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.

Why exactly do these incompetent morons still have a job?

Because people still buy lots of Space Marines

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So the Hydra is Open Topped, no Interceptor, no ignores jink?

Hrm, yeah, colour me uninspired. That means the Vendetta is still the option of choice for anti-air.

Wow, seriously?

Most sensible people: the Hydra is kind of weak, it used to be awesome in 5th but making it skyfire-only was a pretty big nerf and it's too fragile to stay alive long enough to shoot down its targets. We should make it better in the new codex, let's try adding Tau-style optional skyfire so it can still shoot at ground targets effectively.

GW: the Hydra is kind of weak, let's give it a new model and then make the rules even worse so that nobody will buy it.

Why exactly do these incompetent morons still have a job?

Hopefully its part of the Hydra autocannon rules, because otherwise its still a dust collector when you can have the much better sabre platforms.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So the Hydra is Open Topped, no Interceptor, no ignores jink?

Hrm, yeah, colour me uninspired. That means the Vendetta is still the option of choice for anti-air.

Wow, seriously?

Most sensible people: the Hydra is kind of weak, it used to be awesome in 5th but making it skyfire-only was a pretty big nerf and it's too fragile to stay alive long enough to shoot down its targets. We should make it better in the new codex, let's try adding Tau-style optional skyfire so it can still shoot at ground targets effectively.

GW: the Hydra is kind of weak, let's give it a new model and then make the rules even worse so that nobody will buy it.

Why exactly do these incompetent morons still have a job?

Hopefully its part of the Hydra autocannon rules, because otherwise its still a dust collector when you can have the much better sabre platforms.

Hopefully. It was off the Spanish site, google translate:

And the Hydra, as I said has lost a lot of rules, but my little bird tells me that only costs 70 points. "Neither interceptor, or ignore cover or nah"

I'm never a fan of units that are extremely rock-paper-scissorsy, so if the Hydra is as they say it is, it really doesn't appeal to me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And the Hydra, as I said has lost a lot of rules, but my little bird tells me that only costs 70 points. "Neither interceptor, or ignore cover or nah"

Wow. So if you accept the codex price of enclosed crew compartment at 15 points as the value of open-topped vs. not, then the Hydra actually got more expensive while losing special rules. Holy GW's rule authors are stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And the Hydra, as I said has lost a lot of rules, but my little bird tells me that only costs 70 points. "Neither interceptor, or ignore cover or nah"

Wow. So if you accept the codex price of enclosed crew compartment at 15 points as the value of open-topped vs. not, then the Hydra actually got more expensive while losing special rules. Holy GW's rule authors are stupid.

I'm hoping we're missing something, because it's just a bit too stupid that it got a nerf AND a price rise when it was never that popular to start.

Of course I wouldn't put it past GW to nerf a unit that didn't need a nerf...

*Skink looks teary eyed at his 'nid codex*

I'm fairly convinced GW is still playing 5th edition.

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm fairly convinced GW is still playing 5th edition.

I'm fairly convinced GW isn't playing at all.

We're collectors, not gamers :p

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

And the Hydra, as I said has lost a lot of rules, but my little bird tells me that only costs 70 points. "Neither interceptor, or ignore cover or nah"

Wow. So if you accept the codex price of enclosed crew compartment at 15 points as the value of open-topped vs. not, then the Hydra actually got more expensive while losing special rules. Holy GW's rule authors are stupid.

Grrr why didn't GW turn an AA vehicle into a dull, auto-take spammable anti-ground unit! How stupid!

Its still reasonable. Against AV12 skimmers and flyers, you're getting 1 hull point off a turn average before jink, with a 50%~ chance for a penetrate if my Maths is correct. As a result of that, you're either forcing a jink on the latter that makes its firepower naff for a turn, or having an opportunity to potentially destroy it. You're easily forcing grounding tests on FMC's in addition, and absolutely screwing anyone taking the Tyranid FMC's.

That makes it about as effective as an Autocannon HWS at 24'' greater range against Skimmers, but without any of the LD issues (lose one base, 58% chance to lose the entire unit to a rout) and with Skyfire included.

Lets not forget at this juncture that Wave Serpent spam with 60'' shield barrages (hence you could get one turn out of range too) that wipe out light armour is a key problem.

At 70 points, it has good redundancy and it can be fielded in squadrons. With its massive range and reasonable armour, it forms a good alternative to the Vendetta as it isn't invalidated by your opponent's quality AA choices, and it can be held out of harm's way of some AT weapons.

 Crablezworth wrote:
We're collectors, not gamers :p

But we're going to write rules.

And charge much money for them.

And not fix them through FAQ/Errata.

I can do a better job not being paid in my off time from my paid job.

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm fairly convinced GW is still playing 5th edition.

LOL thinking the same here !
They might keep a track record of which units seems powerful against what, but this track record certainly needs a refresh and more input from optimised armies.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Grrr why didn't GW turn an AA vehicle into a dull, auto-take spammable anti-ground unit! How stupid!

