Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I had a great game tonight versus an Ultramarine allied White Scars army. I am really liking this codex more and more.

 Voidwraith wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Tyranids get no (real) benefits for having Synapse.

Because being fearless and providing Shadows in the Warp to take enemy psykers down -3 leadership isn't a benefit. /sarcasm off

Most armies can circumvent the Morale rules. Only Nids get a crippling disability to "compensate" for a bonus that almost everyone else takes for granted.

Looking at the points cost of the Nid dex, it seems like units that are crippled by our army-wide special rule aren't cheaper than you'd expect for the same unit without it. Meanwhile, synapse creatures pay a premium to negate said rule. This is not good codex design at all, it's blackmail: "You may think our protection price is too high, but wouldn't it be such a shame if something were to happen to your Hormagaunts over there".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Looking at the points cost of the Nid dex, it seems like units that are crippled by our army-wide special rule aren't cheaper than you'd expect for the same unit without it. Meanwhile, synapse creatures pay a premium to negate said rule. This is not good codex design at all, it's blackmail: "You may think our protection price is too high, but wouldn't it be such a shame if something were to happen to your Hormagaunts over there".

That is literally the justification we were getting for the 45 point increase on the Tyranid Prime, for literally 0 profile or special rule changes. "But being out of synapse is worse, so it makes sense for synapse creatures to cost more!"

No, not it frelling doesn't. It makes more sense for non-synapse things to cost much, much less. And hint: 1 ppm is not "much, much less".

The Tyranid codex is the best Army book made.
I got an entire Ogre army out of its release.

That is the secret sauce the white knights are drinking, it seems. I actually have a usable army now, despite no allies!

editing to add:
inb4 a moron thinks I cannot win with Tyranids as they are or were, as if that has any relation to the irritation.

Wow Vengeful man. Did they "Learn their Lesson". The new Tyranid book is NOT THAT BAD!!!!

There are three problems with the Tyranid book.

ONE: GW has stated that Warhammer is meant as a beer & pretzels game NOT a competitive game, whether this is just said to shake the blame I don't know but that is their official policy.

TWO: It's not TauDar. Be honest, you wanted another book on the levels of Tau & Eldar, you wanted some kick ass book that would smite everything & win you all your tournaments without having to try that hard. Too bad. Let's look at the 6th ed codexes as they fall into about 2 categories. One of them being the balanced codexes which are the MAJORITY (CSM, DA, SM, Daemons, Nids). These books are fun, not terribly broken, true they have their power units & some craptastic ones but as a whole these are nice middle of the road books that work well against each other. Then there's Tau & Eldar who while they can be balanced people tend to abuse a few key units & thus people cry OP.

THREE: and this is a biggun, YOU. You expected too much. You were never going to get everything the rumor mill cranked out. Biomancy while it makes sense is bad for game balance, do we really need T6-7 Tyranid warriors? Do they really need eternal warrior? Yes it would make them fantastic neigh unstoppable killing machines which would be what you want but you don't NEED it.

From my experience the new nid codex is just fine, the problems are people were over-promised (by the rumor mill) and GW (allegedly) under-delivered which leads to resentment and disappointment and people wanted a new powerhouse like TauDar which to be honest TauDar was BAD for the game. It turned people AWAY from tournaments because they didn't want to face the save Wraithknights + AV12 spam every single tournament. If you want to play to win, play what's good, if you want to ejoy the game play an army you like and here's the kicker, stop caring about your win/loss record. Play with friends, play for fun, this is a GAME not a SPORT. Tyranids can still WIN a lot of games just like any other codex I'm sorry you can't beat the TauDar tournament lists but very few lists stand with them on equal ground and I for one don't want to see power creep to fix power creep, I'd rather just have a fun codex that I can play & if someone wants to bring their top tier tournament list I'll either relax & try to have fun, or just not play against them.

