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.

madd_leeroy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
"New Tyranid Codex: so I've been playing it for a few months now and my impression is..."

Said nobody ever (yet).

Here, let me fix that for you.

New Tyrabid Codex: so I've been playing it for a few years now, cause it is the exact same codex as the 5th codex SERIOUSLY take a second to compare them side by side, do it before you keep talking, and my impression is that it isn't going to wow anyone. It isn't medicore, it is bad. Everything that was good was nerfed, things that were bad are still bad, and the new units range from straight bad to potentially medicore.

Feel better?

I have done the side by side comparison with a store copy of the 5th codex. Nothing changed in any substantial way except for the worse. My god, I still can not believe that someone, somewhere thought to themselves, "Man Scything Talons are OP, we need to fix this!"

Odin's beard... dude I hope Marijuana becomes legal in your state soon. The truth is, the last Tyranid codex was not a bad codex - it just wasn't a win-button codex. The new one, so far, looks very similar, but clearly not "the exact same". Your reaction is really quite embarrassing (for you), considering that despite your 'side by side comparison' you've yet to playtest the new codex in the current game.

If you want easy-wins, from 'first glance' it would appear that Tyranids again miss that role.

Yes what he said. People seem to be bit chin about the fact there is no supreme easy list that will beat everything. Well boo hoo. Yes Taudar is good and easy to play but making every other army OP to compensate won't solve anything.

If all armies were OP, then none would be OP. If all lists were as good as Taudar, no one would be complaining about Taudar. Balance. It's a crazy idea, I know.

if the FAQ least allow tyranids to use other psychic power options and redone some biomorphs like those silly scything talons and such, then maybe you can see rather competitive lists...

The most FAQ is WTF?!
That would be a long doc.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Ratliker wrote:
Perhaps we should start Ignoring all the trolls who try to derail the thread by all that
"you can't say codex is bad you haven't played it for months"
And just focus on what this turd of a codex has to offer (if any).

Is this an ironic post? ...pretty funny that the actual FACT is, nobody has play-tested the new codex yet - but to say so is apparently "trolling" and might endanger (derail) a whinefest thread about how much of a turd this codex, that nobody has played yet, is... Ok got it hah.

What's there to play-test? This book is a copy-paste of the 5th edition book.

Several people have already played games.

well they could start somewhere, if GW is that stubborn as we know, least make that small change that dont go an all out review on the entire book, in which I would like it to be done in thi next months really...

Do I need to playtest a 300-point unit that has WS1, BS1, T3 and 5+ save with no special rules to know that it's an ass unit?

It's interesting that people believe 40K is some kind of ultra-complex game where you have to read between the lines to discover its secrets. After the years that people have been playing (decades for some) the game, it's not hard to look at a unit's rules and figure out whether it's crap or not, and the book only has like, around 20 units if that. You could literally read the entire codex and evaluate every units' rules in a day.

That this codex is basically the 5th edition codex just with tweaks makes that evaluation even easier.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Do I need to playtest a 300-point unit that has WS1, BS1, T3 and 5+ save with no special rules to know that it's an ass unit?

It's interesting that people believe 40K is some kind of ultra-complex game where you have to read between the lines to discover its secrets. After the years that people have been playing (decades for some) the game, it's not hard to look at a unit's rules and figure out whether it's crap or not, and the book only has like, around 20 units if that. You could literally read the entire codex and evaluate every units' rules in a day.

That this codex is basically the 5th edition codex just with tweaks makes that evaluation even easier.

Exalted for truth. GW's simplistic stat system makes such analysis usually pretty trivial.

 Icculus wrote:
12 TL S6 shots for 150 points?! That sounds pretty awesome right there. I'd take two Carnifexs (carnifi?) for that at 300 points.
Toss in huge hordes of termagants, a couple flyrants, maybe a zoanthrope or two and a Hive Crone.

Yea that's DAKKAjet on a waaagh! territory there. Granted the jet gets 18 if I remember right but you get 12 every turn from every fex, and you can take 3 per unit right? It's nice to see some love for those guys again. They are one of my fave units in the game just because of the cool factor

I'm tired of the "wait and see crowd" I've had the codex since wednesday. I've been sick all week and not working and have had time to look at it the book. It's not very good. It's DA good. So if you don't like the DA codex because it isn't very competitive or because there are very few builds, then you won't like this either. If you like the DA codex because of fluff and the awesome models, Tyranids will be fine for you.

