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.
Tyran wrote: This is nonsense, you are buffing some of our strongest units while at the same time neglecting our weakest.
What about the Tyrannocyte, the Harpy/Crone, the Toxicrene, the Haruspex, the mines, Tyrant Guard, etc?
Contrary to popular opinion, I do not work at GW as a rules writer, and my suggestions are in no way comprehensive. This is a discussion forum, wherein you are free - and encouraged - to post your own change ideas / wishlist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: Are Nids back to being terrible again? Having a decent codex was unnerving and I didn't like it. Felt wrong.
Not terrible, but definitely not good. A C- army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 18:03:28
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
often play lists without genestealers and with lots of gants, which play the turn 2 game and need to avoid having any obvious targets in the army.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm slowly but steadily adding to my gant collection and heading towards an eventual swarm. I love the idea of clouds of those little buggers.
If you forgo our best units (flyrants, hive guards and stealers. Fexes are ok.) the durability of the nid faction rises a lot. There are types of list that can be played under the following principles:
1) No obvious target. Your opponent should never have a clear target for his attacks, adjust your upgrades and weapon accordingly on your units and monsters so that all targets are equally important. In some way is the old threat overrun concept.
2) No long range shooting or "just enough", where just enough is the amount of long range firepower needed to eliminate one high value target (quadlas preds or tank commanders for example).
3) Your first turn is quite quick, you advance, shoot a few things and throw your powers. The damage is limited. The list focuses on range 18/24" weapons and assaults, which yeld much more per point than long range stuff. In pratical terms, you forgo turn 1 in order to unleash hell on turn 2 and 3.
4) Loads and loads of little guys. I usually play this as a brigade and between terma, horma, rippers and gargs i have more than 120 wounds. This list wants an attrition war, and after turn 2 the little guys are everywhere and can really mess with a lot of stuff and force harsh decisions on the objectives.
5) Warriors are nice. They follow the doctrine of not being good targets (infantry, T4, 4+, 8 points/wound), and from turn 2 onward they show the opponent what a good hybrid shooting/assault unit can do. The numbers that they can put out are simply scary, and are good targets for double shooting.
6) A leviathan walkrant is a bad target, and since he will be your warlord, that's a good thing. Take the leviathan trait and you now have a 4++ that can be rerolled two times per turn. Last time my DE opponent tried to kill it, it resisted 2 turns of focused fire from all his dissie cannons, and it wasn't luck, because math supports that (i healed him once with the stratagem). Not bad for 170 points!
7) Cover! A couple of warriors in front of a fex or a walkrant give him cover, use this! (you will also need a toe in cover)
The gamble here is in not getting preventively crippled by turn 1 and 2 fire, which i found that if i don't use high value models, get venoms and play leviathan it is doable against the large majority of lists running around right now.
You are countered by the following lists:
a) Full IG list with big screens. Even worse if they use conscripts.
b) Alaitoc lists with loads of flyers. This kind of nid list unfortunately is ill equipped to fight flyers.
Awesome, ty. The "diffused threats" mode of operating is how I like to run my marines, too. Couple comments/questions:
Nice advice on the walkrant, I'm looking forward to trying that as it's one of my favorite models.
I'm with you on Warriors, I dig 'em. I have like 90 of them, I'm actually not sure how many. Only 63 painted though.
Gargoyles? To fill Fast Attack? I like those models a lot but I struggle to see taking them over Raveners or something.
Termagants. What's your typical weapon mix?
Hormagants. I'm thinking of going without them and doing full Termagants instead, how much will I miss having Hormagants? I just like the Termagant models better.
I've been running Jorm with my Warriors for the 3+, am considering sticking with that for the 5+ on gants. Not sure where I'll end up though.
often play lists without genestealers and with lots of gants, which play the turn 2 game and need to avoid having any obvious targets in the army.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm slowly but steadily adding to my gant collection and heading towards an eventual swarm. I love the idea of clouds of those little buggers.
If you forgo our best units (flyrants, hive guards and stealers. Fexes are ok.) the durability of the nid faction rises a lot. There are types of list that can be played under the following principles:
1) No obvious target. Your opponent should never have a clear target for his attacks, adjust your upgrades and weapon accordingly on your units and monsters so that all targets are equally important. In some way is the old threat overrun concept.