TWO: It's not TauDar. Be honest, you wanted another book on the levels of Tau & Eldar, you wanted some kick ass book that would smite everything & win you all your tournaments without having to try that hard. Too bad. Let's look at the 6th ed codexes as they fall into about 2 categories. One of them being the balanced codexes which are the MAJORITY (CSM, DA, SM, Daemons, Nids). These books are fun, not terribly broken, true they have their power units & some craptastic ones but as a whole these are nice middle of the road books that work well against each other. Then there's Tau & Eldar who while they can be balanced people tend to abuse a few key units & thus people cry OP.

Daemons? Grimoir and Screamstar Daemons?

Though there's actually a decent tier list going on with CSM/DA lower, SM higher, and nids somewhere on par with CSM/DA, which is pretty bad cause the balancing in those two kinda suck unless you use specific builds. I would never say CSM is 'balanced' just...mediocre.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Let's look at the 6th ed codexes as they fall into about 2 categories. One of them being the balanced codexes which are the MAJORITY (CSM, DA, SM, Daemons, Nids). These books are fun, not terribly broken, true they have their power units & some craptastic ones but as a whole these are nice middle of the road books that work well against each other.

Wowowowow! Slow down here hombre! Calling Codex: Nurgle&Baledrakes, Codex: White Scars and Codex: Where the Game Plays You! "balanced" would be an insult in any other game system.

Well, his whole argument is a strawman anyways. I have yet to see anyone anywhere quote even one person saying they wanted an OP army. I have yet to see anyone who wants an attack move to win army.

Instead they say they want an army where most units are viable and you feel like you want to take them rather than you have to. They want an army that plays like the fluff. They want an army that doesn't punish you, like every other army out there now, since the removal of phase out and the like. They want an army where the units actually function in a similar manner to what's described. They want special rules that actually work. I have seen people who say they want an army that isn't hard countered by the already popular builds. I have seen people who are upset that instead of making units better so you want to take them, they just made good units worse.

Having some semblance of balance with the rest of the dexes released so far would only be a bonus.

Wow Shas'O Dorian.
ONE: People need to stop the ridiculous notion that good rules and effort in dex design are only for competitive players. Sure, anyone in their garage with their buddy can house rule anything and/or have fun playing whatever way they want. But well written rules benefit the casual player. And even Beer & Pretzel games need good rules for the game to be worthwhile.

TWO: What a load of rubbish. I'm sure you can find someone that wanted a nid dex as OP as Tau/Eldar, but if you read through the threads on the many forums with nids you will find most people wanted a good product around the level of SM, with a variety of builds and effort put into the dex so that it has flavour and some imagination. Don't lump every nid player that dislikes this dex together with the few that want an OP dex. The nid dex is a bland, boring dex where many of the problems in the previous poorly done dex were not fixed. And I better add, few people have said that nids wont win games or that a strong build may come out of it.

THREE: I agree and disagree. I don't think I expected too much in wanting a dex that made an honest attempt to fix problems, try to make units operate close to fluff where possible, use some creativity and add some flavour to the dex in the way the SM dex has done, and try to balance things internally and externally. I did expect too much because GW cares little for their product and customers - they should be ashamed of this poorly done product (again not saying that nobody will win a game with the dex). But overall this is a poorly done and sloppy/lazy dex. If you honestly think that the dex is a good product we have staggeringly different views on what makes a quality product.

When I criticized the CSM dex I was told I just wanted an OP dex. No, I want a dex where half the units are completely useless. Take their loyalist brethren for example. Yes, there are superior choices but very few are totally useless like so many of the chaos choices. Keep the same power level, that's fine. But I want a dex that makes me feel like I'm actually playing Chaos Marines, not some generic version of them.

I see the same thing going on in this thread. The people that criticize say "we don't like the dex because there are too many useless units that shoehorn us into mono builds and the army itself is boring and or not fun to play due to restrictive rules that once again shoehorn the player into a certain way of fighting with little room for change."

