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.

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
So I see your argument as this...
New Nid book is not the most overpowered Codex = new Nid book is a failure.(...)

This reek of trolling, but I am giving you a serious answer.

I do not play in competitions. I use the units I like: genestealers, tyranid warriors, raveners or shrieks in 5th edition. But if I wanted to give my enemy a proper fight I needed some muscle (hive guard, a tervigon). With 6th edition my army became barely playable. It is no longer fun to play. It is not fun if I am obliterated before turn 4. I do not care about winning or losing, but if the game is just taking casualties, it is a loss of time for both players.

So no, it is not about "overpower". It is about something being playable and fun to use. It is about having a decent chance against an average player using an average army. It is about balance, or something resembling balance.

Which army do you play? Grey Knights? You have an impressive Codex, with many different builds, lots of options, and all of them really fun to play. What if your next codex sees half your units nerfed, some of them disappear, and the only way to keep playing the army is to buy an awfully expensive new model you dislike? Will you be OK with that?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 da001 wrote:
In my opinion, the reason is: nobody in the studio likes the army.

Not true.

Phil Kelly apparently has a sizable private Nid army

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=1700100-gws

Then it absolutely makes no sense.

An amazing number of people could do a far better job, yet they do this? Either they lack time/resources or... what?

If Kelly was familiar with the army, he knew which were the issues to fix. So they knew that, say, genestealers no longer work in 6th edition, yet did nothing? They just copy-pasted part of the previous codex and nerfed some units in an already hard to play codex? What´s the point?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
So I see your argument as this...

New Nid book is not the most overpowered Codex = new Nid book is a failure.

The Tau and Eldar codex's are overpowered and can be a problem to play against. This has somehow fostered the idea that if a new Codex doesn't easily beat Tau, it's a failure. There is nothing wrong with the Tyranid book, some things got better, some got worse, some things were taken away and some things were added. This is what happens with every new book, every time. The fact that Tyranids may not be the new "Tournament Power Army" does not make it a failure.

When a new book comes out only one of two things ever happens. All of the people who play that army cry about how underpowered it is, or if it is overpowered, everyone else cries about how broken it is. Then people like me cry about how irritating the cry babies are.

You nailed it my friend. Any codex that isn't Tau or Elder power level will be deemed a failure. Most of the complaints fielded apply to chaos and chaos daemons as well, but it seems to me that Nids will likely outclass both of those armies.

He most certainly did not "nail it." Just because someone complains about an army not being "that great" does not mean they are complaining it isn't OP...

I laid out a fairly basic and logical basis for my position on why nids are not "up to par" and it did not involve any complaints that they are not OP. Nids are now the exact opposite of OP.

But of course, any arguments or statements that are along the lines of "wait until codex comes out to judge it, wait a few months to play test it, you just mad son because nids are not OP like tau/eldar" are just illogical and evade the glaring facts staring everyone in the face.

Finally, I view Eldar and Tau as failures in terms of balance and design because they both force players to rely on a few powerhouse units/builds to be competitive. Try winning any event with a modicum of competitive armies, builds and players with shining spears, banshees or vespids-not gonna happen.

A sad fact in this edition is players now HAVE to deal with and be able to handle what the top armies can dish out-therefore every other book not eldar or tau must be given the tools to handle these books and absent those tools, an army is destined to fail on its face! Tyranids IS such a book.

 Souleater wrote:
The short answer is that GW want Marines to be cinematic. That means shooting Nids apart at range and heroically overcoming them in assault.

I've played in several gaming groups over the years and, generally, that is how Marine players now see Tyranids.

GW see us as Games Masters running a shooting gallery for the actual 'players'.

We are an assault army without transports. IG level Weaponskill. And now we blow ourselves up or eat each other.

Marines are the least of your trouble. The Nids can probably still hang with the marines, actually even if at a disadvantage.

 da001 wrote:
I think they are talented.
Kelly did a good job with Eldar & Dark Eldar.
Cruddace with Imperial Guard 5th or Space Marines 6th.
Ward is awful concerning the fluff, but GK or Necrons have lots of different builds. You can pick some concept and build the army around it, and it is fun.