2) No long range shooting or "just enough", where just enough is the amount of long range firepower needed to eliminate one high value target (quadlas preds or tank commanders for example).
3) Your first turn is quite quick, you advance, shoot a few things and throw your powers. The damage is limited. The list focuses on range 18/24" weapons and assaults, which yeld much more per point than long range stuff. In pratical terms, you forgo turn 1 in order to unleash hell on turn 2 and 3.
4) Loads and loads of little guys. I usually play this as a brigade and between terma, horma, rippers and gargs i have more than 120 wounds. This list wants an attrition war, and after turn 2 the little guys are everywhere and can really mess with a lot of stuff and force harsh decisions on the objectives.
5) Warriors are nice. They follow the doctrine of not being good targets (infantry, T4, 4+, 8 points/wound), and from turn 2 onward they show the opponent what a good hybrid shooting/assault unit can do. The numbers that they can put out are simply scary, and are good targets for double shooting.
6) A leviathan walkrant is a bad target, and since he will be your warlord, that's a good thing. Take the leviathan trait and you now have a 4++ that can be rerolled two times per turn. Last time my DE opponent tried to kill it, it resisted 2 turns of focused fire from all his dissie cannons, and it wasn't luck, because math supports that (i healed him once with the stratagem). Not bad for 170 points!
7) Cover! A couple of warriors in front of a fex or a walkrant give him cover, use this! (you will also need a toe in cover)
The gamble here is in not getting preventively crippled by turn 1 and 2 fire, which i found that if i don't use high value models, get venoms and play leviathan it is doable against the large majority of lists running around right now.
You are countered by the following lists:
a) Full IG list with big screens. Even worse if they use conscripts.
b) Alaitoc lists with loads of flyers. This kind of nid list unfortunately is ill equipped to fight flyers.
Awesome, ty. The "diffused threats" mode of operating is how I like to run my marines, too. Couple comments/questions:
Nice advice on the walkrant, I'm looking forward to trying that as it's one of my favorite models.
I'm with you on Warriors, I dig 'em. I have like 90 of them, I'm actually not sure how many. Only 63 painted though.
Gargoyles? To fill Fast Attack? I like those models a lot but I struggle to see taking them over Raveners or something.
Termagants. What's your typical weapon mix?
Hormagants. I'm thinking of going without them and doing full Termagants instead, how much will I miss having Hormagants? I just like the Termagant models better.
I've been running Jorm with my Warriors for the 3+, am considering sticking with that for the 5+ on gants. Not sure where I'll end up though.
If you go Jorm then yes, avoid horma and go full terma. Otherwise i usually play a 30 horma brood, it's a nice target for onslaught, and they do really mean things.
Surprisingly enough, since i want my termas stuck in melee i usually go full spinefist. With jorm you are going less for assault and more for close range shooting, so the typical half borers half devouers is the way to go on the big broods. You can even ignore cover with the correct trait, so go for it.
I'm not sure about making the tyrant the warlord though with Jorm, there is no reason. A neurothrope or a prime is better for the aforementioned trait.
Gargoyles are indeed there to fill the fast attacks, i could do it with mines, but those are points completely wasted, at this point i prefer to invest a bit more and have something usable even if not optimal.
They are gaunts that can arrive after the boards is already full of blood and usually the first things that get sacrificed are the ones that hurt gargs.
I don't have raveners yet, but indeed it is something i wanted to try.
Amishprn86 wrote: Horde nids has always done well in 8th, for some reason no one wants to play with 200 models tho.
My problem isn't playing. My problem is buying yet another horde army Having already orks that I will now need to buy looot more boys(I think 360 should be enough...) to satisfy clan rules...Well that's enough hordes to buy!
Would be interesting to try against tyranids though with orks. That's one army I haven't tried much and presumably would be more fun at least h2h based bugs than say dark eldars that just keep running around poor boys.
Careful with that, maybe that after the ork codex is released having hordes of boyz will not be the best choice.
A) hard to imagine boyz, already not that hot unit, be nerfed
b) matter of practicality. Bat 3 troop. Means 3 boyz needed. I have 4 clans. 4x3x30 is 360. As is i can't make even 1 battallion without grots without losikg clan trait
often play lists without genestealers and with lots of gants, which play the turn 2 game and need to avoid having any obvious targets in the army.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm slowly but steadily adding to my gant collection and heading towards an eventual swarm. I love the idea of clouds of those little buggers.
