but I much prefer them to the new ones simply because of the size, and little else.
Hehehehehehehehe:
Spoiler:
It's true though, the newer ones are disappointingly small in comparison. The design is pretty nice though.
Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.
Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.
You're in opposition to GW on that one lol
Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.
I mean that GW doesn't want a game with a skill curve that rewards smart play. They want a game that rewards purchases.
Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.
The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.
insaniak wrote: Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.
The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.
Not sure I necessarily agree. As an example, I think the Knight Castellan model is ugly as sin, in comparison to the original Imperial Knight model, but even I was tempted to get one when it came out due to its rules and low points cost at the time (I fortunately fought off the urge). When I attended NOVA in 2018, that recently-released model seemed to be on nearly every game table, and I don't think it was due to its looks.
Vice versa, I think some of the recently-released Eldar plastic models look great (ex. new Banshees, Jain Zar), but the rules for most of them are crap. I haven't seen anyone running the new Banshee models, despite how good they look. If Banshees had good rules these days, I think GW would have sold a lot more of those Blood of the Phoenix boxes.
While GW may not be consistent in its approach to selling specific models, I am a believer that certain (not all) targeted releases are accompanied by "OP" rules or initially lower points costs in order to sell models.
insaniak wrote: Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.
They certainly do add new options to existing units when they get an updated kit though.
That's honestly more insidious than nerfing an old unit in favour of a new one.
Is it a meme or do people really have a problem with remembering that every primaris class models can or will be able to run a standard weapon, a hvy version of a weapon and a multi shot assault version of a weapon the squad carries.
Maybe it is because we don't speak english here, and don't use the GW names anyway, but it is really not that hard to remember that, plus most armies are locked in to specific bolters types anyway. There aren't going to be many heavy hellblasters and sniper boltguns in White Scar army, auto bolt rifles on the other hand are a given thing.
insaniak wrote: Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.
The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.
That is so wrong on so many levels.
You can have multiple exemples, like Hotness of the month, cue castellan, etc.
You can have exemples like R&H with IA13 that went from basically inexistent ATLEAST partially not selling because the rules were 3 editions behind.
Both are parade exemples why that never is nonsense.
Rules also have massive impact on maintaining a playerbase of a faction, cue Eldar remaining very long a rather popular xeno faction despite one of the oldest model range.
Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.
Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.
insaniak wrote: Continually repeating that won't make it any more true, though. People have been claiming that GW deliberately makes new units better for at least 20 years now, and yet along the way they release as many or more new units with rubbish rules as they do good ones.
The rules have never really sold models in 40K. WHFB, yes, to some extent... there were definitely cases there of unit types that didn't sell because of their rules, but in 40K, all GW generally has to do to get a unit to sell is release a cool looking model.
People have absolutely bought models for rules. I've bought models for rules. I wouldn't say there's a 1 to 1 ratio and GW only uses rules to sell models, but it's crazy to think rules haven't sold models. I didn't see loyal 32s because people were suddenly into the aesthetics of Guard Infantry in 8th, and I didn't see armies of Warp Spiders in 7th because Eldar players just suddenly found a new fondness for 20 year old models.
I didn't buy another two Attack Bikes in 8th because I love the model. I bought them because their points value dropped and I wanted to build a Brigade. I didn't buy four Librarians in 7th because I loved the models, I bought them to field a Librarius Conclave. I didn't buy Combi-Plasmas for my Sternguard in 6th because I loved Combi-Plasmas. And I didn't buy Drop Pods in 5th because I really wanted to paint Drop Pods.
I won't buy models I actively dislike for their rules alone. But I absolutely buy models for their usefulness on the table.
I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.
I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.
Gw tries sometime, is atleast verified with the intervention that got known on the wraithknight.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.
Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.
Yes and no. In general I buy models I like, but in most cases, I shy away from units with terrible rules. They just cost too much money and I hate painting too much to invest all that into a unit which will fall flat on its face in games. Let's take the silly new DG teapot that is going to be released soon - I like the model, but if it ends up being yet another mek workshop, I won't be buying it.
A model really has to be above and beyond awesome for me to buy it despite having terrible rules *stares at squigbuggy*.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, you've taken a general statement as an absolute. Sure, you'll find specific examples where the rules have made a difference. It's not the driving force outside of the competitive scene though, and never has been. Most players, from my experience, just buy the models they like.
It's the driving force behind player retention. When your army sucks so hard that you have not a fair shot at winning then even if you are casual you start getting disapointed and either shelf the army or stop playing.