So I guess there are few of them. And they have become lazy when it comes to do stuff for armies they don´t like. The problem is a lack of interest.

And the company has zero quality control and zero change management, so if a writer does not his job, nothing happens. Nobody does any test or, if tests are done, nobody cares about the results.

Yeah Kelly did a good job, bringing back the 4th edition Skimmergod army that was one of the hardest things to beat. The man loves himself Eldar and breaks them.

Cruddace reinvented the Leaf Blower, and the horrible points costs of IG which balance out towards vendette being stupidly cheap while things like Ogryn are overpriced.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 da001 wrote:
I think they are talented.
Kelly did a good job with Eldar & Dark Eldar.
Cruddace with Imperial Guard 5th or Space Marines 6th.
Ward is awful concerning the fluff, but GK or Necrons have lots of different builds. You can pick some concept and build the army around it, and it is fun.

So I guess there are few of them. And they have become lazy when it comes to do stuff for armies they don´t like. The problem is a lack of interest.

And the company has zero quality control and zero change management, so if a writer does not his job, nothing happens. Nobody does any test or, if tests are done, nobody cares about the results.

Yeah Kelly did a good job, bringing back the 4th edition Skimmergod army that was one of the hardest things to beat. The man loves himself Eldar and breaks them.

Cruddace reinvented the Leaf Blower, and the horrible points costs of IG which balance out towards vendette being stupidly cheap while things like Ogryn are overpriced.

The Vendetta wasn't even that good in 5th. It was solid, but I fragged them constantly. Switching to flyer rules made "OMGZ, WTF?" good.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
And as for the books being failures, word from the major London independent and online retailer is that the new range is a huge seller. So, while I sympathise, there's another false premise.

The codex will not be the test. Even though most Nid players knew beforehand that it was a crap codex, most will still buy it. The test will be in the sales of the models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
So I see your argument as this...

New Nid book is not the most overpowered Codex = new Nid book is a failure.

The Tau and Eldar codex's are overpowered and can be a problem to play against. This has somehow fostered the idea that if a new Codex doesn't easily beat Tau, it's a failure. There is nothing wrong with the Tyranid book, some things got better, some got worse, some things were taken away and some things were added. This is what happens with every new book, every time. The fact that Tyranids may not be the new "Tournament Power Army" does not make it a failure.

When a new book comes out only one of two things ever happens. All of the people who play that army cry about how underpowered it is, or if it is overpowered, everyone else cries about how broken it is. Then people like me cry about how irritating the cry babies are.

You obviously have no clue.

Fragile wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:. . .

You obviously have no clue.

Exalted.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


That said, I saw Nids go from an army that can handle any other army and do well to a codex that just pales in contrast to just about every other one and one that will be hard pressed to win any competitive events.

Is that really true? We had a reasonably vicious, one Flyrant list that murdered most things in the last 15 or 20 games - vanilla marines, BA, chaos daemons, CSM, was about 50/50 with spacewolves, and lost to a tailored Space Wolves list.

Yes, we do seem to have taken a nerf, but starting your post with a dodgy premise like this doesn't help your argument. It just sounds like a complaint that your army is not OP.

And as for the books being failures, word from the major London independent and online retailer is that the new range is a huge seller. So, while I sympathise, there's another false premise.

I am also responding to HMBC's response about the "evolution" of the nid codex from 3rd and onward.

Regarding the first point, yes-it is true, Nids have been solid and able to compete way back when. You only give the example of a "one flyrant build" but back in 3rd and even 4th, there were no such things as flyrants so you kind of need to do some research and go back farther...I qualify the following analysis/words with the fact that I played in RTTs every weekend and regularly participated in GTs and consistently won most of the games and events. I understand what makes an army good/competitive and have had a lot of experience playing/winning as/against nids. Therefore, I am not spewing out a bunch of nonsense...Regarding your second point, just because a book sells a lot and makes gobs of money does not mean it is a success-I am referring to the codex as a failure in terms of game design, balance and the ability to make a competitive build. You attack my premises with either a false understand of the true state of things (in terms of your 1st point) or an argument that doesn't correlate or have any bearing on what I said (in terms of your 2nd point). Anyway...