Then the dex defenders read that and interpret is as "we want a new Taudar codex!" How they get that I have no idea because no one's saying that but them. The Chaos dex and the Nid dex are fine with their power levels. (for the most part, though the Nids could use a few more tools against taudar.) What the problem is, the dex is bland, boring, offers very little choice in list building if you don't want to get tabled on turn one and the dex itself is a poor quality copy and paste job.

Some will like it and many will have fun with it, but also for many the dex is not fun and not worth the price or the effort. Opinions will differ, but at least make an attempt to understand the other side of the argument instead of "You just want to be OP!" Because that's getting old and irritating.

(Also, toxic negativity doesn't help either.)

From Torrent of Fire's front page...

MOST WINNING ARMIES

1.Eldar (62.96%)
2.Tau Empire (61.28%)
3.Chaos Daemons (58.53%)
4.Necrons (55.32%)
5.Tyranids 6e (54.76%)

2014/02/11 16:13:50 Subject: Reid GW learn their lessons with the new Nid codex?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I criticized the CSM dex I was told I just wanted an OP dex. No, I want a dex where half the units are completely useless. Take their loyalist brethren for example. Yes, there are superior choices but very few are totally useless like so many of the chaos choices. Keep the same power level, that's fine. But I want a dex that makes me feel like I'm actually playing Chaos Marines, not some generic version of them.

I see the same thing going on in this thread. The people that criticize say "we don't like the dex because there are too many useless units that shoehorn us into mono builds and the army itself is boring and or not fun to play due to restrictive rules that once again shoehorn the player into a certain way of fighting with little room for change."

Then the dex defenders read that and interpret is as "we want a new Taudar codex!" How they get that I have no idea because no one's saying that but them. The Chaos dex and the Nid dex are fine with their power levels. (for the most part, though the Nids could use a few more tools against taudar.) What the problem is, the dex is bland, boring, offers very little choice in list building if you don't want to get tabled on turn one and the dex itself is a poor quality copy and paste job.

Some will like it and many will have fun with it, but also for many the dex is not fun and not worth the price or the effort. Opinions will differ, but at least make an attempt to understand the other side of the argument instead of "You just want to be OP!" Because that's getting old and irritating.

(Also, toxic negativity doesn't help either.)

QFT! The entire friggin' post! QFT!

This release seems almost identical in every way to the CSM release. Both books seem to have (for the most part) gotten a somewhat half-arsed treatment. Lingering problems from previous editions were not fixed (or even actively made worse), very little of the new aditions (whether they be new rules or new units) appear to have added much, the internal balance is horrendous, both books actively penalize the player for using them (I mean come on, GW actually found a way to make becoming a Demon Prince WORSE than NOT becoming a Demon Prince, and don't even get me started on the new Instinctive Behaviors), the fluff was weak, and in the Nids case they lost units. I get WHY they lost those units, but you would at least hope they would be given something to make up for it.

And despite the fact that the majority of both sets of players seem to mainly be upset about the apparent lack of effort/creativity that went into their books (and don't really car about the power level so much) they are being accused of just wanting a WAAC codex. Ugh ....

From Torrent of Fire's front page...

MOST WINNING ARMIES

1.Eldar (62.96%)
2.Tau Empire (61.28%)
3.Chaos Daemons (58.53%)
4.Necrons (55.32%)
5.Tyranids 6e (54.76%)

Yeah, I put exactly zero stock in that right now (those results specificly - NOT ToF). It's not been long enough since the book came out to really be able to say they are truly going to be in that tier. I think there's a possibilty they could be - I mean given a few more months they might even go UP in those rankings. So it's possible, and there are a few lists being played with at my LGS that look like they could be scary. I'm just saying it's too soon to be trotting out stats like that and saying they mean anything.

Tycho wrote:

From Torrent of Fire's front page...