I am also tired of getting asked how would I fix nids, as if how dare I, a simple gamer, question the judgement of those who make the rules. Well, I am going to tell the world now since GW took a big steamer on my aspirations for this book.

1. Models in synapse range or are synapse creatures may run and assault as long as they haven't arrived from deep strike or fired a heavy weapon.

2. Create two different psychic powers charts, destructive and enhancement. Destructive focus on witch fires and novas. Make a doom like power. Enhancement, take the biomancy table and remove the leaching powers (would go in destructive) add two other powers.

3. Fix Trygon deep striking hole. Models my arrive at same time as trygon (or prime) but may not assault in the turn they arrive.

4. Genestealers may charge from outflank, but go up in cost by +2 points per model.

5. Tervigons remain their 160 points with all their 5th ed rules, but you must take a unit of 30 gants per tervigon to unlock as troops

6. Create a flyer that can't be grounded, make said flyer T6 with living ammunition that chases it's intended targets. Smart bombs basically.

7. Make instinctive behavior brutal (like in the new edition).

8. Warriors boosted to T5 but lose a wound.

9. Scything talons remain re-rolled misses.

10. Increase price of Hive Tyrant, but make him ML 2 base.

 Commissar Merces wrote:
I'm tired of the "wait and see crowd" I've had the codex since wednesday. I've been sick all week and not working and have had time to look at it the book. It's not very good. It's DA good. So if you don't like the DA codex because it isn't very competitive or because there are very few builds, then you won't like this either. If you like the DA codex because of fluff and the awesome models, Tyranids will be fine for you.

I am also tired of getting asked how would I fix nids, as if how dare I, a simple gamer, question the judgement of those who make the rules. Well, I am going to tell the world now since GW took a big steamer on my aspirations for this book.

3. Fix Trygon deep striking hole. Models my arrive at same time as trygon (or prime) but may not assault in the turn they arrive.
The hole is really meant for apoc. The ways to use it in regular games are too limited, but apoc is amazing with the way reserves works there

5. Tervigons remain their 160 points with all their 5th ed rules, but you must take a unit of 30 gants per tervigon to unlock as troops
Maybe part of the problem with nid monobuild was the op-ness of the tervigon? Maybe this price hike and slight reduction in abilities is actually bringing it in line?

9. Scything talons remain re-rolled misses.
Ok, yea, I agree here

10. Increase price of Hive Tyrant, but make him ML 2 base.
He went down in price and he IS master level 2

responses in the quote.

Also...

 Byte wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Please be honest with your opinions. I would like to hear directly from the new owners of the Codex.

I want my $50 back and what he heck am I going to do with 6k worth of Bugs...

I would keep the $50 book and play the game. Hell, it's what I bought and painted models for, why should I stop playing because I have to re-learn my army?

 Mulletdude wrote:

 Commissar Merces wrote:
I'm tired of the "wait and see crowd" I've had the codex since wednesday. I've been sick all week and not working and have had time to look at it the book. It's not very good. It's DA good. So if you don't like the DA codex because it isn't very competitive or because there are very few builds, then you won't like this either. If you like the DA codex because of fluff and the awesome models, Tyranids will be fine for you.

I am also tired of getting asked how would I fix nids, as if how dare I, a simple gamer, question the judgement of those who make the rules. Well, I am going to tell the world now since GW took a big steamer on my aspirations for this book.

3. Fix Trygon deep striking hole. Models my arrive at same time as trygon (or prime) but may not assault in the turn they arrive.
The hole is really meant for apoc. The ways to use it in regular games are too limited, but apoc is amazing with the way reserves works there

5. Tervigons remain their 160 points with all their 5th ed rules, but you must take a unit of 30 gants per tervigon to unlock as troops
Maybe part of the problem with nid monobuild was the op-ness of the tervigon? Maybe this price hike and slight reduction in abilities is actually bringing it in line?

