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.

Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
Personally, I always liked the idea of tyranids as the innumerable, unending horde where there Is no such thing as victory, but just holding off defeat.

I'd makes termagaunts beasts, and give them some kind of 'recycle' rule where you can literally play out an unending wave. Either that or give 'free' units per synapse creature, like how in warmachine/hordes, your warcaster/warlock gets 'free' extra points for warjacks and warbeasts.
Think about it. You 'pay' for the bigger gribblies and the synapse beasts, but the horde comes alongside regardless.

Second thing I'd do (showing my age!) is reduce/remove any kind of victory points from killing tyranid 'relentless wave' units. Literally, you cannot win against them. You,have to kill them. You have no choice but to keep killing them. But yo get nothing for it. I really don't know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but it would make the tyranids on the tabletops like they are in the fluff.

Third thing I'd do is reduce the armour save on a lot of the monstrous creatures but compensate them with massive (and i mean massive) amounts of wounds. It's carapace. It's not very hard, and I can imagine bolters and whatever else shredding through it easily enough and chopping bits off. Then again, when that carnifex has forty wounds, or whatever (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point), it can stand there and take that shredding all day long and just smile about it. It would also make tyranid mc's somewhat unique and different. Again, Like I said, I do not know how well, or even if this would be feasible, but there I should a part of my brain that is just smiling and thinking of the possibilities.

That would be awesome, too awesome for GW to implement.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.

I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.

Like I said, I'm all for using the 4th ed pseudo EW. Force, weapons still work, but no ID from double toughness. Which would apply to a few MCs, and Warriors.

 Happyjew wrote:
Like I said, I'm all for using the 4th ed pseudo EW. Force, weapons still work, but no ID from double toughness. Which would apply to a few MCs, and Warriors.

I play with modified ID (and especially double toughness ID is severly nerfed) and this in fact help Nids a lot.

[SIDENOTE: just to be clear, as I forgot to mention it earlier - in this entire thread I'm speaking from position of playing AGAINST Tyranids - they are my main opponent, not my own army of choice. But I came up with a great deal of house rules and changes we apply to them. It was necessary to have close and interesting games against my Eldar.]

 Lance845 wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.

I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.

But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.

Because the Hive Mind pushes them on long after their body gives out. Given the Hive Mind in game is more of a punishment than a buff it would balance the scales a bit.

Also the people who write this game have no problem handing out ridiculous power for fluff's sake to Eldar and Marines all day. Be nice if there wasn't a clear division between the favourites and the NPC races.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.

I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.

But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.

As was said. Tyranid individual organisms are barely functioning without the hive mind to drive them. The hive mind doesn't care about physical pain or battle damage. It will push every body forward regardless of the wounds it suffers until it literally falls apart or stops being capable of motion all together. EW is a good way to represent the direct connection to the Hive Mind pushing that organism through even the most grievous wounds while FNP represents the same to a lesser extent even to organisms that are being driven by the synapse creatures.

I think there's better way to fix them by handing out blanket EW. That's a rare and powerful rule.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
Giving the beast type to most Tyranids units would not only help them gamewise, but also fit fluff wise. I'd be all for it. But giving EW for creatures in synapse is simply awful imo. A big no. Not only should EW be reserved for truly unique characters or units, it makes no sense that Tyranid in synapse have it.

I don't think EVERY unit in synapse should have EW. But I think giving every unit 6+ FNP and Synapse Creatures EW would make sense. That way 1) Nids get a weak FNP to help with some kind of survivability which is still negated by Instant Death attacks. Synapse creature gain a measure of survivability with the ID attacks removing their FNP but still only dealing 1 wound. Making them the anchors Nids need.

But why should Synapse creature gain EW ??? It may be a good buff for them but why should a Tyranid warrior get EW and not a Wulfen or Ork Nobz ?? It makes 0 senses imo.

This was a vital part of 4th ed Tyranid codex, and was explained with the following sentence "so potent is the iron will of the Hive Mind, that it can effectively controll it's thralls even after they suffered a grievous wound." All models within synapse (including Synapse creatures themselves) except for rippers were immune to strenght ID.

Maybe give a Psychic Power that grants EW? That way, it takes EFFORT to make your Synapse immune to ID, but can be done.

