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.

themadlbb wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ArmyC wrote:
Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.

The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.

Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.

Wonderful.

7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.

No Fun

Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.

Might be fun.

Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.

I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.

How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?

Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.

That is just not true of most games and also wasn't true in 40k until 6th edition hit. Also don't make the mistake of thinking that because I usually have a limited playing time that I don't have a competitive mindset or that I don't take part in tournaments for several gaming systems.

And my reply had nothing to do with winning or loosing anyway, it was to state that people that have a limited playing time each session and that rely on random pick-up games to get their "fix", really can't play a game that has the pre-condition that if you wan't to enjoy the game, you need to have extensive negotiations with your opponent about what each one is going to bring before the game even begins...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:

- getting pickup games might be harder. However, people showing up in 6e with triptide/tripdrake/seer council/taudar weren't exactly the most popular people were they? I agree this can and probably will continue to happen, but hopefully the wider player base will get used to playing a wider variety of lists.

And that is why most of the people that I know have already stopped playing the game during 6th edition and this "new" edition not only doesn't do anything to address these concerns, but instead exacerbates these problems by doubling down on the "no-restrictions" mindset...

Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""

1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).

2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.

I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.

How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.

Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.

The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...

Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.

I wish AM was a 7th ed dex, maybe it would have been better suited for it.

the sky is falling.... lol

Makumba wrote:
Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.

Quite simply yes.

People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.

GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.

Makumba wrote:
Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.

I wish AM was a 7th ed dex, maybe it would have been better suited for it.

Many armies did not lose anything in competitive value, in fact some armies (GK) are now more competitive and require no new models to your collection.


If you had some wacky "powerbuild" army that relied on a very specific mechanic granted by battle brother rules you may be SOL but thats how 40k always has been, if you are building to powergame expect your army to be mostly invalid next edition.

if you are building a strong TAC your army will be mostly valid next edition, there may be 1-2 new models in the next codex for your army.

If you buy a small supplemental codex, expect for it to not be valid in 1-2 editions of 40k.

Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.

 Talizvar wrote:
Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""

1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).

2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.

I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.

How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.

Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.

The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...

Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.

themadlbb wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""

1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).

2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.

I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.

How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.

Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.

The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...

Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.

I agree although I argue with the new rules it shall be even more common though.

themadlbb wrote:


Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.

There have always been imbalances in 40k, but never to the extent that exist since 6th came out, simply because in all other editions all the factions had strengths and weaknesses, but since the advent of the abomination that is the allies matrix a player can cover his chosen faction's weaknesses or crank its strength up to 11 by using complementary models from other factions that leave someone that chooses not to play like this in a serious disadvantage. And that is even before we throw Escalation into the mix...

Ignoring this fact and claiming that the complaints now are the same as those in editions prior to 6th is being at the very least naive or at the worst, dishonest.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG?.

Generally one has to purchase, clean, assemble and paint miniatures before playing a game. With MtG you purchase and put in sleeves (optional)

It doesn't really compare aside from the listbuilding aspect. IE top tier list/deck wins vs average list/deck irregardless or skill or luck most of the time.

 da001 wrote:

themadlbb wrote:
(...)
But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.

But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.

Nope. The balance is broken and a broken balance kills the variety.

Also, I think your reasoning is wrong. It is not a matter of getting a 'perfect state' in 40k.

It is all a matter of how wide is the gap between a top list and a bottom list. It doesn´t matter if there is a small difference between army A and army B. It matters when the difference is so big that list B has no choice. It matters when the gap is so big it kills the fun for most players.

And getting more playable lists is an improvement in itself . To achieve for perfection is indeed foolish. We should try to improve the game for the sake of improvement itself, not because we are aiming for a 'perfect' situation.

To use again the 'banning people' example: by banning the player who randomly attacks other players with a knife, we improve the environment. Saying that it would be better to accept him because otherwise we should start talking about the 'no-shower' guy makes no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:
"It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."

^Same thing I said, with less words.

I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.

7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

themadlbb wrote:


Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.

There have always been imbalances in 40k, but never to the extent that exist since 6th came out, simply because in all other editions all the factions had strengths and weaknesses, but since the advent of the abomination that is the allies matrix a player can cover his chosen faction's weaknesses or crank its strength up to 11 by using complementary models from other factions that leave someone that chooses not to play like this in a serious disadvantage. And that is even before we throw Escalation into the mix...

Ignoring this fact and claiming that the complaints now are the same as those in editions prior to 6th is being at the very least naive or at the worst, dishonest.

This is what I am referring to. In the past the game was played differently, the paradigm has shifted and presented new ways to play.

However, I'll say this as regards allies: 7th has really, really toned down the ally abuse by severely limiting the number of Battle Brothers (which were the worst offenders). Sure, you can ally with anything now, but at an often debilitating cost.

Also, the accusations of naivety and dishonesty aren't necessary.

themadlbb wrote:
(...)
I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.

A fundamental disagreement indeed.

Now the standard player have zero chances against many specific lists. If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn. Because there are a handful completely broken units/lists.

But you seem to think otherwise, so let´s agree to disagree and let´s try to enjoy the game anyway.

7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.

I fielded penal legion, lesser daemon, spawn (in 5th) and many, many 'weak' units in 5th without any problem. I actually won against leafblowers and razorspams with 'bottom level lists'.

Now that would be completely impossible. As other people are saying, the gap between the lists is bigger. I think the game got broken in 6th, with the coming of flyers: at the beginning of the edition, you either got a flyer/fortification or you had zero chances. From there on, it has gone worse and worse.