MOST WINNING ARMIES

1.Eldar (62.96%)
2.Tau Empire (61.28%)
3.Chaos Daemons (58.53%)
4.Necrons (55.32%)
5.Tyranids 6e (54.76%)

Yeah, I put exactly zero stock in that right now (those results specificly - NOT ToF). It's not been long enough since the book came out to really be able to say they are truly going to be in that tier. I think there's a possibilty they could be - I mean given a few more months they might even go UP in those rankings. So it's possible, and there are a few lists being played with at my LGS that look like they could be scary. I'm just saying it's too soon to be trotting out stats like that and saying they mean anything.

I agree with you 100%, and if we can't trust actual data because it's too early to tell, why should we put so much stock into first impressions?

 Voidwraith wrote:
From Torrent of Fire's front page...

MOST WINNING ARMIES

1.Eldar (62.96%)
2.Tau Empire (61.28%)
3.Chaos Daemons (58.53%)
4.Necrons (55.32%)
5.Tyranids 6e (54.76%)

I don't go to Torrent of Fire, but when they say "Most winning", what are they talking about? Where is the data from? Tournament results? User polls?

I agree with you 100%, and if we can't trust actual data because it's too early to tell, why should we put so much stock into first impressions?

Because as I said, most of the complaints have nothing to do with power level. They have to do with other things that are, generally, imediately obvious and accurate. Reece from Frontline gaming for example put it best (imo) "Tyranids [due to instinctive behavior] are a zero sum game. If you play the army the way they want you to, you gain nothing but nothing "bad" happens either. If you DON'T play the way they want you to, you get hit with some serious penalties. You have nothing to gain and a lot to lose."

IMO that's just bad game design. Yeah, it's fluffy the way they did it, but if synapse is going to be so important, at least give the 'Nid players a few more reliable ways to get (and keep) synapse in their armies.

The items removed due to Chapter House - Yeah, I totally get why they did that and you can't really fault their decision (provided you're being pbjective about it lol), but it would have been nice if they had found other ways to put some things back in to the book that would have helped make up for that loss (even if it was just a few beneficial USRs- I realize the timing of the decision in the law suit may have made it imposssible to add new units to the book from scratch and make kits and release on time so no big deal there).

Almost all of the units that have any potential "up-sides" have such tremendous down-sides that it causes a lot of players to start to lose interest. Again, that has nothing to do with power level either. If you're constantly trying to solve/work with/work around/ the giant gaping holes and issues built into your army, they can start to be a drag to play. "But it's a beer and pretzels game" is NOT a reason for the kind of design that went into this.

Tycho wrote:

I agree with you 100%, and if we can't trust actual data because it's too early to tell, why should we put so much stock into first impressions?

Because as I said, most of the complaints have nothing to do with power level. They have to do with other things that are, generally, imediately obvious and accurate. Reece from Frontline gaming for example put it best (imo) "Tyranids [due to instinctive behavior] are a zero sum game. If you play the army the way they want you to, you gain nothing but nothing "bad" happens either. If you DON'T play the way they want you to, you get hit with some serious penalties. You have nothing to gain and a lot to lose."

IMO that's just bad game design. Yeah, it's fluffy the way they did it, but if synapse is going to be so important, at least give the 'Nid players a few more reliable ways to get (and keep) synapse in their armies.

The items removed due to Chapter House - Yeah, I totally get why they did that and you can't really fault their decision (provided you're being pbjective about it lol), but it would have been nice if they had found other ways to put some things back in to the book that would have helped make up for that loss (even if it was just a few beneficial USRs- I realize the timing of the decision in the law suit may have made it imposssible to add new units to the book from scratch and make kits and release on time so no big deal there).

Almost all of the units that have any potential "up-sides" have such tremendous down-sides that it causes a lot of players to start to lose interest. Again, that has nothing to do with power level either. If you're constantly trying to solve/work with/work around/ the giant gaping holes and issues built into your army, they can start to be a drag to play. "But it's a beer and pretzels game" is NOT a reason for the kind of design that went into this.