What is Tyranids Battle Focus? ATSKNF? Chapter Tactics?

They are stuck with Orks and Chaos as the NPC races whose Army wide rules are mostly negative.

It also could just change ID to being a D3 Wounds for Synapse Creatures. Warriors MIGHT still get insta-killed, but might not.

Alternatively, a FNP that works past ID Wounds, but that's still not a fix-all.

Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:

Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.

I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.

You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.

Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.

Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.

Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.

I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?

My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.

Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.

Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.

Use more than one?

OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.

How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.

Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'

Venomthropes are cheaper.

Also, while we're at it:

3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?

Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.

Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.

Gargoyles, basically worthless

They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?

Would you rather have assault marines?

Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs

This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is Tyranids Battle Focus? ATSKNF? Chapter Tactics?

You want space marine stats and rules? Ok. Then I expect you to pay space marine points costs.

You want "good" gargoyles? Fine. Then I expect you to pay 17 ppm for a gargoyle.

Lolwat, did Traditio just say Pyrovores were undercosted?

Now I've seen everything!

You heard it here folks. Pyrovores OP.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Lolwat, did Traditio just say Pyrovores were undercosted?

Now I've seen everything!

If space marine players had the same model, minus the synapse rule, and could deploy it in a rhino or a drop pod, yes, people would probably complain that pyrovores are undercosted. Tyrranids, Orks and IG players would complain the loudest.

 Traditio wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Lolwat, did Traditio just say Pyrovores were undercosted?

Now I've seen everything!

If space marine players had the same model, minus the synapse rule, and could deploy it in a rhino or a drop pod, yes, people would probably complain that pyrovores are overcosted. Tyrranids, Orks and IG players would complain the loudest.

Which is like saying Eldar aren't OP at all. You just take away X units.

Oh jesus here we go.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:

Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.

I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.

You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.

Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.

Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.

First, Nid drop pods carry 20 infantry or up to 1 MC. So the nid drop pod can carry a whole brood of pyrovore but only 1 MC. So... learn your drop pods first.

Second, synapse. Pyrovores without synapse you loose control over. They cannot shoot their guns if they cannot pass their ld check.

Third, The point of the volatile rule is how poorly it is written. No person in their right mind would ever let a player cause 30 wounds to every unit on the table. It's obvious that you are supposed to deal a number of wounds to each unit equal to the number of models they have within d6". But that is not what the rule says. It is so poorly written that it just blows up the table. While bad rules writing is kind of GWs thing. This is GWs rule writing at some of it's worst. When nids got their FAQ this poorly written rule was not addressed.

Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.

I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?

My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.

Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.

1) I, and the forum, do not agree with your flak missile argument.

2) It's incoherent (the correct word!) because if it's built for air superiority then it shouldn't have all of it's ranged weapons to attack air vehicles be 1 use only. If you cannot understand how that is a detriment to it doing it's intended job then please PLEASE go take a class or 2 on game design. Read a book. Exercise critical thinking skills.

Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.

Use more than one?

Each of which will have the same problems.

OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.

How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.

It's not the ONLY issue with OOE. But it's more an issue with how poorly put together the entire dex is. You cannot address the dex by looking at a hand full of rules as separate rules. Each rule in the dex is part of a (in)cohesive whole. The fact that this is a possibility for Nids is part of what makes the dex so poorly put together.

Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'

Venomthropes are cheaper.

Also, while we're at it:

3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?

The Malanthrope is GREAT. It's one of maybe 5 units you can point at in the nid line up and say "Yes... this is absolutely usable". It also makes venomthropes redundant. Which is the issue I was getting at. Shrouded, or shrouded + synapse. It's a no brainer.

Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.

Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.

Raveners do not get swallow whole. The red terror does. The red terror needs to hit with 4 attacks, and then give them all up, to swallow whole. And again, without a synapse unit to support it, you could just loose control of the whole group and easily get no attacks. Congratz on not addressing at all the issues I brought up with raveners.

BTW, Red Terror gets 4 attacks. 5 on the charge. So... yeah. Good luck getting swallow whole to happen.

Gargoyles, basically worthless

They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?

Would you rather have assault marines?

