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.

Because I'll keep winning against my friends with all those units that supposedly got nerfed. Now to clarify, I am not a tournament player. There's a very good chance that I will never face Seerstar or Triptide lists. I hear the arguments that the tyranid army dies really easily to enemy shooting, but tyranid shooting is pretty fantastic in this edition. Lots of blast templates to snipe out those pesky melta or plasma guns and pinning is a Tyranid player's new best friend. Yes everyone likes Dakka Flyrants, but mine died on turn 1 to shooting. And you know what? I'm fine with that, because it took his WHOLE army to bring it down. Your models are going to die, but most everything in the codex is useful and does it's job well. Support your units, try out some of those "nerfed" models, and make the opponent fear us on the tabletop again. Let them think we are weak now, and we will strike hard before they know what hit them. Rant over.

Great.

Doesn't make the codex any better from any objective standpoint.

Any of our troops with support are good at holding objectives.

Against noncompetitive lists, victories are not an indication of a strong codex or skillful play.

HiveGuard wrote:
Any of our troops with support are good at holding objectives.

Until they loose synapse and run off the board or wound themselves I'm glad you are winning your games. You know this entire thread is asking for a majority of the people to argue against you with a hand full supporting you.

 GreyHamster wrote:
Against noncompetitive lists, victories are not an indication of a strong codex or skillful play.

Which doesn't matter so long as people are having fun with the codex in their local games. GW absolutely gives not one single feth about the competitive scene, and does not write books for it.

 Blacksails wrote:
Great.
Doesn't make the codex any better from any objective standpoint.

"better" is a qualitative word and can only be used for subjective assessments.

 Psienesis wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Against noncompetitive lists, victories are not an indication of a strong codex or skillful play.

Which doesn't matter so long as people are having fun with the codex in their local games. GW absolutely gives not one single feth about the competitive scene, and does not write books for it.

You can have fun with bad things. Joke characters in fighting games are popular for a reason. You just don't mistakenly believe joke characters are anything but. You're not right when you say, 'well I think this is tier 1 because I beat all my friends, none of whom play tier 1.' As long as you're aware you're saying, 'well tier 3 is good enough to beat my friends,' then you're right. I personally own plenty of models broadly considered to be terrible, like Warp Talons and Bloodletters, and use them with some frequency. I win some of those games. It doesn't prove the statement 'they are a bad unit' wrong.

Congratulations for winning in spite of, instead of because of your codex.

Bring Biomancy back and most of my complaints disappear. I want my endurance and iron arm shenanigans back.

 Psienesis wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Against noncompetitive lists, victories are not an indication of a strong codex or skillful play.

Which doesn't matter so long as people are having fun with the codex in their local games. GW absolutely gives not one single feth about the competitive scene, and does not write books for it.

Wait so you claim that all around the world people play with bad lists and only in tournaments ,people play with good list ? Well I can tell you that I have checked organoleptically , that at least in Poland the chance to see a normal army is much higher and not limited to tournaments. And am sure that there are other countries in the world where the game is played the same way.

I'm fine with that, because it took his WHOLE army to bring it down

That is hard to imagine unless the army was melee one without shoting . I can't think of a melee army played out of any codex right now other then tyranids and demons , both both are full of skyfire.FMC units so downing a dakka tyrant shouldn't be hard . I do agree that dakka tyrant does die .
IMO the dakka tyrant maybe the best tyrant on paper , but it is better to run a slower and technicly weaker footslogging one , which does not die as fast and which does spread the synaps for longer and gives the support to nid troops your talking about.

 Psienesis wrote:

 GreyHamster wrote:
Against noncompetitive lists, victories are not an indication of a strong codex or skillful play.

Which doesn't matter so long as people are having fun with the codex in their local games. GW absolutely gives not one single feth about the competitive scene, and does not write books for it.

Not writing for the competitive scene does not excuse being laziness and unresponsiveness to player feedback.

They should have at least never let Cruddace touch the book given the sheer amount of vitriol targeted at the man for his last ode to дерьмо.

It's a beer-and-pretzels game, folks. Are you and your mates getting together, having a good time, throwing some dice and moving little plastic soldiers around on a table? Yes? Having fun? Good. Mission accomplished.

Anything outside of this experience is a bonus.

I think as the next few tournaments get played people are going to develop a healthy respect for the new nids.

I've seen 4 games so far, played in one of them myself - not as the nid player. In all cases the nids tabled the opponents and the nid players weren't what I'd call top tier tournament guys. I consider myself well above average and I don't think I've ever been spanked that hard before.

Part of it is simply the number of bodies they can now put on the board. Another part is that some of the old tactics used against them don't work anymore. Honestly I think the dex is probably a lot better than people are giving it credit for.

me too! If we keep slagging it I could end up with a whole swarm for cheap!