Regarding 3rd edition:
In 3rd, the vast majority of terrain blocked LOS completely unless you or your target were partially in said terrain. Therefore, a simple forest or ruins meant you could hide from shooting completely and not have to worry about taking hits/losing models. Furthermore, you couldn't shoot through units (with certain restrictions) so you could play nids with a line of termagaunts blocking los and screening for your hormagaunts which in turn blocked los for your genestealers/other bugs and once the stealers/other bugs hit the enemy lines it was game over and you won. It also helped that you could NOT shoot through combats in 3rd so simply getting into combat meant the rest of your army was safe from shooting as long as they were behind that combat. Consequently, the majority of Nid armies in 3rd built from the BRB army list had a lot of gaunts, stealers and a mix of other things and were still able to beat any other army.

Then the 3rd edition official codex was released which changed a bunch of things for nids but it was still a strong book because it offered Nids the tools necessary to get into and dominate combat. This was, as mentioned above, further facilitated with cover and units being able to completely block LOS. Termagaunts were cheap fodder which could shoot other infantry generally pretty effectively; Hormagaunts were fast (12" charge!) and good for tying up units in combat or killing weaker units of like guardsmen; Stealers were still combat monsters and tore things up; Warriors were effective in both shooting and combat; MCs tore things up and were resilient. Bottom line is, in the 3rd Ed. codex, Nids were a nasty force in combat since they could easily get into combat because of how terrain/shooting mechanics worked. In 3rd, shooting was a nice thing to do until you got into combat and wiped out entire units-no army generally had the firepower to completely wipe decently sized units from the table in a single round of shooting because of how LOS/Cover worked (Nid units tended to be large or have a large wounds pool).

Regarding 4th edition:
In 4th, the rules changed a bit but LOS was still blocked completely by combat and certain terrain which still allowed Nids to get into combat reliably and safely. It didn't hurt that combat was still very powerful in 4th (does anyone remember being able to kill a unit in combat then consolidate into another unit thereby becoming completely immune from shooting once you hit something in assault?). Armies still typically did not have the firepower to consistently wipe out entire units in this edition in a single round of shooting.

The 4th edition codex came out and changed nids a bit some more but they remained strong. You had the base cost of something and then could upgrade their stats to suit your fancy, either all geared for shooting, CC or both. This allowed you to make very streamlined units and I used this mechanic to make a mean Nid army with around 18 Warriors which wrecked face! This is because you could be protected by hiding behind LOS blocking cover which was very prevalent and you generally always got a cover save of some sort so you seldom took the amount of damage you now do. Nids also had options to grant a 12" charge or 12" move to virtually anything in the codex (bar Carnifexes) which further helped the ability to get into combat or range of weapons. In all honesty, the 4th edition codex made just about any model/build viable. Also, you only paid for what you planned to use unlike the 5th edition codex...Also, the fact that Synapse granted EW was HUGE in terms of making the army more resilient.

Regarding 5th edition:
5th edition came out and changed A LOT of things, especially for the nids. For starters, true LOS made shooting at things much easier and armies consistently had their shooting capabilities buffed as they were released for 5th edition. Close combat took a hit in terms of being able to consolidate into other units once you wiped things out from a previous combat and combat no longer blocked LOS. This necessarily meant that armies that had their power in the Assault phase lost a lot of oomph.

