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.

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Model expansions, lets remind everyone, the last of which was in 2014.

Honestly when I look at Tyranids right now I don't see many "gaps" for new concepts. I do see room for replacement plastic kits for things like the pyrovore and lictor and such; I also see room for gw to add some of those specialist "hero/unique" models that they stripped out a while back. But for actual troops/warriors/monsters I don't see many gaps. Perhaps a jump-pack winged shock troop (shrieks) and a big lord of war that isn't from FW. But otherwise the Tyranid range is pretty chunky in terms of what its got.

It's well into the "lets have some new concept gaunt models" rather than adding things.

This shows up in every post about Nids and I just don't get it. Yes, GW needs to balance what they've already made better, that's not in doubt... but Necrons had a pretty complete plastic range and that didn't stop them from getting a whole host of awesome things, including some resculpts and new concepts. There's ample room to give this to Nids as well, or Eldar/DE, or Orks, or... any Xenos race. Psycho-vores, lictors with ranged weapons, Hive Fleet Behamat "fortress-Nids"... and these are mostly ideas I've stolen from others. The sky is the limit for Xenos factions, really.

The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.


Eg lets say GW adds another long range artillery unit like the exocrine which is basically the same but better. Now you've two artillery units, but one of which is superior so guess which one everyone goes for.


It's not that there are no gaps, as I said shrieks, those unique units (eg Parasite of Morteux); replacements (plastic pyrovores please) and updates (eg gaunts with new weapons and gaunts without split heads); are all things regularly asked for and which are options in the army.

There are still gaps, there are still areas to improve. Its just when you look at Tyranids as a whole they are in a pretty good spot; certainly better than Eldar. Even as a tyranid player I'd rather see Eldar get a big update before Tyranids get a big update (which doesn't mean GW can't drip-feed an update here and there)

 Overread wrote:
The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.

Which honestly is the trick GW fails at the most. Redundancy and OMG!better or Why-did-you-even-bother is pretty routine for GW units.

The new primaris vehicles being the perfect examples of a roomful of uncomfortable crickets. Instead of enthusiasm, people are awkward about the point cost, the price cost, and the lack of bringing anything new to the table. Plus how long it took to get to the tanks, let alone the speeders. Six brand new datasheets landing with a wet splat.


Part of that is simply the game state- if you can kill heavy infantry, you can kill everything. No other role need apply, beyond maybe some supplementary mass firepower.

Voss wrote:


The new primaris vehicles being the perfect examples of a roomful of uncomfortable crickets. Instead of enthusiasm, people are awkward about the point cost, the price cost, and the lack of bringing anything new to the table. Plus how long it took to get to the tanks, let alone the speeders. Six brand new datasheets landing with a wet splat.
.

Honestly I see Primaris as being in the same bank of marketing as the AoS launch and one-print Dreadfleet. A choice made purely for financial reasons that didn't really pay attention to the "game" nor the customers. I'd wager Primaris were just going to be the new resculpts of marine models; then someone at head office had the idea of releasing them alongside. Which has indeed led to marines having almost two identical rosters of models in the same army. Heck the new Gladiator is a hovering Predator etc....
It does indeed leave the new stuff with a tricky situation of trying to be new, whilst filling the same roles so it will either be outright better or outright worse or just "nothing new" stats wise.

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

Given the scale creep since Carnifex were the living battle tank of the Nids maybe it's time to make them a unit. Suddenly seem a lot more interesting.

Hecaton wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

Because of the "costing the same or less" part?

Also, the fact that these units have historically been equivalent, were not comparing dreads to killa kanz or sentinels here.

Overread wrote:The trick is adding diversity without ending up with units that are just outright better at a certain role than another.

Off the top of my head, Tyranids are lacking fast (non-flyer) fire support, tough (for the cost) bullet sponges, non-DSing transports, snipers, infiltrators, or a Knight-equivalent Lord of War.

Even within some of the niches that are already filled, there's room for variation. You use an Exocrine to show that the niche of 'artillery beast' is already taken; well, what about a Dactylis derivative that throws/shoots antipersonnel bombs at the enemy? Give it Blast and an anti-infantry profile and it'd be as far from an Exocrine as a Wyvern is from an Earthshaker.

Hecaton wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The problem at this point is, pound for pound if you compare a dreadnought to any of the 'dread-likes' across various factions (Carnifex, Deff Dread, Talos Pain Engine, Wraithlord) dreadnoughts wipe the absolute floor with every single one of them in both defense and offense despite costing the same (or less).

How is that a problem? It just makes Astartes a more powerful faction, which is a design goal.

I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

I don't think it is that easy. Should an army without re-rolls have the same cost of a unit as an army that has access to plenty of them?
What if an elite unit from another faction is 50% of someones troop choices. And the age old question of how much would smash captin be worth, if tau could take one.

Some units can, and often should be cheaper then similar or even the same type of unit from another army. If GW makes a an army without access to majority of heavy support units, and dreads are their heavy weapon teams/tanks, then they shouldn't be paying for them as much as someone who can take havocks like unit or other long support tanks .

Even if that were true, what options do Marines lack?

Let's not turn this into a thread about Marines. Please!

 Overread wrote:
I think the problem the Carnifex has is its role and position has changed. In older games it was THE massive monster after a Hive Tyrant; you feared the fex because it was the biggest, baddest and heavily versatile beast. It was a close combat monster all the way to artillery platform and every role inbetween.

Today its a bit stuck. You've got exocrines for artillery; you've got tervigons for support; trygons and mawlocks for close combat sneak attacks; haurspex for heavy close combat; tyranofex for heavy hitting.

But at the same time GW still acts like the Carnifex is a big deal in the fluff - this monstrously dangerous creature that barrels into enemy lines, sending men and machines flying every which way - and then gives it rules that make it less durable than a frickin' Rhino and unable to cause any real damage.

the_scotsman wrote:
Because of the "costing the same or less" part?

Also, the fact that these units have historically been equivalent, were not comparing dreads to killa kanz or sentinels here.

Dreadnoughts are supposed to be overpowered, for their points cost, compared to Carnifexes. Clearly. The Astartes faction, as a whole, is supposed to win more than other factions in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't know if you're making a joke or what, but making some units objectively better than others for their cost isn't a design goal. More powerful at higher cost, sure. More powerful for the same cost, hell no.

It's a *bad* design goal, but it's pretty clear that it's GW's plan.