Damn those Tervigons and other stuff that got nerfed!

mwuhahaha wink wink!

Has there been a single person on Dakka that has argued that no one will ever win games with the new codex? Because I'm nearly 100% sure that, in fact, that is not the complaint people are making.

But by all means, keep fighting against something no one is arguing.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's a beer-and-pretzels game, folks. Are you and your mates getting together, having a good time, throwing some dice and moving little plastic soldiers around on a table?

Yeah!

 Psienesis wrote:
Having fun?

Nope. Unless we play a scenario that in turn needs hours of preparation so it is not beer-and-pretzels anymore.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's a beer-and-pretzels game, folks. Are you and your mates getting together, having a good time, throwing some dice and moving little plastic soldiers around on a table? Yes? Having fun? Good. Mission accomplished.

Anything outside of this experience is a bonus.

D&D is a beer and pretzels game and has a great deal more effort put into it rather than lazy copy paste jobs, arbitrary nerfs and invalidations of prior tactics, and usually doesn't try to disadvantage one class heavily.

The players shouldn't have to cover for GW's ass and house rule a book out of mediocrity.

If 40k is a beer and pretzels game, I can't think of a game that isn't a beer and pretzels game.

 Kain wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It's a beer-and-pretzels game, folks. Are you and your mates getting together, having a good time, throwing some dice and moving little plastic soldiers around on a table? Yes? Having fun? Good. Mission accomplished.

Anything outside of this experience is a bonus.

D&D is a beer and pretzels game and has a great deal more effort put into it rather than lazy copy paste jobs, arbitrary nerfs and invalidations of prior tactics, and usually doesn't try to disadvantage one class heavily.

The players shouldn't have to cover for GW's ass and house rule a book out of mediocrity.

You obviously don't play Fighters in 3.0 or later editions of D&D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
If 40k is a beer and pretzels game, I can't think of a game that isn't a beer and pretzels game.

Should a game require being more? Would that not make it more akin to a job?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
If 40k is a beer and pretzels game, I can't think of a game that isn't a beer and pretzels game.

Should a game require being more? Would that not make it more akin to a job?

Is this the secret "Why Warmahordes is getting so popular?" question?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It's a beer-and-pretzels game, folks. Are you and your mates getting together, having a good time, throwing some dice and moving little plastic soldiers around on a table? Yes? Having fun? Good. Mission accomplished.

Anything outside of this experience is a bonus.

D&D is a beer and pretzels game and has a great deal more effort put into it rather than lazy copy paste jobs, arbitrary nerfs and invalidations of prior tactics, and usually doesn't try to disadvantage one class heavily.

The players shouldn't have to cover for GW's ass and house rule a book out of mediocrity.

You obviously don't play Fighters in 3.0 or later editions of D&D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
If 40k is a beer and pretzels game, I can't think of a game that isn't a beer and pretzels game.

Should a game require being more? Would that not make it more akin to a job?

WoTC at least tried to rectify fighters with the Tome of Battle and continually released errata and much more rules heavy supplements that showered the game with new toys for everyone involved.

GW's supplements are a lot of fluff, pretty pictures, a handful of scenarios, maybe a warlord table or two, a special character here and there and switching the FOC around.

 Psienesis wrote:

Should a game require being more? Would that not make it more akin to a job?

Maybe be not a bloated mess that achieves its purpose in a smooth way with balanced factions so everyone can pick any model they want and be effective?

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy for wanting a quality product with balance and cleaner rules.

Personally, I think Warmahordes is getting more popular because it has a much, much lower bar to cross for getting into than 40K.

Aren't Warmachine/Warmahorde models pre-assembled and pre-painted? Isn't a PDF of the rules provided for free with the purchase of a box of figs? The initial outlay does not resemble the down payment of a car.

It's also much, much newer than 40K. This accounts for a lot, actually, as I think "kids" these days, getting into their first tabletop war-game, are going to see 40K, and remember that they have seen those 40K boxes on the shelves at their FLGS their entire lives and think that it's a game for old people. And so they go with the newer-looking games. This is more a marketing issue than anything, however.

That does not, however, mean Warmachine/Hordes is *not* a beer and pretzels game. Sure, I suppose you could play it competitively, but I am led to understand that there is no real competitive edge between armies, and pretty much whatever you put down is a viable thing to play and stands a real chance of winning the game. This is the very definition of beer-and-pretzels.

40K can be this way, too, and it is in many places, such as the scenario described by the OP. If it's just you and some friends and no one has the desire, or the cash, to build the superdeathstardreadhardkilly build of the current edition, then just about anything you throw on the table is going to be viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Should a game require being more? Would that not make it more akin to a job?

Maybe be not a bloated mess that achieves its purpose in a smooth way with balanced factions so everyone can pick any model they want and be effective?

