Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 11:28:41


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Goonhammer has a good (if depressing) synopsis of the weekend - looks like another new Codex is dominating.

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-its-not-a-bug-its-a-feature/

Nids took the top 5 placings at one major US GT (from an ITC perspective - there are some oddities with placings). They won all but one other GT over the weekend, coming in 2nd in the one event that they didn't win. It looks like Leviathan Double Malceptor/Double Harpy is the standard with John Lennon going a different direction with Kraken Ravenors and Pyrovores (but don't worry, it had a Malceptor).

This could just be "new hotness" that the world will quickly figure out how to counter, but I doubt it. GW will have to act, which will adjust things but also further erode confidence in new books.

It would seem that Malceptors need a nerf-bat at a minimum and the Harpy needs a look as well. Mortal Wounds are a fun mechanic and all (well, not really), and the Malceptor takes the MW concept to a whole new plane of existence. Lennon's list may just be a good list with a good pilot - maybe "nothing to see here" and armies are allowed to win GTs without getting immediately nerfed. Still, this level of dominance out of the gate is problem, although not an uncommon one this past year.

So get those Malceptors on the table before they get nerfed!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 11:51:15


Post by: JohnnyHell


Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 11:55:28


Post by: Karol


Only the tyranid codex is soo good, that in a casual setting, even if you take no hapries and maybe a single or even zero, malaceptors, and instead go for the other monsters. You end up with an army that is way over the avarge powerful, while being way under the avarge costed for what it can do.

And expecting tyranid players of any form of playing to not bring monsters. Is a bit like expecting tau players to not take tau suits, or marine players bring stuff in power armour.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:03:58


Post by: Tyel


Not really sure what nerfs you'd apply because there's power all through the book. You can easily pivot to something else if they stuck say 30-50 points on Maleceptors and Harpies.

Its this problem of [undercosted datasheets] and [incredibly powerful buff architecture].

GW probably need to take a pruning knife to the chapter bonuses, synaptic imperatives and stratagems.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:10:54


Post by: Karol


Well say the points hikes on harpies and malacapters mean -150pts for the tyranid army. Would it be substentially weaker, not weak just weaker, with one less carnifex in it? Because that was the problem with DE points hikes, where just one extra court got cut, and how changes to eldar inari looked in 8th ed.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:20:40


Post by: Giantwalkingchair


Near as I can tell, main malceptor problem comes from stratagems allowing extra psychic cast. Simple fix. Kill that stratagem. Malceptor is fine. Stratagems ( as usual) breaks things.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:23:50


Post by: Tyel


Karol wrote:
Well say the points hikes on harpies and malacapters mean -150pts for the tyranid army. Would it be substentially weaker, not weak just weaker, with one less carnifex in it? Because that was the problem with DE points hikes, where just one extra court got cut, and how changes to eldar inari looked in 8th ed.


The issue is tipping points. Lets say a hike of 30-50 points per model brought Maleceptors and Harpies down to "Balanced" rather than "good".

In practice competitive Tyranid lists would just stop including Maleceptors and Harpies (or maybe have one Maleceptor max etc). So rather than spending the 150~ points they'd spend them on other things in the book. If those options were inferior, you'd expect Tyranid win % to fall. But if they aren't, it wouldn't really matter. You just sidestep the nerf.

The equivalent for DE would be how there was the idea that aside from mass DT liquifier wracks, the Covens section wasn't very good. You really wanted to sink your points in raiders, wyches and incubi etc.
Now we don't have a perfect scenario - because when GW finally hiked the points of raiders, wyches and incubi, they also slightly decreased the points on most covens stuff. (Talos down 10, Grots down 5 etc).
But suddenly (and tbh, I think there's some evidence DE list construction was creeping this way already even before the changes) - the Covens stuff was the best in the game. But those units had been there for months. The fact they had been say 50~ points worse off doesn't really explain this rags to riches rise. You just need some top players to pilot and publicise it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:50:07


Post by: vict0988


If you play against Tyranids just cheat. At the end of your turns just tell your opponent you'll be adding 5VP to your score to make up for the handicap your opponent is getting by playing a busted faction. If they laugh at your "joke" give them an unnerving stare while flaring your nostrils and then say you'll add another 5 VP.
 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Near as I can tell, main malceptor problem comes from stratagems allowing extra psychic cast. Simple fix. Kill that stratagem. Malceptor is fine. Stratagems ( as usual) breaks things.

Better Stratagems just means you're more likely to take 0 or 1 instead 0 or 3 and I don't think it's a bad thing that people are encouraged to take 1 instead of 3 of some units. Points just need to be hiked for popular Tyranids units.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 12:55:33


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Could this be the double whammy of New Codex Hotness folk are still learning to counter, and New Codex Hotness Where The Army Sucked Before So Folk Just Aren’t Familiar With Fighting If?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 13:03:56


Post by: Karol


No that is just very good rules combined with undercosted models.

Just like with harlis, there was no way to "adapt" to a 90pts void weaver.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 13:16:40


Post by: Bosskelot


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Could this be the double whammy of New Codex Hotness folk are still learning to counter, and New Codex Hotness Where The Army Sucked Before So Folk Just Aren’t Familiar With Fighting If?


No.

Point for point the book has NUMEROUS undercosted datasheets combined with some quite frankly absurd numerical values (yeah what's up here's a 3 shot assault Relic that is S12 ap5 and D5 because why not) and stratagems that have obviously not been thought through at all. The absurdity of what a Flyrant can do for damage for sub-200 points while also being essentially free from reprisal is something that points alone wont fix and isn't something people will "get better" at countering to any reasonable degree.

Then we have a system of being able to tailor your chapter tactics pre-game to your opponent, which is very fluffy because it fits with Nids hyper-adaptive idea, but a lot of these individual bonuses are just straight up stronger than what other factions get as part of locked-in unchangeable abilities.

Essentially you have an army that is monstrously killy, monstrously tanky, absurdly mobile and also wildly undercosted on basically everything that isn't a gaunt/gant. There are no real weaknesses to exploit for most armies. At least Craftworlds are still relatively squishy and not all that cheap to make up for their killiness and mobility.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 13:31:56


Post by: Stevefamine


Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action


I assume they'll have a 1 page FAQ hotfix about the Maleceptor cast and might change some points by 10-30 here and there. Nothing too wild.

Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 14:09:55


Post by: vict0988


 Stevefamine wrote:
Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action


I assume they'll have a 1 page FAQ hotfix about the Maleceptor cast and might change some points by 10-30 here and there. Nothing too wild.

Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years

Now you have things to take away again


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 14:24:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.
Yep. Can't wait for my units to be nerfed before I've ever had a chance to try them out thanks to tournament players.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:13:06


Post by: Dysartes


 Stevefamine wrote:
Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years

[Citation required] - especially after 8th and 9th so far...


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:17:07


Post by: The Newman


Having played with and against 'nids since the codex dropped my impression is that they probably need a 10% price hike to monsters across the board (plus a little for Harpies and Maleceptors) and some tweaking to weapon costs (because Bone Swords and Scything Talons having the same point cost is dumb).

I have to caveat that because my Marine chapter runs Stalwart and Warded so that did blunt the psychic onslaught somewhat.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:20:23


Post by: Rihgu


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.
Yep. Can't wait for my units to be nerfed before I've ever had a chance to try them out thanks to tournament players.



So it's okay for units to be obscenely powerful and imbalanced as long as it's the fluffy, non-tournament players using them?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:29:14


Post by: Nevelon


 Rihgu wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.
Yep. Can't wait for my units to be nerfed before I've ever had a chance to try them out thanks to tournament players.



So it's okay for units to be obscenely powerful and imbalanced as long as it's the fluffy, non-tournament players using them?


Fluffy players also tend to take the sub-par units, so over all the one or two broken things in their lists even it out. But when the broken stuff gets nerfed, and the crummy stuff doesn’t get buffed, their army takes a hit.

They also tend not to spam, so one singular broken thing is not skewing with an all-in approach.

(Obviously generalizing here, YMMV)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:31:39


Post by: Jidmah


 Stevefamine wrote:
Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action


I assume they'll have a 1 page FAQ hotfix about the Maleceptor cast and might change some points by 10-30 here and there. Nothing too wild.

Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years


Or maybe they just nerf everything that appeared in a top finishing list into the ground.

Let's see if you are dukhari or orks.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:41:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Rihgu wrote:
So it's okay for units to be obscenely powerful and imbalanced as long as it's the fluffy, non-tournament players using them?
What are the obscenely powerful and imbalanced units exactly? Maleceptors... when taken in combination with a bunch of other stuff. But not the unit by itself.

The problem is GW won't "balance" the combo. They'll nerf the unit.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:58:15


Post by: Karol


 Nevelon wrote:


Fluffy players also tend to take the sub-par units, so over all the one or two broken things in their lists even it out. But when the broken stuff gets nerfed, and the crummy stuff doesn’t get buffed, their army takes a hit.

They also tend not to spam, so one singular broken thing is not skewing with an all-in approach.

(Obviously generalizing here, YMMV)


the thing with the new tyranids is, that just like with DE and harlequins and tau and custodes, you would have to get very creative to make a non very good list with them. Even the weaker options out of the codex are only weaker comparing to the top stuff. If tomorrow harpies or malaceptors got removed, the codex would still be extremly strong. This ain't no GK or Orks where the removal of one unit can or killed the respective codex.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 15:58:31


Post by: Rihgu


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So it's okay for units to be obscenely powerful and imbalanced as long as it's the fluffy, non-tournament players using them?
What are the obscenely powerful and imbalanced units exactly? Maleceptors... when taken in combination with a bunch of other stuff. But not the unit by itself.

The problem is GW won't "balance" the combo. They'll nerf the unit.


Did you read the article in the OP? Judging by the wide variety of lists seen operating at high levels, I'd say it's a lot more than just a Maleceptor wombo-combo.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 16:01:25


Post by: Karol


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So it's okay for units to be obscenely powerful and imbalanced as long as it's the fluffy, non-tournament players using them?
What are the obscenely powerful and imbalanced units exactly? Maleceptors... when taken in combination with a bunch of other stuff. But not the unit by itself.

The problem is GW won't "balance" the combo. They'll nerf the unit.


That is like saying that broad sides or liquifires weren't OP, as long as you don't joing them with other stuff. The thing about both of those units is that most tau players will run the armies that make broadsides better and I have not seen a DE army without 6 transports in the pre liquifire nerf times. And I mean like on forums of different countries.

Practicaly every tyranid monster is undercosted for the stat line they have, and they are also very much not adjusted for playing leviathan.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 16:03:25


Post by: tneva82


 Stevefamine wrote:
Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action


I assume they'll have a 1 page FAQ hotfix about the Maleceptor cast and might change some points by 10-30 here and there. Nothing too wild.

Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years


Like 8e codex had to last you for 2-3 editions until 2027...oh wait.

In fact only editions tyranids haven't had codex been rogue trader(duh. No codexes there) and 7th.

So basically your post is worthless hyperbole.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 16:10:57


Post by: Karol


Well for some armies it is true. In 8th GK armies were NDKS, interceptors and obligatory tax strike squads. Under the 9th ed codex GK run NDKs, intercptors and the obligtory tax strike squads. who knows maybe mr Famine knows that todays builds will stay the same under the next book in 10th.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 16:28:58


Post by: brainpsyk


Bad news, it's only going to get worse from here thanks to codex creep. simplistically put, if each codex is 1 increment better than the previous, you have something like this:

Power - Army
----- + ------------------
4 - Custodes
5 - Tau
6 - Eldar
7 - Bugs
8 - Chaos

Tau was nerfed back back to (pre?)-Custodes level, so the power level between Tau and Eldar just went from 1 to 2. If they nerf Eldar back to Tau/Custodes level, you have a power differentiation level of 3 now between Tau/Custodes/Eldar and Nids. Once GW nerfs Nids, there's a 4-level difference between Chaos and the previous codexes.

So while each codex is still more broken than the last, the disparity will be even greater with each new codex. GW better find a way to flatten the curve or this game will be far more borked than 7th.




Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 16:44:26


Post by: Tyran


 Stevefamine wrote:
Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action

You would need to buff gaunts first.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Rihgu wrote:


Did you read the article in the OP? Judging by the wide variety of lists seen operating at high levels, I'd say it's a lot more than just a Maleceptor wombo-combo.


Yes, but in the context of the Maleceptor it only makes around 3.5 additional mortal wounds without buffs (plus whatever it does with smite and the other withcfire powers).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:


Practicaly every tyranid monster is undercosted for the stat line they have, and they are also very much not adjusted for playing leviathan.


Hive Tyrants, Maleceptors and Harpies? Sure.

Exocrines, Tyrannofexes and Carnifexes? Debatable.

Toxicrenes, Tervigons, Trygons, Thornbacks, Haruspexes, Hive Crones, Tyrannocytes and Sporocyst? definitely no.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 17:51:16


Post by: Karol


Look at how much an avarge non eldar tank costs, its stats, and then look at the stats of tyranids monsters. Then compare the points costs, and adjust for tanks not running around with superhuman physilogy always on.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 17:53:33


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
Look at how much an avarge non eldar tank costs, its stats, and then look at the stats of tyranids monsters. Then compare the points costs, and adjust for tanks not running around with superhuman physilogy always on.
Are tanks considered worth taking?

And not being wounded on 2s doesn’t matter much when you’re T7 and T8.
How many weapons are S14+?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:00:49


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol wrote:
Look at how much an avarge non eldar tank costs, its stats, and then look at the stats of tyranids monsters. Then compare the points costs, and adjust for tanks not running around with superhuman physilogy always on.
Are tanks considered worth taking?

And not being wounded on 2s doesn’t matter much when you’re T7 and T8.
How many weapons are S14+?


Yeah, if anything, more stuff in the game (vehicles) need to get similar tankyness to the new nids.

I've said it before and i'll say it again :

Make Land speeder equivalents T7 with a 3+ (Light vehicles)
Make Rhino chassis equivalent T8 with a 2+ (Heavy vehicles)
Make Land raider equivalents T9 with a 1+ (Superheavy vehicles)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:02:40


Post by: Karol


Imagine if a predator could spawn a unit of 10 scouts, for free once per game, or heal nearby units of scouts. And while a squad of scouts is close it can stand in the open and it will not get shot at.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:06:06


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 vict0988 wrote:
If you play against Tyranids just cheat. At the end of your turns just tell your opponent you'll be adding 5VP to your score to make up for the handicap your opponent is getting by playing a busted faction. If they laugh at your "joke" give them an unnerving stare while flaring your nostrils and then say you'll add another 5 VP.
 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Near as I can tell, main malceptor problem comes from stratagems allowing extra psychic cast. Simple fix. Kill that stratagem. Malceptor is fine. Stratagems ( as usual) breaks things.

Better Stratagems just means you're more likely to take 0 or 1 instead 0 or 3 and I don't think it's a bad thing that people are encouraged to take 1 instead of 3 of some units. Points just need to be hiked for popular Tyranids units.
If you play at an ITC tourney just cheat. There's little to no oversight and little to no punishment. Just say 'oops I misremembered ' if your opponent catches you then go back to 'misremembering' next game.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:06:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
Imagine if a predator could spawn a unit of 10 scouts, for free once per game, or heal nearby units of scouts. And while a squad of scouts is close it can stand in the open and it will not get shot at.


Notice how i only mentioned the resiliency? Your comment focused on something i didnt say.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:09:00


Post by: Karol


 JNAProductions wrote:
Are tanks considered worth taking?

And not being wounded on 2s doesn’t matter much when you’re T7 and T8.
How many weapons are S14+?

Every non marine player told us humble marine players that the advent of AoC would mean the tables would be swarmed with marine tanks.
Again look at the stats and the points costs. Look how much a carnifex or a flyernt costs, and then compare it to stuff other armies can have. And yeah 90pts void weavers are maybe close to that. Everything else not so much.

Try shoting at a t8 MC, that shrugs off the shots on 1-3, with a str 7 weapon then.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:09:48


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Are tanks considered worth taking?

And not being wounded on 2s doesn’t matter much when you’re T7 and T8.
How many weapons are S14+?

Every non marine player told us humble marine players that the advent of AoC would mean the tables would be swarmed with marine tanks.
Again look at the stats and the points costs. Look how much a carnifex or a flyernt costs, and then compare it to stuff other armies can have. And yeah 90pts void weavers are maybe close to that. Everything else not so much.

Try shoting at a t8 MC, that shrugs off the shots on 1-3, with a str 7 weapon then.
You do realize that a S7 weapon is already wounding on a 5+? So the Leviathan rule does literally nothing?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:10:24


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Karol wrote:
Imagine if a predator could spawn a unit of 10 scouts, for free once per game, or heal nearby units of scouts. And while a squad of scouts is close it can stand in the open and it will not get shot at.


Notice how i only mentioned the resiliency? Your comment focused on something i didnt say.


I have not seen your post, when I was writing my. I find the idea that someone could say that a carnifex is "debatebly" good and a tervigon is "bad" extremly funny.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:10:34


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:

Every non marine player told us humble marine players that the advent of AoC would mean the tables would be swarmed with marine tanks.


Lol no, people said it would make tanks better, not that it would make them OP. People were saying Terminators would be the biggest winners and so far theyve been right. Theoretically the land raider with tis 2+ save would also be a big winner but the problem is it has less damage output than my geriatric grandma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:

Try shoting at a t8 MC, that shrugs off the shots on 1-3, with a str 7 weapon then.


I don't think you're making the point you think you're making with comments like these...


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:26:06


Post by: ERJAK


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.


If GW wasn't completely incompetent with rules writing, this stuff wouldn't happen. This type of thing is the 'well it's your fault for dressing like that' of the wargaming world.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Karol wrote:
Well say the points hikes on harpies and malacapters mean -150pts for the tyranid army. Would it be substentially weaker, not weak just weaker, with one less carnifex in it? Because that was the problem with DE points hikes, where just one extra court got cut, and how changes to eldar inari looked in 8th ed.


The issue is tipping points. Lets say a hike of 30-50 points per model brought Maleceptors and Harpies down to "Balanced" rather than "good".

In practice competitive Tyranid lists would just stop including Maleceptors and Harpies (or maybe have one Maleceptor max etc). So rather than spending the 150~ points they'd spend them on other things in the book. If those options were inferior, you'd expect Tyranid win % to fall. But if they aren't, it wouldn't really matter. You just sidestep the nerf.