9. Scything talons remain re-rolled misses.
Ok, yea, I agree here

10. Increase price of Hive Tyrant, but make him ML 2 base.
He went down in price and he IS master level 2

responses in the quote.

Also...

 Byte wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Please be honest with your opinions. I would like to hear directly from the new owners of the Codex.

I want my $50 back and what he heck am I going to do with 6k worth of Bugs...

I would keep the $50 book and play the game. Hell, it's what I bought and painted models for, why should I stop playing because I have to re-learn my army?

Tervigons weren't OP. They were an honest to god GOOD unit in a terrible codex. That's what got them the "OP tag" No. The changes didn't bring them in line, it squished them to unusable.

That's my point. Tyrants were too expensive last edition for what you got. Increase their psychic awesomeness and slightly increases points. Now they are too weak and too cheap.

 Mulletdude wrote:

3. Fix Trygon deep striking hole. Models my arrive at same time as trygon (or prime) but may not assault in the turn they arrive.
The hole is really meant for apoc. The ways to use it in regular games are too limited, but apoc is amazing with the way reserves works there

The hole has frell all to do with Apoc, since it existed in the Forge World version of the Trygon before Apoc even existed.

OTOH, a simple fix would be to let the Trygon show up automagically on turn 1 or turn 2. We lost Spores, so why not let the Trygon be our new Drop Pod?


Noooo, that would make way too much frelling sense.

 Mulletdude wrote:

Maybe part of the problem with nid monobuild was the op-ness of the tervigon? Maybe this price hike and slight reduction in abilities is actually bringing it in line?

- Increased it's points substantially

- Removed access to BRB powers

- Increased the range at which it nukes termagants when it dies

- Removed the ability to provide TS/AG to nearby termagaunts

- Greatly increased the tax to make him a troop choice.


Pick any 3 and with the other changes the tervigon would have been pretty well balanced. Slap all of them on him and the only real reason to take it is because the synapse drawbacks are so bad that you have to make sure you provide some sort of defensible synapse or your army starts running away and/or eating itself in a couple turns of being shot at.

 Icculus wrote:
Does everybody here play WAAC? Does everyone here play only tournament settings and only the most optimized and maximized lists? If that's the case then go ahead and be upset about the book.

not again

 Icculus wrote:
If you play this game for the fun and flavor of the army then this book still provides you with some cool options to have fun.

Except it provides less flavor and less fun. If they removed everything bar the carnifex, hormagant, hive tyrant and sky slasher, the book would still provide "some cool options to have fun".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rollawaythestone wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Ratliker wrote:
Perhaps we should start Ignoring all the trolls who try to derail the thread by all that
"you can't say codex is bad you haven't played it for months"
And just focus on what this turd of a codex has to offer (if any).

Is this an ironic post? ...pretty funny that the actual FACT is, nobody has play-tested the new codex yet - but to say so is apparently "trolling" and might endanger (derail) a whinefest thread about how much of a turd this codex, that nobody has played yet, is... Ok got it hah.

What's there to play-test? This book is a copy-paste of the 5th edition book.

Also bit nerfed and dumbed down.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
Does everybody here play WAAC?

No. What's that got to do with anything? Are you trying to explain away Codex deficiencies by saying the only people that care about them are WAAC players?

 Icculus wrote:
If you play this game for the fun and flavor of the army...

*record scratch noise*

Stop right there. The strawman ends here. You're implying that tournament players/playing to win and fun are mutually exclusive. That's nonsense.

Come back when you have an actual argument and aren't attempting to dismiss a terrible Codex with some utter nonsense about "Play for flavour and fun".

And for the record, I've never been to a tournament nor do I really wish to go. I find competitive gaming boring and whilst I enjoy list building, tweaking the absolute min/max out of a list isn't my style. I'm almost a 100% narrative gamer these days, spending far more time playing the RPG's than the actual table top game. And this Codex suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckkkssssssss. You don't have to be a WAAC or some nut-case "I don't play to win" idiot to see just how un-fething-believably terrible this book is.

It doesn't matter how "un-freaking-believeably terrible this book is." I will still have fun playing games with my friends with the new Codex, despite its problems. If you can't have fun with even a poor codex making lists, trying fun/fluffy things, and challenging friends, you're either taking the game in its entirety too seriously, or you simply don't know how to have fun with a poor codex.