If you forgo our best units (flyrants, hive guards and stealers. Fexes are ok.) the durability of the nid faction rises a lot. There are types of list that can be played under the following principles:
1) No obvious target. Your opponent should never have a clear target for his attacks, adjust your upgrades and weapon accordingly on your units and monsters so that all targets are equally important. In some way is the old threat overrun concept.
2) No long range shooting or "just enough", where just enough is the amount of long range firepower needed to eliminate one high value target (quadlas preds or tank commanders for example).
3) Your first turn is quite quick, you advance, shoot a few things and throw your powers. The damage is limited. The list focuses on range 18/24" weapons and assaults, which yeld much more per point than long range stuff. In pratical terms, you forgo turn 1 in order to unleash hell on turn 2 and 3.
4) Loads and loads of little guys. I usually play this as a brigade and between terma, horma, rippers and gargs i have more than 120 wounds. This list wants an attrition war, and after turn 2 the little guys are everywhere and can really mess with a lot of stuff and force harsh decisions on the objectives.
5) Warriors are nice. They follow the doctrine of not being good targets (infantry, T4, 4+, 8 points/wound), and from turn 2 onward they show the opponent what a good hybrid shooting/assault unit can do. The numbers that they can put out are simply scary, and are good targets for double shooting.
6) A leviathan walkrant is a bad target, and since he will be your warlord, that's a good thing. Take the leviathan trait and you now have a 4++ that can be rerolled two times per turn. Last time my DE opponent tried to kill it, it resisted 2 turns of focused fire from all his dissie cannons, and it wasn't luck, because math supports that (i healed him once with the stratagem). Not bad for 170 points!
7) Cover! A couple of warriors in front of a fex or a walkrant give him cover, use this! (you will also need a toe in cover)
The gamble here is in not getting preventively crippled by turn 1 and 2 fire, which i found that if i don't use high value models, get venoms and play leviathan it is doable against the large majority of lists running around right now.
You are countered by the following lists:
a) Full IG list with big screens. Even worse if they use conscripts.
b) Alaitoc lists with loads of flyers. This kind of nid list unfortunately is ill equipped to fight flyers.
Awesome, ty. The "diffused threats" mode of operating is how I like to run my marines, too. Couple comments/questions:
Nice advice on the walkrant, I'm looking forward to trying that as it's one of my favorite models.
I'm with you on Warriors, I dig 'em. I have like 90 of them, I'm actually not sure how many. Only 63 painted though.
Gargoyles? To fill Fast Attack? I like those models a lot but I struggle to see taking them over Raveners or something.
Termagants. What's your typical weapon mix?
Hormagants. I'm thinking of going without them and doing full Termagants instead, how much will I miss having Hormagants? I just like the Termagant models better.
I've been running Jorm with my Warriors for the 3+, am considering sticking with that for the 5+ on gants. Not sure where I'll end up though.
If you go Jorm then yes, avoid horma and go full terma. Otherwise i usually play a 30 horma brood, it's a nice target for onslaught, and they do really mean things.
Surprisingly enough, since i want my termas stuck in melee i usually go full spinefist. With jorm you are going less for assault and more for close range shooting, so the typical half borers half devouers is the way to go on the big broods. You can even ignore cover with the correct trait, so go for it.
I'm not sure about making the tyrant the warlord though with Jorm, there is no reason. A neurothrope or a prime is better for the aforementioned trait.
Gargoyles are indeed there to fill the fast attacks, i could do it with mines, but those are points completely wasted, at this point i prefer to invest a bit more and have something usable even if not optimal.
They are gaunts that can arrive after the boards is already full of blood and usually the first things that get sacrificed are the ones that hurt gargs.
I don't have raveners yet, but indeed it is something i wanted to try.
Everything there makes sense... even the spinefists??! That's really interesting. I guess if you wrap stuff up to pin them in place the spinefists can keep at it.
The point about Gargoyles vs. Mines, agreed. I just happen to have 9 Raveners (good for Jorm tunneling). I want to do the surprise gant/Warrior cloud bomb with 40+ models for the lulz.
Horde Nids are garbage and countered by the following:
Imperial Knights - you won't wound them and they'll effortlessly kill 60+ of your models per turn.