Then we got the 5th edition codex...This codex was such a mess because things got VERY expensive for no good reason AND you had certain stats/upgrades that you may never have wanted/used in the first place included into the base cost of things. For example, in the previous codex, you CHOSE what weapons to give your guys and what stats you wanted them to have to a certain degree which made for efficient army design. In the 5th codex, you suddenly were forced to pay for shooting options on a model that you wanted geared solely for combat and so really, everything generally got more expensive. Now we were forced to take Tevigons, Hiveguard and a select set of models or face the prospect of not having a chance to win games. Seriously, my warrior army from 4th edition turned to poop overnight when this codex hit!

Do I even need to go into 6th and the recent codex? The following is more of just me complaining but pointing out VALID criticism of the new book:

-Hive Tyrants still cost too much, no option for an invul or 2+ save in a meta that kind of requires them is lame. Not to mention most all of the upgrades got WAY more expensive...
-Tyranid Prime costs more and has WAY more expensive upgrades...Because?
-Tervigon costs way more and lost any synergy with gaunts because apparently it was the problem and not the fact that everything else in the previous codex sucked.
-Hiveguard were apparently too strong with their BS4 and 24" range so they had to lower the BS and increase the cost.
-Pyrovore was fine and didn't need any changes to become a useable model, right?
-Warriors and Stealers apparently needed more expensive upgrades and no changes to become viable?
-Harpy/Crone have major survivability issues which translates into good luck getting any use out of them. Against a good opponent you'll probably never get to kill anything with them.
-Hormagaunts points decrease is a lie because their upgrades cost more and you kind of want/need those upgrades to make them effective (so they actually cost just as much or more-hooray).
-Gargoyles Blinding Venom was apparently too strong so now you have a useless rule that you will probably never use, oh and their upgrades got more expensive too.
-Any MC that got cheaper really didn't...They were WAY overcosted before and now had their costs brought more in line to where they SHOULD have been in 5th but are still too much for what you get.

-Many other nerfs for no reason and any buff (venomthropes are nifty I admit) is offset by the inability to fully utilize/synergize said buff effectively.

Anyway, good day!

 mortetvie wrote:
Regarding 3rd edition:
In 3rd, the vast majority of terrain blocked LOS completely unless you or your target were partially in said terrain. Therefore, a simple forest or ruins meant you could hide from shooting completely and not have to worry about taking hits/losing models. Furthermore, you couldn't shoot through units (with certain restrictions) so you could play nids with a line of termagaunts blocking los and screening for your hormagaunts which in turn blocked los for your genestealers/other bugs and once the stealers/other bugs hit the enemy lines it was game over and you won. It also helped that you could NOT shoot through combats in 3rd so simply getting into combat meant the rest of your army was safe from shooting as long as they were behind that combat. Consequently, the majority of Nid armies in 3rd built from the BRB army list had a lot of gaunts, stealers and a mix of other things and were still able to beat any other army.

Then the 3rd edition official codex was released which changed a bunch of things for nids but it was still a strong book because it offered Nids the tools necessary to get into and dominate combat. This was, as mentioned above, further facilitated with cover and units being able to completely block LOS. Termagaunts were cheap fodder which could shoot other infantry generally pretty effectively; Hormagaunts were fast (12" charge!) and good for tying up units in combat or killing weaker units of like guardsmen; Stealers were still combat monsters and tore things up; Warriors were effective in both shooting and combat; MCs tore things up and were resilient. Bottom line is, in the 3rd Ed. codex, Nids were a nasty force in combat since they could easily get into combat because of how terrain/shooting mechanics worked. In 3rd, shooting was a nice thing to do until you got into combat and wiped out entire units-no army generally had the firepower to completely wipe decently sized units from the table in a single round of shooting because of how LOS/Cover worked (Nid units tended to be large or have a large wounds pool).

You're (over)emphasising the way the 3rd Ed shooting and LOS mechanics (commonly referred to as "Screening", back in the day) affected Tyranids. You're forgetting "Shoot the Big Ones", that said:

"Due to [a paragraph of fluff], an opposing player's line of fire is only blocked by terrain, vehicles and models in close combat. Other than this he can freely choose to direct fire from his units at any Tyranid that is within range during the Shooting phase."