Kind of? I mean gargs are 6ppm, with the worst gun in the nid line up, no upgrade options for a better gun, a near worthless blind attack in assault, the ability to deep strike and then become worthless as they no longer exist inside the synapse web. Yeah, I would rather have a unit that can actually function as a fast moving deep striking objective grabbing unit with a purpose. As it stand, I could take Devilgants for 8 ppm and get 3 shots per model and just keep them in synapse. Or regular gants for 4ppm that do the same thing as gargs without the wasted deepstrike rules.

Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs

This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.

NOT THE POINT. The point is how directionless the nid dex is. Each entry is more proof of the disorganized mess the codex is. Cohesive. That is the word I used. The Nid dex is a disorganized mess. The harpy has no place in a list. That makes it a null choice.

I can't believe he said Pyrovores are undercosted? Is that grounds for a ban because of trolling?

Sorry. I said that the flesh borer is the worst gun in the nid line up. That is false. The strangleweb is the worst gun in the nid lineup. BY FAR.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe he said Pyrovores are undercosted? Is that grounds for a ban because of trolling?

Him saying it and the immediate responses are almost sig worthy.

 Traditio wrote:
Ok. I feel I am in a better position to address your points now, Lance:

Sure. Pyrovoes volatile rule. Every unit suffers a hit for every model within d6" of a pyrovore that is killed by instant death. RAW, if you surround a pyrovore with 30 gants and then have it die from a ID hit then every unit on the table suffers 30 hits.

I'm looking at the pyrovore rules right now, and I just don't think that they're as bad as you and 1d4chan make out. A pyrovore is a 3 wound infantry which is armed, essentially, with a heavy flamer and a power axe that swings at I2. If it takes an unsaved wound from an S8+ or higher attack or from a force weapon, it basically does the Explodes! vehicle result, except it's resolved at S3 instead of S4.

You get this at the EXTREME DISCOUNT price of 40 ppm.

Now, you may not like the volatile rule, but I fail to see how it's a non-coherent rule. And really, dude? "If you surround it with 30 gaunts"? Sure. And why don't you put all of your termagaunts in base to base contact with each other in a circular formation...out in the open...and then complain about how OP my frag missiles are.

Really, the problem with this model isn't the model. The model is just fine. In fact, it's probably too cheap for what it is. The problem is that the Tyrranids codex doesn't have a viable delivery system for it. If you changed the unit type from "infantry" to "Monstrous Creature," you could stick that in a drop pod and IG players would curse your name.

Hive crone, supposed to be air superiority fighter. Main weapon is a drool cannon that only targets ground units.

I don't see this as in and of itself making a unit bad or non-coherent. Let it be whatever it wants in the fluff. Does it have rules that make it unworkable on the table? Is its points cost disproportionate to what it actually can do?

My main tyrranid opponent has used hive crones in the past to help take out my rhino wall.

Until I figured out that hive crones have 4+ armor...so I started shooting them down with flakk missiles.

Trygons, supposed to help deploy units from reserves into enemys back field. Can only deploy one unit a turn through the trygon tunnel and you have no control over when the trygon arrives. Because of this the trygon tunnel is just as likely to be the last thing deployed from reserves as it is to be the first and since only 1 unit a turn can come out of the tunnel it cannot be relied upon as a tactic. i.e. is worthless.

Use more than one?

OOE is a HQ choice. Because of it, it's possible to build a Nid list with no synapse. Hilarity for the enemy ensues.

How is this a problem with the unit? If you use OOE and don't use any synapse creatures, that's a case of user error, not a problem with OOE.

Malanthropes: why bring venomthropes?'

Venomthropes are cheaper.

Also, while we're at it:

3+ armor, T5, 4 W creature that confers shrouded on everything within 6 inches. For the measly cost of 85 ppm? Does that seem fair to you?

Raveners, garbage Warriors at the cost of warriors but no synapse... So deep striking nids that you loose control of when you deep strike them. Great.

Swallow whole lets you insta kill any infantry without even rolling to wound.

Gargoyles, basically worthless

They're only 6 ppm. How good do you want them to be?

Would you rather have assault marines?