Heck, give me the Ork codex and I'll have a blast. I'm not defending a bad codex or a hurried release. I'm defending the notion that you and many others have that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have fun with a really, really sucky codex.

You can rephrase the argument however you like - FACT is, you are not out there playing the new codex yet.

Does it look very similar to the last edition? - yes.
Is that idea disappointing to Nid players? - clearly yes.
Have you given it a fair chance? - no.

That is why most of these Sky is Falling freakouts are so dumb.

 Gunzhard wrote:
You can rephrase the argument however you like - FACT is, you are not out there playing the new codex yet.

Does it look very similar to the last edition? - yes.
Is that idea disappointing to Nid players? - clearly yes.
Have you given it a fair chance? - no.

That is why most of these Sky is Falling freakouts are so dumb.

We have been playing the new codex since Thursday. Which makes your argument dumb.

 Gunzhard wrote:
You can rephrase the argument however you like - FACT is, you are not out there playing the new codex yet.

Does it look very similar to the last edition? - yes.
Is that idea disappointing to Nid players? - clearly yes.
Have you given it a fair chance? - no.

That is why most of these Sky is Falling freakouts are so dumb.

Cue "veteran players" with comments of knowing exactly how such and such units will play in-game due to years of experience without playing a game with them.

Well if a icarus and quad guns are popular , then knowing what happens to a t5 FMC doesn't require veteran status . But that is my opinion on that . Losing a type of deployment always is a big lose .

 HiveFleetCollossus wrote:

It doesn't matter how "un-freaking-believeably terrible this book is." I will still have fun playing games with my friends with the new Codex, despite its problems. If you can't have fun with even a poor codex making lists, trying fun/fluffy things, and challenging friends, you're either taking the game in its entirety too seriously, or you simply don't know how to have fun with a poor codex.

Heck, give me the Ork codex and I'll have a blast. I'm not defending a bad codex or a hurried release. I'm defending the notion that you and many others have that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have fun with a really, really sucky codex.

There's no reason to defend that notion, because no one has ever claimed that you can't "have fun" with a piece of gak codex. The assertion from players who actually care about the rules of the codex is that the rules of the codex suck donkey shlong. It's fluff bunnies and self-proposed "anti-WAAC" players who fly off their butthurt handles and start complaining about people "taking the game too seriously" whenever a codex's rules get criticized.

 HiveFleetCollossus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
Does everybody here play WAAC?

No. What's that got to do with anything? Are you trying to explain away Codex deficiencies by saying the only people that care about them are WAAC players?

 Icculus wrote:
If you play this game for the fun and flavor of the army...

*record scratch noise*

Stop right there. The strawman ends here. You're implying that tournament players/playing to win and fun are mutually exclusive. That's nonsense.

Come back when you have an actual argument and aren't attempting to dismiss a terrible Codex with some utter nonsense about "Play for flavour and fun".

And for the record, I've never been to a tournament nor do I really wish to go. I find competitive gaming boring and whilst I enjoy list building, tweaking the absolute min/max out of a list isn't my style. I'm almost a 100% narrative gamer these days, spending far more time playing the RPG's than the actual table top game. And this Codex suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckkkssssssss. You don't have to be a WAAC or some nut-case "I don't play to win" idiot to see just how un-fething-believably terrible this book is.

It doesn't matter how "un-freaking-believeably terrible this book is." I will still have fun playing games with my friends with the new Codex, despite its problems. If you can't have fun with even a poor codex making lists, trying fun/fluffy things, and challenging friends, you're either taking the game in its entirety too seriously, or you simply don't know how to have fun with a poor codex.

Heck, give me the Ork codex and I'll have a blast. I'm not defending a bad codex or a hurried release. I'm defending the notion that you and many others have that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have fun with a really, really sucky codex.