Custodes - they will chew you up with hurricane bolters, you'll assault them, they'll fight, leave, and shoot you again. It's gg.
Guard - they will drown you in dakka, it's already over before i finished typing this sentence.
Tau - they will crush you even harder than guard, they have more firepower and their tanks fly.
Marines - Marines will eat your face off with aggressors & rerolls. Assuming they don't bring fire raptors, in which case lololololol. Many people bring bikes, too, they've got intense dakka.
Eldar Soup - They have solid volume of fire, and can move very fast, and shoot very fast. God help you if they can soulburst.
Orks - they do horde better than you do, and they don't even have a codex yet. When they do, it'll be even worse for you.
Saying horde nids have always done well is probably one of the most ignorant statements i've ever read on this forum.
The point about Gargoyles vs. Mines, agreed. I just happen to have 9 Raveners (good for Jorm tunneling). I want to do the surprise gant/Warrior cloud bomb with 40+ models for the lulz.
This might work in your meta where people can't kill tactical marine spam.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 19:25:53
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
tyr was killed by rule of 3 their backbone was flyrant spam... now nids are dead at least in big tournaments, in casual tournaments they can still be powerful. Lately i played against a nice tyr list, i won largely but just cause i played Nurgle+Dg and a nid have though time handle high thoughness+fnp army, with lot of flying units, but was in any case a good match.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 19:44:05
3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019
Marmatag wrote: Horde Nids are garbage and countered by the following:
Imperial Knights - you won't wound them and they'll effortlessly kill 60+ of your models per turn.
Custodes - they will chew you up with hurricane bolters, you'll assault them, they'll fight, leave, and shoot you again. It's gg.
Guard - they will drown you in dakka, it's already over before i finished typing this sentence.
Tau - they will crush you even harder than guard, they have more firepower and their tanks fly.
Marines - Marines will eat your face off with aggressors & rerolls. Assuming they don't bring fire raptors, in which case lololololol. Many people bring bikes, too, they've got intense dakka.
Eldar Soup - They have solid volume of fire, and can move very fast, and shoot very fast. God help you if they can soulburst.
Orks - they do horde better than you do, and they don't even have a codex yet. When they do, it'll be even worse for you.
Saying horde nids have always done well is probably one of the most ignorant statements i've ever read on this forum.
The point about Gargoyles vs. Mines, agreed. I just happen to have 9 Raveners (good for Jorm tunneling). I want to do the surprise gant/Warrior cloud bomb with 40+ models for the lulz.
This might work in your meta where people can't kill tactical marine spam.
Wow man, you must be the most fun guy at parties...
In any case, we are not talking about pure horde nids here, we know that they don't work, they have no offensive power. We are talking about beta strikes, which is a completely different thing.
And yes, gant warrior bomb is not a meta defining super combo, that's why he said "for the lulz", because it is effective and fun even if not broken, but i got the impression that in your mind anything that isn't broken isn't good.
Sorry to tell you this, but tyranids are actually really fun and competitive right now, they only suffer in the upper echelons of competition, but so do 80% of the factions of this game (and many are relegated to soup ingredients), so if your group pertains to that environment then i'm sorry for you. Luckily those kind of environments are extremely rare, so please understand that for the great majority of players of this game, your opinion is misleading. Not to mention that you assume ITC rules, which as i stated, is not the case here. We play CA missions. You should play them once in a while, ITC after all seems made from the ground up to punish nids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 20:01:48
I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
That said, I do enjoy playing my Nids, and this is the best I've ever seen them, and while that isn't saying much, I can at least do okay in mid tables, compared to early 8th, where they were a complete dumpster fire.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 20:31:27
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
Does it ever come to you that maybe the problems are only in your meta?
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
Does it ever come to you that maybe the problems are only in your meta?
Considering Tyranids have fallen off the face of the planet in every competitive meta, i know for a fact it's not just "my meta."
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I'm so tired of people thinking ITC hypercompetetive metas are the only "real way" to play 40k.
Fundamentally, I think certain armies and builds don't translate as well to that format (especially attrition armies which suffer from time constraints), and that's ok, because that format is not the definitive format for 40k. Probably far from it. Balance issues at the tournament level are ultimately less important than you seem to think, imo.
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
Does it ever come to you that maybe the problems are only in your meta?
Considering Tyranids have fallen off the face of the planet in every competitive meta, i know for a fact it's not just "my meta."