Harpys, supposed to be anti infantry. expensive for worse guns than HTs

This doesn't make a Harpy bad. It could easily be the case that HTs are OP. And guess what: HTs are OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
What is Tyranids Battle Focus? ATSKNF? Chapter Tactics?

You want space marine stats and rules? Ok. Then I expect you to pay space marine points costs.

You want "good" gargoyles? Fine. Then I expect you to pay 17 ppm for a gargoyle.

Lance845 has broken this down point by point, but may I just add, that this entire post of yours just screams "I have no idea how Nids work or what their problems are, but I'll try to act smart anyways." Seriously - you failed to even understand the points you tried to address (the most obvious are Pyrovore Volatile rule writing; OOE (and even more so a non-fearless Deathleaper) as HQ choices; useless Trygon holes (your answer to this is out-of-scale incompetent); and obsolete Raveners (those are, for all intents and purposes, worse Shrikes without Synapse and with worse customisation options for the same point cost FFS!!!) with Red Terror being a relic from previous editions, when Trygons or Dimacherons have not yet existed).

Lance:

Here are my general feelings on this:

1. If you want to say that the Tyrranids codex has poor internal balance, has poorly written rules, etc., then I am just going to agree with you all day long.

But that's not just the Tyrranids codex. That's the current state of 7th edition Warhammer 40k. Thus one of my points: The tyrranids as a whole suffer for the same reasons pretty much most of the games suffer. Power creep, scale creep, poor and vague rules writing etc.

If my sole goal is to win, why should I run anything other than a white scars grav spam battle company? Why should I run anything other than flyrant spam? Why should I run anything other than wraithknights and scatterbikes?

The answer isn't to make more things OP. The answer is to nerf the ever living feth out of the things that are OP and bring them into line with the rest of the game.

2. But note, even if that's true, it doesn't follow that x, y and z units in the tyrranids codex are bad. Venomthropes aren't necessarily bad. Malanthropes are OP. Harpies aren't necessarily bad. Flyrants are OP.

To my mind, it's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, I have no reason to take harpies...so lets make harpies just as OP as flyrants, except with a different specialization!" It's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, let's make Carnifexes practically immortal."

Because guess what: do you know what would happen if you had 2+ armor save carnifexes with the beast special rule, dakka flyrants, malanthropes, etc?

I'd refuse to play with you. My sternguard and missile launchers aren't going to kill that. My plasma cannons can't put out enough shots to take those things down.

If you buff the tyrranids codex, then once again, you are nerfing non-competitive armies. A 2+ carnifex is a nerf to missile launchers and sternguard. So to beat you, I'd have to run OP bullgak myself. I'd have to bring that white scars grav cannon battle company.

And sorry, but that's not the game that I want to play.

See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).

 JNAProductions wrote:
See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).

And that's the problem with 40k. People have grossly unreasonable expectations about what their models should be able to do. If a unit isn't ridiculously killy or nigh invincible, it's just not worth taking. That's why tyrranids players like Flyrants. It's both ridiculously killy and nigh invincible.

That's why space marine players don't like tactical marines. They are reasonably durable and have OK damage output for their points, but they aren't an auto-win.

That's why 40k is dying. That's why people are leaving the hobby. Because roughly half of the player base refuses to play without their automatic win buttons, and the other half don't like playing against automatic win buttons.

You remember the movie Incredibles? You remember what Syndrome said? (If not, GO WATCH IT! IT'S SUCH A GOOD MOVIE!)

"If everyone is super... No one will be."

In other words, if everything is OP (to the same degree), nothing is.

I don't want an unbalanced game. I want a high-powered game. To that end, stuff like tactical marines need a buff or a points drop. Basically, we both want balance-I (and most others here) just want balance by bringing everything that's subpar UP, whereas you want to bring the powerful stuff DOWN. (Which isn't to say you're wrong-you are, on a lot of things, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a low-powered game. It's just that people here disagree with you on that, including me.)

 Traditio wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
See, Tradito, that's fine. But most people DON'T agree with you. They like having powerful stuff-so the solution is not make things less powerful, it's to make the weak stronger (for the most part. Some stuff does need nerfing, but more things need buffing).