Ha ha ha no. Don't criticize others. Want to know what sucks? CSM. Now you can have fun with it yes. But not to all people. Some people like competitive 40k. I personally don't, I don't feel the rules are good enough to make an entertaining meta. But let us forget that and talk casual players. Want to know my favorite legion? Thousand Sons. Want to know my favorite god? Tzeentch (followed by Slaanesh, then Khorne, and in last place Nurgle). Guess what, the CSM codex taunts me saying ha ha CSM Tzeentch is probably the worst army in the game that is themed. It is all a trap. An overpriced sub par not entertaining trap. And the heldrake? It is anti-fun in a nutshell. In competitive it is almost a must but all competitive armies can easily kill it (or just everything else), in casual games it is too strong especially when playing with worse players. Can I have some small bit of fun? Yeah. But it is painful knowing I am chopping my limbs off in playing. It is painful to know that all we are is SM-1 in all occasions. We don't get anything besides d3 infantry infiltrate to mix up deployment (oh and Slaanesh outflank steed) and the standard terminator/jump DS. Nids lost mystic spores restricting it even further. There is no fun in fighting a player that deploys 2-3 riptides with an ethereal commander and just carves you apart nor is it fun when you play a Khorne army of zerkers supported by Havocs and watch as Eldar dance around you and rend your armour as you never reach cc. And the most painful part of all is that SM comes out with what CSM have dreamed for since 3.5 edition. Why do I say this all? Because people whisper how alike this is to CSM and even SoB.

 HiveFleetCollossus wrote:

Cue "veteran players" with comments of knowing exactly how such and such units will play in-game due to years of experience without playing a game with them.

Why not?

I have been playing genestealers, tervigons and the like for years. It takes me 20 seconds to compare the new entry with the old one, because they are mostly the same. It can take one hour to do that for every unit I own. I know exactly how my models "will play in-game due to years of experience". Also, where is my Doom? My Imgarl Genestealers? My Mortrex Parasite? Spores? Do I need to wait for a month to realize that they are no longer there? Are you sure you don´t play some form of marines, the "we get more units with every release" army?

Even if there is something in the new stuff that compensates this, it will still be a failure, Heldrake style. A single broken thing does not compensate a crappy book, no matter how competitive it is. If there is something.

Martel732 wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
My intent for asking is that I want to read legit reviews. I want to hear directly from the owners of the book not people who are criticizing it before it even went on sale.

Is it asking much?

I agree with you, but people like me have seen direct quotes from the book now. There are too many units that got worse or didn't improve.

if you are looking for legit discussion on 40k, you're on the wrong site bro.

 HiveFleetCollossus wrote:

It doesn't matter how "un-freaking-believeably terrible this book is." I will still have fun playing games with my friends with the new Codex, despite its problems. If you can't have fun with even a poor codex making lists, trying fun/fluffy things, and challenging friends, you're either taking the game in its entirety too seriously, or you simply don't know how to have fun with a poor codex.

Heck, give me the Ork codex and I'll have a blast. I'm not defending a bad codex or a hurried release. I'm defending the notion that you and many others have that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have fun with a really, really sucky codex.

you make it sound as if you aren't playing the game , but just meeting with friends. One can hook up with friends without neeing to spend ton of cash on plastic models , painting etc.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
(...) It's fluff bunnies and self-proposed "anti-WAAC" players who fly off their butthurt handles and start complaining about people "taking the game too seriously" whenever a codex's rules get criticized.

As a fluff bunny, I disagree. Having good rules improves both "fun/fluffy/casual games" and competitive ones. Loving the background of a faction and seeing that the Codex does not do justice to it generates a lot of healthy criticism and some rightful nerd rage.

Look at the Codex: CSM. From a competitive point of view, the Heldrake and a handful other units somehow "save" it. But from a "fun" point of view, it is terrible, for the reasons StarTrotter posted (and others). And it seems Tyranids have gone the same way. I also feel bad for the Sisters. Compare it with Codex: Space Marines, and it looks like GW has a "first class / second class" customer classification.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 HiveFleetCollossus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
Does everybody here play WAAC?

No. What's that got to do with anything? Are you trying to explain away Codex deficiencies by saying the only people that care about them are WAAC players?

 Icculus wrote:
If you play this game for the fun and flavor of the army...

*record scratch noise*

Stop right there. The strawman ends here. You're implying that tournament players/playing to win and fun are mutually exclusive. That's nonsense.

Come back when you have an actual argument and aren't attempting to dismiss a terrible Codex with some utter nonsense about "Play for flavour and fun".