Also i wasn't the one made the absolute statement. You made that by claiming that never happened in 40k . A general statement on the basis of never is allways absolute.
Obviously, if your experience has been in more competitive environments, you may think differently.
Meta chasing addmitedly happens more in comp scenes, i have been in both, but it doesn't change that the imbalance that gw creates HAS an impact on the casual scene aswell.
The problem with Nids is that Robin Cruddace is in charge of the rules and he hates Nids because his IG got destroyed by them in 5th. Anyone remember that the 6th Ed book got so much flack that the 7th Ed book was the first codex ever authored by "the rules team" instead of an individual? Now he seems to be in charge of the rules overall and hes the most dull, uninspiring rules writer GW have.
Honestly I think it's a mix of both, people buy units that they think look cool, and units that they think are effective, obvious from GW's POV the "gold ideal" would be one that looks great and you want to take for the game. the humble intercessor IMHO falls into this, it's both the best looking and best performing troop option marines have at the moment. I mean I'ver certainly bought units for rules, and shy'd away from stuff that wasn't any good. at the same time, if it looks great I might buy it anyway to toss in the display case.
Arschbombe wrote: I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.
With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.
I don't know why GW don't just squat 40k and 30k and reboot the latter with it's GI Joe style modern 40k visuals because fankly I'd not be shocked if there's a few voices on the sales team telling them that's exactly what they should do - AoS-style but in reverse. Handwave the loss of NPC- I mean, Xenos/Chaos ranges as getting in the way of MORE SPACE Marines, as those who spend money on said NPCs will just invest their money into Space Marines when they're the only option left to them - what're they going to do, go and play a different company's game? Bwahahahahaha, as if.
Carnage43 wrote: Okay, Space Marines have too many units, zero debate there. The other issue is that they have SEVERE bloat in terms of datasheet that could be wargear options. I mean, a Captain, a Captain in Terminator armor, and a Captain on a bike were 3 different datasheet.
But the thing is, I only have one datasheet for my canonness because she doesn't have access to a better armor, and she doesn't have access to a bike. It's not marine units being more artificially separated into different datasheet than other armies. It's them having more options.
Its both. SM Characters used to be one datasheet (each), and Terminator/Jump Pack/Bike etc used to a May take one of wargear option. Then Terminators got a different stat-line, so they got a separate data sheet. Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum.
Arschbombe wrote: I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.
With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.
I don't know why GW don't just squat 40k and 30k and reboot the latter with it's GI Joe style modern 40k visuals because fankly I'd not be shocked if there's a few voices on the sales team telling them that's exactly what they should do - AoS-style but in reverse. Handwave the loss of NPC- I mean, Xenos/Chaos ranges as getting in the way of MORE SPACE Marines, as those who spend money on said NPCs will just invest their money into Space Marines when they're the only option left to them - what're they going to do, go and play a different company's game? Bwahahahahaha, as if.
I wish they'd just got with a few years of starter sets without Marines. If they want to do something like Shadowspear for the still missing units fine, but run some starter sets with IG vs, or both non-imperium.
BrianDavion wrote: part of that I think is the idea that it makes it easier to know what a marine on a bike ahs etc.
it also allows GW to make sure that no strange wording error allows a space marine captain to take terminator armor, a jump pack AND an assault canon
Your theory is that GW broke single entries into many, many entries to try idiotproof for their awful rules team?
I think it's more that they're tying rules to specific SKU's/models as opposed to roles, and it has the effect of making wargear mixups less of a problem when each iteration can only have what's in the box, but does bloat the number of unit entries.
Sim-Life wrote: The problem with Nids is that Robin Cruddace is in charge of the rules and he hates Nids because his IG got destroyed by them in 5th. Anyone remember that the 6th Ed book got so much flack that the 7th Ed book was the first codex ever authored by "the rules team" instead of an individual? Now he seems to be in charge of the rules overall and hes the most dull, uninspiring rules writer GW have.
O_o He wrote the codex books for both IG and Tyranids in 5E, and playing through that edition I'd say the Guard were in a notably more capable position than the Tyranids were generally. There's lots of room to criticize Cruddace, but I don't think there's anything going on between IG and Tyranids specifically there.
I'll also point out that this is kind of beside the point that I was actually responding to. Whether or not people use the rules as the determining factor in their purchase, we have had enough examples of new releases with sub par rules to disprove the old chestnut that GW deliberately overpower new releases to push sales.
Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.
And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.
The weird thing to me personally is how it always feels like, whenever GW comes out with one of those "army vs army boxed sets" it seems like GW just...doesn't...ever play out the game to make sure it makes for a good game.
I've seen a few people playing out the indomitus box, and it's just like the other box set games I've seen: completely, utterly one-sided. The necrons stand aaabsolutely no chance using the rules that come in the box.
And it's been the same with every one of these box sets, the winner is already pre-decided practically:
Shadowspear: Chaos Space Marines always win
Dark Imperium: Space Marines always win
Prophecy of the Wolf: Orks always win.
Blood of the Pheonix: Nobody ever wins, because not one single human being bought the box
Dark Vengeance (good lord these sets sound like an avenged sevenfold album): Space Marines always win
Assault on Black Reach: Space Marines always win
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
Like, especially with the "new edition" launch boxes, where every mini inside is a brand new sculpt, like DV or DI or Indomitus...what stops you from specifically going out of your way to ensure the game is a balanced matchup? You're literally designing every rule and model from the ground. Most of the time they end up being like 350 points on 600 points or something dumb like that.
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.
Yes, I did. And then when people misinterpreted that, I explained what I meant by it. So I'm not sure what's to be gained by continuing to argue that a point I wasn't making was wrong. Chalk it up to English being a stupid language, and move on.
And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.
It would... but when it's as seemingly random as it is, it makes it seem rather unlikely. Like saying 'It always rains on Thursdays', and holding up the fact that it sometimes rains on Thursdays as proof.
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable. .
Ah, but that was mitigated by the fact that you couldn't actually assemble the landspeeder, on account of its horribly warped chassis.
Well you did say: "The rules have never really sold models in 40K." which sure reads more like an "absolute" statement than a "general" one. It's also just not true.
Yes, I did. And then when people misinterpreted that, I explained what I meant by it. So I'm not sure what's to be gained by continuing to argue that a point I wasn't making was wrong. Chalk it up to English being a stupid language, and move on.
The explanation didn't make sense. It appears to read "people don't buy models for the rules except in circumstances when they do" (in more competitive metas) Which, in my experience, has been basically every meta I've played in for 20+ years.
And just because rules may not be used to push ALL model releases, doesn't mean that rules aren't used to push SOME releases. Can I know for sure? No I cannot. But it sure would be an easy dial to tweak with when the company felt the urge.
It would... but when it's as seemingly random as it is, it makes it seem rather unlikely. Like saying 'It always rains on Thursdays', and holding up the fact that it sometimes rains on Thursdays as proof.
Ah. The difference is that I'm not saying they "always" do that. I'm saying they could definitely do that from time to time, and it would be an easy and tempting thing to do.
The explanation didn't make sense. It appears to read "people don't buy models for the rules except in circumstances when they do" (in more competitive metas) Which, in my experience, has been basically every meta I've played in for 20+ years.
That's because you're still taking it as an absolute statement. It's not. Think of it like someone saying 'Nobody wears sandals and socks'. Clearly, some people wear sandals and socks. It's just a casual (and admittedly technically incorrect) way of saying 'very few people'.
That being said, saying 'Nobody does...[whatever]' on an online forum is guaranteed to have someone take it literally and argue that they do, in fact, do that thing, so I should have known better than to phrase it like that.
Also worth pointing out that 'very few' is a relative thing - yes, there are quite a few competitive gamers playing 40k, and I expect a lot of them buy models based on their effectiveness. But from what I've seen over the decades, competitive gamers are a very small subset of 40K players, that just tends to look larger than it is when you spend time on forums.
Ah. The difference is that I'm not saying they "always" do that. I'm saying they could definitely do that from time to time, and it would be an easy and tempting thing to do.
Sure, they could. I'm just yet to see any evidence that they actually do, as opposed to just sometimes winding up in that situation because they don't pay a great deal of attention to game balance when writing rules.
^Well I think someone pointed out above that they actually admitted to having done it with the Wraithknight. That could be hearsay, but . . . as a guy having been involved in the game industry, I KNOW tweaking the numbers for $$$ is faaaar from rare.
You could say video games and tabletop are different, and they are. But the financial incentive, and means, is the same.
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
LOL omg I remember that.
They did though. A Couple of Splinter Cannons. They were S4 and Land Speeders were armour 10 all round. The cannons could glance it on 6s.
