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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Lictors went from borderline unplayable to slightly viable, I'd say that's a positive in terms if internal balance.
You do bring up a good point about Gargoyles competing with other Troops though.

Yeah, I suppose, "Internal Balance" is a tricky thing to quantify, Lictors got more appealing but it didn't effect "Competitive" lists in the sense that they still wouldn't get taken over the other options from a pure effectiveness standpoint. It brought them closer into line but it didn't change things enough for someone who is looking at the dex for power to take them I don't think.

I think that's why Skyblight is touted as it is. The Living Artillery gives you more Heavy Support with a buff which is nice but the Skyblight let you take 3 resurrecting Scoring+ units that effectively replaced the need for more scoring troops, an area that was perceived as being very weak in the dex and hurt the internal Gaunt balance by making the foot mounted ones less viable to the point where they would be dropped from tourney style lists.
It can't be coincidence that the one that caused the most damaging internal balance shift and carried the most "power" is the one people are talking about as saving the dex.

I have yet to hear anyone actually claim Skyblight Swarm "saved the dex". I have, however, repeatedly heard people call it really cheesy and not something they would run outside of hardcore tournaments.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I would so rather have old Scything Talons than rerolls to wound. You can get that anyway with Toxin Sacs, it's hitting with a WS 3 model that's the problem.

Wait, I thought the new Dataslate had a formation that gave Fexes d3+1 HoW hits (Old One who?), and rerolls of 1 to hit in CC?

Does it really let you reroll 1s to wound? Bahahahahahahaa

It seems to have become the basis for any Nid force running in a tourney that allows dataslates. Even the guys at Frontline have gone from seeing the Nids as a comedy "Forge the Narrative" army to suddenly being tourney winners and outshooting Tau. (I'm not referencing them badly I want to point out, I love their stuff)

From a competitive standpoint, Skyblight has saved the Nid dex, it's a mono-build but thats one more build than they think they had before. Other slates are mentioned as improvements, Skyblight is mentioned as a winner.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
That's not internal balance though, those are simply buffs. Lictors are still objectively worse than the rest of the elites section, except maybe Pyrovores. If anything it made internal balance worse as why take massed Gaunts when you can take super scoring Gargoyles with Skyblight?

Because formations don't take FOC slots so you'll still need Troop choices?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
That's not internal balance though, those are simply buffs. Lictors are still objectively worse than the rest of the elites section, except maybe Pyrovores. If anything it made internal balance worse as why take massed Gaunts when you can take super scoring Gargoyles with Skyblight?

Because formations don't take FOC slots so you'll still need Troop choices?

I think the keyword there might be "massed".

As in, why would I take 30 hormagaunts when I can take 30 super scoring Gargoyles instead?

The obvious answer being "I wouldn't."

The nid codex is still bad I just think skyblight and the artillery formation gave us two possible competitive options, more so from skyblight. It'd be nice if we got the doom and pods back in the next dataslate, but I won't hold my breath. I'll still play them as best as I can.

Changes that I think we need (will not make us OP it is not more than we ever had before, will really bring a bunch more diversity to the dex)


- BRB powers being the same as last dex
- Scything Talons, Crushing Claws & Boneswords being the same as last dex
- Pods, and/or Trygon tunnels being active same turn
- Hive Guard & Zoanthrope being the same as last dex. Tervigon gettiing back the option of 2 purchasable powers.
- EW available for Raveners through a dataslate, make it only in range of the Trygon Prime or something.
- Preferred enemy working the way it did in the last dex
- Genestealers getting their fleshhooks, and a point reduction. Rippers need to be costed appropriately as well. Hormagants 2 points cheaper. Adrenal glands at 1 ppm.
- Rupture Cannon being AP 1 (this thing is expensive as hell on one of the most expensive platforms in the game and only has 2 shots at BS 3. I think we could make the shots count a little more. The name suggests it tears through armor as well.)
- Just.... re-work Haruspex completely. Needs to either fill the role that old school Carnifex used to, and cost like 90 points, or needs to much more effective in close combat for 160.



I'd have nothing else to complain about with these changes. Harpy probably needs something as well, but Hive Crone is still very playable as is. Lictors being too ninja even for the FOC makes them alright as well, although I still think they could stand to be 10 pts cheaper.

I think Raveners need more impact for their points. They're a 30pt glass cannon unit that doesn't have much cannon but is very glass. I don't mind the "glass" bit if they actually had some punch to them. I'd like them to be the sort of unit that if you DON'T dedicate fire to them and let even just 1 or 2 through they'll create a mess. At the moment they're the same price as Shrikes, gaining +1 Ini and Deepstrike, but not being Synapse and having worse weapon options makes them very hard to choose over Shrikes.