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy for wanting a quality product with balance and cleaner rules.

Not crazy, but crazy if you are expecting that from GW. 40K hasn't *ever* been such a thing.

Having played Tau in 5th and won about as often as I lost while my regular opponents tended to play Blood Angels, Grey Knights and Necrons, I gotta say there is something specially pleasing about winning with a codex that everyone and their mother believes is not up to snuff.

After all, if the army with the best codex always wins, the Germans would have won WWII and the Americans Vietnam.

I think most of the people in this thread have no idea what a beer and pretzels game actually is...

I think the book is pretty well balanced personally, there is a difference, however, between 'balance' and 'diversity'. It seems pretty clear to me that the army is intended to be played as a large swarm army backed up by a handful of monstrous creature (carnifexes, trygons, exocrines, harpys, crones, etc.) and small elite units (warriors, shrikes, raveners, hive guard, zoanthropes, etc.) which fulfill specialized roles within the army (anti-tank, anti-heavy infantry, deepstrike/backfield disruption, etc.), most of the attempts at 'list building' I have seen are basically trying to keep alive an outmoded style of play harking back to 4th edition nidzilla: As many monstrous creatures as possible with the swarm elements as an afterthought. This failed list building paradigm no longer works nor is it how the army was primarily intended to be utilized, and it shouldn't be surprised that all the examples of 'Tyranids are underpowered' result from it.

 Psienesis wrote:

Aren't Warmachine/Warmahorde models pre-assembled and pre-painted? Isn't a PDF of the rules provided for free with the purchase of a box of figs?

Nope and not at all.

Also, it is worth mentioning that a massive part of the "new" Warmahordes players are actually former 40k/Fantasy players and not fresh faces. They are simply switching game systemy because Warmahordes has a good ruleset while 40k has grown quite sh*tty.

 Psienesis wrote:


Not crazy, but crazy if you are expecting that from GW. 40K hasn't *ever* been such a thing.

Great, so you agree with me fundamentally; 40k is not a good ruleset. It isn't any more of a casual game than any other system, and I'd argue that it is in fact worse due to high cost, complicated rules with little depth, poor balance forcing players to negotiate on power levels lest one player accidentally bring a strong list, and many loopholes and situations where the rules fail altogether.

Jeffnar wrote:After all, if the army with the best codex always wins, the Germans would have won WWII and the Americans Vietnam.

I don't even know where to begin on how this is one of the worst comparisons I've ever read.

 Psienesis wrote:
Aren't Warmachine/Warmahorde models pre-assembled and pre-painted?

Nope.

Psienesis wrote:Isn't a PDF of the rules provided for free with the purchase of a box of figs?

Wrong again.

The pieces all require assmebly and painting and the starter sets don't come with a PDF of the rules. There is a "Starter Edition" rule set that is like 2 pages of information on how to play. You get the rules for the units that come with it via the cards, however.

The rest of your post would make sense if Warmahordes was only picking up steam with younger people, however that isn't true either. It's just picking up steam because it's a solid well-written game, with interesting models.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:


Not crazy, but crazy if you are expecting that from GW. 40K hasn't *ever* been such a thing.

Great, so you agree with me fundamentally; 40k is not a good ruleset. It isn't any more of a casual game than any other system, and I'd argue that it is in fact worse due to high cost, complicated rules with little depth, poor balance forcing players to negotiate on power levels lest one player accidentally bring a strong list, and many loopholes and situations where the rules fail altogether.

Jeffnar wrote:After all, if the army with the best codex always wins, the Germans would have won WWII and the Americans Vietnam.

I don't even know where to begin on how this is one of the worst comparisons I've ever read.

I have never said differently that the rules of 40K are not a terrible mess.

What I am saying, however, is that people are getting too jimmy-rustled over this fact, and seem to think that bitching about it on a forum or, worse, telling a player who is having fun with those messy rules that they are wrong for having fun with those rules is somehow effective, or appropriate.

I am also saying if you don't like the rules, fine, you can not like the rules, that's totally fine... but don't piss in someone else's wheaties if they *are* having fun with the rules. That just makes you an ass.

Jefffar wrote:

After all, if the army with the best codex always wins, the Germans would have won WWII and the Americans Vietnam.

The Germans lost because the economic deck was stacked ridiculously against them (America alone outproduced the entire Axis) and attrition soon robbed Germany of any skilled soldiers or supplies to keep their army in tip top shape. The allies could produce far more materiel that was technologically equivalent and had effectively limitless manpower. Also, the Germans couldn't have even defeated Britain, they had no hope of defeating the royal navy and without the royal navy out of the way, Britain was uninvadable.

I'm not really an expert on vietnam so I'll leave it to someone else to explain to you why this is a dumb comparison.