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
LOL omg I remember that.
They did though. A Couple of Splinter Cannons. They were S4 and Land Speeders were armour 10 all round. The cannons could glance it on 6s.
I was thinking that, but hadn't made it to go check the stats in my old black book to confirm it
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
LOL omg I remember that.
They did though. A Couple of Splinter Cannons. They were S4 and Land Speeders were armour 10 all round. The cannons could glance it on 6s.
Hup, you're right. The Splinter Cannons were plastic and on the sprue, weren't they. Only the Dark Lances were metal.
So, I forget, could the DA troops be given haywire grenades or something?
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
LOL omg I remember that.
They did though. A Couple of Splinter Cannons. They were S4 and Land Speeders were armour 10 all round. The cannons could glance it on 6s.
I was thinking that, but hadn't made it to go check the stats in my old black book to confirm it
Oh man, I remember those Splinter Cannons. They were so much fun! S4! Assault 4! So many dice!
+Looks around at current state of game and firepower+
They weren't optimal against the Marines in that starter, but those forces begged to be expanded on both sides. Raiders evened things out nicely.
Yeah, the splinter cannons were plastic in the warrior kit, but the blasters, shredders, and dark lances were metal, along with the all metal troops, which were bought two to a blister.
My Dark Eldar army is 85% 3rd edition models. They certainly show their age, but I find them charming.
Edit Yes, the Sybarite in the 3rd edition Codex in the warrior squad could get Haywire Grenades. I don't remember if that was part of the 3rd ed "book army lists" though
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
LOL omg I remember that.
They did though. A Couple of Splinter Cannons. They were S4 and Land Speeders were armour 10 all round. The cannons could glance it on 6s.
I was thinking that, but hadn't made it to go check the stats in my old black book to confirm it
Oh man, I remember those Splinter Cannons. They were so much fun! S4! Assault 4! So many dice!
+Looks around at current state of game and firepower+
They weren't optimal against the Marines in that starter, but those forces begged to be expanded on both sides. Raiders evened things out nicely.
Yeah, the splinter cannons were plastic in the warrior kit, but the blasters, shredders, and dark lances were metal, along with the all metal troops, which were bought two to a blister.
My Dark Eldar army is 85% 3rd edition models. They certainly show their age, but I find them charming.
Edit Yes, the Sybarite in the 3rd edition Codex in the warrior squad could get Haywire Grenades. I don't remember if that was part of the 3rd ed "book army lists" though
DE were THE L2P army in 3rd, too. So easy to mess up, but the players that really got them were nigh unbeatable.
the_scotsman wrote: The new marine codex and models have been announced and for the first time, I heard a figure for the number of datasheets in the codex, which set me off on one of those "how many Delawares" style research jaunts to try and figure out just how many marines are out there.
Spoiler:
In this thread, if I say "Marines" I'll be referring exclusively to marine chapters traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines. Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Deathwatch, Dark Angels and Blood Angels were considered to be officially full-blooded factions by GW, even if there are some indications they're planning on bringing them at least closer to under the same roof with these releases, so it seems unfair to lump them together when talking about releases, models, and numbers of datasheets.
1) The new marine codex contains 98 datasheets, which is all Codex Space marines datasheets excluding named characters and Forgeworld options. If you exclude Superheavies and named characters, the sum total of the number of datasheets present for all legions in The Horus Heresy is by my count 91. (Based on 1d4chan, I did not comb through all of battlescribe)
2) The new marine codex contains 34 weapons that are or contain variations of boltguns. There is a potential for 2 more if entries in the assembly datasheets are not typos (The single shot heavy bolter on the Invictor, the 30" range normal bolter on Space Marine Veterans). If there are 2 more, there will be as many bolt weapons contained within Codex: Space Marines chapters as there are items in the Tau ranged wargear list.
3) The last model release for Codex Tyranids was November 2014, excluding repackagings such as the reselling of Genestealers as Purestrain Genestealers for Codex Genestealer Cults. Since that time, not counting limited edition releases, there have been 64 kits released for Codex: Space Marines.
4) There was one codex book released between Codex Space Marines 2.0 and Codex Space Marines 3.0. There will be a total of five books containing content for other armies between the release of Saga of the Beast and the release of the new Space Wolves supplement. If one supplement is released per month in 2020 and the Space Wolves supplement is released in november, there will have been 8 months between codex updates for the Space Wolves, almost certainly a warhammer 40k record.