This rule killed Genestealers, Warriors overnight, and it make Raveners stillborn, and made Tyranids a very hard army to work with. They could still win of course - as I said, I never lost a game with my 'Nids - but they were not a good army. There were a bad army using the best units they had left (Tyrants, Mutable Genus Gaunts, Carnifexes and sometimes Hive Guard) to maximum efficiency.

Well, HMBC, I had great success with tyranid warriors and still found raveners/stealers effective so meh, I guess we just had different experiences.

I primarily used terrain a lot to block LOS and hormagaunts to get in fast and tie things up in combat until my other things arrived.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

JWhex wrote:

 da001 wrote:
In my opinion, the reason is: nobody in the studio likes the army. They did the codex in a rush, and the lack of enthusiasm is apparent.

Same with Chaos codex. Or Adepta Sororitas / Sisters of Battle. Or the Inquisition.

Nobody cares about quality in the company. If the Codex writer likes the army, you get a good Codex. If this is not the case, you get a joke. Zero internal or external balance, with a pair of must-take units. Business as usual, coming to think of it.

I agree with this for the most part. The design studio has terrible quality control and it appears that the designers just are not that talented or there are too few of them to do a good job.

They seem to have done a pretty good job in WHFB.

Well except the old daemon book actually broke an entire edition, the new daemon codex has probably the worst internal balance I have ever seen with only a few okay-good units and a single one is truly broken. Khorne has like one maybe 2 worthwhile picks, Tzeentch has maaaybe 1 or 2? Nurgle is generally good and Slaanesh is decent. Oh and High Elves have a way to hard counter daemons like no other.

That's one example from like 15 army books as opposed to how many armies in 40k that people complain about having "zero internal or external balance"?

 da001 wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
So I see your argument as this...
New Nid book is not the most overpowered Codex = new Nid book is a failure.(...)

Which army do you play? Grey Knights? You have an impressive Codex, with many different builds, lots of options, and all of them really fun to play. What if your next codex sees half your units nerfed, some of them disappear, and the only way to keep playing the army is to buy an awfully expensive new model you dislike? Will you be OK with that?

Really? I didn't have to wait for the next Codex. Grey Knights was an OP army in 5th Edition and 6th did a lot to tone it down. New wound allocation, Power Weapons becoming AP instead of ignoring all armour saves, newer armies getting lots of AP2 firepower. The next Grey Knights Codex will see a great deal of my army disappear, it is very likely the entire Inquisition portion of the codex will be taken out and my 1750 point Coteaz army will require drastic changes to conform to the new Inquisition book. And without a doubt there will be new models to buy and new rules will make some models I have now less usefull.

I adapted when 6th came out, and I will adapt when a new GK codex comes out. It's just a game.

In a few months, when all the crying and whining is done, I think a majority of players will find the new Nid book very playable.

BTW, my prediction for the next Codex, Imperial Guard...

"When the new IG new book comes out only one of two things will happen. All of the people who play IG will cry about how underpowered it is compared to the last Codex, or if it is overpowered, everyone else cries about how broken it is." Same thing, every time, every time.

Last thing, at my local GW store today, the new Codex's and models were selling like crazy and no one seemed to be complaining.

So much hate in these threads. You guys can't even complain about this new codex. Look at the AS codex. Now look back at this.

Stop complaining so much

teban wrote:
You guys can't even complain about this new codex.

Because...?

Because it's decent. It's got lots of options.

We got 1 troop choice, 2 HQ choices (IC with names) and a nameless canoness. We never even use the elite slot.
Our penitent engines are as good as paper weight. And they're pretty good at that to be honest.

And you know what? They can still win :3

teban wrote:
So much hate in these threads. You guys can't even complain about this new codex. Look at the AS codex. Now look back at this.