The equivalent for DE would be how there was the idea that aside from mass DT liquifier wracks, the Covens section wasn't very good. You really wanted to sink your points in raiders, wyches and incubi etc.
Now we don't have a perfect scenario - because when GW finally hiked the points of raiders, wyches and incubi, they also slightly decreased the points on most covens stuff. (Talos down 10, Grots down 5 etc).
But suddenly (and tbh, I think there's some evidence DE list construction was creeping this way already even before the changes) - the Covens stuff was the best in the game. But those units had been there for months. The fact they had been say 50~ points worse off doesn't really explain this rags to riches rise. You just need some top players to pilot and publicise it.


Flat 15% nerf to every unit in the book, rounding up to the nearest 5.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:35:07


Post by: Tyel


ERJAK wrote:
Flat 15% nerf to every unit in the book, rounding up to the nearest 5.


Its the only way to be sure.

More seriously there are some things which are kind of meh in the book - but its because there aren't ways to obviously boost them. (Or if there are, I've not encountered them yet.) I can't imagine people will be running 3 Toxicrenes for instance.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 18:45:36


Post by: Thadin


Big bugs could use a points bump. Warriors are borderline I feel. Please reduce points on Termagants and Hormagaunts. There's nearly no reason to take them besides MSU horms for objective sitting or screening.

The biggest problem though, is the existence of Encircle the Prey. It's too powerful.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 19:37:27


Post by: Ordana


 Thadin wrote:
Big bugs could use a points bump. Warriors are borderline I feel. Please reduce points on Termagants and Hormagaunts. There's nearly no reason to take them besides MSU horms for objective sitting or screening.

The biggest problem though, is the existence of Encircle the Prey. It's too powerful.
yeah no. There is no world in which Warriors should be 25 points with whatever loadout you want.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 19:37:44


Post by: Hecaton


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.


Well if it's overpowered it deserves a nerf.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 19:39:08


Post by: Tyran


Encircle the Prey is the most broken thing in the book, in that I agree.

Luckily there are endless ways to fix it, from a CP increase, one per battle limits or even simply changing the wording so it has to be used during the moment phase (my favorite option).

The other obvious nerf is FAQing the double cannon Tyrant which is a clear writing mistake.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 19:49:02


Post by: Thadin


 Ordana wrote:
 Thadin wrote:
Big bugs could use a points bump. Warriors are borderline I feel. Please reduce points on Termagants and Hormagaunts. There's nearly no reason to take them besides MSU horms for objective sitting or screening.

The biggest problem though, is the existence of Encircle the Prey. It's too powerful.
yeah no. There is no world in which Warriors should be 25 points with whatever loadout you want.


It's hard to say. I don't feel like warriors are that impactful, but I will say I wouldn't be surprised if they bump their cost up, or make Dual boneswords cost more than other weapons. Warriors are picked because they're the best option to fill the troops slot, since there's near no point in taking the similarly-costed Gaunts/Gants. Even if Warriors are more 'vulnerable' to popular profiles, your D2 and D3s.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 19:56:02


Post by: Tyran


Make deathspiters cost 1-2 ppm and dual boneswords 2-3 ppm.

The base cost is fine though.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 20:06:04


Post by: Ordana


yeah you could try to sell me on a 25 pts Scything Talon, Devourer Warrior. Tho even that is certainly on the cheap side for a t5 3w 3A model.
Add Deathspitters and Boneswords and it gets ridiculous.

I mean, I'm a GSC player. We still pay 30 points for a 2 attack Aberrant.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 20:07:08


Post by: Dysartes


 Tyran wrote:
The other obvious nerf is FAQing the double cannon Tyrant which is a clear writing mistake.

I'm curious - and please bear in mind I haven't read the book myself yet - but what makes you say that loadout (double Venom Cannon, I take it?) is a clear writing mistake?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 20:12:05


Post by: Thadin


There's some rules chicanery that lets you take one of the Relic heavy weapons in addition to it's default version, bypassing the limit saying you can only have one ranged weapon on the footrant.

Edit: Whoops, got my rules weirdness mixed up. As Tyran says below.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 20:12:40


Post by: Tyran


 Dysartes wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
The other obvious nerf is FAQing the double cannon Tyrant which is a clear writing mistake.

I'm curious - and please bear in mind I haven't read the book myself yet - but what makes you say that loadout (double Venom Cannon, I take it?) is a clear writing mistake?


Because you cannot take a stranglethorn and a heavy venom cannon, yet apparently you can take two heavy venom cannons? or a venom cannon and the relic version?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Imagine if a predator could spawn a unit of 10 scouts, for free once per game, or heal nearby units of scouts. And while a squad of scouts is close it can stand in the open and it will not get shot at.

Ignoring of course that we are talking about a Tervigon, which at its cheapest it 25 points more expensive than a fully equipped Predator (and 85 points more expensive than a base Predator), has pretty much no shooting, mediocre melee and is a mediocre psyker. Its ability to spawn gants and reinforce them is pretty much 90% of what it does. Moreover 10 scouts are a far more powerful unit than 10 termagants.

Also if you cannot kill 15 T3 1W Sv5+ models in the open, then you don't deserve to shot at a Tervigon.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 21:20:01


Post by: Karol


Most armies have a limited number of shots. Specially those that aren't as aggresivly costed as tyranids. If my units have to kill 15 guants, before they can start to shot at a tervigon, then those shots aren't going to something else, and as I said before, the way nid stuff is costed, something else is a lot of things.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 22:00:59


Post by: Ordana


 Tyran wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
The other obvious nerf is FAQing the double cannon Tyrant which is a clear writing mistake.

I'm curious - and please bear in mind I haven't read the book myself yet - but what makes you say that loadout (double Venom Cannon, I take it?) is a clear writing mistake?


Because you cannot take a stranglethorn and a heavy venom cannon, yet apparently you can take two heavy venom cannons? or a venom cannon and the relic version?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Imagine if a predator could spawn a unit of 10 scouts, for free once per game, or heal nearby units of scouts. And while a squad of scouts is close it can stand in the open and it will not get shot at.

Ignoring of course that we are talking about a Tervigon, which at its cheapest it 25 points more expensive than a fully equipped Predator (and 85 points more expensive than a base Predator), has pretty much no shooting, mediocre melee and is a mediocre psyker. Its ability to spawn gants and reinforce them is pretty much 90% of what it does. Moreover 10 scouts are a far more powerful unit than 10 termagants.

Also if you cannot kill 15 T3 1W Sv5+ models in the open, then you don't deserve to shot at a Tervigon.
you realise to have a 50/50 shot at killing 15 gaunts its 50 bolter shots right?
or 27 Bs 3+, str 6 AP -2 shots.

That is not an insignificant amount of firepower now being spent on an insignificant target just to get to something that might matter.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 22:01:17


Post by: ccs


Honestly? I've probably got more important targets to worry about than the Tervigon. Or the 15 bugs body-guarding it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 22:11:15


Post by: Tyran


 Ordana wrote:

You realise to have a 50/50 shot at killing 15 gaunts its 50 bolter shots right?
or 27 Bs 3+, str 6 AP -2 shots.

That is not an insignificant amount of firepower now being spent on an insignificant target just to get to something that might matter.

And you realize that a 30 termagant unit plus Tervigon is 425 points at minimum right?
It is not an insignificant investment for a unit whose entire purpose is to throw bodies at the enemy.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/12 22:24:11


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
Most armies have a limited number of shots. Specially those that aren't as aggresivly costed as tyranids. If my units have to kill 15 guants, before they can start to shot at a tervigon, then those shots aren't going to something else, and as I said before, the way nid stuff is costed, something else is a lot of things.


you know the bolters you keep complaining that they do no damage? Theyre perfect for killing gaunts.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 06:12:26


Post by: Dudeface


 Tyran wrote:
 Ordana wrote:

You realise to have a 50/50 shot at killing 15 gaunts its 50 bolter shots right?
or 27 Bs 3+, str 6 AP -2 shots.

That is not an insignificant amount of firepower now being spent on an insignificant target just to get to something that might matter.

And you realize that a 30 termagant unit plus Tervigon is 425 points at minimum right?
It is not an insignificant investment for a unit whose entire purpose is to throw bodies at the enemy.


And the 50 bolter shots needed to kill the 15 gaunts (I haven't checked ordanas math) is 470 points, not an insignificant investment to clear 15 chaff for a unit apparently well suited to it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 06:41:34


Post by: tneva82


Well yea if your math is correct it's somewhat over durable. 315 pts of bolters should be able to one shot 15 termagaunts


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 06:42:16


Post by: Blackie


Dudeface wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Ordana wrote:

You realise to have a 50/50 shot at killing 15 gaunts its 50 bolter shots right?
or 27 Bs 3+, str 6 AP -2 shots.

That is not an insignificant amount of firepower now being spent on an insignificant target just to get to something that might matter.

And you realize that a 30 termagant unit plus Tervigon is 425 points at minimum right?
It is not an insignificant investment for a unit whose entire purpose is to throw bodies at the enemy.


And the 50 bolter shots needed to kill the 15 gaunts (I haven't checked ordanas math) is 470 points, not an insignificant investment to clear 15 chaff for a unit apparently well suited to it.


Not really. 5 aggressors are 225 points for 30 bolter shots + 5D6 grenade launcher shots, which are also Blast. So 60 S4 shots, 30 of which can benefit from doctrines. Or you can take the full squad for 270 points and get 36 bolter shots and 36 grenade launcher shots against that 15 unit of gaunts.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 08:04:35


Post by: Dudeface


 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Ordana wrote:

You realise to have a 50/50 shot at killing 15 gaunts its 50 bolter shots right?
or 27 Bs 3+, str 6 AP -2 shots.

That is not an insignificant amount of firepower now being spent on an insignificant target just to get to something that might matter.

And you realize that a 30 termagant unit plus Tervigon is 425 points at minimum right?
It is not an insignificant investment for a unit whose entire purpose is to throw bodies at the enemy.


And the 50 bolter shots needed to kill the 15 gaunts (I haven't checked ordanas math) is 470 points, not an insignificant investment to clear 15 chaff for a unit apparently well suited to it.


Not really. 5 aggressors are 225 points for 30 bolter shots + 5D6 grenade launcher shots, which are also Blast. So 60 S4 shots, 30 of which can benefit from doctrines. Or you can take the full squad for 270 points and get 36 bolter shots and 36 grenade launcher shots against that 15 unit of gaunts.


Sorry I was comparing it to bolters specifically due to the comments that "bolters are perfect for killing guants", standard bolter caddy for loyalist Marines which I'm assured is 90% of bolter wielders(/s), is the tac marine at 18.

So no, bolters aren't great because the thing firing them costs too much, aggressors are built for the task however as shown.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 08:20:20


Post by: Blackie


The point is gaunts are the appropriate target for bolters and you might need bolter guys anyway. It's not like you have to invest tons of points in basic bolter dudes to deal with gaunts efficiently.

You have to bring some bolter guys and those gaunts are a perfect target. You don't target high T and save monsters with bolters, that'd be a waste of shots.

Bolters might not be great in a vacuum, but some platforms + weapon, like SM ones, definitely are for what they provide: obj sec, reasonably tough bodies, decent firepower, etc...

Kabalite warriors or shoota boyz are asbolutely terrible in dealing with gaunts, not intercessors/tacs.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 09:06:49


Post by: Dudeface


 Blackie wrote:
The point is gaunts are the appropriate target for bolters and you might need bolter guys anyway. It's not like you have to invest tons of points in basic bolter dudes to deal with gaunts efficiently.

You have to bring some bolter guys and those gaunts are a perfect target. You don't target high T and save monsters with bolters, that'd be a waste of shots.

Bolters might not be great in a vacuum, but some platforms + weapon, like SM ones, definitely are for what they provide: obj sec, reasonably tough bodies, decent firepower, etc...

Kabalite warriors or shoota boyz are asbolutely terrible in dealing with gaunts, not intercessors/tacs.


What you mean to say is "you need to have bolter guys anyway so they might as well fire at the gaunts" if 2 tac squads don't kill 15 gaunts which are then reinforced by the tervigon anyway it's a bit of a futile effort. It's all maths and hypotheticals which don't really translate into real world games anyway usually to be honest.

Edit: also shoota boyz are pretty bad at dealing with anything, that's just not a fair comparison for anyone.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 09:28:17


Post by: Tyel


I kind of feel in practice you'd clear the Termagaunt bubble wrap and then charge the Tervigon with something spiky in close combat. Its pointed aggressively - but its not like Tyranids are winning on the back of Tervigons. (Or at least, not yet).

Its sort of a similar thought on warriors. I think the deathspitter/bonesword combo for 25 points is clearly too cheap when compared with almost every other troop type in the game. But until someone goes "you know what, screw it, here's my bug-City list with 60ish~ warriors" I don't think GW are going to pick up on it. They do also die (Leviathan transhuman aside) fairly efficiently to a lot of the damage 3 guns GW have been putting in codexes.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 09:37:42


Post by: Nazrak


ERJAK wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh look. Competitive players spammed stuff from a Codex pre-FAQ… ensuring nerfs for everyone. Yawn. Competitive is a curse, haha.


If GW wasn't completely incompetent with rules writing, this stuff wouldn't happen. This type of thing is the 'well it's your fault for dressing like that' of the wargaming world.

fething YIKES. Whatever point you're trying to make here, I think drawing any sort of equivalence between "I don't like the rules in the toy spacemen game" and actual sexual harrasment/assault is pretty messed up. Please be a little more considerate in future.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 10:50:57


Post by: Tyran


Tyel wrote:
I kind of feel in practice you'd clear the Termagaunt bubble wrap and then charge the Tervigon with something spiky in close combat. Its pointed aggressively - but its not like Tyranids are winning on the back of Tervigons. (Or at least, not yet).

Its sort of a similar thought on warriors. I think the deathspitter/bonesword combo for 25 points is clearly too cheap when compared with almost every other troop type in the game. But until someone goes "you know what, screw it, here's my bug-City list with 60ish~ warriors" I don't think GW are going to pick up on it. They do also die (Leviathan transhuman aside) fairly efficiently to a lot of the damage 3 guns GW have been putting in codexes.


Warriors do have a presence in the tournament lists, usually as minimum troop tax unit, but a few lists do have a few large warriors broods.

I don't think I have seen a tournament list with a Tervigon.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 11:26:25


Post by: xttz


Tyranid FAQ is up:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MlX8DsXkD19YhnUE.pdf

Some key points:

No double shooty Hive Tyrant as expected
Overrun can't be used in engagement range Overrun removed the broken "instead of consolidation" wording
Encircle is used at the end of the movement phase
Hive Nexus is now CORE only - no unlocking Maleceptor psychic actions
Power of the Hive Mind is now CHARACTER only, can't be used for an extra Maleceptor cast
Maleceptor's psychic action counts as a cast when under it's own imperative
Effectively you now get up to two psychic overloads per turn, not 3-4



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 11:34:44


Post by: Rihgu


So sad for all the casuals who hadn't gotten their chance to do 40 mortal wounds with a Maleceptor.


edit: does this direct reduction of the obscene power of the Maleceptor count as a nerf to the Maleceptor or a nerf to the combo? I'm personally unclear on the difference but hey.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 11:54:50


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"? Give the new faction time to breath and open it's eyes before smothering it. Also, unleashing it onto a competive scene that has likely not played against it or had time to functionally alter it's lists is just BEGGING for skewed results and snap nerfs.

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 11:59:30


Post by: beast_gts


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"?
IIRC one of the big name groups had a poll asking if they should wait until the 2-week FAQs were released, and it was something like 95% no. (I'll see if I can find it...)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:03:03


Post by: tneva82


Dudeface wrote:


What you mean to say is "you need to have bolter guys anyway so they might as well fire at the gaunts" if 2 tac squads don't kill 15 gaunts which are then reinforced by the tervigon anyway it's a bit of a futile effort. It's all maths and hypotheticals which don't really translate into real world games anyway usually to be honest.

Edit: also shoota boyz are pretty bad at dealing with anything, that's just not a fair comparison for anyone.


How big tac squads? 2x5 shouldn't remove 15 gaunts in one go. 2x10 and we are talking


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:04:06


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


It's kind of a chicken and egg sort of situation. If people can't use a new codex then there can't be any feedback to cause a FAQ to be written.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:17:02


Post by: beast_gts


EDIT


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:19:45


Post by: tneva82


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"? Give the new faction time to breath and open it's eyes before smothering it. Also, unleashing it onto a competive scene that has likely not played against it or had time to functionally alter it's lists is just BEGGING for skewed results and snap nerfs.

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


So you wait month, then same result as book is still same after month


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:21:34


Post by: Dudeface


tneva82 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


What you mean to say is "you need to have bolter guys anyway so they might as well fire at the gaunts" if 2 tac squads don't kill 15 gaunts which are then reinforced by the tervigon anyway it's a bit of a futile effort. It's all maths and hypotheticals which don't really translate into real world games anyway usually to be honest.

Edit: also shoota boyz are pretty bad at dealing with anything, that's just not a fair comparison for anyone.


How big tac squads? 2x5 shouldn't remove 15 gaunts in one go. 2x10 and we are talking


It takes 25 tac marines to get the 50 bolter rounds requested. This does not equate to bolters being good termagant killers in this scenario though, as above the ability to take the hits from the gaunts and then out punch them as well makes the difference however.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:23:36


Post by: Ordana


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"? Give the new faction time to breath and open it's eyes before smothering it. Also, unleashing it onto a competive scene that has likely not played against it or had time to functionally alter it's lists is just BEGGING for skewed results and snap nerfs.

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.
I seem to remember hearing from several AoS tournaments that they didn't allow a book until it had its faq in the past, donno if that is still a thing in some places.

But yes, while the general community is probably not in favour of it I wouldn't mind a new codex not being allowed until the initial faq was released.
And its not like we needed tournaments to show that double Heavy weapon Tyrants or all the psychic stuff stacked on a Maleceptor was broken.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:43:08


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Gaunts and Gants are fine in my opinion.

