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.

And I think that's because a lot of you actually were.

A lot of talk about "badly written codex, Cruddex 2.0, I'm not crying I just wanted more variety" has quickly dissipated with the release of the dataslates, well most pointedly Skyblight Swarm. Now the general response has turned to positive, with much talk of "back to being happy with the state of my Tyranids, if this was only in the original codex I would have never complained to begin with".


Well... no. Looking at all our 6E rules as one bundle, even with the dataslates rolled in the book is still as bland as ever. Forest infiltrating Lictors, ruin infiltrating Stealers, Spore Mines that run at 6" instead of 3", re-rolling Tervigon spawn rolls of 1, and 18" Synapse range on some Warrior units, do NOT make our codex less bland. That is not to say there isn't some possible uses for these, and definite uses for the ones not mentioned (Endless, Skyblight & Artillery formations). However, they add very little flavor to list building and even less variation.

Lets address the elephant in the room - Skyblight. Yes, it is powerful, and likely our most competitive option between both this and the last dex. At the same time, it costs over 1000 points minimum to take if used sensibly (sure you could leave the TL Devourers at home and not pack more gargoyles if you wanted to keep it at 800-900 pts, but that begs the question as to why you are taking it in the first place). And after this sizable points investment, the rest of your list writes itself. This doesn't give me more options for list building, it just gives me a list and says "here play like this or go directly back to the same old book". The other good options are just this to lesser extremes, with the exception of Artillery which is basically just a plain buff to these units / FOC if you are taking them. But this is not even SLIGHTLY improving the quality of the Nid dex. It makes it more powerful, and apparently that's all most of you ever wanted because it seems we are content now.




Me? I'm here just making this thread "crying" about Raveners. About Rippers. Walking Tyrants. Pyrovores. Swarmlord. Shrikes. Hive Guard. Drop Pods. Doom. BRB powers. Haruspexhormagantgenestealerscythingtalonscrushingclawstyranidprimetervigonetc etc etc.

Sure I'll take what I can get. Lictors pretty much not even appearing on the FOC anymore is fun. Endless Swarm makes my Trygon something other than a counts-as Mawloc. Re-rollable pinning blasts are my best bet for any attempt I want to try to make with stealers or horms. But anybody who claimed they were unhappy with the original release due to "bad internal balance and bad writing" but is now content thanks to dataslates (may as well just call it "thanks to Skyblight and Artillery") has completely lost their integrity. It's a shame that after all that talk, most of you didn't actually want a "fun" codex, you were just as happy being able to Buy flyerspam and get some cheap victories. i'm not even going to call it "building", because close to zero thought goes into any list related decisions after deciding to take that formation.

I'd take a bland codex over a digital only codex that hasn't seen a single new model added to it since 3rd edition.

This isn't about a competition with SoB, who I agree have had worse treatment than Nids. But looking at everything with the perspective of "well, you aren't as bad off as Sisters!" makes a 40k discussion forum pretty pointless. If you want to talk about Sisters, make a thread. This thread is about Nids.

Rumor is that they might get some FW love.

Also, this thread is also largely about the conflict of opinion on whether or not we have a good product with the Nids book. This conflict is largely non-existent with SoB as I'm pretty sure everyone agrees they have been shafted.

Now, since we have gotten the inevitable irrelevant posts about Sisters of Battle out of the way nice and early, please feel free to contribute to the actual topic at hand.

 SHUPPET wrote:
This isn't about a competition with SoB, who I agree have had worse treatment than Nids. But looking at everything with the perspective of "well, you aren't as bad off as Sisters!" makes a 40k discussion forum pretty pointless. If you want to talk about Sisters, make a thread. This thread is about Nids.

Now, now, if you want to post on a public and open forum you have to expect people to not agree with you. Just because you don't like the fact that I don't think Nids are nearly as worse off because my army is sitting in a deeper hole doesn't invalidate my position, nor does it mean I need to leave just because I don't agree with your assessment.

Frankly I think Nids have issues (mostly that the codex doesn't support being able to build lists that fit all four phases of an invasion), but they're not horrible. I'd say they're middle of the road at worst, even without the dataslates. I feel the real issue is that the Tau and Eldar codexes aren't properly balanced and they do more to unbalance the game and that is what is really causing the problem more than how bland your book is.

All codexes, regardless of how competitive they are or not, are always filled with uninspired copypasta from previous editions and hideously bad internal codex balance.

Half the units, especially the most flavorful units (mandrakes, Warbikers, Stormboyz, Harlequins, etc), can barely be used even in a friendly game.