And for the record, I've never been to a tournament nor do I really wish to go. I find competitive gaming boring and whilst I enjoy list building, tweaking the absolute min/max out of a list isn't my style. I'm almost a 100% narrative gamer these days, spending far more time playing the RPG's than the actual table top game. And this Codex suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckkkssssssss. You don't have to be a WAAC or some nut-case "I don't play to win" idiot to see just how un-fething-believably terrible this book is.

It doesn't matter how "un-freaking-believeably terrible this book is." I will still have fun playing games with my friends with the new Codex, despite its problems. If you can't have fun with even a poor codex making lists, trying fun/fluffy things, and challenging friends, you're either taking the game in its entirety too seriously, or you simply don't know how to have fun with a poor codex.

Heck, give me the Ork codex and I'll have a blast. I'm not defending a bad codex or a hurried release. I'm defending the notion that you and many others have that it's IMPOSSIBLE to have fun with a really, really sucky codex.

Ha ha ha no. Don't criticize others. Want to know what sucks? CSM. Now you can have fun with it yes. But not to all people. Some people like competitive 40k. I personally don't, I don't feel the rules are good enough to make an entertaining meta. But let us forget that and talk casual players. Want to know my favorite legion? Thousand Sons. Want to know my favorite god? Tzeentch (followed by Slaanesh, then Khorne, and in last place Nurgle). Guess what, the CSM codex taunts me saying ha ha CSM Tzeentch is probably the worst army in the game that is themed. It is all a trap. An overpriced sub par not entertaining trap.

This. Casual players and themed armies are more screwed than competitive ones. The latter will almost always find some units and combinations that more or less work, the former if unlucky just have to accept being at the bottom. But no the fun lololol anti powergamer brigade does not accept this, because at the particular moment they have fun with their lists and their friends and it's all ok.

I think it's quite telling that there is nothing in the book which is causing any outrage in people who play other armies.

Normally there would be a thread or two complaining about how something from the new book is too powerful.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's interesting that people believe 40K is some kind of ultra-complex game where you have to read between the lines to discover its secrets. After the years that people have been playing (decades for some) the game, it's not hard to look at a unit's rules and figure out whether it's crap or not, and the book only has like, around 20 units if that. You could literally read the entire codex and evaluate every units' rules in a day.

If there was a way to multi-exalt, I would do so, because I cannot believe people don't understand this basic concept. So I can't multi-exact, but I can multi-quote. Maybe it'll sink in the 6th of 7th time someone reads it. I almost want to put it in my sig.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's interesting that people believe 40K is some kind of ultra-complex game where you have to read between the lines to discover its secrets. After the years that people have been playing (decades for some) the game, it's not hard to look at a unit's rules and figure out whether it's crap or not, and the book only has like, around 20 units if that. You could literally read the entire codex and evaluate every units' rules in a day.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's interesting that people believe 40K is some kind of ultra-complex game where you have to read between the lines to discover its secrets. After the years that people have been playing (decades for some) the game, it's not hard to look at a unit's rules and figure out whether it's crap or not, and the book only has like, around 20 units if that. You could literally read the entire codex and evaluate every units' rules in a day.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

- Increased it's points substantially

- Removed access to BRB powers

- Increased the range at which it nukes termagants when it dies

- Removed the ability to provide TS/AG to nearby termagaunts

- Greatly increased the tax to make him a troop choice.


Pick any 3 and with the other changes the tervigon would have been pretty well balanced. Slap all of them on him and the only real reason to take it is because the synapse drawbacks are so bad that you have to make sure you provide some sort of defensible synapse or your army starts running away and/or eating itself in a couple turns of being shot at.

This is classic GW pendulum rules design at its absolute best (worst!), and a true case of perception vs reality.

Perception: Tervigon is OP. Everyone is bringing them.
Reality: Tervigon is one of the few good units in a terrible Codex. Everyone brings them because what the hell else are they going to bring? Rippers? Jesus...

Realistic Solution: Find a balance between changing its abilities and leaving its cost the same, or making its cost better reflect its abilities.
GW Solution: Remove all its abilities and put its cost up.

Quick question if I might. Nids can ally with nids and get a bit extra? Or was that just some rumours?