1) Mandatory skyfire is stupid fluff-wise. The Hydra's guns are capable of pivoting down to engage ground targets, and the fluff talks about how terrifyingly effective it is against light ground targets when there are no aircraft around to draw its attention. But yet somehow it gets out-shot by orks against ground targets?

2) The Hydra is a better dedicated AA tank right now and nobody is taking it because it can only hit aircraft. The new rules make it considerably worse by making it open-topped and taking away the jink save counter. How exactly is this supposed to make it an appealing choice?

Its still reasonable. Against AV12 skimmers and flyers, you're getting 1 hull point off a turn average before jink, with a 50%~ chance for a penetrate if my Maths is correct.

But that ignores the biggest problem with the Hydra: without interceptor it has to wait until the flyer (and the opponent's ground units) gets the first shot to attempt to fire back. Hydras have a habit of dying before they get to shoot any flyers, and with mandatory skyfire they can't even put some hits on ground targets while they wait and/or before they die.

As a result of that, you're either forcing a jink on the latter that makes its firepower naff for a turn, or having an opportunity to potentially destroy it.

Except the current Hydra ignores jink saves. This is a major nerf to the new Hydra.

That makes it about as effective as an Autocannon HWS at 24'' greater range against Skimmers

Err, what? TL BS 1 is approximately BS 2, so 1.333 hits against a skimmer from the Hydra. The HWS gives an average of 3 hits against a skimmer. Since when is "less than half the damage" enough to qualify as "about as effective"?

as it isn't invalidated by your opponent's quality AA choices

Any AA choice that can invalidate a Vendetta is going to invalidate Hydras just as well. The Vendetta loses most of its special defense against dedicated AA, but it still has the same AV 12 and doesn't get slaughtered by non-AA units while it waits for the AA battle.

Kirasu wrote:I'm fairly convinced GW is still playing 5th edition.

Ravajaxe wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm fairly convinced GW is still playing 5th edition.

LOL thinking the same here !
They might keep a track record of which units seems powerful against what, but this track record certainly needs a refresh and more input from optimised armies.

Methinks the same thing, they seem to consistently be an edition or two behind on what they try to balance with each codex.

I still can't wrap my head around why they did what they did to the poor hydra.

Peregrine wrote:Stuff

It's best not to engage Omega, as apparently no matter what, every change is for the best, no units are bad, and everything that got nerfed deserved it and is just as useable as it was before and saying anything different is just whining.

The best thing about a new 40k codex release for me is reading the whining before the codex is even out! Why am I so amused by this? i just can't stop reading all the complaining!

rothrich wrote:
whining

Criticism is not whining.

I hope Omega is paid well by GW.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
We're collectors, not gamers :p

But we're going to write rules.

And charge much money for them.

And not fix them through FAQ/Errata.

I can do a better job not being paid in my off time from my paid job.

And then remove rules and then make them separate and charge more!

Guys, it looks like this codex release is going to be worse than how Tyranids were treated. When I read what Peregrine said about the Hydra my mouth dropped.
I wanted to buy two of them, but I guess I can still make some Wyvern.

Also Ogryns are still complete garbage? Come on GW I want to buy your stuff! I am beginning to think they are completely incompetent because I was ready to spend a lot of money, but now I don't want to buy anything.

Tau got Riptides and Eldar got Wraithknights but it is all good guys because we get the Taurox and cheaper Sentinels? WTF?

We are going to be worse off then we were? We were already struggling. When was the last major tournament IG won without allies? 5th edition?

 Blacksails wrote:

rothrich wrote:
whining

Criticism is not whining.

I hope Omega is paid well by GW.

"Incompetent morons ! Screeeeee!!" Is not criticism.

Differing opinions doesn't make someone a stooge. Stop being such ridiculous parodies of gamers and have a normal damn discussion.

Orthon wrote:
Guys, it looks like this codex release is going to be worse than how Tyranids were treated. When I read what Peregrine said about the Hydra my mouth dropped.
I wanted to buy two of them, but I guess I can still make some Wyvern.

Also Ogryns are still complete garbage? Come on GW I want to buy your stuff! I am beginning to think they are completely incompetent because I was ready to spend a lot of money, but now I don't want to buy anything.

Tau got Riptides and Eldar got Wraithknights but it is all good guys because we get the Taurox and cheaper Sentinels? WTF?

We are going to be worse off then we were? We were already struggling. When was the last major tournament IG won without allies? 5th edition?

I have seen nids doing very well. Just because they are not a "tournament" army dose not mean that they are not fun to play or that they don't have some strong army lists. I am sure that the next time tau and eldar come around they will be nerfed to fit with everyone else. Auto take and spamable units like the riptide, wave serpent and, hell drake are not good for the game. A codex where no one unit stands out as the end all beat all chice is good for the game.

Does fun to play mean having to buy venomthropes and huddling everything together? I play zombies and that can be fun but I would think nid players would want to build more than venomthropes or flying MC spam.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I'm never a fan of units that are extremely rock-paper-scissorsy, so if the Hydra is as they say it is, it really doesn't appeal to me.