Intercessor auto-bolt rifles tear them a new one, and they are also a Troops choice, and if their rifle don't take care of them, their weight of melee attacks certainly can. If a player wants to pretend Primaris aren't options, that's on them to make their army's shortcomings. I don't use any space marine supplement for my Primaris only army, and I don't lament that I have hobbled my army is two ways. I improvise, adapt, overcome with what I do have.

CSM also have it pretty good vs. gants/gaunts currently at 12ppm with Malicious Volleys. Even chainswords and pistols with Hateful Assault and Death to the False Emperor are going to eviscerate gants/guants.

Every Tyranid game I played posted Crusher Stampede, I've never come close to having a problem with their smaller bugs. In fact, I think it is difficult to have a bad game when a 'nid player brings swarms of them. Because win or lose, their opponent feels like a baller by the sheer amount of carnage they did to the 'nid army. Bring on their uncounted numbers!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 12:53:19


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 xttz wrote:
Tyranid FAQ is up:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MlX8DsXkD19YhnUE.pdf

Some key points:

No double shooty Hive Tyrant as expected
Overrun can't be used in engagement range
Encircle is used at the end of the movement phase
Hive Nexus is now CORE only - no unlocking Maleceptor psychic actions
Power of the Hive Mind is now CHARACTER only, can't be used for an extra Maleceptor cast
Maleceptor's psychic action counts as a cast when under it's own imperative
Effectively you now get up to two psychic overloads per turn, not 3-4



This is a really good FAQ, IMO. They knocked out all the stupid stuff like the double VC Hive Tyrant, they nerfed the BS from the Maleceptor/Hive Nexus without making it unusable, and Encircle the Prey is at least somewhat defanged. I bet Nids will still do really well in tournaments but this is about as good of a balance pass as you could expect if you take points off the table (yeah the Harpy needs to go up in points.)

Maybe my friends will actually play me and my decidedly middle-of-the-road Nids lists now


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:00:38


Post by: Tyel


Its a good "woops, we didn't think this through" response.

Not sure its going to dramatically alter Tyranid win% for the reasons said - but it might push them down towards 60%, and may open up more variety in competitive Tyranid list building.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:03:04


Post by: EviscerationPlague


LOL no doubling up on a weapon for Tyrants. What's with GW and garbage looking "one of each weapon" loadouts?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:12:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


 xttz wrote:
Tyranid FAQ is up:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MlX8DsXkD19YhnUE.pdf

Some key points:

No double shooty Hive Tyrant as expected
Overrun can't be used in engagement range
Encircle is used at the end of the movement phase
Hive Nexus is now CORE only - no unlocking Maleceptor psychic actions
Power of the Hive Mind is now CHARACTER only, can't be used for an extra Maleceptor cast
Maleceptor's psychic action counts as a cast when under it's own imperative
Effectively you now get up to two psychic overloads per turn, not 3-4


And Synapse is now an (Aura). Sweet, we can shut it down. Vox Scream!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:24:42


Post by: Blackie


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


But who's gonna do that 1-2 month period of competitive play testing? GW stuff? In an ideal world yes.

Otherwise I'm perfectly fine with GTs being the beta testers. This way in most of the real world metas the top lists that are nerfed ASAP never show up. It's thanks to allowing new codexes to GTs that voidweavers have been nerfed pretty soon so very few people actually bullied their opponents by bringing tons of those undercosted skimmers.

Now tyranids need (needed?) nerfs soon, if that means that they get to dominate a couple of GTs to make GW aware of their power I'll take it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:42:03


Post by: princeyg


EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL no doubling up on a weapon for Tyrants. What's with GW and garbage looking "one of each weapon" loadouts?


Its the old "only one of each in the box, so you can only have one of each" thing.

Also, double cannon tyrants look really really silly.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 13:45:01


Post by: Daedalus81


beast_gts wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"?
IIRC one of the big name groups had a poll asking if they should wait until the 2-week FAQs were released, and it was something like 95% no. (I'll see if I can find it...)


Hard no. People should be able to use their book even if GW screws it up. Also the FAQs are a month behind now instead of two weeks.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 14:18:24


Post by: p5freak


 xttz wrote:
Tyranid FAQ is up:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MlX8DsXkD19YhnUE.pdf

Some key points:

No double shooty Hive Tyrant as expected
Overrun can't be used in engagement range
Encircle is used at the end of the movement phase
Hive Nexus is now CORE only - no unlocking Maleceptor psychic actions
Power of the Hive Mind is now CHARACTER only, can't be used for an extra Maleceptor cast
Maleceptor's psychic action counts as a cast when under it's own imperative
Effectively you now get up to two psychic overloads per turn, not 3-4



You can still have a hive tyrant with shardgullet and heavy venom cannon. Maleceptor nerf is good, much needed.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 14:35:04


Post by: Nomeny


Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 14:44:47


Post by: Daedalus81


 p5freak wrote:
You can still have a hive tyrant with shardgullet and heavy venom cannon. Maleceptor nerf is good, much needed.


No you can't...unless you're suggesting you buy a piece of wargear then upgrade it then go back to buy a second piece of wargear.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 14:47:12


Post by: p5freak


Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 14:53:15


Post by: Nazrak


 Blackie wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


But who's gonna do that 1-2 month period of competitive play testing? GW stuff? In an ideal world yes.

Otherwise I'm perfectly fine with GTs being the beta testers. This way in most of the real world metas the top lists that are nerfed ASAP never show up. It's thanks to allowing new codexes to GTs that voidweavers have been nerfed pretty soon so very few people actually bullied their opponents by bringing tons of those undercosted skimmers.

Now tyranids need (needed?) nerfs soon, if that means that they get to dominate a couple of GTs to make GW aware of their power I'll take it.

Yeah, this is the thing – as soon as the book's out there, and particularly in the hands of the sort of people who have a vested interest in breaking things in completely unintended ways, there's a level of computation power that would take years for any combination of writers/playtesters to arrive at.

The problem, in my view, isn't that this stuff slips through the net from time to time (although there are some obvious proofreading howlers which in my view are less forgivable than not having been able to test every single possible combination of all the moving parts at play) but rather that GW are treating the books as premium collectors' items (and pricing them accordingly), rather than the ephemeral documents they are. Personally, I like books as my hobby time is my non-screen time, but the disparity between the way the books are sold/presented and their actual usable lifespan is the aspect that bugs me the most. And that's before we even get to the environmental/sustainability aspect of creating enormous hardback books with a useful lifespan of sometimes little more than a year.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:02:33


Post by: Kya_Vess


Got married since the codex came out, so I'm a little sad I could only play a few games before my physical codex is now... outdated. Its the most obnoxious feeling in the world when you cant even trust your brand new book anymore.

That said nothing they changed were things I was doing anyway. I should be ecstatic even with these changes Tyranids are still on top... but eh. I'll probably just wait for a new edition at this point. It's not actually fun playing against armies not up to date. I learned that quick.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:08:07


Post by: oni


Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:09:58


Post by: Rihgu


 p5freak wrote:
Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.


You muster armies, THEN select a Warlord, and having a HIVE TENDRIL Warlord is what allows picking relics from the codex, so you can't go back and change your mustered army.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:17:34


Post by: chaos0xomega


Good FAQ, don't see it really doing more than axing a couple percentage points off of nids win rate on its own. The book is insanely strong, will require points adjustments on a lot of things to give other armies a chance.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:19:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:41:22


Post by: p5freak


 Rihgu wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.


You muster armies, THEN select a Warlord, and having a HIVE TENDRIL Warlord is what allows picking relics from the codex, so you can't go back and change your mustered army.


There is no fixed sequence how you build your army. What does muster armies even mean exactly ? Can you provide a rules quote ? All it says that you muster an army from the miniatures from your collection. It says nothing about when you pick equipment, wargear, weapons.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:46:38


Post by: Rihgu


 p5freak wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.


You muster armies, THEN select a Warlord, and having a HIVE TENDRIL Warlord is what allows picking relics from the codex, so you can't go back and change your mustered army.


There is no fixed sequence how you build your army. What does muster armies even mean exactly ? Can you provide a rules quote ?


Step 2 or 3 of every mission pack I have available to reference is titled Muster Armies. it contains the line "Details of how to battle-forge an army, how to use a points limit, how to select a WARLORD, and what information your army roster must contain can be found in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book". Looking at the Core Book, that is linking back to the Muster Armies step of the Only War mission, which says
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord."

Therefore, you muster your army (selecting ONE venom cannon for your hive tyrant), then you pick your Warlord, and now since you have a HIVE TENDRIL warlord you can select to replace the venom cannon with Shardgullet. You cannot now go back to mustering your army to replace the scything talons with a second venom cannon.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:53:50


Post by: ccs


 Nazrak wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


But who's gonna do that 1-2 month period of competitive play testing? GW stuff? In an ideal world yes.

Otherwise I'm perfectly fine with GTs being the beta testers. This way in most of the real world metas the top lists that are nerfed ASAP never show up. It's thanks to allowing new codexes to GTs that voidweavers have been nerfed pretty soon so very few people actually bullied their opponents by bringing tons of those undercosted skimmers.

Now tyranids need (needed?) nerfs soon, if that means that they get to dominate a couple of GTs to make GW aware of their power I'll take it.

Yeah, this is the thing – as soon as the book's out there, and particularly in the hands of the sort of people who have a vested interest in breaking things in completely unintended ways, there's a level of computation power that would take years for any combination of writers/playtesters to arrive at.


Lol, I don't think so. It only takes the casual players at the shop about half an hour of perusing a codex to spot this stuff.
And these are the casuals who pay no attention to leaks etc. They are not patched into a gestalt hive-mind like the truly obsessed.
So if casual Joe can spot it within 30m.....


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:55:40


Post by: xttz


Best of luck finding a TO who agrees with the two-venom-cannons-but-one-is-actually-a-relic loophole


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 15:58:17


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 xttz wrote:
Best of luck finding a TO who agrees with the two-venom-cannons-but-one-is-actually-a-relic loophole


Incoming Knight Castellans with two Volcano Lances, except one is a relic.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:02:15


Post by: oni


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


You might be taking my post a little too seriously, maybe.

But... It's no secret that, in the past, GW has intentionally made under-selling models more powerful in their updated codexes specifically to sell those models. This 'old way' of doing it would allow for a long span of time to sell models; essentially until their next codex update.

With the current codexes it feels like they're dialing the power of the under-selling models up a bit more, comparatively, to account for a shorter sales period. The shorter sales period is due to the current precedent that GW is trying to keep the game in-line and will FAQ 2-weeks after codex release and "Balance" Dataslate every 3-4 months. It's like chumming for sharks, but it's chumming for meta-chasers... Draw them in for a temporary feeding frenzy (no pun intended for the current Tyranid meta).



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:20:20


Post by: Stevefamine


tneva82 wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Other things would need to get nerfed to see gaunt swarm or heavy little bug lists back in action


I assume they'll have a 1 page FAQ hotfix about the Maleceptor cast and might change some points by 10-30 here and there. Nothing too wild.

Remember this Tyranid Codex has to last us another 2-3 editions until 2030... let it be powerful so it lasts for years


Like 8e codex had to last you for 2-3 editions until 2027...oh wait.

In fact only editions tyranids haven't had codex been rogue trader(duh. No codexes there) and 7th.

So basically your post is worthless hyperbole.


I was remembering the stagnation of the release of the 5th edition codex until it's current iteration

The faction wasn't treated as poorly as Dark Eldar but we've had awkward codexs to play with odd crutch units and combos. I didn't really have much fun with the last book


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:35:38


Post by: NinthMusketeer


40k is such a gakshow these days.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:36:47


Post by: The Newman


You'd think that would have started back-firing on them by now, they've done it enough times that you'd have to be either kind of dumb or unhealthily obsessed with your tournament stats to make purchasing decisions based on what's broken at release instead of waiting for the week-two FAQ.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:37:06


Post by: Ordana


 Nazrak wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.


But who's gonna do that 1-2 month period of competitive play testing? GW stuff? In an ideal world yes.

Otherwise I'm perfectly fine with GTs being the beta testers. This way in most of the real world metas the top lists that are nerfed ASAP never show up. It's thanks to allowing new codexes to GTs that voidweavers have been nerfed pretty soon so very few people actually bullied their opponents by bringing tons of those undercosted skimmers.

Now tyranids need (needed?) nerfs soon, if that means that they get to dominate a couple of GTs to make GW aware of their power I'll take it.

Yeah, this is the thing – as soon as the book's out there, and particularly in the hands of the sort of people who have a vested interest in breaking things in completely unintended ways, there's a level of computation power that would take years for any combination of writers/playtesters to arrive at.

The problem, in my view, isn't that this stuff slips through the net from time to time (although there are some obvious proofreading howlers which in my view are less forgivable than not having been able to test every single possible combination of all the moving parts at play) but rather that GW are treating the books as premium collectors' items (and pricing them accordingly), rather than the ephemeral documents they are. Personally, I like books as my hobby time is my non-screen time, but the disparity between the way the books are sold/presented and their actual usable lifespan is the aspect that bugs me the most. And that's before we even get to the environmental/sustainability aspect of creating enormous hardback books with a useful lifespan of sometimes little more than a year.
A lot of the recent balance issues are not the result of unforeseen possible combinations.

Yes there is no substitute for thousands of eyes on a document when it hits the streets but you don't ned the computation power of the internet to see Voidweavers were beyond stupid, Tau shooting was going to be utterly broken or that being able to pick up your flyrant after it shot and charged to put it safely back in reserves might be dumb.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:40:45


Post by: ERJAK


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


Why doesn't this appear to be the case with Imperial Knights or Chaos knights? Why wasn't this the case with any of this edition's space marine releases?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:47:19


Post by: Tyran


Yeah this isn't some conspiracy to sell models.

Rather it is simply the reality that GW's writers are underpaid and GW has no interest in spending money in quality control.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 16:53:45


Post by: ERJAK


 oni wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


You might be taking my post a little too seriously, maybe.

But... It's no secret that, in the past, GW has intentionally made under-selling models more powerful in their updated codexes specifically to sell those models. This 'old way' of doing it would allow for a long span of time to sell models; essentially until their next codex update.

With the current codexes it feels like they're dialing the power of the under-selling models up a bit more, comparatively, to account for a shorter sales period. The shorter sales period is due to the current precedent that GW is trying to keep the game in-line and will FAQ 2-weeks after codex release and "Balance" Dataslate every 3-4 months. It's like chumming for sharks, but it's chumming for meta-chasers... Draw them in for a temporary feeding frenzy (no pun intended for the current Tyranid meta).



At what point does buffing a bad unit go from 'objectively necessary for internal balance reasons' to 'trying to push the power of underselling models for money'? Also, why are they so inconsistent with it?

Almost every primaris unit has been mediocre since the very first release. The Sisters of Battle book made most existing units worse. Necrons. Genestealer cults. Tsons and DG just made what they were already using better. Same with GK.

Also, why are super commonly owned units like Hive Tyrants and Repentia left (or made) extremely powerful? Every Tau Player owns multiple Suitmanders, yet they remain consistently one of the most powerful units in the book.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 17:03:55


Post by: Irbis


 Ordana wrote:
Yes there is no substitute for thousands of eyes on a document when it hits the streets but you don't ned the computation power of the internet to see Voidweavers were beyond stupid, Tau shooting was going to be utterly broken or that being able to pick up your flyrant after it shot and charged to put it safely back in reserves might be dumb.

To be fair to GW, you have benefit of a hindsight. For all we know they removed 99 broken combos and just 1 or 2 slipped through.

Of course, this benefit only applies to the writers who have a clue. Kelly and Cruddace often break 10 things trying to "fix" one

 oni wrote:
But... It's no secret that, in the past, GW has intentionally made under-selling models more powerful in their updated codexes specifically to sell those models. This 'old way' of doing it would allow for a long span of time to sell models; essentially until their next codex update.

That's not a 'secret', that's stupid conspiracy theory, often made by kids who have no idea about balance (see all the screeching about ""OP"" Marines in 8th edition when update turned them from worst army to midfield, by salty xenos players whining they can't autowin anymore). If GW wanted to sell new, shiny models, primaris wouldn't have so trash rules that after THREE rounds of buffs their stats were still mediocre (then were made even more mediocre by beyond idiotic buff of old, cheap, ugly squats to primaris statline that only shattered game balance into million pieces killing 90% of 40K vehicle kit sales, unless GW doesn't want to sell these big, shiny, expensive kits anymore?). Reivers are still trash 5 years later, where is the buff that is supposed to finally sell them?

Then you look at that is actually made broken and the whole insane conspiracy theory falls apart. See Eldar in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th - insanely busted and broken beyond belief, to sell... Oh wait, not shiny, expensive, refreshed plastic kits, but ugly 20 year old resin aspect gak that most of WAAAC types were just buying recast or knockoffs. On what world this makes any sense at all?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 17:14:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The Newman wrote:
You'd think that would have started back-firing on them by now, they've done it enough times that you'd have to be either kind of dumb or unhealthily obsessed with your tournament stats to make purchasing decisions based on what's broken at release instead of waiting for the week-two FAQ.
It isn't something that has immediate consequences. People put a lot into building their armies for 40k, they don't change their habits at the drop of a hat. Thing is the problem isn't really about tournaments--ITC ensures that even with a balanced setup their tourneys would be a crapshow anyways. The reality is if something is sweeping the tourney scene it is absolutely crushing the casual scene, eroding enjoyment of the game and chipping away at the player base. It takes time for someone to want to give up on that game they put so much into, but when they do it often takes significantly more in game improvement to bring them back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
Yeah this isn't some conspiracy to sell models.

Rather it is simply the reality that GW's writers are underpaid and GW has no interest in spending money in quality control.
Bingo.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 17:29:49


Post by: tneva82


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


There's limit how many you can sell. Are you buying 100 malefactors ever? 1000? 10000?

Once try hard's have got the op stuff unless gw changes what's op they aren't selling all that much. That's why balance is something gw hates. If game was balanced try hard's would be able to just tune own tactics rather than rush buy next op stuff


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 17:57:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


A question for those with experience with Psychic Actions:

1. Are there any other abilities in other armies that allow Psykers to cast powers and do Psychic Actions in the same turn?

2. If the above is yes, does the Psychic Action those psykers can take count as one of their casts for the turn?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 18:01:00


Post by: Tyran


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A question for those with experience with Psychic Actions:

1. Are there any other abilities in other armies that allow Psykers to cast powers and do Psychic Actions in the same turn?