The Tyranids codex is horribly crappy, first the fluff is just cut and paste from previous editions, with a lot being cut out (only the Fall of Shadowbrink story is at all new)

second The number of useless units, wargear, powers, artifacts, etc. within the codex would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Aside from the pictures and one new story in the fluff there is nothing of worth in the Nids Codex.

The reason that the dataslates have calmed the rage is first the fluff is very good, and not just a cheesy ripoff of past codexes (and the fluff mirrors the actual formations ZOMG!), and second some of the formations (3 of them IMO) actually make the nids reasonably competitive.

Yea, but they resold you a skimped down 5E codex and put all the new stuff in 3 separate purchases at what, $15 a pop?

That's not really the way I want my "model company" who just happens to produce rules to function.

My least favorite part is the things that make the bugs most viable are force organization breaking. The rules that define what an army is in Warhammer 40k are rapidly dying in front of our face. I don't see it as a good thing.

I'm sorry, but I can shed few tears for the loss of Biomancy. T9 MCs with eternal warrior was absolutely ridiculous, and Tyranids did just fine without it in 5th edition. Tyranid players have my sympathy for a disappointing codex, but I absolutely cannot get behind any suggestion of reintroducing that psychic discipline. It's just too much.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can shed few tears for the loss of Biomancy. T9 MCs with eternal warrior was absolutely ridiculous, and Tyranids did just fine without it in 5th edition. Tyranid players have my sympathy for a disappointing codex, but I absolutely cannot get behind any suggestion of reintroducing that psychic discipline. It's just too much.

I dunno, all the other powers did them well, though.

And Nids players in 5E, 6E, and now 6E Codex are pretty much a simple algorithm for competitive play:

IF (allow dataslates)
> Take 1, 2, all the Formations

Else IF (not allow dataslates)
> Take monobuild variant

Else
> Lose

I love the Nids thematically and they have lively, amazing models that people do a lot of great (gory!) things with. But to say they've been anywhere on the top of the game in the last few editions and several years is throwing them under the bus.

I don't miss biomancy.
I miss telepathy.

Anyway, sounds like a lot of folks are in agreement here...has this gone from a "thread" to a support group?

Oh, and the notion that marines would lose ATSKNF if they lose a commander or sgt, that is priceless.

then they would understand (I play marines as well, and yeah, that would suck).

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
People weren't complaining because it "wasn't OP" (some people might have, but certainly not the majority), they were complaining because it's a lazy, half-assed job where a ton of options were nerfed or taken away with no replacements put in their place and with almost zero effort put into the fluff.

And imo that's all absolutely true.

I agree with that sentiment too. Which is why I made the thread. It feels like the majority have shifted from unhappy, across to satisfied about the Tyranid codex with the release of some powerful formations, even though the flaws that there from day 1 are still just as evident as ever. The counter-response at the time was "you are just crying because you didn't get a tau/eldar book and thats what you expected" and our response was "no we wanted diversity". The integrity shown by those Tyranid players who claimed this but yet are saying stuff like "i should have just been patient im very happy with the way things panned out" are being quite hypocritical and merely proving those right, who claimed you were a bunch of powergamers whining about not getting a badass dex.

To me, badass dex is not what I want. I do not care about Skyblight. I like being the underdog. Some of us genuinely wanted to be able to use more than 30% of the units in our codex for something sensible at all.

No the codex still sucks, the dataslates don't change the codex

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can shed few tears for the loss of Biomancy. T9 MCs with eternal warrior was absolutely ridiculous, and Tyranids did just fine without it in 5th edition. Tyranid players have my sympathy for a disappointing codex, but I absolutely cannot get behind any suggestion of reintroducing that psychic discipline. It's just too much.

Tyranids were one of the lowest tiers in 5th edition, due to mech-hammer proving hard for melee nids to crack.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can shed few tears for the loss of Biomancy. T9 MCs with eternal warrior was absolutely ridiculous, and Tyranids did just fine without it in 5th edition. Tyranid players have my sympathy for a disappointing codex, but I absolutely cannot get behind any suggestion of reintroducing that psychic discipline. It's just too much.

Tyranids are my main army and I agree/disagree with this completely/not at all.

I think Tyranids are the prime example of an army that would use a psychic discipline called Biomancy. I also think that MCs with Biomancy are far to powerful and need to be altered.

My solution is to change the powers in Biomancy, specifically Iron Arm. On a Librarian or a Sorcery it is cool and kinda fluffy, on a MC or a FMC like a Hive Tyrant or a Daemon Prince it is WAAAY over the top.