5) If you include the datasheets for chapter-specific units traditionally contained within Codex: Space Marines, there will be more datasheets in Codex: Space Marines than in Codex: Chaos Knights, Codex: Imperial Knights, Codex: Harlequins, Codex: Adepta Sororitas, Codex: Adeptus Custodes, Codex: Genestealer Cults and Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus combined.
Growth for the sake of growth latter day corporate capitalism meets “designers” with associates degrees in business and less real world experience than CCGs and console games, leading to a thousand flavors of power up. Thin rules from shallow minds. Not that every faction should receive the space weenie treatment, but that depth comes from differences making a difference, with an elegant system getting most depth with least complexity and so fewest significant differences. Fifty shades of boltgun is boring.
TBH, I don't even play Tyranids- and I likely wouldn't ever do so. I'd be willing to pick them up for a narrative game thing, BUT:
I can see why there's not a lot of enthusiasm over them. Look, I work in a FLGS. Tyranid boxes are one of the boxes I have to dust off periodically, and I just stacked a bunch of them in our bargain bin because... no one buys them.
Honestly with all the crazy stuff going on in the lore, I'm pretty sure the Tyranids could have gobbled up something angry and mean and that warrants a model update. Just something more... alien, evil, mean... something that just looks more aggressive, less... anthromorphic and such, y'know?
I mean I'm pretty sure they could say they gobbled up some Barghesi, Hrud, Warp Karens, Primaris Marines, Ghost Peppers, and some other madness to justify a full overhaul- cosmetically and mechanically.
Maybe something that kills off a massive number of them- but now, they're smaller, more dangerous 'swarms' that periodically 'contact' one another via bioforms packed with genetic material that's been gobbled up.
They just need better rules. Not even exclusively more powerful. Better. Nothing about their current rules imparts the horror of facing them. Get the writers to watch Sci fi films, read their background. It shouldn't be so bland.
Eldarain wrote: They just need better rules. Not even exclusively more powerful. Better. Nothing about their current rules imparts the horror of facing them. Get the writers to watch Sci fi films, read their background. It shouldn't be so bland.
Honestly- if they're as boring to play as they are to play against? Well, I'll bet they make nice shelf decorations.... or, well... you can use their bits to create daemons and mutants or something, I suppose.
I think they should do a cosmetic overhaul with a new rules overhaul. Make them scarier. Gaunts aren't scary, they're annoying and fall over. Of all the armies that should have big scary units, it should be Tyranids.
I mean, FFS- they should have 'build a boogermonster' rules where you can just pick what you want to make some custom monstrosity for whatever you need... and be able to change it up in game as he 'adapts'.
Eldarain wrote: They just need better rules. Not even exclusively more powerful. Better. Nothing about their current rules imparts the horror of facing them. Get the writers to watch Sci fi films, read their background. It shouldn't be so bland.
I think they know the background it's just a matter of making the background work with the rules. I mean TBH tyranids suffer from the problem of "a biiig part of their horror is they don't care about balance, they swarm you!"
that and they need to make shadow in the warp useful while not being stupidly OP. honestly I'd make shadow in the warp two fold. 1: -1 morale penalty bubble on ALL 'nid units. 2: maybe give 'nids some sort of universal deny the witch ability
The old Dark Eldar vs Space Marines will forever be the classic though, because it included a vehicle on the marine side, and the dark eldar side had LITERALLY NOT ONE single weapon that could harm the vehicle. It was invulnerable.
The DE had 2x splintercannons, which gave 8 S4 shots to fish for a 6 to glance the landspeeder. But yeah, it was pretty unbalanced, even before you throw in bonus Limited edition HQ's for the Marines.
Unless....
Spoiler:
Since the rulebook never specified what a splintercannon looked like, some players may have fielded them as lascannons( Darklances, the rulebook simplified all weapons to a few statlines) instead
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Look, I work in a FLGS. Tyranid boxes are one of the boxes I have to dust off periodically, and I just stacked a bunch of them in our bargain bin because... no one buys them.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I mean, FFS- they should have 'build a boogermonster' rules where you can just pick what you want to make some custom monstrosity for whatever you need... and be able to change it up in game as he 'adapts'.
'Cept there's no kit for that, therefore there will be no rules for that, no matter how good the idea is.
BrianDavion wrote: I think they know the background it's just a matter of making the background work with the rules. I mean TBH tyranids suffer from the problem of "a biiig part of their horror is they don't care about balance, they swarm you!"