Yeah, it is the same problem as with the SM AA tanks: if the enemy does not bring flyers, they're useless.

rothrich wrote:

Orthon wrote:
Guys, it looks like this codex release is going to be worse than how Tyranids were treated. When I read what Peregrine said about the Hydra my mouth dropped.
I wanted to buy two of them, but I guess I can still make some Wyvern.

Also Ogryns are still complete garbage? Come on GW I want to buy your stuff! I am beginning to think they are completely incompetent because I was ready to spend a lot of money, but now I don't want to buy anything.

Tau got Riptides and Eldar got Wraithknights but it is all good guys because we get the Taurox and cheaper Sentinels? WTF?

We are going to be worse off then we were? We were already struggling. When was the last major tournament IG won without allies? 5th edition?

I have seen nids doing very well. Just because they are not a "tournament" army dose not mean that they are not fun to play or that they don't have some strong army lists. I am sure that the next time tau and eldar come around they will be nerfed to fit with everyone else. Auto take and spamable units like the riptide, wave serpent and, hell drake are not good for the game. A codex where no one unit stands out as the end all beat all chice is good for the game.

Tyranids old codex wasn't great and the new one mostly just made them worse. Terrible internal balance. There's a couple of powerful builds, but a couple of powerful builds does not make a good codex. There's so many units in the 'nid 'dex that are just blatantly obviously crap and several units that weren't powerful before and were nerfed anyway. Also, the removal of several units.

Guard are getting something similar, it's hard to judge internal balance at this point, but there definitely seems to be units getting a nerf that didn't need a nerf (I accept the Vendetta nerf was needed, the Chimera and Hydra nerfs look bad) and we are losing several units, more than 'nids lost.

One of my freind got a nid army, and after the shock of reading the new codex (and wanting to throw his nids into the garbage) he got back at it and saw that the trick was to forget everything he did in the past and start anew.

I know synapse is more iportant now, back then a creature went out of it..they gained rage (which is not that much of a negative effect in 6th)
I'm afraid that may be the case with guard. We may well have to forget all the old tactics and ways of doing things and start anew

 Crimson wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I'm never a fan of units that are extremely rock-paper-scissorsy, so if the Hydra is as they say it is, it really doesn't appeal to me.

Yeah, it is the same problem as with the SM AA tanks: if the enemy does not bring flyers, they're useless.

Also if your opponent brings flyers and destroys your AA tanks before they can actually fire. Many flyers have the capability to destroy a Hydra on the turn they arrive, especially if it's weakened by a hull point or two before they show up. I'd love to be playing Eldar with Crimson Hunters against a Guard player crazy enough to take Hydras, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
One of my freind got a nid army, and after the shock of reading the new codex (and wanting to throw his nids into the garbage) he got back at it and saw that the trick was to forget everything he did in the past and start anew.

I know synapse is more iportant now, back then a creature went out of it..they gained rage (which is not that much of a negative effect in 6th)
I'm afraid that may be the case with guard. We may well have to forget all the old tactics and ways of doing things and start anew

The problem with nids isn't that you can't make a competitive list (though they certainly aren't the most competitive army either), it's that the army is full of auto-takes and crap units you'll never take. Go look at almost all 'nid armies now and they have a Flyrant because at 35pts extra you'd be crazy to take a walking Tyrant. Raveners are outclassed by almost everything. Tyranid Warriors suck, the only reason to take them is Synapse redundancy. Lictors are terrible. The Scything Talon nerf hit a few units hard that really didn't need to be nerfed.

I don't want to have to rejig my army each codex release because there's a new monobuild that reduces an army down to only a handful of viable options and even worse some units have been completely removed. It's not that I don't like change, it's that I don't like crappy unbalanced codices.

I don't even think GW does it intentionally to sell new models, I think they are genuinely incompetent enough to not realise what is going on.

what do you think constitutes "ancient commander", Creed or other named commanders or you will be able yo buy a ancient commander upgrade?

also will all commanders have voice of command?

I think that's the translation for "senior officer".

The Leman Russ rules are the same as in old codex the only difference is that Demolisher at 170 pt. from natfka. Nothing new for the tank rules but if the Demo is the most princely one what does it say of the executioner? A giant price decrease?

So I just saw that on the GW's news page...


How you like them' latin names?

Zengu wrote:
The Leman Russ rules are the same as in old codex the only difference is that Demolisher at 170 pt. from natfka. Nothing new for the tank rules but if the Demo is the most princely one what does it say of the executioner? A giant price decrease?

Apparently 150 is the mean cost with the standard Leman Russ being 120.

I am seeing the new IG book being more mechanized than previous iterations. At least I will be running mech lists.

 Happygrunt wrote:

Zengu wrote:
The Leman Russ rules are the same as in old codex the only difference is that Demolisher at 170 pt. from natfka. Nothing new for the tank rules but if the Demo is the most princely one what does it say of the executioner? A giant price decrease?

Apparently 150 is the mean cost with the standard Leman Russ being 120.

I am seeing the new IG book being more mechanized than previous iterations. At least I will be running mech lists.

If this is true then the executioner my favorite russ will be some what of a steal compared to today.