Back on topic, I am still disappointed in this codex. The fluff is bad, the rules are bad, the rules don't represent the fluff at all, the new units are boring/uninspired as well as being underwhelming in their table top presence. The codex is still monolist as all hell, what was broken in 5th is still broken, things that were bad in 5th got better by virtue of the fact that everything that they competed with got nerfed. There were so many confusing and uncalled for nerfs, I just don't understand what thought went into this book if any at all.

I can sum up my feelings of the codex at large with a specific example; Scything Talons. Was it really necessary to nerf them? Considering that the Trygon was written with those rerolls to hit in mind now he just falls flat on his face in terms of viability...Same with Hormagants.

Tyranids are the bros who know the pain of the Sisters of Battle. A book gets released, models are removed, and models that are bad got worse.

I'll poor one out for the bugs. Right after I get some actual dedicated AA and maybe a new model. Just one. Just. One.

*SoBs*

Yeah, we don't use dataslates here, so if it ain't Codex, it ain't in.

As such, I'd really like to see the core stuff improved a bit in terms of diversity more than pure power.

Like, you know, a transport would be nice. Maybe a couple, since many of the models have Bulky and variants that only matter when transports are involved.

Tweaking the ally rules so that we can ally wth ourselves, allowing Tyranid the same number of army slots as everyone else. That we can be out-swarmed is painful.

Some point cost jiggering and more options given.

For instance, give Hive Tyrants a choice to take wings *or* a 2+ save but not both. Thus, your ground-pounders are a tad tougher while the fliers stay fragile(ish). Allow Tyrant Guard the option to up-armor as well.

More modification in general would be well-liked. Give a handful of your Hormagaunts rending for X a model, akin to having special weapons in normal squads. (And for goodness sakes, let sycthing talons do *something* out there!)

Genestealers *need* to have flesh hook options and should be less expensive to boot. They just die horribly right now. The more options the better.

Can we take larger Pyrovore broods? Or allow Pyrovores and/or Venomthropes to just be added to Warrior broods? They're vulnerable on their own but should be in the force pitching in some how. Let the Warriors personally herd one per brood or somesuch.

Get the Tyranid Prime down in points. His statline doesn't equare his points at all. Cheaper is better than the same cost for more power.

I wouldn't mind seeing mutant Warriors in Elite and Heavy slots again. Elite are kitted out for melee with a 3+ save while the heavies can each take a bio-cannon, allowing you to have a nice battery of, say, venom cannon fire. It's not exactly game-changing, but it's something neat. (Mind you, Heavy Support's already crowded to death, but.)

More spore mine options! Where's the poison? Acid? Electric? Everybody loves spore mines!

Lastly, more plastic kits. A Venomthrope/Zoanthrope three-pack will probably push $50 while a Pyrovore/Biovore will be close to $70, but with Finecast going down, we need these kits. (I'd obviously prefer cheaper, but.)

Dataslates are nice, but the core book needs the repairs more.

Honestly I'm not all that happy with the dataslates anyway. They SLIGHTLY improve the useful of some units at the cost of you having to buy all the models in the formation. Oh yay, Lictors are slightly less crap... but now I have to buy 5 of them... I only have 2 of them... I really don't want another 3 for $121AUD. Oh yay, we have a super spammy monobuild in the Skyblight... but I have 20 Gargoyles and 1 Harpy... I really don't want to have to buy another 10 gargoyles and another 2 Harpies for $278.

Then you have the fact the dataslates come to $45 total on top of the codex price and are digital only.

Dataslates are just GW's way of selling you more stuff and letting the Tyranids break the FOC like everyone else already can. Why they even bother with the FOC anymore I have no idea.

 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.

No, he is totally right. I am playing Sisters of Battle too, I have been very butthurt about not getting any new release too, but OP did not in any conceivable way imply that tyranids were worst off than Sisters. He even explicitly stated otherwise. I am the first to go berserk on people who complained that they are the worst off when they clearly are not (I got banned from Warseer partially because of a guy that pretended that Dark Angels had it the worse and were so much more mistreated than Sisters of Battle), but everything you are doing here is give us Sisters players a bad name, and needlessly aggravating people.
Sisters have it worse than Tyranids. The OP wanted to make a thread about how he/she perceives that many Tyranid players who complained about the codex were hypocrites that only care about the power level of the most powerful build rather than about the codex being fluffy and fun. Anything related to Sisters here except maybe “We are in a similar situation, Sisters players complain more about the level of the most competitive build than about it being fluffy” or “It is the contrary here, Sisters of Battle players really care about the book being fluffy and fun rather than the level of the most competitive build” is off-topic and irrelevant.

Now, back on topic, I am curious about what Tyranid players would have found inspiring and fun rather than bland. What kind of rules would you have written/wanted ?

 xttz wrote:
Instinctive Behaviour is a fantastic example of poor game design. Instead of being rewarded for having something, you're actively punished for not having it.