Your general point can be applied to all armies. I don't want to play Imperial Guard because of the way I feel that army plays on the table-top, but I don't go around trying to convince everyone that the Imperial Guard is an uplayable mess of a codex.

Your general point can be applied to all armies. I don't want to play Imperial Guard because of the way I feel that army plays on the table-top, but I don't go around trying to convince everyone that the Imperial Guard is an uplayable mess of a codex.

That's not accurate at all. Not liking the way something plays on the table top is quite different from what I (and many others) are talking about here. For example, I don't play gaurd either because it's too much of a commitment in terms of time and money to buy/buld/paint and play. That being said, I recognize that as my own personal taste. The book itself is generally fine. Show me the downside to a Vendetta. Show me the USR that actually works AGAINST your entire army (and can potentially actively cripple it), show me where they removed units and did nothing to replace those capabilities, etc, etc.

Tycho wrote:

Your general point can be applied to all armies. I don't want to play Imperial Guard because of the way I feel that army plays on the table-top, but I don't go around trying to convince everyone that the Imperial Guard is an uplayable mess of a codex.

That's not accurate at all. Not liking the way something plays on the table top is quite different from what I (and many others) are talking about here. For example, I don't play gaurd either because it's too much of a commitment in terms of time and money to buy/buld/paint and play. That being said, I recognize that as my own personal taste. The book itself is generally fine. Show me the downside to a Vendetta. Show me the USR that actually works AGAINST your entire army (and can potentially actively cripple it), show me where they removed units and did nothing to replace those capabilities, etc, etc.

If I want to play an army of cheap, fearless (which is amazing by the way, but everyone just glosses over that in the case of tyranids because it doesn't fit the "tyranids suck" narrative), fast moving, swarming troops and monsterous creatures, the Tyranid Codex provides the rules to do so.

I didn't play with the Parasite. I can get around the loss of drop pods. I used the Doom from time to time, but agree he was cheese and don't miss him at all. I only used Ymgarls once.

Almost everything went down in cost...Why should I get worked up again? Oh yeah...because of the loss of Biomancy. Rolls I couldn't count on anyway...

If I want to play an army of cheap, fearless (which is amazing by the way, but everyone just glosses over that in the case of tyranids because it doesn't fit the "tyranids suck" narrative), fast moving, swarming troops and monsterous creatures, the Tyranid Codex provides the rules to do so.

Um ... you could pretty much do that already with the old 'dex. The fact that this is what you want doesn't makeit a good book. That's like the one Youtube review where, when the guy got to the part about Pyrovores argued that they were good because "Well, it's a good unit because it hasn't changed much so if you used it last book you will still be using it now." That's NOT good. I'm glad it works for you, but since it's also your only option, saying it's good because of that isn't really the best argument to make (which is why so many are upset in the first place). Also, while I think there are some very good opportunities for monster mash lists, I'm not sure how well swarm armies will do. Not enough synapse to go around and if you lose it ... good night.

I didn't play with the Parasite. I can get around the loss of drop pods. I used the Doom from time to time, but agree he was cheese and don't miss him at all. I only used Ymgarls once.

That's great. The loss of pods still hurts them and given the current Taudar meta, I'm not sure that Doom would have remained cheesy. Again though, I get why they dropped those. At the very least it would have been good to do something with DS capabilities. Tunnels or something.

Almost everything went down in cost...Why should I get worked up again? Oh yeah...because of the loss of Biomancy. Rolls I couldn't count on anyway...

Yeah, and despite that most of it is STILL too expensive. Plus, while a lot went down in cost, a lot also went down in effectiveness. Loss of Biomancy - eh. Most of our 'Nids players feel like that was only necessary if you were trying to make your bugs compete with Taudar. Outside of that, for a fun LGS type of game - not so big a deal. Wierd, but not so big a deal.