Right now the numbers tell us that they win exactly as many matches as they lose. Sure that means that they are not going to be in any competitive meta, because they are the exact definition of a mid tier faction, so there are better choices for competitive players and if you bring nids to a big event you will not get to the top tables.
And that is FINE, that's not a bad thing, it's a positive thing for a faction!
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
Does it ever come to you that maybe the problems are only in your meta?
Considering Tyranids have fallen off the face of the planet in every competitive meta, i know for a fact it's not just "my meta."
Yes B.c Tournaments matters for 99% the players....
Insectum7 wrote: I'm so tired of people thinking ITC hypercompetetive metas are the only "real way" to play 40k.
Fundamentally, I think certain armies and builds don't translate as well to that format (especially attrition armies which suffer from time constraints), and that's ok, because that format is not the definitive format for 40k. Probably far from it. Balance issues at the tournament level are ultimately less important than you seem to think, imo.
Your argument is essentially that there should be no established standard when discussing game balance, which in turn makes any discussion about unit comparisons, etc, completely pointless. I'm sick of it. There are a ton of people who play in a standardized way, using the tournament format. It may not be the "right way" to play, but it is the way a lot of people are playing. And you can thank the tournament community for some of the core rules in this game. For instance, +1 to go first rather than automatically going first. Or progressive scoring in Chapter Approved missions.
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of people who aren't affected by balance issues dominating threads with their casual or bust mentality.
There are balance issues in this game, and they should be corrected. If you don't want to discuss them because you live in the land of Milk and Honey that's fine, but running around saying "all problems are solved by playing in my meta!" doesn't really help does it?
Does it ever come to you that maybe the problems are only in your meta?
Considering Tyranids have fallen off the face of the planet in every competitive meta, i know for a fact it's not just "my meta."
Right now the numbers tell us that they win exactly as many matches as they lose. Sure that means that they are not going to be in any competitive meta, because they are the exact definition of a mid tier faction, so there are better choices for competitive players and if you bring nids to a big event you will not get to the top tables.
And that is FINE, that's not a bad thing, it's a positive thing for a faction!
Yes, you're looking at one specific aspect of balance, and that's record. What it's not telling you, is that there are matchups for Tyranids where you have 0 hope to win the game, regardless of how well you play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 20:49:01
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Hmm, no progressive scoring actually comes from AoS, they copy pasted the AoS missions for CA. Not that i disapprove, AoS has some really great missions.
In any case, why do you assume that ITC is the "tournament format? It definitely is not, at least not in Italy and i think that in general in Europe ITC doesn't get a lot of followers.
Yes, you're looking at one specific aspect of balance, and that's record. What it's not telling you, is that there are matchups for Tyranids where you have 0 hope to win the game, regardless of how well you play.
And those are not nid problems, but other codici problems. If you are in a situation where nids have zero chances to win, then you can be sure that there are at least a dozen more codici who are equally screwed, so the problem does not lye with the bugs.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 21:08:26
Spoletta wrote: Hmm, no progressive scoring actually comes from AoS, they copy pasted the AoS missions for CA. Not that i disapprove, AoS has some really great missions.
In any case, why do you assume that ITC is the "tournament format? It definitely is not, at least not in Italy and i think that in general in Europe ITC doesn't get a lot of followers.
Yes, you're looking at one specific aspect of balance, and that's record. What it's not telling you, is that there are matchups for Tyranids where you have 0 hope to win the game, regardless of how well you play.
And those are not nid problems, but other codici problems.
It's the American format, so that's what i'm apt to discuss. In general other formats encourage gunlines, and Nids are awful at gunline. Basically bring as many hive guard as you can, and hope for enough LOS blockers. Not fun.
And, while to some degree I do agree that it's a problem with other armies, there are some that aren't even top-tier that crush Tyranids.
Start with that we both agree there is a problem. With that said, there's no reason to only nerf other armies, when Tyranids have some really truly awful units. It seems short sighted to rant and rail that an army is balanced, despite the fact that there is evidence to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that balance doesn't matter, so it's ok for Tyranids to have issues. That does not make sense.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm so tired of people thinking ITC hypercompetetive metas are the only "real way" to play 40k.