And that's the problem with 40k. People have grossly unreasonable expectations about what their models should be able to do. If a unit isn't ridiculously killy or nigh invincible, it's just not worth taking. That's why tyrranids players like Flyrants. It's both ridiculously killy and nigh invincible.

That's why space marine players don't like tactical marines. They are reasonably durable and have OK damage output for their points, but they aren't an auto-win.

That's why 40k is dying. That's why people are leaving the hobby. Because roughly half of the player base refuses to play without their automatic win buttons, and the other half don't like playing against automatic win buttons.

People don't like Tactical Marines because they are the opposite of what you claim them to be.

This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.

 Traditio wrote:
Lance:

Here are my general feelings on this:

1. If you want to say that the Tyrranids codex has poor internal balance, has poorly written rules, etc., then I am just going to agree with you all day long.

But that's not just the Tyrranids codex. That's the current state of 7th edition Warhammer 40k. Thus one of my points: The tyrranids as a whole suffer for the same reasons pretty much most of the games suffer. Power creep, scale creep, poor and vague rules writing etc.

No. It's not the same. Orks are in the same boat as nids. Chaos marines and to an extent deamons are. But it's just the same boat. Because of synapse Nids have their own special deck of the boat with their own unique internal issues. The things that impact the way nids function is very different from any other army in the game and their issues grow exponentially worse with each poorly thought out units because of it.

If my sole goal is to win, why should I run anything other than a white scars grav spam battle company? Why should I run anything other than flyrant spam? Why should I run anything other than wraithknights and scatterbikes?

The answer isn't to make more things OP. The answer is to nerf the ever living feth out of the things that are OP and bring them into line with the rest of the game.

This.. is SO INCREDIBLY WRONG. Some VERY FEW things in the game need to be brought down. Most things need to be brought up to a happy medium. I don't want every other dex to be turned into the nid dex. That is a hell nobody deserves.

2. But note, even if that's true, it doesn't follow that x, y and z units in the tyrranids codex are bad. Venomthropes aren't necessarily bad. Malanthropes are OP. Harpies aren't necessarily bad. Flyrants are OP.

To my mind, it's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, I have no reason to take harpies...so lets make harpies just as OP as flyrants, except with a different specialization!" It's just a non-starter to say: "Well gee, let's make Carnifexes practically immortal."

Nobody suggested those as solutions. I have often proposed my own solutions for bringing HT down a peg to reasonable.

Reduce HT cost by 30 points. Walkrants are currently overcosted. Make wings replace a pair of scything talons. (can't take 2 tldwblw if you only have weapon 1 slot). Suddenly flyrants are less killy and walkrants are more cost efficient.

Carnifexes don't need to be immortal. They need to be able to get across the field quicker so they can get into the melee they should thrive in. 6" move is garbage for their purpose.

Because guess what: do you know what would happen if you had 2+ armor save carnifexes with the beast special rule, dakka flyrants, malanthropes, etc?

I'd refuse to play with you. My sternguard and missile launchers aren't going to kill that. My plasma cannons can't put out enough shots to take those things down.

If you buff the tyrranids codex, then once again, you are nerfing non-competitive armies. A 2+ carnifex is a nerf to missile launchers and sternguard. So to beat you, I'd have to run OP bullgak myself. I'd have to bring that white scars grav cannon battle company.

And sorry, but that's not the game that I want to play.

I have seen the proposed rules you have put out for the game you want to play. It involves the removal of relentless from the game. 4+ only armor on flying vehicles and a lot of other insanity with consequences you cannot see and refuse to acknowledge no matter how many people talk to you about it. According to you Terminators and Pyrovores are under costed monstrosities that dominate the game. I don't think anyone wants to play the game you want to play.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.

Tactical marines are fine when compared to similar models at comparable points costs.

The problem with the game is power creep and scale creep.

Tactical marines are fine against termagaunts, fire warriors, dire avengers, etc.

They are not fine against fething Imperial Knights.

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:This is how out of touch you are. Tactical Marines have never been good outside the 4th edition codex when they could double up on special weapons.

Tactical marines are fine when compared to similar models at comparable points costs.

The problem with the game is power creep and scale creep.

Tactical marines are fine against termagaunts, fire warriors, dire avengers, etc.

They are not fine against fething Imperial Knights.