Stop complaining so much

This is a terrible argument. I'm sorry but really? Where does this stop? Where do you put a no you can't go any further? Just because your book isn't as bad as arguably the worst book in the game means you can't complain? Where can I start with this and where can I end where can I go? Going into logical fallacies, should I not complain about CSM because SM got something so many CSM dreamed for and we instead got a horrifically imbalanced sub-par codex better fit to be named nurgle and heldrake? because we have a better codex than AS, some out of date codices, and maybe or maybe not tyranids? Also you forget an important part of the internet. Chance is what humans seem to dislike quite a bit. No matter whether one person likes a change, there is always another that will dislike it. It is how life is and always has been and so life goes onwards and onwards whilst nids continue to eat biomass mwahahaha

Random people on the Internet saying "it's fine guys you can't complain..." Doesn't really hold much weight. No offense but anyone with ANY understanding of the meta and competitive play in general has acknowledged that the Nid codex is weak sauce. Nids will be hard pressed to make it to any of the top tables and to suggest SOB can still win is a silly statement considering they DON'T win-at least not any events...

See, many people that say nids have problems are pointing out that in terms of competitive play, where good armies and strong builds with good players are involved, is not a place the Nid codex will do well. Besides, "it's my thread and I'll complain of I want to-you would complain too if this mess happened to you!"

teban wrote:
Because it's decent. It's got lots of options.

We got 1 troop choice, 2 HQ choices (IC with names) and a nameless canoness. We never even use the elite slot.
Our penitent engines are as good as paper weight. And they're pretty good at that to be honest.

And you know what? They can still win :3

But winning isn't the only thing that matters, the number of units isn't the only thing that matters (although I will say I am still dissapointed with AS. Heck I want them to come back big! IF you can't keep them SoB make them ecclesiarchy to throw in some support but make it sob focused). Also lots of options don't always help when the options are crummy. For example, CSM have 4 marks they can pick from. That seems great until you look at them, realize that one of them is almost always a terrible choice and many other things are illusions. Options aren't always great although they tend to be there when things are good. I wouldn't call it decent. I would argue that losing 4 models (I can't help but feel myetic spores are an important model since they are like a drop pod) and gained only 3 and it really only feels like a sidegrade. I won't be buying any units from them this codex because I am disappointed in it just as much as CSM and AS have dissapointed me (admittedly Eldar and Tau have as well). Also it seems very poorly thought out and really has no answers to allies in the slightest having no chance to do combos or anything not even with themself. Also for pete's sake they made rippers more expensive and made pyrovores worse! How? How do you do that? Still though, I can see nids winning still especially in a place where the optimal units aren't taken as much. Even there I can see some victories. Carnifexes seem good, flyrants seem good, gaunts with no upgrades (term) to be decent-good, zoan are both better and worse but are extra synapse and can possibly buff your army!, tyrannifex seems to be worth a look at as well and gargoyles whilst arguably nerfed might yet have a cool trick up their sleeve.

Not to mention as the above mentioned, AS don't really win tournaments or get high up there. CSM don't either, DE without Eldar don't really, Orks don't really, BA don't really, DA don't really, and from the looks of it Nids probably won't. Who knows what the future might hold? Maybe a supplement surprise or some lost unit returned for a fee. Maybe, maybe not really. For all we know, there might be enough to make a combo work. Maybe only 1-2 lists for competitive and they might not beat the best but they will work. Casuals and the sorts are an odd beast where the imbalance of codices honestly rears its head worse and also not as badly. It's so weird. Sometimes all the units being a mess of good and bad can help, and sometimes it can hurt xD

Martel732 wrote:
The Vendetta wasn't even that good in 5th. It was solid, but I fragged them constantly. Switching to flyer rules made "OMGZ, WTF?" good.

It was actually very good in 5th, the best unit in the codex in fact. Real flyer rules just made it even better.

I'm pretty sure I had a flying tyrant back in 4th Edition.

I take issue with the idea that a Tyranid army could completely hide itself behind cover in any edition. There are often too many models even on a board with 25% terrain.