And in spite of the excessive copypasta and minute unit cost/statline tweaks, the internal and cross-codex balance only seems to get worse over time instead of becoming more refined. 6th edition and they cost a Guardsman Power Fist at 25 points? Even after challenge rules, astonishing. GW's brains are clearly lagging behind their hands. After 6 editions, they still can't get it right.

I wouldn't count the first two editions as they were pretty different games than 3rd onward.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
This isn't about a competition with SoB, who I agree have had worse treatment than Nids. But looking at everything with the perspective of "well, you aren't as bad off as Sisters!" makes a 40k discussion forum pretty pointless. If you want to talk about Sisters, make a thread. This thread is about Nids.

Now, now, if you want to post on a public and open forum you have to expect people to not agree with you. Just because you don't like the fact that I don't think Nids are nearly as worse off because my army is sitting in a deeper hole doesn't invalidate my position, nor does it mean I need to leave just because I don't agree with your assessment.

Frankly I think Nids have issues (mostly that the codex doesn't support being able to build lists that fit all four phases of an invasion), but they're not horrible. I'd say they're middle of the road at worst, even without the dataslates. I feel the real issue is that the Tau and Eldar codexes aren't properly balanced and they do more to unbalance the game and that is what is really causing the problem more than how bland your book is.

What? You did not agree or disagree in your original post, you merely made a completely off-topic reference to Sisters, a reference which I told you i DID agree with, and politely asked you to save further posts about Sisters of Battle to threads about, well, Sisters of Battle. You will not find an argument here friend, although I sense you will keep fishing.

Once again though, please do feel free to leave a response with your opinion on how Tyranid players opinions have changed from negative to positive with the release of a single, inflexible build. Because this I would be very interested to hear about, hence why I made the thread. However I'll be quite honest with you, I do not care even slightly about your opinions on how bad Sisters of Battle are lol. And if I did, I would have done what I suggest you do, and find the relevant thread for it or make one yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
After 6 editions, they still can't get it right.

Verging on 7. And how much I agree with you.

SHUPPET wrote:Me? I'm here just making this thread "crying" about Raveners. About Rippers. Walking Tyrants. Pyrovores. Swarmlord. Shrikes. Hive Guard. Drop Pods. Doom. BRB powers.

Doom (and Parasite) aren't so much an issue for me personally, even if I did convert them. Even spore pods, as the ones I have still make decent and thematic terrain.

My issue is more with the general laziness to address key tactical options within the codex...

There's no general fast transport / deep strike option. Even if GW didn't want to make a spore model, they could have just written in the ability to purchase the Deep Strike rule to simulate it, on the assumption the pod was splattered on arrival. Hell, that's even been a rule before.

There's very little in the way of reliable, ranged anti-armour. Exocrines can't handle AV13/14, Rupture Cannons are intensely poor, and Warp Lance doesn't have any options to get in range. All we get are HVCs, which typically come on expensive platforms, have poor AP, and you can't even take two of them on the same model.

They took away BRB powers, but replaced them with just a single table that contains a mish-mash of all powers. That stops you building lists around psykers with a certain role - unlike other races who get multiple tables to choose from. Would it really have been a hardship to include two tables of powers, each with their own theme?

Key units are incredibly easy to pick off, weakening the army as a whole. Other armies have simple rules to help counteract this (such as putting Farseers or IG Officers within a unit). Why can't we do this with Warriors and Venomthropes?

There was no thought given at all to some units. I really wanted to like Pyrovores and Rippers (especially the FW ones). Instead their rules are so badly done they're basically a handicap to take. They don't have to be great, or even good. But it would be nice if they were playable.

The army ****ing EATS ITSELF

gravitywell wrote:Rumor is that they might get some FW love.

We're getting some FW products. I'm not so sure about love if the Malanthrope and Hierdodule rules are anything to go by.

Blood Angels would like to speak with you for a moment...

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd take a bland codex over a digital only codex that hasn't seen a single new model added to it since 3rd edition.

"Hey, transexuals never faced a concerted effort at genociding them away like the Jews have, so they shouldn't complain."

Extreme, yes.

But your logic is identical and equally fallacious.

 Kain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd take a bland codex over a digital only codex that hasn't seen a single new model added to it since 3rd edition.

"Hey, transexuals never faced a concerted effort at genociding them away like the Jews have, so they shouldn't complain."

Extreme, yes.

But your logic is identical and equally fallacious.