2. If the above is yes, does the Psychic Action those psykers can take count as one of their casts for the turn?


I think there are a few ones. And with the FAQ they should, so this FAQ is a stealth nerf to those armies.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 18:06:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Tyran wrote:
And with the FAQ they should, so this FAQ is a stealth nerf to those armies.
To me this implies that the answer to my second question is "No". Because this isn't a 40k FAQ, this is a Tyranid FAQ, meaning that if what I suspect is true, other armies that have the ability to do powers and psychic actions in a single turn don't count the actions as powers, but Maleceptors/Tyranids do, because GW are morons and have to overbalance every little thing in the world.

Wait for the next points update where they put Maleceptors up in price despite all these nerfs. And limit them to one per detachment or something equally as nonsensical.

And them also somehow feth over Winged Hive Tyrants because hot damn were they powerful at the start of 8th, and we've got to keep paying for that now don't we...



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 18:10:27


Post by: Tyran


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To me this implies that the answer to my second question is "No". Because this isn't a 40k FAQ, this is a Tyranid FAQ, meaning that if what I suspect is true, other armies that have the ability to do powers and psychic actions in a single turn don't count the actions as powers, but Maleceptors/Tyranids do, because GW are morons and have to overbalance every little thing in the world.

It wouldn't be the first time a faction specific FAQ has an effect on the game as a whole. But it would be nice if GW included it in the general 40k FAQ.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 18:16:03


Post by: Rihgu


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A question for those with experience with Psychic Actions:

1. Are there any other abilities in other armies that allow Psykers to cast powers and do Psychic Actions in the same turn?

2. If the above is yes, does the Psychic Action those psykers can take count as one of their casts for the turn?


Thousand Sons have a Stratagem that allows them to manifest One (1) Psychic Power after performing a Psychic Action and a character upgrade that allows them to trade One (1) Psychic Power Casting Attempt for One (1) Psychic Action (instead of trading ALL Psychic Power attempts)

Eldar have an identical stratagem.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 18:39:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A question for those with experience with Psychic Actions:

1. Are there any other abilities in other armies that allow Psykers to cast powers and do Psychic Actions in the same turn?

2. If the above is yes, does the Psychic Action those psykers can take count as one of their casts for the turn?


Thousand Sons has a strat.

"Use this Stratagem in your Psychic phase, after attempting to perform a psychic action with an ARCANA ASTARTES PSYKER unit from your army. That unit can attempt to manifest one psychic power this phase."

And well as a legion upgrade:

"This model can attempt to perform a psychic action in its Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest one psychic power, rather than any."

Edit - ninjad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean it's in the gd rulebook.

While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 19:12:46


Post by: vict0988


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone or event ever tried saying something along the lines of: This codex is too new, in order to create a more fun and competitive environment, we will only be allowing this faction to use "pre-codex rules and costs"? Give the new faction time to breath and open it's eyes before smothering it. Also, unleashing it onto a competive scene that has likely not played against it or had time to functionally alter it's lists is just BEGGING for skewed results and snap nerfs.

We shouldn't be using fresh week old codexes, in competitive events imho. There needs to be a 1-2 month period of competitive play testing or something. Hell, even 2 weeks. Better that they don't get to play the new rules, then they have to go through all the trouble of getting to top 8 and having it all be the exact same book/sub faction.

I think the complete opposite is true, expose the gakky balance ASAP in competitive so the game becomes playable for casuals.

 Nazrak wrote:
as soon as the book's out there, and particularly in the hands of the sort of people who have a vested interest in breaking things in completely unintended ways, there's a level of computation power that would take years for any combination of writers/playtesters to arrive at.

GW has a vested interest in breaking things in completely unintended ways to fix it before launch and deliver a good product that is healthy for the game.
ccs wrote:
Lol, I don't think so. It only takes the casual players at the shop about half an hour of perusing a codex to spot this stuff.
And these are the casuals who pay no attention to leaks etc. They are not patched into a gestalt hive-mind like the truly obsessed.
So if casual Joe can spot it within 30m.....

I think there is a saner middle ground between saying it takes 10000 games to figure out if something is broken and saying Benny who has played 10 9th edition games can play 0 times with a new codex and quickly find 90% of the broken stuff and useless stuff in the codex. I think GW can afford an Indian from Fiverr with a spreadsheet and spending one meeting hashing out how to set up a better playtesting scheme.
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
40k is such a gakshow these days.

Always has been.
The Newman wrote:
You'd think that would have started back-firing on them by now, they've done it enough times that you'd have to be either kind of dumb or unhealthily obsessed with your tournament stats to make purchasing decisions based on what's broken at release instead of waiting for the week-two FAQ.

If you can write it off as a business expense and/or resell the models for 50% of their value at a later date or just keep them for your hobby collection? I bought my Lokhust Destroyers when they were at their most OP, but I didn't lose them just because they're not tonnes better than most of the Necrons codex anymore.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 19:14:21


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Daedalus81 wrote:


While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.


You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 19:41:00


Post by: Tyel


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.


I think the way it was described previously it felt like a binary. A bit like "you can advance, but then you can't shoot". If however you have a rule that says "you can still shoot" - it seems logical that you can do both.

Frankly they should just ditch the idea that if you have 2 casts normally, you lose both if you use a psychic action. Just have it be a power you manifest and you wouldn't really have to jump through all these rules hoops. I guess it would remove those stratagems/bonuses but... eh. Its kind of lame and I don't think it would hurt the game much.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 19:54:24


Post by: Daedalus81


Tyel wrote:
Frankly they should just ditch the idea that if you have 2 casts normally, you lose both if you use a psychic action. Just have it be a power you manifest and you wouldn't really have to jump through all these rules hoops. I guess it would remove those stratagems/bonuses but... eh. Its kind of lame and I don't think it would hurt the game much.


I don't have a strong opinion, but it would make it way easier on Thousand Sons in terms of scoring. There's a hard choice to sacrifice casting for scoring.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 20:02:14


Post by: Tyel


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion, but it would make it way easier on Thousand Sons in terms of scoring. There's a hard choice to sacrifice casting for scoring.


I'd have thought it would make psychic secondaries more attractive for everyone with psykers.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 20:07:31


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Tyel wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.


I think the way it was described previously it felt like a binary. A bit like "you can advance, but then you can't shoot". If however you have a rule that says "you can still shoot" - it seems logical that you can do both.

Frankly they should just ditch the idea that if you have 2 casts normally, you lose both if you use a psychic action. Just have it be a power you manifest and you wouldn't really have to jump through all these rules hoops. I guess it would remove those stratagems/bonuses but... eh. Its kind of lame and I don't think it would hurt the game much.


Yeah, fully agree. That requirement is a big part of why psychic actions are kind of bad for many armies (even the ones where psychic actions are quite fluffy, like TS and Eldar.)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/13 22:28:56


Post by: Hecaton


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A question for those with experience with Psychic Actions:

1. Are there any other abilities in other armies that allow Psykers to cast powers and do Psychic Actions in the same turn?

2. If the above is yes, does the Psychic Action those psykers can take count as one of their casts for the turn?


The only one I know offhand is a Crusade ability for CWE/Harlequin psykers called "layered consciousness." It allows a psyker who makes a Psychic Action to cast *one* psychic power for the turn.

Oh yeah, and there's a Stratagem which does the same thing. In both cases it's "Psychic Action + ONE psychic power," not Psychic Action plus manifest freely.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 00:52:12


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


This FAQ does seem to be a targeted application of nerf. I have a feeling that more will need to be done in the coming weeks/months, but at least the Malceptor has had some reigning in along with the shooty Hive Tyrant.

Its one thing when a top player pilots a list to a GT win - no need to panic with the nerf bat. When the list is dominating multiple events then something needs to be done. The cycle, though, is starting to get a little tiring. It would cost money to be done correctly, but they should bring some of the top players into the design tent to stress-test the Codexes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Replace bonesword with heavy venom cannon. Replace heavy venom cannon with shardgullet. Replace monstrous scything talons with heavy venom cannon. I dont have more than 1 heavy venom cannon, because shardgullet is a different weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nomeny wrote:
Not really. The model doesn't come with two venom cannons.


WYSIWYG is not a rule. If you really want two HVC 3D print it, or buy it from a bits dealer.


You muster armies, THEN select a Warlord, and having a HIVE TENDRIL Warlord is what allows picking relics from the codex, so you can't go back and change your mustered army.


There is no fixed sequence how you build your army. What does muster armies even mean exactly ? Can you provide a rules quote ? All it says that you muster an army from the miniatures from your collection. It says nothing about when you pick equipment, wargear, weapons.


The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 02:06:32


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.


You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.


I'm not entirely sure what people were doing. I read lots on the situation, but I figured there was some wargear/trait letting them work around restrictions as I haven't gone through the codex or played them yet.

If they're doing a psychic action they shouldn't be doing any other casting unless I've missed something crucial.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 02:16:47


Post by: Rihgu


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


While psychic actions are not in and of themselves psychic powers, they function in much the same way. For all intents and purposes, when a unit attempts a psychic action, this is treated the same as if they were attempting to manifest a psychic power, and as such triggers any rules that interact with manifesting a psychic power (e.g. rules that enable you to deny a psychic power can also be used to deny a psychic action). Note that a PSYKER can still only attempt to perform one psychic action in their Psychic phase instead of attempting to manifest any other psychic powers.


You know, funny you mentioned this. Because I always argued that the Maleceptor shouldn't be able to trigger Psychic Overload 4 times because it could only cast a maximum of 3 times. I was shouted down and obviously tournament players played it such that you could get a total of 4 powers + actions, but it looks like it was never really kosher? I mean, I would argue that "number of times a psyker can cast" is very much "a rule that interact(s) with manifesting a psychic power". Anyway, it's moot now, I'm glad GW shut it down, but it still feels like it should never have been on the table in the first place, RAI.


I'm not entirely sure what people were doing. I read lots on the situation, but I figured there was some wargear/trait letting them work around restrictions as I haven't gone through the codex or played them yet.

If they're doing a psychic action they shouldn't be doing any other casting unless I've missed something crucial.



The Maleceptor Synaptic Imperative allows Psyker Units to perform psychic actions without sacrificing manifest attempts.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 02:24:59


Post by: Daedalus81


Ah ha. Ok - that makes more sense. Thanks.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 02:31:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


From what everyone's saying, it seems that this is a specific change for Tyranids - Tyranid psychic actions are psychic powers - whereas that's not the case for everyone else.

And yes D, I know you quoted the rulebook, but the rulebook doesn't say psychic action = psychic power. If it did, there wouldn't be this issue.






Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 04:56:24


Post by: Breton


Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 05:26:32


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Confirmation bias? I don't know what you're blathering about.

And it's all well and good to blame a lack of play-testing, but the people writing the rules should know better. They've been at this for long enough.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 09:03:49


Post by: Karol


Errors sliping is something that happens, but it should be an exeption and not the norm. A codex shouldn't require a rewrite 1 day after it is out.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 09:05:05


Post by: Sim-Life


Typical that the edition that kills the game for me is the same edition that Sisters got new models AND tyranids get a good codex finally.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 10:37:28


Post by: p5freak


TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.


It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 13:19:54


Post by: Daedalus81


 p5freak wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.


It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.


*sigh*

So following your logic here a Tank Commander can now have a battle cannon AND hammer of sunderance. Neat.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 13:48:27


Post by: Ordana


 p5freak wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.


It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.
"I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 14:04:14


Post by: Pancakey


Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 15:51:43


Post by: petrov27


At a certain point it kind of feels like this is less total ineptitude and more "generate controversy and stir up the community" with every release? If the rules were well balanced and worked fine out of the box there would probably be a tiny fraction of that - maybe they feel the stir profits them overall?

Im sure some will quit in frustration with the crazy rules churn and burn but how many others see all the forum discussions, youtube "analysis" of new codexes and such and go what's all this about and maybe 40K now gets on their radar when it wasn't before?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 16:05:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Pancakey wrote:
Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.
It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 16:15:48


Post by: Ordana


 petrov27 wrote:
At a certain point it kind of feels like this is less total ineptitude and more "generate controversy and stir up the community" with every release? If the rules were well balanced and worked fine out of the box there would probably be a tiny fraction of that - maybe they feel the stir profits them overall?

Im sure some will quit in frustration with the crazy rules churn and burn but how many others see all the forum discussions, youtube "analysis" of new codexes and such and go what's all this about and maybe 40K now gets on their radar when it wasn't before?
No this is just what you get when your writers half arse the product.
And that is just a consequence of badly payed designer position.
You put crap in, you get crap out.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 18:17:03


Post by: chaos0xomega


My friend is at Motor City Mayhem, and there is an Ork player there that is apparently wrecking Tyranids pretty handily. My friend (playing nids) went 2-0 through the first 2 rounds, then lost to said Ork player in the third round. In the 4th round said Ork player then went on to beat another nids player 100-34.

List is apparently:

Ghazz
Pain Boy
Weird Boy
30 Beast Snagga Boys
18 Squighog Boys
2 Planes (not sure which type)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 19:21:50


Post by: Daedalus81


chaos0xomega wrote:
2 Planes (not sure which type)


Wazboms I'd bet. Also, MCM is not using the FAQ.

Looks like he lost to nids in R5, sadly.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 20:19:13


Post by: Pancakey


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.
It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.


Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 20:31:16


Post by: Daedalus81


Pancakey wrote:
Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?


Why would GW make Flyrants REALLY good when they were REALLY good early in 8th and are the literal basis for the rule of 3? People are going to have a surplus of them kicking around. It serves GW in no to have made them awesome again.

A book where everything is useful can sell every model. GW just needs to prompt people to buy, which is does with new codexes and campaigns.

And the majority of players aren't going to switch codex to codex. That's for the tippy top and they have access to a deep pool of models, second hand, borrowing, and 3d printing. I wouldn't be surprised that the more chaotic GW becomes the more prevalent printing will become.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 21:21:51


Post by: vict0988


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?


Why would GW make Flyrants REALLY good when they were REALLY good early in 8th and are the literal basis for the rule of 3? People are going to have a surplus of them kicking around. It serves GW in no to have made them awesome again.

But that doesn't count because GW have loads of leftover Flyrant stock [citation needed], Lokhust Destroyers got nerfed because GW were all out of stock [citation needed], Flayed Ones model update resulted in GW buffing them because they produced a lot of them [citation needed] GW released Ophydian Destroyers with bad rules because they only had a partial STC scan so they couldn't produce big stonks for them [citation needed]. See how it all makes sense /sarcasm.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 21:31:05


Post by: Tyel


I think it stretches belief that GW printed loads of Maleceptors 8~ years back, and 3 editions later have made them OP for a handful of weeks in order to clear out the stock.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 21:58:23


Post by: p5freak


 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 22:05:25


Post by: Bosskelot


Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


They do playtesting.

But it requires GW to listen to the feedback that they get, which by all accounts they don't do.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 22:14:00


Post by: Daedalus81


 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


I think you need to explain whether or not is is legal for a tank commander to have a battle cannon and relic battle cannon. Then we can go from there.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 22:41:17


Post by: Voss


Alternately, this is exactly what the YMDC subforum is for, and it go be buried there.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/14 23:49:17


Post by: chaos0xomega


yeah, the argument that you can loophole yourself into a second HVC through a relic is quite frankly, an embarrassingly bad hot take. Take it to YMDC and see how many people actually agree with you.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 01:01:09


Post by: ERJAK


 p5freak wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The main rule book has the answers to your questions under "Battle Forged Armies." Page 244 starts with "Some missions will tell you to muster a Battle-Forged army..." Page 251 then goes on to explain how to make a Battle-Forged Army Roster. Step 2 of that list of instructions is to write what weapons and wargear the models in each unit are equipped with.

That page has all sorts of good info on mustering an army.


It doesnt say anything about mustering an army on that entire page. Also it doesnt say that you must use the specific order 1-9 in sequence to write down the details of your army. What if use battle scribe ? Is that illegal because it doesnt use that roster format ? No one uses that roster, because it sucks.


Rapid Fire Battle Cannon+Thunder of Voltoris! Woo!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


Here's another fun one: Core rules state that the rules for mustering an army come from the mission. (subsection 1 under 'Missions")

However, none of the Grand Tournament missions have any rules for mustering an army. This can be seen by looking at any of the Grand Tournament missions. (the grand tournament pack has some rules about mustering an army but they are not part of the mission and only refer to 'games' which are not 'missions' so RAW they're irrelevant and ignored)

Therefore you cannot muster an army for any Grand Tournament mission. Therefore you cannot muster a Shardgullet+HVC Hive Tyrant.

Solved it. I have proved conclusively with citations that no one is allowed to play 40k.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 02:29:12


Post by: Rihgu


 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


I already have cited the relevant part. You muster your army (pick units, detachments, wargear options, etc) and then, once you've done that, you select your warlord. You only gain relic choices upon selecting a warlord, which you pick "once you've mustered your army" (per core rules).

So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 03:09:25


Post by: Hecaton


 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


There's no official order, but in order to put a relic on someone they must first have a weapon that the relic can replace, so clearly picking weapons happens before relics.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 04:01:31


Post by: Breton


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Confirmation bias? I don't know what you're blathering about.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

In other words - massive balance issues with the Flavor Of The Month is proof this pre-existing mechanic I hated - vehicles, strats, whatever - is what's wrong with the game.
And it's all well and good to blame a lack of play-testing, but the people writing the rules should know better. They've been at this for long enough.


They should. I'd say they don't. Irregardless, yet another badly written codex out of the gate is not proof that (insert pet peeve here) is at fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Looks like GW's new sales model is in full effect.

Step 1. Make OP AF datasheets for models whose sales are low.
Step 2. Wait for the meta chasers to buy up those models.
Step 3. After enough models have sold, use FAQ's and the new "Balance" Data slate to reign them in.


For what reason would they want to stop selling any particular model?
How is it that they're selling enough models at exactly the time they would normally put an FAQ out?


Why doesn't this appear to be the case with Imperial Knights or Chaos knights? Why wasn't this the case with any of this edition's space marine releases?

First, I'm not saying that the premise is accurate - I think some of it is each edition having their own "flavor of the month" when it comes to elements (flame, plasma, melta, grav, etc) but:

A) Knights only have what 3 kits? four?