No. You're wrong. The points cost is not a blanket balancing mechanic. The unit does not exist in a vacuum. Tac marines can take 1 each of a number of specialist weapons but they must always choose to shoot at a single target. In making use of their actual strongest element (their ability to bring a number of tools to deal with a number of different threats) they end up wasting most of the units strengths when targeting any particular threat.

If I am correct (I very easily might be wrong. I didn't actually play 4th) back in 4th everybody more or less had split fire. Tac marines were great because you could send a bunch of them forward and they could maximize their effectiveness by bringing to bare their specialist weapons against their intended targets without negating the strength of the rest of the unit.

Tac marines today have all the tools of the tac marines of yesteryear but none of the flexibility that allows them to actually function. Maybe they need split fire? Maybe the game needs to go to some kind of core mechanic that says a unit must select a weapon, THEN select a target and must fire all of the same weapon at the same target. A unit with all bolters fires at a single target unit. A unit with 4 different guns can select 4 different targets, one for each gun. THEN Tac marines would serve the purpose they are designed to serve.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You remember the movie Incredibles? You remember what Syndrome said? (If not, GO WATCH IT! IT'S SUCH A GOOD MOVIE!)

"If everyone is super... No one will be."

In other words, if everything is OP (to the same degree), nothing is.

I don't want an unbalanced game. I want a high-powered game. To that end, stuff like tactical marines need a buff or a points drop. Basically, we both want balance-I (and most others here) just want balance by bringing everything that's subpar UP, whereas you want to bring the powerful stuff DOWN. (Which isn't to say you're wrong-you are, on a lot of things, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a low-powered game. It's just that people here disagree with you on that, including me.)

1. That would be way more complicated and take far more work than just nerfing the OP stuff. I don't think that most of the game is imbalanced. I think that a small portion of the game is unbalanced, and this small part is what sees the majority of competitive play. If you took superheavies, GMCs, fliers, grav, etc. out of the game entirely, the game would become much more balanced. In fact, if those things existed, but people simply chose not to play with them, games would be much more balanced. If those things existed and people played with them, but they were significantly nerfed where needed, again, the game would be much more balanced.

People could basically bring whatever they want, within reason, and have a fair chance of winning, assuming equal player skill, luck, etc.

So, that's my first objection to buffing the "weaker" stuff. At that point, you're basically talking about a wholesale rewrite, whereas I'm suggesting relatively minor tweaks.

2. In addition to all of that headache in basically rewriting most of the fething game, you'd be doing so to the effect of no real advantage over what I'm proposing. You said it yourself: if everything is OP, then nothing is. If grav cannons are OP killy, but tactical marines are OP durable, then it evens out. Sure, you just fired a bazillion AP 2 shots, but I have a 2++ rerollable X a gazillion (in other words, I just keep rerolling until I don't roll a 1, and I remove no models).

How is that an improvement to you firing a boltgun, hitting on a 3+, wounding on a 4+, and then me saving on a 3+? If anything, we've both just saved a ton of time rolling dice if you just fire the fething boltgun and I roll my 3+ armor save.

And fact is, I seriously doubt that most people really want to balance the game by making things stronger. What difference is there between giving your flyrant a 4+ armor save and giving my flakk missiles AP 3? The effect is basically the same.

But a tyrranids player doesn't want either one of those things to happen.

The whole reason you would bring a flyrant is because you want an unkillable killing machine. If everything were as OP as flyrants, then you wouldn't even bother with them, and guess what, all that money and time you spent on buying and painting flyrants has been wasted.

So what am I trying to say? Make everything OP, or nerf the OP stuff, and you end up with essentially the same result. You've lost your automatic win buttons, everything has become just as viable as everything else, etc. The only difference is that you want us to waste more time rolling dice and memorizing special rules.

But wait, something has changed, namely:

3. You don't want to make tactical marines OP, you say, you just want to make them ridiculously cheap? You want 150 point wraithknights and 1 point tactical marines?

Great. You've just massively increased the financial, time, labor, etc. barrier to entry.

What I'm suggesting is much easier, much less of a headache, much less expensive, etc. But the simple fact is that people like their win buttons, and this, in at least some cases, probably to compensate for their own lack of player skill.