And this ladies and gentlemen, right here, is a rather awesomely ironic example of a logical fallacy, in this particular case, the fallacy is known as 'reductio ad absurdum'

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd take a bland codex over a digital only codex that hasn't seen a single new model added to it since 3rd edition.

"Hey, transexuals never faced a concerted effort at genociding them away like the Jews have, so they shouldn't complain."

Extreme, yes.

But your logic is identical and equally fallacious.

And this ladies and gentlemen, right here, is a rather awesomely ironic example of a logical fallacy, in this particular case, the fallacy is known as 'reductio ad absurdum'

I am not making an argument, which is what you need for a logical fallacy to occur.

I am merely pointing out that this argument hinges on faulty logic.

As for my beliefs.

The greater suffering of one group does not excuse allowing the continued suffering of another or invalidate the complaints of that group.

Just because the SoBs have it bad does not mean no one else is allowed to complain or that they should stop complaining. Rather that both groups should join together and complain louder until they are heard.

Otherwise me living in one of the most corrupt nations on Earth where bribes happen in the open and nobody caring would invalidate the political complaints of literally everyone in America and Europe over in off-topic.

Forgive me for not agreeing with the initial assessment of how bad the Tyranid codex is because of my playing an army that is all around worse off. If I'm guilty of anything it's a "Grass is Greener" mentality when it comes to these newer codexes with actual model support, codexes in actual book format and generally a public show of support.

Well that and a general desensitization to the problems of other books because of the rampant hyperbole the internet shoves in your face over everything that isn't the most awesome thing in the game. Call it what you will but I get burnt out on the negativity the internet shows about every little detail in every single book.

Tyranids is not a bad book. It might be a little bland, or lacking full options for every stage of the invasion being represented on the table, but it is not bad. It's just overshadowed heavily by Tau and Eldar, which are currently overshadowing all the other armies.

Don't really agree with the original premise - we changed up our list right after the new codex, and tried out a bunch of stuff we hadn't used for ages, like Mawlocs, even things like Carnifexes were more usable.

Some of the problem was the way people convinced themselves that the wishlist would all be granted. Some of the problem was a lazy codex, with some nonsensical builds and some dreadful cut and pasted illustrations and copy.

We ran Skyblight last night and vaporised a taudar list. (we run it because that's the list we've always wanted, having been running a flying circus ever since we got the Crone). But we'd still have fun without Skblight.

Yes, the new codex was disappointing in some key respects, but it was never remotely as bad as some of the moaners contended. And there is variety of builds, which we'll continue to explore.

A lot of this is how you handle change. We lost our genestealers in 6th but, so what, then we had fun with flyrants and psychic powers. We lost the psychic powers and our pods, but now we have fun with flyers, carnifexes, and spore mines. And we might even take those genestealers out for a frolic again too.

Is this a record for a thread going off topic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'd take a bland codex over a digital only codex that hasn't seen a single new model added to it since 3rd edition.

"Hey, transexuals never faced a concerted effort at genociding them away like the Jews have, so they shouldn't complain."

Extreme, yes.

But your logic is identical and equally fallacious.

And this ladies and gentlemen, right here, is a rather awesomely ironic example of a logical fallacy, in this particular case, the fallacy is known as 'reductio ad absurdum'

Wouldn't it be a 'reductio ad hitlerum'?

In any case, I think the Tyranid codex is not so bad. I feel a lot of people just complained for the sake of complaining.
It is mostly that codices in general are rather bad. Especially with internal balance. imo, GW should do a complete reboot with the next edition. Everyone should get a new codex at the same time, so that they can be properly tested bot internally against each other.

I am almost certain the OP was really discussing the mindset of Nid players and the bellyaching that occured with the new codex, but then magically after a couple data slates, it turns out everything is ok in the end.

Dataslates that force you to use a powerful but limited list, don't a good codex suddenly make.


Ultimately, people are fickle. No one has ever complained that they are too OP, Kicking the crap out of people is fun afterall. That is what people want. Even if 40k became a perfectly balanced system, people would find reasons to complain. Such is life.

I personally think Nid players overeacted. The codex lacks a bit in quality (fluff, a lot of cut and paste, etc) but tbh, Nids are boring as hell and that is their fault for being the most mind numbingly bland army in the 40k universe. All that aside, Nids are still a decent army....I think the big reason people were upset was exactly as you say, percieved power creep. We had a series of Codex's that kind of got sillier as time went on, then the Nid one dropped and it wasn't LOLWTFPWNED Over powered and people were caught off guard and they complained. But is it suprising they are suddenly happy when some power creeps their way? No, not at all. Standard practice.