So I don´t see how this 'new paradigm' make the game more enjoyable. And, by the way, I don´t think that the people who made it were trying to create something enjoyable. It seems broken, rushed and untested. A 95% copy paste and a number of random changes.

Which is why I wouldn´t call it a 'paradigm', it is more like 6th edition version 0.2. No fundamental changes, just a logical 'progression'. People who liked 6th are liking 7th, and people who disliked 6th disliked 7th even more, for the same reasons, because it is 'the same dog, with a different collar'.

 da001 wrote:

themadlbb wrote:
(...)
I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.

A fundamental disagreement indeed.

Now the standard player have zero chances against many specific lists. If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn. Because there are a handful completely broken units/lists.

But you seem to think otherwise, so let´s agree to disagree and let´s try to enjoy the game anyway.

7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.

I fielded penal legion, lesser daemon, spawn (in 5th) and many, many 'weak' units in 5th without any problem. I actually won against leafblowers and razorspams with 'bottom level lists'.

Now that would be completely impossible. As other people are saying, the gap between the lists is bigger. I think the game got broken in 6th, with the coming of flyers: at the beginning of the edition, you either got a flyer/fortification or you had zero chances. From there on, it has gone worse and worse.

So I don´t see how this 'new paradigm' make the game more enjoyable. And, by the way, I don´t think that the people who made it were trying to create something enjoyable. It seems broken, rushed and untested. A 95% copy paste and a number of random changes.

Which is why I wouldn´t call it a 'paradigm', it is more like 6th edition version 0.2. No fundamental changes, just a logical 'progression'. People who liked 6th are liking 7th, and people who disliked 6th disliked 7th even more, for the same reasons, because it is 'the same dog, with a different collar'.

When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.

Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.

And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.

I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.

Reading these threads gives me the impression that posters have lost their imaginations, requiring rules to replace the ability to think. What if I want to play a company of Thunder Warriors supported by the Custodians? For me, that's Orks and Grey Knights. What if I want to field a lone Aspirant defending his land by literally 'herding' mega-beasts into the enemy? For me, that's an Imperal Knight and Tyranids. Are those combinations go together? On the table, definitely not; but as fluffy counts-as, definitely yes. 7th let's me use my imagination to workout a list I want to play, tell a story I want to tell, and model my army the way I want it to look.

Do you have to play against me? No, not really. But I can turn down game with people I do like to play, either. Note how I said "people" and not "armies". It doesn't matter at all to me what you take in your army in a game we agreed to play, because like playing against you and I know we will have fun. But I won't play Richard over there, no matter what he brings to play, because Richard is a ... someone I don't enjoy playing against.

Now, if its a tournament, I will bring a tournament legal list, and expect to face other tournament legal lists. If I chose wrong, played wrong, or had to face Richard, that's on me, not the game.

At the moment, I'm liking what I see in 7th so far. Giving it a few months to see how the meta shacks out.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
What if I want to play a company of Thunder Warriors supported by the Custodians?

Apocalypse let you do that...

Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

God forbid you have a fourteen second conversation with your opponent about what type of game mode you'd like to play. It's downright impossible! That's why magic players are constantly having to play their standard decks vs commander decks!

To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere

 Crablezworth wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
What if I want to play a company of Thunder Warriors supported by the Custodians?

Apocalypse let you do that...

Technically not because there are no rules for either of them or any rules that really represent either force in a satisfactory manner. Not even Forgeworld's Horus Heresy books have touched on those yet.

Not unless you want to homebrew it all.

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere

Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space to pack two troop units and keep your options relatively open.

 Las wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere

Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space for two troop units and keep your options relatively open.

I only meant to say there is a slight difference between bringing several decks and several different armies

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Las wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere

Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space for two troop units and keep your options relatively open.

I only meant to say there is a slight difference between bringing several decks and several different armies

You don't have to bring several different armies just enough models that would allow you to play in any of the game modes you're willing to partake in. In reality it's several different lists, which is a big difference.

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

themadlbb wrote:

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.

It doesn't mean a grot army is good.

Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.

The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.

Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.

It doesn't mean a grot army is good.

Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.

The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.

Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.

Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.

If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.

Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.

Nevermind.

themadlbb wrote:

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.

It doesn't mean a grot army is good.

Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.

The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.

Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.

Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.

If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.

Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.

A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.

And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.

It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.

I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.

Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.

Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.

Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.

It doesn't mean a grot army is good.

Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.

The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.

Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.

Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.

If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.

Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.

A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.

And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.

It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.

I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.

Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.

Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.

Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.

You sound pretty upset, so I'm not going to engage any further. Sorry you haven't found success with your army.

However, this is also getting pretty far off topic. I'm sure there are several threads to debate the efficacy of the Tyranid codex available to us.

themadlbb wrote:

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

 Kain wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

Sorris wrote:
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.

How much are you selling it for? Seriously.

There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.

And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.

I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.

It doesn't mean a grot army is good.

Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.

The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.

Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.

Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.

If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.

Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.

A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.

And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.

It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.

I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.

Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.

Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.

Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.

You sound pretty upset, so I'm not going to engage any further. Sorry you haven't found success with your army.

However, this is also getting pretty far off topic. I'm sure there are several threads to debate the efficacy of the Tyranid codex available to us.

Concession accepted.

dickbox an abrams <3 oh, so exalted.

my poor bugs.