B) What makes you think it didn't happen with Space Marines? Seen a lot of Inceptors and Hellblasters lately?

C) The real stumbling block for this theory that assumes malice aforethought instead of a general incompetence are the model kits that sink like a stone even on release. Gladiators do not fit in this model.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 05:20:28


Post by: vict0988


 Rihgu wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


I already have cited the relevant part. You muster your army (pick units, detachments, wargear options, etc) and then, once you've done that, you select your warlord. You only gain relic choices upon selecting a warlord, which you pick "once you've mustered your army" (per core rules).

So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I use battlescribe so I can ignore the official order for mustering an army" is not a valid argument.


There is no official order how to muster an army. Please provide a rules citation saying so.


I think you need to explain whether or not is is legal for a tank commander to have a battle cannon and relic battle cannon. Then we can go from there.

If a Leman Russ Tank Commander replaces its battle cannon with a relic battle cannon then it no longer has a battle cannon and has no other weapons that can be replaced for a battle cannon. It's clearly not the same thing.

It's a problem unique to Tyranids as far as I can see, it just needs to be fixed by saying that all relics are still treated as the original weapon but with better stats, this is also why I always write my homebrew relics as being "add x to this or that weapon's Strength, Range or Damage". It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though, so it should still be illegal at most tournaments and most independent judges won't let it fly either. Rule 1 should handle it for casual games, I'm certainly not going to play against someone who tries this now that I know the max 1 HVC rule exists.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 05:49:53


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Pancakey wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Pancakey wrote:
Breton wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but instead of using it as confirmation bias against whatever mechanic you hate, maybe we should blame an utter lack of play testing. Its not like any of these things come out of left field as someone pulls some long forgotten model off the dusty shelf.


They do test. These rules “Oopsies” are a done on purpose. It is a sales tactic. Gw and the “testers” are laughing at you.
It isn't. When balance improves, sales improve. People forget that it takes 10 bandwagon players buying the new cheese to make up for 1 player who quits because of it. Further, when those things rotate out of effectiveness they don't get thrown away; they are sold off to other players who are buying them in lieu of buying new product from GW. The long term cost far outweighs the short term gain.

This is of course on top of the mountain of evidence that GW does not do this maliciously and is in fact just really bad at it. At most, they may intentionally avoid trying to do better.


Is there really a “moutain of evidence” that proves GW does not skew rules on purpose to boost sales?
Yes. One can find examples in literally any codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though
Well let's not pretend ITC has actual standards. Obviously they pretend as such, but we don't need to join them.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 08:00:11


Post by: Dysartes


 vict0988 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 14:43:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 vict0988 wrote:

If a Leman Russ Tank Commander replaces its battle cannon with a relic battle cannon then it no longer has a battle cannon and has no other weapons that can be replaced for a battle cannon. It's clearly not the same thing.

It's a problem unique to Tyranids as far as I can see, it just needs to be fixed by saying that all relics are still treated as the original weapon but with better stats, this is also why I always write my homebrew relics as being "add x to this or that weapon's Strength, Range or Damage". It's against the ITC code of conduct to rules lawyer like this though, so it should still be illegal at most tournaments and most independent judges won't let it fly either. Rule 1 should handle it for casual games, I'm certainly not going to play against someone who tries this now that I know the max 1 HVC rule exists.


Point well taken.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 15:17:52


Post by: Rihgu


 Dysartes wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.


Thank you for citing rules pages, which may make it easier for some people to follow. I am working off of a number of disparate rules sources (Grand Tournament packs, Core Rules, etc) all of which have different page numbers from other sources of rules so to me it didn't seem helpful, but the way you did it is easy to follow.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 17:16:12


Post by: dorath


Tempest of War (which a few of us do play ) section 1 states
Details of how to Battle-forge an army, use a points limit, select a Warlord . . . can be found in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book.

As ToW is Matched Play we can refer to page 280, which states
Details of how to select a Warlord and what information your army roster must contain can be found on pages 238 and 251 respictively.

Page 238, under section 1
Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord.

This made me wonder about Stratagems that let you take extra Relics, perhaps they could work around this. So I checked Orks Extra Gubbins
Use this stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army, if your Warlord has the Orks keyword.

The Tyranid Stratagem Rarefied Enhancements also has the Warlord requirement.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 19:02:19


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Dysartes wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.


Honestly, don't even address the dude. Every sensible player knows hes wrong, he's just committed real hard to being TFG.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/15 21:04:07


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I do hope that they level out the releases when they do the next edition. The core of 9th was good, but it seems that for the last 18 months or so the power level has been on the rise. An interesting element for me is that the reasons each new release has been OP seem to vary. Makes it hard to pin down where their design blind-spot is. Sometimes its a sub-faction trait interaction; others it is a Stratagem; maybe a relic and warlord trait unintended combo; sometimes its just under-costed stuff. This book seems to be all of those. Perhaps their team is sifting through the data to learn from the last 18 months of releases to make improvements next time around.

Turning to the present, at least they are taking active steps to address balance issues. This does, though, erode trust in new releases.

I don't think they sit there looking at inventory levels and decide to make certain models more powerful to clear them out. Having said that, Harpies and Malceptor are sold out. I imagine, though, that the market for 3D printed Void Weavers crashed a month ago...I have a feeling that this book is a case of "Oops, I did it again" as opposed to a cunning plan to sell more models. Although selling models for them is never a bad idea!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 05:56:55


Post by: ERJAK


 Dysartes wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
So you
Write down your units, detachments, wargear, etc. This is when you'd select ONE and ONLY ONE Venom Cannon.
Pick your warlord.
Add relics. You cannot now go back and swap wargear around.

Once a player has selected a Battle-forged army, the details of it must be recorded (not in an particular order). This is called an army roster; it can be written on a piece of paper or recorded digitally, but it must include the information shown below (which Battlescribe does, it just doesn't input the information in the listed order, which is okay because this page does not list that as a requirement).

Bolded text by me. I think it'd be hell to write lists if you had to adhere to this order slavishly.

I'm looking at the CE mini-rulebook, and it does look like there is a sequence of events spelled out, though, as is ususal for GW, it could certainly do with being clearer. All page references are for the mini-rulebook.

Eternal War Mission Pack (for Matched Play) - page 92 includes the "Muster Armies" step (step 2 of the pre-game sequence). It tells you to create a Battle-Forged army (referring you to page 56), and to select a Warlord (referring you to page 50). It also goes on to clarify about Faction and Army Faction keywords, as well as not being able to use understrength units. Step 2 finishes by talking about pre-game stratagems.

Pages 56-61 then talk about creating an army, as well as the various detachments. There's nothing in here about picking a Warlord.

Page 50 is the first page of the Open War Mission Pack, where step 1 is "Muster Armies". Just under the table about how long a game is likely to last based on size of force, it talks about selecting a Warlord. And I quote...
"Once you have mustered your army, select one of your models to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If your WARLORD has the CHARACTER keyword, they will have a Warlord Trait, which you select now." - Italics mine, for emphasis.

While it doesn't specifically call out Relics - I don't think they're mentioned in the rulebook at all - it does establish a timing sequence for when something becomes a Warlord, and that it is after you have built your army in line with what's in your Codex. Assuming this relic is the same type of ranged weapon as the other one on the HT, and there is now a prohibition from having two of this weapon on the HT, it isn't a valid list for long enough to make it to the "select a Warlord" step.

Checking the Death Guard 'dex for the wording around Relics muddies things slightly, but as it talks about "when mustering your army", but given Warlord selection is still within the "Muster Armies" step of the pre-battle sequence, I think it all just about hangs together, and would back up the sequence Rihgu outlined. After all, if you require a [FACTION] WARLORD to give someone a Relic, it is logical that you can't do that until after you've assigned your Warlord, which is after you've built your list with allowed combinations of equipment.


There's actually a subsection in the core rules about choosing a warlord that says it happens during Muster that technically overwrites the order of operations for all missions except 'Only War' which explicitly has you choose your warlord AFTER mustering your army.


Which is interesting because, per RAW, only war is the only mission that you actually CAN muster an army for and is thus the only mission that can be legally played.

So you either have the Core rules making it impossible to muster an army at all, or the Only War mission rules making it impossible to select army specific traits and relics. Either way, no HVC+Shardgullet.

So weird that they spent all those design resources on relics and warlord traits without giving you any legally way to use them :(

Oh well.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 07:13:41


Post by: Dysartes


Care to provide a reference for that sub-section, ERJAK? Either a page reference, or which section of the rulebook (as that allows people using the BRB or the CE mini-rulebook to find it).


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 17:23:28


Post by: ERJAK


 Dysartes wrote:
Care to provide a reference for that sub-section, ERJAK? Either a page reference, or which section of the rulebook (as that allows people using the BRB or the CE mini-rulebook to find it).


In the mission section under subsection 9 as a special blurb.

The Warlord
While mustering your army, you can nominate one model (except a model with the FORTIFICATION keyword) to be your Warlord. That model gains the WARLORD keyword. If this model is a CHARACTER, you can also assign a Warlord Trait to it. Note, that more than one model in your army can have a Warlord Trait (e.g. by using Stratagems), but they are only considered your Warlord for the purpose of that trait.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 18:04:06


Post by: Dysartes


I can't find that copy in my copy of the CE mini-rulebook - there's something similar on the page that talks about how to fill in an army roster, but that doesn't seem to be a sequence, given it is referring to points on the roster sheet and what you do with them.

I'm a little confused here, can anyone else find the copy ERJAK is referring to?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 19:20:33


Post by: vict0988


 Dysartes wrote:
I can't find that copy in my copy of the CE mini-rulebook - there's something similar on the page that talks about how to fill in an army roster, but that doesn't seem to be a sequence, given it is referring to points on the roster sheet and what you do with them.

I'm a little confused here, can anyone else find the copy ERJAK is referring to?

I assume it must be the Russian's commentary. Technically I don't think the core rules explain when to select a WL, it is explained in the Only War mission in a way that doesn't work. Since it isn't explained when to do it in the core rules I think it makes sense to just say it happens when the Russian says it happens, otherwise Relics and pre-game Strats don't work.

I control searched for Warlord and the quote does not appear, it'd have to be GW FAQ or Errata, but then the Russian wouldn't say it was his own commentary.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 19:29:20


Post by: Rihgu


Actually, it is Wahapedia's commentary and is clearly labeled as such.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 20:12:07


Post by: Dysartes


...so when I was asking for a page reference or section in the rulebook, the poster wasn't necessarily referring to the document in question? Oh dear.

@vict0988 - The first reference to selecting a WARLORD in the mini-rulebook seems to be on pg 50, which is the Open War mission set-up. This is the page referred back to by the Eternal War (Matched Play) set-up sequence.

It does seem a little odd that OW doesn't include the "this is when you do pre-battle stratagems" section post-selecting-a-WARLORD within step 2.

Equally, talk about Command Points doesn't seem to crop up until we hit the Battle-Forged Armies section a few pages later, so that might be a factor, and the requirement of a BF army in the EW mission pack isn't there in the OW mission pack.

Eternal War is specifically referring back to OW for "hot to WARLORD", and you then come back to EW for further steps, which does include spending CP on pre-battle upgrade Strats (such as extra Relics or Traits).

As has been noted, the wording in a Codex indicates you have to have a WARLORD before the first Relic can be awarded, which is why we can start to hash out a working sequence of events, even if people paraphrase things on a day-to-day basis.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 20:14:33


Post by: Arschbombe


I have no comment on any of these list building or codex power level issues in this thread.

I just wanted to pop in and say I thought it was cool that a nid list full of raveners, my favorite nid models, won something. They were so meh for so long.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 21:43:50


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Auspex Tactics just put out a video with an overview of the last three weeks of major events. Tyranids have 42 top 10% placing in that period, or over 1/3rd of all the top 10% placings. The next closest was Tau with 12. I assume that these results are pre-Nerf, but these numbers indicate the bonkers-level power of this book.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/16 21:47:42


Post by: ERJAK


 Rihgu wrote:
Actually, it is Wahapedia's commentary and is clearly labeled as such.


Oh, oops. My bad. My contributions were almost entirely worthless before that though so now I just feel like I've been more consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arschbombe wrote:
I have no comment on any of these list building or codex power level issues in this thread.

I just wanted to pop in and say I thought it was cool that a nid list full of raveners, my favorite nid models, won something. They were so meh for so long.


Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 01:51:28


Post by: Daedalus81


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Auspex Tactics just put out a video with an overview of the last three weeks of major events. Tyranids have 42 top 10% placing in that period, or over 1/3rd of all the top 10% placings. The next closest was Tau with 12. I assume that these results are pre-Nerf, but these numbers indicate the bonkers-level power of this book.


Almost certainly pre-nerf. Most tournaments this past weekend did not apply the FAQ.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 02:04:36


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Breton wrote:
In other words - massive balance issues with the Flavor Of The Month is proof this pre-existing mechanic I hated - vehicles, strats, whatever - is what's wrong with the game.
I was talking about a ruling in an FAQ changing something the way something works just for Tyranids - psychic actions counting as casting a power - as the problem. What that has to do with "confirmation bias" I simply don't understand.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 07:57:49


Post by: Dysartes


Let me see if I'm following you correctly, HBMC:

Rulebook - Cannot have the same unit do a psychic action and cast any powers in the same turn.
Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey - Can do an action and cast in the same turn, no mention as to it costing one cast of a power
FAQ - Using a psychic action while the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey in play uses one of your opportunities to cast a power.

Your concern appears to be that the Maleceptor is being singled out here. The only other examples people have presented so far of models being able to cast & do a psychic action in a turn (Eldar via Stratagem, Thousand Sons via Stratagem or Legion upgrade) would both imply that same action-replaces-one-cast approach.

The Legion upgrade, going by Daedalus81's quote, is also explicitly a case of performing a psychic action replacing a cast.

This does depend on who the stratagems can target (i.e., are they limited to models who can already cast two or more powers, for example) - not having either book, I can't confirm either way. I don't see an equivalent stratagem in the Death Guard book, so can't look for a pattern there.

At this point, it seems like the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey is being brought back into line with other abilities that function the same way, though I'd appreciate some confirmation on whether any of the models that could benefit from the Eldar or Thousand Sons stratagems could only cast one power in the first place to confirm.

Am I missing anything, at this point?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 11:37:30


Post by: Rihgu


For the Eldar and Thousand Sons stratagem, there are a few units it could target that can only manifest 1 power to begin with.

The Legion upgrade is a trade of a power attempt for an action. The stratagem is more like an additional manifest type effect.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 12:02:24


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


ERJAK wrote:

Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!


Toxic? Super OP? Do they need a points hike? Sure. But feth off if you want to modify their profile. Raveners are one of those hapless units (like Ogryns or something) that have been perpetually gak when considering both internal and external balance. Yeah, they should be toned down some but they're not that degenerate.

Somehow I suspect if OP had been talking about Sacresants, you would be singing a different tune...


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 12:50:33


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 13:16:10


Post by: Karol


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Now they're super OP and kind of toxic! Talk about a glow up!


Toxic? Super OP? Do they need a points hike? Sure. But feth off if you want to modify their profile. Raveners are one of those hapless units (like Ogryns or something) that have been perpetually gak when considering both internal and external balance. Yeah, they should be toned down some but they're not that degenerate.

Somehow I suspect if OP had been talking about Sacresants, you would be singing a different tune...

Sacrosancts are an "OP" unit in a codex or army full of mid tier units. Raveners, like everything bigger in the tyranid codex, are a good to OP unit in a codex full of undercosted and OP options. That is the difference. The tyranid codex is unfixable same way the DE or Eldar book is unfixable. Now you can make all of those unplayable with points hikes or contrustice additional core rules to make the books bad, but in general when problem units reach a 10+ number from a codex, and GW generaly doesn't rewrite entire books after puting them out, we are stuck with what is there till the end of edition. And unlike with DE, we have a smaller chance that other books like csm, knights or IG, will "balance" out tyranids. Because historialy this never worked, and at best everyone who was then top army, will now be worse then two armies.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 13:34:01


Post by: Tyran


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.


Raveners do not have access to transhuman.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 13:42:52


Post by: Nevelon


 Tyran wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I just figured they were similar to Spawn+. I imagine walking through walls with 9 of them on top of transhuman makes them more like spawn++.


Raveners do not have access to transhuman.


Leviathan ones that are in synapse range ignore 1s and 2s. So somewhat?

Getting a box or two of them is on my to-do list. Love the snake guys, need something between rippers and trygons.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 13:57:43


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


They're awesome models, I have 18. Because you really needed that many in previous editions, T4 with a 5+ (even with 3w) was such a crap profile. And they didn't hit hard either, that was the real issue.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 14:11:39


Post by: Voss


 Dysartes wrote:
Let me see if I'm following you correctly, HBMC:

Rulebook - Cannot have the same unit do a psychic action and cast any powers in the same turn.
Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey - Can do an action and cast in the same turn, no mention as to it costing one cast of a power
FAQ - Using a psychic action while the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey in play uses one of your opportunities to cast a power.

Your concern appears to be that the Maleceptor is being singled out here. The only other examples people have presented so far of models being able to cast & do a psychic action in a turn (Eldar via Stratagem, Thousand Sons via Stratagem or Legion upgrade) would both imply that same action-replaces-one-cast approach.

The Legion upgrade, going by Daedalus81's quote, is also explicitly a case of performing a psychic action replacing a cast.

This does depend on who the stratagems can target (i.e., are they limited to models who can already cast two or more powers, for example) - not having either book, I can't confirm either way. I don't see an equivalent stratagem in the Death Guard book, so can't look for a pattern there.

At this point, it seems like the Maleceptor Synaptic Doohickey is being brought back into line with other abilities that function the same way, though I'd appreciate some confirmation on whether any of the models that could benefit from the Eldar or Thousand Sons stratagems could only cast one power in the first place to confirm.

Am I missing anything, at this point?


It seems pretty straightforward- a general rules change is being applied to a Codex FAQ.
If any supplements or future Codexes also provide Psy-actions and multi-casting (or any unintended interactions from relics, traits, crusade rules, whatever), they will all also have to be spot fixed.

The proper place to do this was a fix in to the general rule, not the codex. (though maybe a note in the announcement of the codex FAQ).
'Fixing' things this way is how you get swiss-cheese rules, a lack of future proofing and an overall mess.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/17 14:21:36


Post by: tneva82


On that i agree. On aos side mw's work differently to mw's in 40k(they aren't applied independently. Attack that causes 3 mw is treated in damage allocation same way as damage 3 attack.