Um, considering how 6th was the FIRST edition to EVER have flying MCs/Vehicles outside of FW, I wonder how you managed having a flying MC. In 4th, the only thing we had as nids was wings which allowed us to move 12" a turn in the movement phase.

Also, in 3rd and 4th, forests deeper than 6" and any ruins blocked LoS so it was easy to avoid shooting for the most part.

Anyway, we should start a club for armies like CSM and Nids and sit around moping all day! Interestingly enough, it might be a fun idea to have a side event where people could only bring an army from some of the worst armies right now. I mean I love tyranid warriors and thousand sons but its very frustrating to have them not able to stand up to the prevalent armies out there.

 mortetvie wrote:
Um, considering how 6th was the FIRST edition to EVER have flying MCs/Vehicles outside of FW, I wonder how you managed having a flying MC. In 4th, the only thing we had as nids was wings which allowed us to move 12" a turn in the movement phase.

Pretty sure that's what he meant.

Eeem... They "made pyrovores worse" by making them cost a bit less, and have 1 more wound, attack and initiative? I'm confused...

It seems like people just refuse to see the buffs that ARE in there, and only see the nerfs made to some of the most frustrating, time consuming and joy sacking mechanics tactics in the game, and declare all is bad.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Eeem... They "made pyrovores worse" by making them cost a bit less, and have 1 more wound, attack and initiative? I'm confused...

They removed Spore Pods so even though Pyrovores are better there is no way in hell that they can reliably reach their targets. In the previous 'dex they could at least take a pod and make a suicide drop.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Eeem... They "made pyrovores worse" by making them cost a bit less, and have 1 more wound, attack and initiative? I'm confused...

Do any of those things actually make the Pyrovore worth taking? Do they address the original problems with the Pyrovore in any way? Is it not something you have to add to the mix when thinking of how to spend that slot?

 BoomWolf wrote:
It seems like people just refuse to see the buffs that ARE in there, and only see the nerfs made to some of the most frustrating, time consuming and joy sacking mechanics tactics in the game, and declare all is bad.

It seems like people just refuse to see the overwhelming amount of nerfs that ARE in there, and only see the points reductions, and declare it all good.

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

Really? I didn't have to wait for the next Codex. Grey Knights was an OP army in 5th Edition and 6th did a lot to tone it down. New wound allocation, Power Weapons becoming AP instead of ignoring all armour saves, newer armies getting lots of AP2 firepower. The next Grey Knights Codex will see a great deal of my army disappear, it is very likely the entire Inquisition portion of the codex will be taken out and my 1750 point Coteaz army will require drastic changes to conform to the new Inquisition book. And without a doubt there will be new models to buy and new rules will make some models I have now less usefull.

I adapted when 6th came out, and I will adapt when a new GK codex comes out. It's just a game.

Still a far better book than most other factions (not talking about the fluff). Terrible external balance, toned down by 6th edition.

I was not talking about that. The book gave you lots of new units and options, and additional background, and interesting builds. It expanded your faction. Again, imagine your next codex is similar to what Sisters of Battle got. Half the units missing, the other half with less options and so on. Even if it were "competitive", it will be a let down.

It is a Marine codex and marines are the first-class faction. Play other armies and perhaps you will see the "oh my god what did they do to my army" thing. Also remember that Black Templars are marines too. They are now a handful of units in another Codex, with a few sentences concerning their background that go against everything written before. It is not fun for some players. Others are ok with it, though.

Just to be clear, I am not wishing you that. But having a completely unbalanced game only seems ok for people who have the favored factions.

teban wrote:
So much hate in these threads. You guys can't even complain about this new codex. Look at the AS codex. Now look back at this.

Stop complaining so much

If we're going down that route, at least AS still have their own Codex.

Back on topic, while I'll reserve judgment until the dust has settled, I can agree with the fact that a lack of melee-enabling special rules makes the game that much harder for us melee nuts. When an increased average distance to your run move is supposed to be as good a buff to melee as JSJ or Battle Focus is to shooting, it's pretty obvious that melee is going to come out worse.