And the fine folks at GW saw fit to rate anything above 5 models in this edition a "horde", suffering greater effects from blast weapons and coherency rules.
Eldarain wrote: They just need better rules. Not even exclusively more powerful. Better. Nothing about their current rules imparts the horror of facing them. Get the writers to watch Sci fi films, read their background. It shouldn't be so bland.
Well, the game structure prevents the Nids from playing like they do in the fluff. Instead of seemingly endless hordes, we have a discreet amount of Nids fighting over some objectives that should be meaningless to the hive mind. I think the only way to really capture the Nid feel would be narrative games with unbalanced forces where the opposing player has to hold out for x number of turns for y reasons (VIP escape, relic recovery what have you) before succumbing to the mass.
Tyranids used to have that. "Tyranid Attack" in 2nd Ed was a wonderful mission.
Tyranid Objective: Eat Everything.
Opponent Objective: Don't get eaten.
If the enemy was wiped out in 6 turns (2nd Ed games were capped at 4 turns, so this was a long one), the Tyranids one. If any of the enemy were left, the opponent won.
That would make nids more boring to play against. Not less.
honestly the core problem with Nids is the core problem that Necrons had, that GSC have, that Harlequins had, that Grey Knights had, etc, etc etc:
Nobody paid much attention to them during their initial model release, most of their abilities were lazy ports of their 7th ed statlines and rules just redesigned to deal mortal wounds approximately equal to the normal wounds the abilities would usually cause. That was their index rules
Then their codex came out, and yet again, they did not see any kind of in-depth redesign at all, save for a couple of units like the Hive Tyrant. A couple of weapons got a point of AP, or a point of strength, but at no point since 7th edition has anyone at GW actually sat down with the tyranid codex and gone
"OK. Let's take all these critters, and figure out what they do for this, the current edition of warhammer 40,000 that people are playing right now"
They've just been all but forgotten for basically 2 editions in a row, and the framework their rules are built on is incredibly lazy in the first place, where many of their units are just functionally identical except for their special datasheet rules extras.
the_scotsman wrote: That would make nids more boring to play against. Not less.
HMBC didn't mention that the Nids could recycle units, and that there were tables to roll on before the game to represent the toll that fighting Nids had already taken on the defenders. Models got sick, or infected with life forms that could explode mid-game. Vehicles showed up late to the battle and low on ammunition. Stuff like that. It was pretty rad.
Your theory is that GW broke single entries into many, many entries to try idiotproof for their awful rules team?
My theory is they did it because they think we're not as smart as their rules team.
That is honestly quite insulting but also hillarious in a way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: that narrative ruleset sounds fun, I'd be pretty happy if they included something like that as a narrative crusade rule in the 9E 'nid codex.
Honest suggestion, for narrative stuff, look at such older systems in place and or DIY.
If you got some propper experience in it you can make a way more engaging set of rules then gw for narrative.
Im sure it wasn't editions upon editions upon editions of people figuring out that if you combine Mobility Option A, Durability Option B, and Standard Weapon Option C you can create an uber-character that can one-round triple his points value in a single turn, leading to GW having to choose between nerfing one of those three options that many other units use, or nerfing the character 99.99% of the possible builds for which are fine.
That couldn't be the reason for giving more entries to various wargear combinations at all.
the_scotsman wrote: The weird thing to me personally is how it always feels like, whenever GW comes out with one of those "army vs army boxed sets" it seems like GW just...doesn't...ever play out the game to make sure it makes for a good game.
I've seen a few people playing out the indomitus box, and it's just like the other box set games I've seen: completely, utterly one-sided. The necrons stand aaabsolutely no chance using the rules that come in the box.
And it's been the same with every one of these box sets, the winner is already pre-decided practically:
Add up the points for both sides, and check for obvious high S vs high T disparities. They make lousy armies for other people to play.
Like, especially with the "new edition" launch boxes, where every mini inside is a brand new sculpt, like DV or DI or Indomitus...what stops you from specifically going out of your way to ensure the game is a balanced matchup? You're literally designing every rule and model from the ground. Most of the time they end up being like 350 points on 600 points or something dumb like that.
Usually needing a higher dollar value of this army to get to equal points of that dollar value of that army. Look at Wake the Dead. Half each of 2 boxes, 1 full box and a character blister for the SM $135. Eldar had three full boxes and a character blister ~$170.