What this means is -1 dam rules affect mortal wounds...

...except in lizardmen faq their -1 dam is said to not affect mw's. So is that global rule change? Lizardmen spefific? Same wording on rules...

If core rules cause issues/unintended results fix should be core rule faq. Not faction specific.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 15:32:03


Post by: Tyel


So this weekend to check the power of Tyranids? And I guess knights?

Its not quite true (cos guard etc) - but it does feel like if Tyranids & Harlequins were chopped down a bit (10% point hikes on most things), you'd have a fairly open meta at the top. Certain factions would have an edge - but it wouldn't be surprising to see most factions score a top 4 place somewhere in the world.

Which leaves me a bit concerned GW are going to throw the table over with a new season, new secondaries etc.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 20:13:48


Post by: Daedalus81


Tyel wrote:
Which leaves me a bit concerned GW are going to throw the table over with a new season, new secondaries etc.


The secondaries should be leveling the field....IF they do what they said they would and make secondaries for all factions and in a way that makes them appropriate.

Stranglehold is popular, because if you're dominant you can score 15 and you can get your first 3 points without any interaction from the opponent. Getting rid of secondaries like that keeps dominant armies from scoring 95 to 100 all the time or gives other armies more ways to score appopriately.

Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 20:51:59


Post by: Tyran


Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 21:51:14


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Tyran wrote:
Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.



I feel like Custodes depend pretty heavily on strats. Same with most every "top tier FOTM faction". Strats are what pushes an ok faction into broken territory so often, that I'm surprised they've lasted this long. I mean, smash Captains, Castellans, Custodes, and Iron Hands have all been, I feel, at their heart, the cause of broken strats. Very few factions can say they are powerful because of relics and warlord traits. I guess pre-codex Custodes?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 21:56:52


Post by: Toofast


 Tyran wrote:
Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.


This is what I've noticed. An army like Nids or Harlequins isn't worried about key strats or re rolls, they're just gonna bring the best list they can and use whatever CP they have left. Marines need their key strats.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 22:33:37


Post by: Ordana


S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 23:36:21


Post by: ERJAK


 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/18 23:43:21


Post by: VladimirHerzog


ERJAK wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.


so compare units that are bad (except skorpek) at their current pts cost to a unit that is good at its current pts cost?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 01:08:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 01:49:52


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 02:01:03


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.

Yeah, that sounds like typical gw: nerf multiple units to prevent spamming one. And why exactly is spamming Contemptors worse than spamming any other unit in the game again?

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 02:05:28


Post by: Tyran


I'm pretty sure the reason is because they have "relic" in the name and relics cost CP.

IIRC before 8th, those units had "one per army" restrictions.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 02:15:28


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Tyran wrote:
I'm pretty sure the reason is because they have "relic" in the name and relics cost CP.

IIRC before 8th, those units had "one per army" restrictions.

Nope. One without a "tax character" (Master of the Forge for Loyalist Scum. Warp Smith, Sorcerer, or Abaddon for CSM). As many as you were willing to pay for with said tax character. In 8th loyalists needed one unit of the same FOC role for each "Relic" unit. CSM had no restrictions. Oh, and Contemptors were NOT "Relics" in 7th, for either CSM or Loyalist Scum.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:11:57


Post by: tneva82


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:24:23


Post by: Dudeface


tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:29:15


Post by: Karol


clearly playing 4D chess with their buyers.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:43:17


Post by: Gadzilla666


Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:47:54


Post by: Dudeface


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.


Yeah but my point was that nobody actually wants the loadouts on the plastic contemptor, it's going to produce a "higher profit margin" because it's not what people want, they want the mortis loadout resin ones.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 12:56:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.


Yeah but my point was that nobody actually wants the loadouts on the plastic contemptor, it's going to produce a "higher profit margin" because it's not what people want, they want the mortis loadout resin ones.

Ah, ok, true.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 13:35:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.


Please god yes!!!

And contemptor spam isnt even oppressive anyway, volkite already got nerfed to a decent spot and i'd argue that redemptors are stronger anyway. At the very least, Chaos shouldnt need to pay for martial legacy. We only have one "dread" option in our codex, unlike loyalists.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 13:57:18


Post by: Jidmah


With the amount of effort GW is currently putting into FW datasheets, I seriously doubt that they will do anything but the bare minimum to keep their rules playable.

In my opinion GW is clearly trying to wind down all of FW 40k and it will completely disappear in the next few years.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 14:03:39


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Jidmah wrote:
With the amount of effort GW is currently putting into FW datasheets, I seriously doubt that they will do anything but the bare minimum to keep their rules playable.

In my opinion GW is clearly trying to wind down all of FW 40k and it will completely disappear in the next few years.


i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 14:09:20


Post by: Jidmah


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 14:28:21


Post by: Ordana


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.


so compare units that are bad (except skorpek) at their current pts cost to a unit that is good at its current pts cost?
Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 14:38:55


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.

If by "big tank" you and Vlad are referring to the Kratos, it's currently illegal in 40k because it doesn't have 40k rules, and the model hasn't even been released yet. I don't think the number of lascannons that it is equipped with has anything to do with it. Fellblades and Spartans have had 40k rules for almost a decade, and they come with 8.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 14:59:59


Post by: Tyran


 Ordana wrote:

Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.


We are doing nothing, we can at most wonder what GW will do in the next points rebalance, which only half the time follows any sort of logic.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 15:21:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.


Why would the amount of lascannons dictate wheter or not it gets 40k rules? (but you are right, currently it doesn't have a 40k datasheet)

I expect GW will bring them all into 40k which was possibly the main idea when they made them plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.


Ogryns & co. aren't played at their current pts cost, Raveners are.

Making that comparison doesn't only say that Raveners are too strong, it also highlights that Ogryns & co are bad. If anything, Raveners need to drop a bit in efficiency but at the same time, Ogryns & co need to go up in efficiency.

I personally would rather Raveners be good than Nids have a Ogryn/Mutilator equivalent in their dex.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 15:59:54


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Yep -- especially given that up until now, Raveners were very much on the same list as Ogryns and Mutilators (i.e. bad their entire existence). If Raveners took a ~5ppm nerf though, I wouldn't cry.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 16:08:59


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea I think you guys are going a little far in your comparisons. Ogryns are useless next to Bullgryn, but Skorpekhs, Paragons, and Spawn all fit in the band.

Paragons are now 70 - not 80. They have a 2+, AOC, -1D, a HB, two SBs, and a MC powersword.
Skorpekhs have one less wound, 3+, D2, resurrect, heal, and RR1s.

Maybe make the Ravener guns cost a few points and call it a day.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 16:19:27


Post by: Tyran


Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 20:06:17


Post by: ERJAK


 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.

edited for heavy flamers being pretty decent.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 20:14:08


Post by: Daedalus81


ERJAK wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, way better shooting, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.


Duuude.

Penitents have an extra wound, 5+++, full rerolls to hit in melee, advance and charge, a 5" pile-in, and 5 S8 D2 rather than 5 S6 D1.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 20:16:01


Post by: Nevelon


ERJAK wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, way better shooting, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.


Way better shooting then a pengine? They still come with paired heavy flamers? I’d take that over the gun options on the raveners. And pay for it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 20:16:49


Post by: ERJAK


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I think you guys are going a little far in your comparisons. Ogryns are useless next to Bullgryn, but Skorpekhs, Paragons, and Spawn all fit in the band.

Paragons are now 70 - not 80. They have a 2+, AOC, -1D, a HB, two SBs, and a MC powersword.
Skorpekhs have one less wound, 3+, D2, resurrect, heal, and RR1s.

Maybe make the Ravener guns cost a few points and call it a day.


Paragons are 80. If you run them without the Multimelta, you already can't be helped.

And yes, Paragons are stretching that comparison a bit, but a Paragon costs almost as much as THREE raveners and does less damage in melee, can only match their shooting output against multi-wound models, and would be hard pressed to survive anything that could kill three T5, 4W models.

Raveners are extremely pushed for their statlines (though not quite as much as warriors imho) and some other similar units are extremely bad for theirs.

Fortunately, Raveners are so cheap that they can go up and other units can come down and they'd all probably end up at roughly the same place on the powercurve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nevelon wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, way better shooting, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.


Way better shooting then a pengine? They still come with paired heavy flamers? I’d take that over the gun options on the raveners. And pay for it.


1. Raveners can shoot 24" with their deathspitters, so while their gun isn't necessarily as good, it's going to get to fire far more frequently. 2. Penitent engines have run and charge but not run and shoot. In a lot of games, penitent engines don't end up shooting at all.

That said, yeah, it's hyperbole when comparing against the heavy flamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, way better shooting, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.


Duuude.

Penitents have an extra wound, 5+++, full rerolls to hit in melee, advance and charge, a 5" pile-in, and 5 S8 D2 rather than 5 S6 D1.


They also don't get access to ANY of the army's special rules, can't do actions, are vehicles, can't advance and shoot, don't get -1 to hit in melee, AND don't get deepstrike.

Also, one of these units is SPAMMED in the absolute best army in the game, the OTHER gets left at home in an upper-mid tier army.

Clearly there's a disparity there and clearly it's in Ravener's favor.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 20:42:03


Post by: Tyran


ERJAK wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Make ravener's deathspitters cost 5 ppm and devourers/spinefists 3ppm, that should be more than enough.

Naked Raveners are fine at 30ppm, specially as they have gak LD and thus need some expensive synapse babysitter.




Raveners compare very similarly to penitent engines (worse melee, better mobility, native deepstrike, similar durability, isn't locked out of army rules, isn't locked out of actions) but are 25pts cheaper. The leadership issue is significant, but not 25pts significant. There's no way a 5pt increase would be enough to stop seeing 18 of them in every Nid list. They'd have to go up to at least 40.

edited for heavy flamers being pretty decent.


Except even now we are not seeing 18 of them in every list (at least not in the lists that are winning tournaments).

They are rarely present in Leviathan lists (which prefer Warriors as the benefit from Leviathan while Raveners do not). Now they are a very strong unit in Kraken lists, but even then I don't think we are seeing 18 of them in every Kraken list.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 23:44:01


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


For Bullgryns to really be "worth their points" you have to pair them with a Priest, and keep that priest alive. Also, who has difficulty blasting 3-5 Gravis equivalents off the board these days? T5, 3W, with a 2+? Yeah, Say hello to my Melta guns and Heavy Bolters.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/19 23:51:30


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I have also liked raveners for a long time, it's a dam shame they have finally become good in an edition I don't enjoy playing.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 09:50:24


Post by: p5freak


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For Bullgryns to really be "worth their points" you have to pair them with a Priest, and keep that priest alive. Also, who has difficulty blasting 3-5 Gravis equivalents off the board these days? T5, 3W, with a 2+? Yeah, Say hello to my Melta guns and Heavy Bolters.


2+ ? Place some of them in light cover, use take cover stratagem, manifest psychic barrier on them, and they get +3 to their saving throw, which means they ignore AP-3, and still have that 2+.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 11:30:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 p5freak wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For Bullgryns to really be "worth their points" you have to pair them with a Priest, and keep that priest alive. Also, who has difficulty blasting 3-5 Gravis equivalents off the board these days? T5, 3W, with a 2+? Yeah, Say hello to my Melta guns and Heavy Bolters.


2+ ? Place some of them in light cover, use take cover stratagem, manifest psychic barrier on them, and they get +3 to their saving throw, which means they ignore AP-3, and still have that 2+.


And then people just shoot the rest of the Guard army that is actually capable of doing damage.

Unless 9-12 autocannon shots with a range of 0" is scary.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 11:46:43


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Yeah, not gonna lie, Bullgryns need a lot of support to be really valuable, and by then it's not worth the cost. Less points just throw a Russ on the field, or a Chimera, or a Taurox. At least those can possibly kill something before being destroyed.

Nope, Bullgryns and Ogryns both suck in the current version. If you made their Gauntlets Assault 4 16" S5 AP1 D2 Blast, then they'd be kinda worth it, but until then they are an over costed bully unit that is too easy to take off the field.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 14:13:40


Post by: Daedalus81


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, not gonna lie, Bullgryns need a lot of support to be really valuable, and by then it's not worth the cost. Less points just throw a Russ on the field, or a Chimera, or a Taurox. At least those can possibly kill something before being destroyed.

Nope, Bullgryns and Ogryns both suck in the current version. If you made their Gauntlets Assault 4 16" S5 AP1 D2 Blast, then they'd be kinda worth it, but until then they are an over costed bully unit that is too easy to take off the field.


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 19:09:44


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Clearly Bullgryns can be seen claiming victories for Guard, due to how useful they are.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/20 22:50:47


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


killing is a form of control. if someone has to allocate double the points to an objectives, because of how efficient at killing your army list is, then it works just great. 9 voids, pre nerf double venom tyrants etc were not exactly run just for their ability to perform actions and score objectives.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/21 00:16:13


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


killing is a form of control. if someone has to allocate double the points to an objectives, because of how efficient at killing your army list is, then it works just great. 9 voids, pre nerf double venom tyrants etc were not exactly run just for their ability to perform actions and score objectives.


Killing doesn't mean much if you don't control the objective afterwards or if you spent way more resources to do it than would take to degrade your opponent's return fire.

Voidweavers killed everything and got on the objective. Flyrants killed stuff and were un-interactable.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/21 14:26:23


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


killing is a form of control. if someone has to allocate double the points to an objectives, because of how efficient at killing your army list is, then it works just great. 9 voids, pre nerf double venom tyrants etc were not exactly run just for their ability to perform actions and score objectives.


Killing doesn't mean much if you don't control the objective afterwards or if you spent way more resources to do it than would take to degrade your opponent's return fire.

Voidweavers killed everything and got on the objective. Flyrants killed stuff and were un-interactable.



I have to agree. My Custodes Dreads are hot stuff, but when a squad of boys can lay claim to the objective my Telemon is standing on, it becomes worthless. With the objective game, you have to have Obsec, and ability to kill anything else that has it nearby. Bullgryns do not have it (?? correct?) so it's kinda true. They are worthless in the objective game, and in the killing game. An oddly interesting fix would be to make Ogryns a Troop choice. Bang, Ogryns are viable again. And dare I say it, the best choice of the lot. 225 for a Squad of 9. Or 75 for a squad of 3.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/21 15:15:11


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:


Killing doesn't mean much if you don't control the objective afterwards or if you spent way more resources to do it than would take to degrade your opponent's return fire.

Voidweavers killed everything and got on the objective. Flyrants killed stuff and were un-interactable.



The main characteristic of all good armies in 9th. Was that they were undercosted comparing to all other armies that came out before them. DE were unable to not control objectives, while being super efficient at killing opposing armies, because almost all of their units were undercosted. Same was true for ad mecha, then orks at least till they got hit with nerfs, Custodes, tau, eldar and now nids are exactly the same. Voidweavers were killing other stuff and the eldar player could claim objectives, because they cost 90pts. The tyranid player can kill stuff, and grab objectives, because everything he runs in his army is undercosted The it only kills argument matters only for bad armies or bad lists, but I don't think we are talking here what happens when someone plays with those lists, because then we run in to a loop of everything in w40k being balanced, because there is potentialy always the chance that the opponent maybe , for what ever reason, bring a bad list.

Or to make it really simple. If an eldar army kills all objective takers in a GK army or all NDKs in a single turn, specialy if it is turn 1 or 2, then the game is more or less done by then, because the GK player will not be able to both kill enough eldar stuff to stop them from scoring and do their own primaries and secondaries.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/21 15:30:21


Post by: ccs


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


killing is a form of control. if someone has to allocate double the points to an objectives, because of how efficient at killing your army list is, then it works just great. 9 voids, pre nerf double venom tyrants etc were not exactly run just for their ability to perform actions and score objectives.


Killing doesn't mean much if you don't control the objective afterwards or if you spent way more resources to do it than would take to degrade your opponent's return fire.

Voidweavers killed everything and got on the objective. Flyrants killed stuff and were un-interactable.



I have to agree. My Custodes Dreads are hot stuff, but when a squad of boys can lay claim to the objective my Telemon is standing on, it becomes worthless. With the objective game, you have to have Obsec, and ability to kill anything else that has it nearby. Bullgryns do not have it (?? correct?) so it's kinda true. They are worthless in the objective game, and in the killing game. An oddly interesting fix would be to make Ogryns a Troop choice. Bang, Ogryns are viable again. And dare I say it, the best choice of the lot. 225 for a Squad of 9. Or 75 for a squad of 3.


I do not need obsec. Here in 9th most of the lists I've run don't have it on the units I play. I simply kill anything that'd contest an objective I'm aiming to hold. It's worked fairly well for me.

And your ogyn idea? Bad. Ogryns & other abhumans are auxillary forces. That's specifically why they aren't troops. Of course GW could just give ogyns obsec to represent them being hard to shift off a position....


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/21 16:04:26


Post by: tneva82


Yea obsec is good but funny enough plenty of non-obsec out there.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 14:15:57


Post by: Daedalus81


ccs wrote:
Here in 9th most of the lists I've run don't have it on the units I play.


Seems like a precarious strategy in 'Tear Down Their Icons' to have no method for easy bomb removal.

I simply kill anything that'd contest an objective I'm aiming to hold. It's worked fairly well for me.


I guess maybe if you're tyranids or elves.




Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 14:32:03


Post by: Dudeface


ccs wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


The game isn't as much about killing as it is about control. It can be a lot harder to remove Bullgryns and slightly dangerous to do so depending on their support. You could put all leman russes and manticores on the table, but that won't mean you'll have an easier time winning.


killing is a form of control. if someone has to allocate double the points to an objectives, because of how efficient at killing your army list is, then it works just great. 9 voids, pre nerf double venom tyrants etc were not exactly run just for their ability to perform actions and score objectives.


Killing doesn't mean much if you don't control the objective afterwards or if you spent way more resources to do it than would take to degrade your opponent's return fire.

Voidweavers killed everything and got on the objective. Flyrants killed stuff and were un-interactable.