Fundamentally, I think certain armies and builds don't translate as well to that format (especially attrition armies which suffer from time constraints), and that's ok, because that format is not the definitive format for 40k. Probably far from it. Balance issues at the tournament level are ultimately less important than you seem to think, imo.
Your argument is essentially that there should be no established standard when discussing game balance, which in turn makes any discussion about unit comparisons, etc, completely pointless.
No, it just means you have to be aware that different metas exist, and accept that different strategies and builds can work in those metas. You're essentially saying that everyone who doesn't play in a meta like yours should be absent to the discussion, despite the fact that a broad gammut of players probably frequent this forum, and may be looking for advice concerning a meta that isn't your own. You're being incredibly self centered.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm so tired of people thinking ITC hypercompetetive metas are the only "real way" to play 40k.
Fundamentally, I think certain armies and builds don't translate as well to that format (especially attrition armies which suffer from time constraints), and that's ok, because that format is not the definitive format for 40k. Probably far from it. Balance issues at the tournament level are ultimately less important than you seem to think, imo.
Your argument is essentially that there should be no established standard when discussing game balance, which in turn makes any discussion about unit comparisons, etc, completely pointless.
No, it just means you have to be aware that different metas exist, and accept that different strategies and builds can work in those metas. You're essentially saying that everyone who doesn't play in a meta like yours should be absent to the discussion, despite the fact that a broad gammut of players probably frequent this forum, and may be looking for advice concerning a meta that isn't your own. You're being incredibly self centered.
Just because different metas exist doesn't make them equal. More people play ITC than Insectum7's local shop meta.
And if we can't discuss balance because "different metas exist," then we also can't provide advice, because different metas exist. You're being incredibly closed minded. There has to be a base of assumptions for any discourse in regards to 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 21:24:08
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
More people on the internet says they play ITC, there is no telling how many dont go online and says they dont play ITC, you thinking that a minor vocal on a couple websites is the whole of the USA.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm so tired of people thinking ITC hypercompetetive metas are the only "real way" to play 40k.
Fundamentally, I think certain armies and builds don't translate as well to that format (especially attrition armies which suffer from time constraints), and that's ok, because that format is not the definitive format for 40k. Probably far from it. Balance issues at the tournament level are ultimately less important than you seem to think, imo.
Your argument is essentially that there should be no established standard when discussing game balance, which in turn makes any discussion about unit comparisons, etc, completely pointless.
No, it just means you have to be aware that different metas exist, and accept that different strategies and builds can work in those metas. You're essentially saying that everyone who doesn't play in a meta like yours should be absent to the discussion, despite the fact that a broad gammut of players probably frequent this forum, and may be looking for advice concerning a meta that isn't your own. You're being incredibly self centered.
Just because different metas exist doesn't make them equal. More people play ITC than Insectum7's local shop meta.
And if we can't discuss balance because "different metas exist," then we also can't provide advice, because different metas exist. You're being incredibly closed minded. There has to be a base of assumptions for any discourse in regards to 40k.
How globally representative is your local meta vs. mine. Like, can you get statistics on that? Be my guest and tell me that ITC is played more than flgs, see how seriously people take that.
We can discuss balance, we just also have to place it in context. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.
Regardless, Tyranids are hard countered by a few armies out there. Do we agree on that?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: You can't assume any FLGS is the same as yours.
Regardless, Tyranids are hard countered by a few armies out there. Do we agree on that?
Every mono list is tho.............. thats kinda how 40k plays.
Statement really only applies to Orks, Necrons, and Tyranids.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: You can't assume any FLGS is the same as yours.
Regardless, Tyranids are hard countered by a few armies out there. Do we agree on that?
I feel I can make that assumption having played in many different local metas with mono marines since 1995, and having always managed to attain a competetive spot. Even if you don't accept that experience, ITC tourney types remain the minority. You keep trying to draw attention away from that fact, but it is what it is.
No, I'm not sure I can agree with nids being hard countered. There appears to be enough diversity in the army to find a way to manage a win, even if it's not on even starting ground. Even if they are hard countered by certain lists, every army tends to have a kryptonite.
Yeah well when your Kryptonite is Dark Eldar and Knights, two of the strongest and most popular dexes right now, it's a bit of a hostile meta for Tyranids. Upper mid tier army at best. Potentially lower. Can get a bunch of wins, odds heavily stacked against winning a tournament though
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/22 05:10:55
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