An opinion counts a lot more than actual numbers from a major event. Lolz

 Ailaros wrote:
DA, CSM, SM, and Guard are all pretty good. I didn't say perfect, of course, but pretty good.

You'd never know it given the internet's primal scream of "HELLDRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", and worse about vendettas, etc., but that's mostly from people who tend to immediately fall into solipsistic obsessions about things. Take a deep breath, a step back, and a mindset that can rationally compare things to each other, and things really aren't so bad for in-codex balance in most codices.

Even then, the most obvious examples I can think of codices with structural problems are old ones like orks or DE, and they only had problems once 6th edition changed the rules out from underneath them.

CSM is not pretty good. It suffers from terrible internal and external balance. CSM have a lame special rule which hurts us more than it helps.
One sided play style with a total lack of units that have outflank or infiltrate makes it tedious to play and 1/3 of the missions are pretty difficult to win because of this.
some units are utter feth while other units (hell chicken) are OP.
I cannot agree with you when you post stuff like this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An opinion counts a lot more than actual numbers from a major event. Lolz

Data isn't information. Without context and analysis it is meaningless.

On the face of it, that data shows that Tyranids are winning slightly over half their games.

Assuming the codex is balanced that's probably about right, because luck would account for a bit of variation in a large enough sample but we don't know the sample size. It could be an unlucky below par performance, or a very lucky above par performance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An opinion counts a lot more than actual numbers from a major event. Lolz

Data isn't information. Without context and analysis it is meaningless.

On the face of it, that data shows that Tyranids are winning slightly over half their games.

Assuming the codex is balanced that's probably about right, because luck would account for a bit of variation in a large enough sample but we don't know the sample size. It could be an unlucky below par performance, or a very lucky above par performance.

We do have context, most of the nids didn't meet against top tier armies.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An opinion counts a lot more than actual numbers from a major event. Lolz

Data isn't information. Without context and analysis it is meaningless.

On the face of it, that data shows that Tyranids are winning slightly over half their games.

Assuming the codex is balanced that's probably about right, because luck would account for a bit of variation in a large enough sample but we don't know the sample size. It could be an unlucky below par performance, or a very lucky above par performance.

We do have context, most of the nids didn't meet against top tier armies.

Yeah somebody at the LVO did great day 1 with nids (idk how he did throughout the rest) but that was because of his matches not because of the nids. Whereas compared to Blackmoor (I think thag was his name) did terrible day 1 because he faced some higher tier armies

At the end of the day, they could win first 3 spots in every tournament - doesn't make it a good codex. A monobuild codex which is literally the least fun to play of every army in the game thanks to restrictions without benefits. Some of us were happy with the power level no matter where it went (I started playing in 5E and picked Nids as my main deliberately because they were one of the more challenged armies).

Stop giving me victorystats, I don't want a dominant army - I want to be able to justify taking my Genestealers, Swarmlord and Shrikes. In fact I personally can't justify taking Lictor, Hive Guard, any walking Tyrant variant, Tyranid Prime, Crone, Raveners, even Zoanthropes, just barely Tervigon's, the list goes on. I guess it was taking it for granted as well to assume I'd even be able to play with my Spore, Doom & Parasite models that I spent $300 on a few months ago.

 Voidwraith wrote:

I didn't play with the Parasite. I can get around the loss of drop pods. I used the Doom from time to time, but agree he was cheese and don't miss him at all. I only used Ymgarls once.

And why should you get worked up? You didn't play/like these models so what do you care. I mean, just because it didn't personally affect you means that nobody else should dare complain either right, no matter what effect it had on them? To call the entirety of your posts narrow minded would be an understatement, to say the least.

The entirety of my posts? If the entirety of my posts is looked at, you'll see I'm the guy trying to talk people off the ledge...not sure how I'm the one that's narrow minded.