I have to agree. My Custodes Dreads are hot stuff, but when a squad of boys can lay claim to the objective my Telemon is standing on, it becomes worthless. With the objective game, you have to have Obsec, and ability to kill anything else that has it nearby. Bullgryns do not have it (?? correct?) so it's kinda true. They are worthless in the objective game, and in the killing game. An oddly interesting fix would be to make Ogryns a Troop choice. Bang, Ogryns are viable again. And dare I say it, the best choice of the lot. 225 for a Squad of 9. Or 75 for a squad of 3.


I do not need obsec. Here in 9th most of the lists I've run don't have it on the units I play. I simply kill anything that'd contest an objective I'm aiming to hold. It's worked fairly well for me.


And this is why 9th needs correcting.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 14:37:51


Post by: Tyran


It is less an issue of taking objectives, and more of holding your own objectives, as there are a few tactics that are basically throwing cheap bodies at the enemy to deny scoring.

Custodes losing universal obsec was one of the factors that took them out of the broken tier.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 14:46:24


Post by: Tyel


Like a lot of stuff in 40k - and perhaps any game - its about things stacking. You can't make a bad unit good by giving it obsec. But a good unit is a good unit - and giving a good unit obsec for free is a better unit than one without it.

Anyway in terms of the weekend, Tyranids and Harlequins continue to dominate, but the Tyranid win% is down to 61%. (65% for the clowns). CWE up to 56%, while being the most played faction (Tyranids just after) perhaps suggesting there's a growing standardisation/learning.

Sisters rather inexplicably up to a 57% win rate, winning 2 tournaments and getting some further placings. IG, Ad Mech and DG clearly need help.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 17:50:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 18:07:40


Post by: ccs


 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:
Here in 9th most of the lists I've run don't have it on the units I play.


Seems like a precarious strategy in 'Tear Down Their Icons' to have no method for easy bomb removal.


It's not a strategy, just how GW made the stuff I like. I can't do anything about that. And I refuse to not use the stuff I like. I build the forces I like, the way I like (within the rules) & worry about how to deal with any particular mission when we roll it up.
Besides, in the mission you're referring to? All I have to do is roll a 4+

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
I simply kill anything that'd contest an objective I'm aiming to hold. It's worked fairly well for me.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess maybe if you're tyranids or elves.


Nope.
*3 games with SW
*2 games with SoB
*1 game with technically Tyranids very early in 9th - it was a small concept narrative force that looks & plays nothing like any Nid force you'd imagine. It's not even really able to win a game. But it was fun & furthered the narritive of that campaign....
*???# of games with Necrons of every variety - their my main default 9e force & I've lost track of how many times they've seen the table. 2020/2021 when things were all locked down because of the pandemic sometimes they were on the table up to 4 nights/week.... + 4 Crusades & ??? pick-up games once the shops re-opened. It's just that after 20+ years of playing Necrons & being forced by the FoC to always include warriors I've shifted to very Fast/Heavy/Elites focused lists here in 9th. Because I can. Works well for me.
*13 games with my Drukari Pain engines (all Talos/Cronos + 1 HQ elf in a Venom - no obsec in there. Hell, nearly no actual elves either!).
*16 games so far with my Mechanized Grots (grot tanks, Kans, Gunz....)
*1 game last week using the new Imperial Knights Codex.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 18:16:59


Post by: Tyran


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches.

Considering even Craftworlds and Tyranids only make slightly above 10% of the players each, it is like not that significant (although still present) while irrelevant with Harlequins and Sisters.

Also only 2 factions are above 60% and 2 more above 55%. (Ynnari and Aeldari soup do not count as factions).

Arguably we are at the point balance would benefit more from buffs to low end factions than nerfs to top tier ones (Tyranids and Harlequins still need a few more nerds).


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 18:17:11


Post by: Daedalus81


A 4+ action that generally ties up a unit for the turn doesn't seem like a great gamble.

I can't for the life of me envision getting easily pushed off objectives unless you were putting a lot more points into doing so, but that's a whole trade up problem that will really depend on who you're facing.

Sometimes I'll have tzaangors or cultists. You push them off? Sure. I don't really care. It wasn't something I was invested in holding, but expecting to push scarabs off while also not having obsec? I don't think that's going to be an easy thing for most armies.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 20:29:19


Post by: Tyel


There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 21:16:06


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches.
The skew is caused by nonrandom matchmaking after the first round--stronger armies are progressively more likely to be matched against other strong armies and weaker ones against other weak ones. Actual win rates would have to draw from round 1 matches only.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/23 23:37:29


Post by: Daedalus81


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The skew is caused by nonrandom matchmaking after the first round--stronger armies are progressively more likely to be matched against other strong armies and weaker ones against other weak ones. Actual win rates would have to draw from round 1 matches only.


FLG is implementing a sort of ELO at some point, but I don't recall exactly when. I don't know how they'll implement everything though.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 06:39:37


Post by: Blackie


Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 07:15:13


Post by: tneva82


 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 07:51:07


Post by: Slipspace


tneva82 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?


Usually the data is presented as just a pure win%, including mirror matches. It's also very common to show the % without the mirror, especially for the top-performing factions when they make up a large portion of the armies with the potential to place at large tournaments. I think Harelquins may have been over 80% win rate in non-mirror matches at one point, for example.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 17:21:00


Post by: Daedalus81


For those not in the know - you can check the fight club website and see the breakdowns now:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cliff.thomas3637/viz/40kFightClubTheMetaDataDashboard/40kFightClub-MetaDashboard?publish=yes


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 17:47:22


Post by: ERJAK


 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.


People really underestimate just how fethed up 7th was. If you owned 3 boxes of Windriders, you were basically untouchable by half the factions in the game.

Also, it gets lost in the annals of time, but Tau weren't actually all that great, even with triptide. Daemons were the consistent 3rd of the 7th triumverate, being the indisputable champions of the end of the edition.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 18:05:14


Post by: Tyel


From memory Riptide wings just had massive skew on whether they went first or second. Which was kind of an issue generally because things like invisibility were broken but did have to be cast.

But yes. 7th was awful. I suspect it could have been better if GW had approached balance in a similar way to how they do now - but we'll never know.

Tbh watching some reviews of 30k is bringing back just how incoherent and weird old-edition 40k was. I'm sure it can work (and balance may be better when 95%+ players are set to play Space Marine variants) - but there's a lot of clunk I wasn't sad to see the back of.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/24 19:20:59


Post by: Hecaton


tneva82 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?


Auspex tactics is that dumb, but goonhammer adjusts for it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 12:13:12


Post by: Spoletta


Adjusting for mirror makes sense only when one faction is both highly played and has a win rate which is very far from 50%. Otherwise it doesn't really make a difference.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 12:16:32


Post by: Slipspace


Spoletta wrote:
Adjusting for mirror makes sense only when one faction is both highly played and has a win rate which is very far from 50%. Otherwise it doesn't really make a difference.


Not really. If its overall win rate is so high it dominates the top tables, you end up with proportionately more mirror matches. Since the non-mirror win% is very high, the 50% mirror win% has quite a large effect on the overall win% in these cases. It's worthwhile splitting out the mirror vs non-mirror data in those situations, and we've seen that recently with Harelquins.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 13:12:38


Post by: Daedalus81


I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 14:13:18


Post by: deviantduck


Spoiler:
ERJAK wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.


People really underestimate just how fethed up 7th was. If you owned 3 boxes of Windriders, you were basically untouchable by half the factions in the game.

Also, it gets lost in the annals of time, but Tau weren't actually all that great, even with triptide. Daemons were the consistent 3rd of the 7th triumverate, being the indisputable champions of the end of the edition.
7th was a circus. Toward the end I played in a tourney with my Imperial Khornate Sister Wolves for the Greater Good. I had Sisters, Wolf Cav, the formation of 3 SM librarians, running daemonology summoning bloodthirsters, sisters of silence, and a riptide wing. Required 9 books and was completely legal.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 16:13:11


Post by: Tyran


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.


At this point I believe there are 4 different competitive Tyranid archetypes.

We have Leviathan warrior spam, Kraken Ravener spam, Jormungadr heavy deepstrike lists with deepstriking carnifexes, and Behemoth. Admittedly I still do not figure out Behemoth aside that it is a clearly melee focused.

*The support part of these lists are not fixed. Harpies, Neurothropes, Zoanthropes and Winged Tyrants are common across all lists but I have also seen Exocrines, Tyrannofexes, Parasite, Walkrants, Primes, Biovores, Pyrovores, etc.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/25 23:13:36


Post by: ERJAK


 Tyran wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.


At this point I believe there are 4 different competitive Tyranid archetypes.

We have Leviathan warrior spam, Kraken Ravener spam, Jormungadr heavy deepstrike lists with deepstriking carnifexes, and Behemoth. Admittedly I still do not figure out Behemoth aside that it is a clearly melee focused.

*The support part of these lists are not fixed. Harpies, Neurothropes, Zoanthropes and Winged Tyrants are common across all lists but I have also seen Exocrines, Tyrannofexes, Parasite, Walkrants, Primes, Biovores, Pyrovores, etc.


The internal balance of the book is amazing. If the external balance wasn't so terrible, we'd be talking about it as one of the best codexes GW ever released.

As it stands, you could pretty much do an across the board 10% bump to everything but the gaunts and maybe genestealers and still end up with one of the best codexes in the game.

Also, not for nothing, harlies need another hit. Specifically troupes.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 09:13:38


Post by: Tyel


When an army is just generally too good, you probably want to go after the buff/rules architecture rather than nerfing every datasheet (although I think some things are clearly a cut above).

So for example, the Zoanthrope Warp Sheilding Psychic Imperative. Immediately nerf that to 5++/6++ respectively, rather than 4++/5++.

Possibly push Dermic Symbiosis (the 4++) up to 40 points if you want it on a Harpy. I'd then probably say Warriors now have to pay 3 points for a shooting weapon, and 2 points for twin Boneswords. Raveners have to pay 5 points for a shooting weapon.

See how things go from there.

For Harlequins I'd say Troupes should go up by 2 points. Then I'd look to nerf Luck of the Laughing God - perhaps so you only get 1, or even zero free rerolls at all game sizes. I'm not sure having 2-3 fewer rerolls (on average) a turn is a cutting nerf - but it might go someway to bringing things in line. Otherwise its back to troupes must go up, bikes must go up, all 4 characters could probably do with 5-10 points etc, as we try to bring this down to some vaguely sensible level you can't just listbuild your way out of.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 09:29:53


Post by: Karol


ERJAK 805044 11369850 wrote:

The internal balance of the book is amazing. If the external balance wasn't so terrible, we'd be talking about it as one of the best codexes GW ever released.

As it stands, you could pretty much do an across the board 10% bump to everything but the gaunts and maybe genestealers and still end up with one of the best codexes in the game.

Also, not for nothing, harlies need another hit. Specifically troupes.

We already had a book like that. DE were in a state where for a long time it didn't really matter what someone play with, because everything was both super efficient and undercosted. I expect tyranids to be the same. As soon as GW nerfs some army type for nids, which they think is the problem, we will get tyranids switch to a different build. And because we are so close to an edition end, GW really doesn't have much entice to do anything about it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 10:39:14


Post by: Ordana


Yep. Nids are just like DE. And unless we want to spend the next 9 months seeing Nids move from build to build as they get slowly nerfed until finally arriving somewhere decent GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.

There is no problem with a codex having multiple viable builds, its great.
Its a problem when there are multiple viable builds because everything is to cheap compared to the other armies.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 13:15:33


Post by: Tyran


Tyel wrote:
When an army is just generally too good, you probably want to go after the buff/rules architecture rather than nerfing every datasheet (although I think some things are clearly a cut above).

So for example, the Zoanthrope Warp Sheilding Psychic Imperative. Immediately nerf that to 5++/6++ respectively, rather than 4++/5++.

Possibly push Dermic Symbiosis (the 4++) up to 40 points if you want it on a Harpy. I'd then probably say Warriors now have to pay 3 points for a shooting weapon, and 2 points for twin Boneswords. Raveners have to pay 5 points for a shooting weapon.

See how things go from there.

For Harlequins I'd say Troupes should go up by 2 points. Then I'd look to nerf Luck of the Laughing God - perhaps so you only get 1, or even zero free rerolls at all game sizes. I'm not sure having 2-3 fewer rerolls (on average) a turn is a cutting nerf - but it might go someway to bringing things in line. Otherwise its back to troupes must go up, bikes must go up, all 4 characters could probably do with 5-10 points etc, as we try to bring this down to some vaguely sensible level you can't just listbuild your way out of.


Why go after the defensive buffs/rules though? 40k has a lethality problem, and even the highly efficient Tyranid profiles are not that hard to kill to other competitive armies.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 13:22:45


Post by: Tyel


 Tyran wrote:
Why go after the defensive buffs/rules though? 40k has a lethality problem, and even the highly efficient Tyranid profiles are not that hard to kill to other competitive armies.


If I'm honest - because its easier to do than going line by line to reduce damage output and because I think that's the sort of thing GW would do.

Rather than say going (for example) "....so Tyranid Warriors are back to S4 base, and Boneswords are now only damage 1, and the Devourer will have 4 shots and the Deathspitter will be AP-1."


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 13:40:21


Post by: Tyran


If we are being honest, GW is going to do what they did with DE, which is a slow release of layered nerfs that eventually leave the Tyranids in a good place.. after 6-9 months of dominating the meta.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 14:33:52


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 14:40:18


Post by: Nevelon


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 14:44:58


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 15:02:43


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


No, but the FotM player will buy the new FotM and the person buying bits of their old army will likely either be supplanting an existing force or using it as a basis to add to. There's still 1 and a bit of new armies sold in this process.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 15:05:58


Post by: Tyran


At the very least, GW probably got a lot of people to buy Raveners, Harpies and Pyrovores because there is no way there were a lot of those kits in circulation before the 9th ed codex.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 15:16:05


Post by: ccs


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.


To quote a manager I once had: "Don't worry about it, it's been taken into account."
I'm sure GW knows how to run their business better than any of us do.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 15:38:29


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Tyran wrote:
At the very least, GW probably got a lot of people to buy Raveners, Harpies and Pyrovores because there is no way there were a lot of those kits in circulation before the 9th ed codex.


Proud owner of 18 Raveners, 3 Harpies, and 6 Pyrovores since... ~2019 or so?

Yes, I have a problem


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 15:44:39


Post by: tneva82


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


So you claim...but evidence is showing otherwise. Gw marketing works like charm.

Funny thing that. Professionals knowing more than random internet nobodies.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 16:00:39


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.


We have CA and a dataslate coming in like...a few weeks?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 16:09:01


Post by: Tyel


I feel 9th's big issues are lethality and army complexity putting off new & infrequent players rather than faction X being overpowered for 3-6 months. Most of these players will get in 2-3 games over such a period and never even see a Tyranid.

I guess there are knock ons - because if the whole Esports scene is saying "40k is terribly unbalanced right now" it can bleed into discouragement of everyone else. But I'm not sure its an automatic follow.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 17:19:41


Post by: ERJAK


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


Nids aren't THAT oppressive after the FAQ changes. They're clearly a cut above everything but harlequins but they are beatable with solid play and a couple of mistakes on your opponent's part.

They need another hit for sure, but they're not that much more OP in practice than Nurgle is in AoS or Novitiates are in Killteam.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 17:22:19


Post by: Karol


I would not envy someone who paid 1000$ or more on their army, then spent time painted it to play it 3 times in half a year. The new player would have to be not really new, but rather a 30+ year plus returning player, for it to be anywhere near okey for the person. When you are a teen and the school ends, like now in may you have years marks already set in, you are in for a time where you play multiple times a day.

Even for returning players, if they get blasted by the "avarge" top harli or nid army, they probably stop and not play anymore games.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 18:17:51


Post by: Tyran


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.


We have CA and a dataslate coming in like...a few weeks?


A CA, but we just had a dataslate like a month ago.

My wish list of points changes would be:

Hive Tyrant & Winged Hive Tyrant:

Heavy Venom Cannon: 20pts (+5)
Lashwhip & bonesword: 5pts (+5)

Neurothrope: 110 pts (+10)

Tyranid Warriors:
Deathspitter: 3 pts (+3)
Venom Cannon 8 pts (+3)
Dual Boneswords: 2pts (+2)

Termagants: 6 ppm (-1)
Termagant Devourer: free (-1)
Adrenal Glands: 10 pts/unit
Toxin Sacs: 10 pts/unit

Hormagaunts: 7ppm (-1)
Adrenal Glands: 20 pts/unit.
Toxin Sacs: 10 pts/unit.

Genestealers:
Extended Carapace: +5 pts/unit
Infestation Node: 10 pts (-10)
Toxin Sacs: 15 pts/unit

Tyrant Guard:
Crushing Claw: 5pts (-5, amounts to -10 ppm)

Raveners:
Deathspitter: 5pts (+5)
Devourer: 3pts (+3)
Spinefists: 2pts (+2)

Spore Mines: 5ppm (-5)

Mucolid spores: 15ppm (-5)

Harpy: 185 pts (+25)
Heavy Venom Cannon: 10 pts (+5, amounts to +10 ppm).

Carnifex:
Heavy Venom Cannon: 20 pts (+10)
Carnifex Crushing claw: free (-5, amounts to -10 per pair)

Hive Guard: 45ppm (-5)
Impaler cannon: free (-10)
Adrenal Glands: 10 pts/unit
Toxin Sacs: 5 pts/unit

Tyrannocyte & Sporocyst:
Barbed Strangler: 2ppm (-3, amounts to -15 ppm)
Venom Cannon: 5ppm (-5, amounts to -25 ppm)

As you might have noticed, a lot of my ideal point increases would be on equipment, as IMHO that would also help improve the loadout balance of these units (you don't see Raveners with spinefists or Warriors with rending claws. Also general slight increases on Heavy Venom cannons as the most common heavy weapon on Tyranid monsters and a considerable increase on the Harpy on top of that.

Also points decrease on termagants and hormagaunts because I want swarm lists to be back, plus there is something pleasing about termagaunts, hormagaunts and gargoyles being 6/7/8 ppm respectively.
And I would give them (and Genestealers) the per unit cost for upgrades trick that Warriors have, to incentivize large units.

Moreover I'm not sure GW realizes that crushing claws are overcosted because they are 2 per option, and thus no one takes them, so tried to fix that.