As for all the units that are now invalidated by the dex/slates.....standard fair. Too many unit types and models to effectively balance 40k. Part of its problem as a competative game. But then.....all the game systems have these issues one way or the other.....I hate to sound cliche, but I play 40k with a good group of buddies as a fun game, and we have a blast with our fluffy armies. If I tried to make a netlist and fight the taudar, or waveserpent spam I see at some of the cons, I'd hang myself.

Bought the new codex, tested it, then sold my Nids, and I don't regret it at all. It just wasn't the army I wanted to play anymore. For me, the dataslates haven't changed a thing in that aspect. I used the money to start a Lizardmen army and am the happiest I've been in a long time with my army collection.

the Frontline gaming crew has developed a solid tourney list that uses the standard FoC with no formations. You've got to like MC and FMC for it to work, but a solid competitive build that will crush some of the current deathstars is in that codex (something my DA are having a hard time finding in theirs).

 SHUPPET wrote:
This isn't about a competition with SoB, who I agree have had worse treatment than Nids. But looking at everything with the perspective of "well, you aren't as bad off as Sisters!" makes a 40k discussion forum pretty pointless. If you want to talk about Sisters, make a thread. This thread is about Nids.

I thought this was a thread for getting up on your soap box and assuming incorrectly why others disagree with your opinion and how stupid they are.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Wouldn't it be a 'reductio ad hitlerum'?

In any case, I think the Tyranid codex is not so bad. I feel a lot of people just complained for the sake of complaining.
It is mostly that codices in general are rather bad. Especially with internal balance. imo, GW should do a complete reboot with the next edition. Everyone should get a new codex at the same time, so that they can be properly tested bot internally against each other.

What's even funnier is that the argument it makes is factually wrong, since gays and transsexuals were specifically targeted in the Holocaust, just like the Jews. So, yes, there *was* a concentrated attempt to eradicate them! Though you can't call it a genocide, since they're not a specific ethnic type... and to do so is also a factual error.

Tyranids, in their fluff, don't have a lot of variety. "Drown them in bugs" is their main tactic, with very little variation. Sure, in a few battles here and there they get creative and have something tunnel up out of the ground, or swoop down from the sky... but then they drown the targets in more bugs. It's a locust swarm, the ways in which it does its thing is fairly one-note. That the main Codex was bland is not without merit, but I think a lot of people *were* hoping for a few power-house builds using the models they already owned. This is a fool's errand with a GW game, who exist to make you buy more models. That's why units go from Great to Meh, or Meh to Great, with alternating editions. It's to get you to buy the models that were meh in the last edition in this edition, and then to buy more of the meh models from this edition in the next edition when they're great.

As least you have a physical book... poor sisters of battle....

1: Most people got over complaining and got on with what we were given, no point crying about it anymore.

2: Sisters players will always make threads like this about them because the players that codex attracts are the people that like to feel special and unique. If Tyranid, Ork or BA players complain about how unfair they've got it then that takes away from the poor SoB players who have it so hard and must always be the worst off and let everyone know about it... all... the... time...

The criticisms falling off couldn't have anything to do with everything having already been said.
We can say "It's a boring, bland, uninspired, mono-build, weak dex" only so many times before we wander off and find something else to do.

(The data slates really don't change those criticisms.)

Sisters of Battle? Luxury. My squats can't even be used!
*doesn't even have squats*

In any case the thing I most dislike about the Tyranid codex is instinctive behaviour, because it turns a vicious army of alien predators into the Babysitters Club, with synapse needed to make sure the little ones do what they're told.

IB is an old rule, and has been with the Tyranids since their inception. It's taken a few different forms over the years, but ties into the old "Shoot the Big Ones!" army-wide rule from way back.

IIRC, that allowed the enemy to shoot at the big bugs regardless of any intervening models. They didn't get cover saves from other Tyranids.

IB needs more buffing action to offset the penalties or less penalties to the rule honestly.

But that's pretty much every Nid book to date.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
IB needs more buffing action to offset the penalties or less penalties to the rule honestly.

But that's pretty much every Nid book to date.

4th edition with it's EW and strong biomorphs say hi.

Same with 2nd edition. *Shiver* damned nid cards, best anti-psykers in the game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
IB needs more buffing action to offset the penalties or less penalties to the rule honestly.

But that's pretty much every Nid book to date.

4th edition with it's EW and strong biomorphs say hi.

Same with 2nd edition. *Shiver* damned nid cards, best anti-psykers in the game.

I played with the 4th Ed Dex and if rgot that EW was a thing.

Well it had the right idea at least.