Why is that bad if you are properly compensated for it by point reduction or whatever advantage ? I think it is fluffy that if they loose synapse, tyranids start acting more like wild animals instead of working as an invasion army.
However, I would like to see a return of the mutant gaunt synapse, from an old codex (cannot remember which one). They were usually represented by a gaunt with a warrior's head, it looked and felt awesome. But maybe I am the only one.

The problem is that Tyranid units with low leadership and Instinctive Behaviour are not properly compensated for it at all. Plus the 1-3 results for Feed and Lurk are not only severely punishing but also make absolutely no sense fluff-wise.

When the primary strategy for dealing with Instinctive Behaviour is "only run units that aren't affected a lot/at all by Instinctive Behaviour" someone dropped the ball.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Instinctive Behaviour is a fantastic example of poor game design. Instead of being rewarded for having something, you're actively punished for not having it.

Why is that bad if you are properly compensated for it by point reduction or whatever advantage ? I think it is fluffy that if they loose synapse, tyranids start acting more like wild animals instead of working as an invasion army.
However, I would like to see a return of the mutant gaunt synapse, from an old codex (cannot remember which one). They were usually represented by a gaunt with a warrior's head, it looked and felt awesome. But maybe I am the only one.

The rules already covered this situation- smaller Tyranids have terrible leadership and are very likely to break and run if attacked without synapse. We didn't need additional special rules to make this more likely.

The cleanest solution I can see would be allowing Warriors to join gaunt broods as a kind of sergeant. That keeps things in line without being ridiculously easy to pick off.

I still favor the idea of Tyranids getting a GUard-like "Platoon" system, with a unit of Warriors as a "command squad", 2-5 units of gaunts/gants, then some supporting elements like Pyrovores, Venomthropes, and Ripper swarms being 0-2 add-on things. Get up a right proper horde-swarm.

Wakshaani wrote:
I still favor the idea of Tyranids getting a GUard-like "Platoon" system, with a unit of Warriors as a "command squad", 2-5 units of gaunts/gants, then some supporting elements like Pyrovores, Venomthropes, and Ripper swarms being 0-2 add-on things. Get up a right proper horde-swarm.

Okay that sounds pretty good!

I'd still prefer if it they could modify stats with biomorphs though, a return to the 4th ed system.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Plus the 1-3 results for Feed and Lurk are not only severely punishing but also make absolutely no sense fluff-wise.

Feed is the member of the unit attack each other, and Lurk is they all go to the closest cover, is that right ?

I believe they're automatic hits, not attack rolls for Feed.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Plus the 1-3 results for Feed and Lurk are not only severely punishing but also make absolutely no sense fluff-wise.

Feed is the member of the unit attack each other, and Lurk is they all go to the closest cover, is that right ?

Correct on feed, streamdragon is right in that they automatically hit. You're thinking of the old Lurk though (the one that made sense). New Lurk is on a 1-3 you run away from the terrain you're hiding in (fall back).

 streamdragon wrote:
I believe they're automatic hits, not attack rolls for Feed.

Yeah, but that is a game mechanics detail .

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You're thinking of the old Lurk though (the one that made sense). New Lurk is on a 1-3 you run away from the terrain you're hiding in (fall back).

Okay, I see. So now the lurking gaunt are more like scared of the big guys running around doing a lot of noise, and would rather attack the sick and old animals left behind by the tribe.

Well, from a pure fluff point of view, that does not seem so out of place, even though the fall back is a bit harsh, and something like making a morale test after taking just one wound rather than loosing 25% of the unit would make more sense. Maybe the details of the mechanic needs to be ironed out, but the basic idea seems okay to me. Of course, giving other way to mitigate it would be nice too. Like adding those awesome mutants, but it really seems I am the only one who loves them. Gaunt should have mutants options like other units have leader and special weapon options !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, adding the mutant would allow an army of small creature, with the only big one would be the mandatory HQ, say a broodlord. Something that as far as I know have not been possible for quite a long time !
(Yeah, it would not go well with the current trend of making every army rely on very big, very resistant models, but hey, it could be cool. And since the gaunt can already have poisons, if the mutants gave them access to haywire, they maybe could work !)

Wakshaani wrote:
Yeah, we don't use dataslates here, so if it ain't Codex, it ain't in.

Pretty much, especially if they are formations, in which case it's doubly-so. If it's a new unit Dataslate then my gaming group would probably get behind it, but I don't know anybody who is okay with formations outside of Apoc. I dunno how many tournaments allow dataslates either, so even competitive players should be still complaining.

At the OP: the reason people aren't complaining about the Nid Dex now is because it has been a couple months and now we're complaining about the Taurox.