And Hive Guard, because poor Hive Guard.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 18:32:58


Post by: ccs


Tyel wrote:
I feel 9th's big issues are lethality and army complexity putting off new & infrequent players rather than faction X being overpowered for 3-6 months. Most of these players will get in 2-3 games over such a period and never even see a Tyranid.


Or at least not any of the tourney wrecking lists you're all whining about....

Tyel wrote:
I guess there are knock ons - because if the whole Esports scene is saying "40k is terribly unbalanced right now" it can bleed into discouragement of everyone else. But I'm not sure its an automatic follow.


Haven't seen it affect anything at the local shops. Some of the people who attend tourneys discuss it a bit. Everyone else? Including people just entering (or returning to) the game? We all just get on with playing.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 19:36:24


Post by: Karol


Yeah, but the way the describe how people play the game is wierd. Multiple armies owned, by even starting players, playing crusade and narrative/open. Chaging core rules etc.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 20:20:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


tneva82 wrote:
Spoiler:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


So you claim...but evidence is showing otherwise. Gw marketing works like charm.

Funny thing that. Professionals knowing more than random internet nobodies.
Well the last time GW started correcting a lot of what I personally saw as integral mistakes in how they run the company was in 2016. How did their stock do in 2016? It isn't about me pretending I know how to manage all the ins and outside of the company, it is about people being able to see that certain broad policies are not a good idea. Do we really think Kirby knew wtf he was doing in those later years?

Also at the sentiment that company managers are inherently good at their jobs... Like, c'mon, we ALL know corporate leadership the world over is riddled with people who are completely incompetent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


No, but the FotM player will buy the new FotM and the person buying bits of their old army will likely either be supplanting an existing force or using it as a basis to add to. There's still 1 and a bit of new armies sold in this process.
The point is that FOTM players do not create sales growth for the business, because they resell rather than buying & keeping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
Spoiler:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.


To quote a manager I once had: "Don't worry about it, it's been taken into account."
I'm sure GW knows how to run their business better than any of us do.
And you do have a point here. After all, Crusade has had more content released, by FAR, than tournament play. Even GW knows that FOTM is not the core of their business model--they just don't seem to understand how much they could gain from a tighter balance. The cynical people insisting it is are the only ones around who really don't know what they are talking about.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 20:29:09


Post by: ERJAK


 Tyran wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.


We have CA and a dataslate coming in like...a few weeks?


A CA, but we just had a dataslate like a month ago.

My wish list of points changes would be:

Hive Tyrant & Winged Hive Tyrant:

Heavy Venom Cannon: 20pts (+5)
Lashwhip & bonesword: 5pts (+5)

Neurothrope: 110 pts (+10)

Tyranid Warriors:
Deathspitter: 3 pts (+3)
Venom Cannon 8 pts (+3)
Dual Boneswords: 2pts (+2)

Termagants: 6 ppm (-1)
Termagant Devourer: free (-1)
Adrenal Glands: 10 pts/unit
Toxin Sacs: 10 pts/unit

Hormagaunts: 7ppm (-1)
Adrenal Glands: 20 pts/unit.
Toxin Sacs: 10 pts/unit.

Genestealers:
Extended Carapace: +5 pts/unit
Infestation Node: 10 pts (-10)
Toxin Sacs: 15 pts/unit

Tyrant Guard:
Crushing Claw: 5pts (-5, amounts to -10 ppm)

Raveners:
Deathspitter: 5pts (+5)
Devourer: 3pts (+3)
Spinefists: 2pts (+2)

Spore Mines: 5ppm (-5)

Mucolid spores: 15ppm (-5)

Harpy: 185 pts (+25)
Heavy Venom Cannon: 10 pts (+5, amounts to +10 ppm).

Carnifex:
Heavy Venom Cannon: 20 pts (+10)
Carnifex Crushing claw: free (-5, amounts to -10 per pair)

Hive Guard: 45ppm (-5)
Impaler cannon: free (-10)
Adrenal Glands: 10 pts/unit
Toxin Sacs: 5 pts/unit

Tyrannocyte & Sporocyst:
Barbed Strangler: 2ppm (-3, amounts to -15 ppm)
Venom Cannon: 5ppm (-5, amounts to -25 ppm)

As you might have noticed, a lot of my ideal point increases would be on equipment, as IMHO that would also help improve the loadout balance of these units (you don't see Raveners with spinefists or Warriors with rending claws. Also general slight increases on Heavy Venom cannons as the most common heavy weapon on Tyranid monsters and a considerable increase on the Harpy on top of that.

Also points decrease on termagants and hormagaunts because I want swarm lists to be back, plus there is something pleasing about termagaunts, hormagaunts and gargoyles being 6/7/8 ppm respectively.
And I would give them (and Genestealers) the per unit cost for upgrades trick that Warriors have, to incentivize large units.

Moreover I'm not sure GW realizes that crushing claws are overcosted because they are 2 per option, and thus no one takes them, so tried to fix that.

And Hive Guard, because poor Hive Guard.


The warrior hit needs to be harsher, especially with them kicking around 3 barbed stranglers and 3 HVC per squad of 9. The idea that you couldn't spare the extra points to get the bumps up to a round 5 point increases on the weapon is funny. One of the best units in the best army in the game, can't handle that extra 2ppm to get HVC up to an even 10. Raveners need a 5pt nerf on their base profile. Even as stat bricks, they're fairly pushed.

Also, Maleceptor up 15-20. I know it's not as crazy as it used to be, but that thing is still pretty pushed at 170.

Then pump the Harlequin Troupe up to 15ppm, the Voidweaver up 10 more, and star weavers up 10 and that's a pretty decent, if Eldar Favored meta.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 21:05:05


Post by: Dysartes


...and a blanket 10% increase on any units found in SoB tournament armies, alongside a ~15% reduction on units not found in there.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 22:22:20


Post by: Tyran


ERJAK wrote:


The warrior hit needs to be harsher, especially with them kicking around 3 barbed stranglers and 3 HVC per squad of 9. The idea that you couldn't spare the extra points to get the bumps up to a round 5 point increases on the weapon is funny. One of the best units in the best army in the game, can't handle that extra 2ppm to get HVC up to an even 10. Raveners need a 5pt nerf on their base profile. Even as stat bricks, they're fairly pushed.

Also, Maleceptor up 15-20. I know it's not as crazy as it used to be, but that thing is still pretty pushed at 170.


No one takes barbed stranglers, so I don't see point of hitting them with a nerf.

Moreover I would like to keep point increases to below 20%.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/26 22:26:59


Post by: Daedalus81


 Tyran wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.


We have CA and a dataslate coming in like...a few weeks?


A CA, but we just had a dataslate like a month ago.


Keep in mind that dataslates are quarterly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
Moreover I would like to keep point increases to below 20%.


Yea I know people are eager to fix things, but let's not torpedo those books, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
Then pump the Harlequin Troupe up to 15ppm, the Voidweaver up 10 more, and star weavers up 10 and that's a pretty decent, if Eldar Favored meta.


I barely see Voids now. If you kicked Troupes then you'll kick Starweavers by default. I wouldn't be quick to nerf all those things simultaneously.



Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 06:33:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
At the very least, GW probably got a lot of people to buy Raveners, Harpies and Pyrovores because there is no way there were a lot of those kits in circulation before the 9th ed codex.


Proud owner of 18 Raveners, 3 Harpies, and 6 Pyrovores since... ~2019 or so?

Yes, I have a problem


I always wanted a warrior type nid list, it always kinda hurt to see raveners the other "warrior" be so sad.

That said, considering just how expensive Warriors have become, that army list died in the conceptual stage harder than any other project of mine that managed to reach the budget stage.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 06:44:46


Post by: Blackie


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


Most of the armies that sold second hand are pretty old though, they don't reflect the current meta. Typically it's collectors that get them, or people who want to start the hobby with a solid chunk of models without spending a fortune. The latter will definitely spend more money later to update that lot, so it might be a win for GW anyway. I know several guys who would have never started the hobby if they had to buy their starting lot at full price.

Others who don't even consider second hand lots, unless it's stuff in really good conditions. Me for example only consider cheaper unopened/unassembled kits as the only second hand models I might buy, not whole armies and definitely not primed/painted ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


I barely see Voids now. If you kicked Troupes then you'll kick Starweavers by default. I wouldn't be quick to nerf all those things simultaneously.



A couple of voidweavers are still good. Starweavers were mandatory even with 90ppm voids, troupes always needed their transport.

A few points hikes wouldn't hurt the army, their infantries, characters and bikes are still pretty cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:


The point is that FOTM players do not create sales growth for the business, because they resell rather than buying & keeping.



I disagree. They re-sell, encouraging other people to stay/start the hobby and spend their money in new stuff later, but they also have to buy new stuff to keep chasing the FOTM. No way they'd find second hand lots that fit the new FOTM. I believe they do create significant sales growth.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 12:04:16


Post by: gunchar


ccs wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.


To quote a manager I once had: "Don't worry about it, it's been taken into account."
I'm sure GW knows how to run their business better than any of us do.

What else must GW(and quite few other companies) do to prove their blatant incompetence, so that people finally stop believing in such fairy tales?

The only reason why GW is so successful despite so many from their fanbase detached or even blatantly dumb in general decisions is their extremely comfortable position in the market, if a new TT company now would show even just a quarter as much incompetence they wouldn't even survive a single year.

 Dysartes wrote:
...and a blanket 10% increase on any units found in SoB tournament armies, alongside a ~15% reduction on units not found in there.

Why exactly should GW now suddenly continue their nerfing the SoB for no good reason Series? Even they are usually not that incompetent.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 13:07:20


Post by: Karol


gunchar 805044 11370592 wrote:
Why exactly should GW now suddenly continue their nerfing the SoB for no good reason Series? Even they are usually not that incompetent.

Because that is how they act. In 8th it became a meme how GKs were one of the worse lists, but GW kept removing and nerfing their stuff. Made no sense then. Why shouldn't they nerf SoB or DG over and over again in 9th.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 15:33:00


Post by: ccs


gunchar wrote:
ccs wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.


To quote a manager I once had: "Don't worry about it, it's been taken into account."
I'm sure GW knows how to run their business better than any of us do.

What else must GW(and quite few other companies) do to prove their blatant incompetence, so that people finally stop believing in such fairy tales?


So you think it's a fairy tale that GW knows better than a bunch of anonymous randos on message boards + some YouTube video people how to run it's international business that involves making at least 10 different games atm, model design, marketing, global distribution, manufacturing, publishing, licensing, retail, animation production, the financing to keep it all going, etc etc etc. ??
That's the BS you're trying to sell me because you're not a fan of the current version of 40k (a version wich btw seems to working for a huge # of other people....) ?
Yeah, you're delusional.

Though I guess if GW cratered & actually went out of business I might go "Huh, I guess maybe that Gunchar rando was right. Who knew...."
But that's not going to happen. Several editions from now we'll be discussing how things were back in 9th (the + and - ).

gunchar wrote:
The only reason why GW is so successful despite so many from their fanbase detached or even blatantly dumb in general decisions is their extremely comfortable position in the market, if a new TT company now would show even just a quarter as much incompetence they wouldn't even survive a single year.


If they're sooo incompetent, how do you suppose they stay in that extremely comfortable position?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 15:53:03


Post by: Tyran


Companies are complicated organizations that move in the many different aspects that define both the industry and the market.

Like it isn't hard to arrive to the conclusion that GW isn't exactly stellar when it comes to rules writing and game design.

But logistics, marketing, production, etc? that stuff is far more important that rules writing when it comes to running a corporation, and a lot of new TT companies with better rules and games than GW usually die because they fail at all the stuff that goes behind the scenes to make a successful company.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 16:16:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Or, alternatively, they don't also sell miniatures or the like for their game.

Too Fat Ladies wrote Chain of Command, and the game works within a set of recommended scales. But they don't make the miniatures for it (world war 2 is a saturated market anyways) and they release huge amounts of content online for free, as well as freely hosting player-made content that they approve of on their website.

They make a better game (IMHO) than 40k from a purely game design perspective, but considering all you need to play the game from them is one 35-dollar rulebook once, then honestly it's impressive they stay in business at all!


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 18:37:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Tyran wrote:
Companies are complicated organizations that move in the many different aspects that define both the industry and the market.

Like it isn't hard to arrive to the conclusion that GW isn't exactly stellar when it comes to rules writing and game design.

But logistics, marketing, production, etc? that stuff is far more important that rules writing when it comes to running a corporation, and a lot of new TT companies with better rules and games than GW usually die because they fail at all the stuff that goes behind the scenes to make a successful company.
It's a straw man; saying the company is making a mistake on one specific thing, then they come back as if the claim was knowing how to run the company better. If anything it helps prove the validity of the original claim, else they wouldn't need to resort to fallacious arguments to refute it.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 19:11:14


Post by: Jidmah


 Tyran wrote:
Companies are complicated organizations that move in the many different aspects that define both the industry and the market.

Like it isn't hard to arrive to the conclusion that GW isn't exactly stellar when it comes to rules writing and game design.

But logistics, marketing, production, etc? that stuff is far more important that rules writing when it comes to running a corporation, and a lot of new TT companies with better rules and games than GW usually die because they fail at all the stuff that goes behind the scenes to make a successful company.


This.

I assume that one of the main reasons why GW is still printing books is not greed, but because a large part of the company has a lot of experience with producing and selling books and many people have their job and career depend on GW continuing to produce books.

It's literally the same at my company. A quarter of the company has started out by going around neighborhoods, ringing at doors and selling our product to people. A good part of the company did nothing but provide these people with infrastructure and product to do their job, managers are coordinating managers which coordinate these sales people. These people are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the use of modern technology, because they know it would cause their entire branch of the company to disappear. This would cause small people to lose their jobs, slows down the careers of middle management and makes the big bosses lose power.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 19:18:51


Post by: Insectum7


^Do they really have to make them $50 hardbacks tho?


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 19:57:12


Post by: Tyel


I think most companies run into problems when they find themselves doing the things GW does that players claim to hate but is the only way to keep stock turning over.

I.E. bloat, rotation and creep.

I mean there's a sort of dream out there that someone makes a board game like a Monopoly, a Cluedo etc and every year a certain percentage of the population will buy it and that can keep them ticking over. But its pretty clear in the world of miniature wargaming that isn't how it goes commercially - otherwise X-Wing would have somehow lived its launch forever.

Instead you run into the divide of increasingly bored and jaded veterans - and potential newbies. And adding things for the former to buy raises barrier of entry to the latter.

Which is the dilemma GW has now. I think 9th is a better game than index 8th. (And while I sort of want to love HH 2nd Ed, I feel there are so many retrograde steps in going back to the 3rd-7th world). But I think for a genuinely new player 9th is far too complicated (and lethal) which makes it difficult to have a good initial experience.

But equally, a game with no stratagems, no purity bonuses and dumbed down special rules would be very boring to me. And I suspect deep down everyone who winds up here almost every day.

Its like how Ravening Hordes was arguably the best WHFB ever was in terms of balance. I think it probably was. But if you were playing every week, it got old fast, as you explored everything you could do with your collection.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 20:00:28


Post by: Jidmah


 Insectum7 wrote:
^Do they really have to make them $50 hardbacks tho?


Of course, those are the best books we have ever made, and our customers deserve nothing but the best! /s

Managers don't get bonus payments for making customers spend less money.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 21:04:17


Post by: Insectum7


 Jidmah wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Do they really have to make them $50 hardbacks tho?


Of course, those are the best books we have ever made, and our customers deserve nothing but the best! /s

Managers don't get bonus payments for making customers spend less money.
I'd buy more books if they were cheaper. A lot of people would. It might even encourage me to buy more models. I'd feel more positively towards the company too.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 21:45:00


Post by: Jidmah


The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.

I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 22:01:51


Post by: Insectum7


 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.
They don't care how the company is doing overall? That sounds pretty dumb.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.
Well I guarantee you taht your feelings on that are wrong. I bought many codexes for armies I didn't play back in the day, just out of interest in background, game stats, etc. How many people would do this? I don't know. But it's definitely a thing.

It's also definitely a thing right now that I'm not buying codexes for armies that I own, because they're expensive and I dislike GWs practices.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 22:24:30


Post by: Ordana


 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.

I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.
I bought every codex they released when they were cheaper (and soft covers). Haven't bought any codex I didn't use for my own armies since they moved to hard covers and upped the price.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/27 22:33:22


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.

I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.

Cheaper price for a codex means a more likely impulse purchase if you want to start an army later.

Even if they made the current codices $10 though I wouldn't buy them since they're outdated a month later, but the point still stands.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/28 03:10:13


Post by: tneva82


 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.

I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.


Well in 3rd-5th when they were cheaper used to get all. Got to know my opponents.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/28 05:59:40


Post by: Dudeface


 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.

I'd also feel like it's highly unlikely that anyone would buy more or less codices depending on their price.


Sort of? I trimmed back my soup down to a single faction after it became expensive needing multiple codecies(?) to use my army.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/28 08:45:08


Post by: Jidmah


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
The whole point is that the people working in the book printing part of GW don't care about how many models you buy or what your opinion of the company is. That's other people's problems.
They don't care how the company is doing overall? That sounds pretty dumb.


This is how all bigger companies work. GW isn't just a room full of guys who know each other anymore.

As for the people wanting to buy more codices - would you actually buy more than twice as many codices if you get the current codex content and content quality (including the amount of errata, update pdfs and lifetime) in a black&white softcover for $25?
Do you also think the majority of buyers would do that?

Edit: Just do clarify, before one of the usual suspects swoops in to spill their vitriol everywhere - I'm not defending GW or even a fan of this practice. I want fairly priced access to rules as much as everyone.
I'm just trying to explain that GW isn't a singular malicious being that operates with a genius masterplan, but a bunch of humans driven by different and often contradicting agendas, just like in any other company that has been around long enough. I have experienced this during my work for multiple companies of similar size and age as GW.


Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  @ 2022/05/28 16:43:11


Post by: Tyel


I mean there's office politics - but I'd have thought the guys in the "book printing department" were less influential than either some analyst, or accountant, flagging that GW makes maybe £25-50 million a year from selling rule books*. You'd have to be pretty confident if you wanted to go messing with that - and frankly (which I think is what's happened) you'd probably look at trying to push more books not less.

*A guess. 1-2 million customers buying 1-3 books a year?