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.

Redacted for forum rules. (Still visible in GA's post, but eh.)

 JNAProductions wrote:
Redacted

And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument by resorting to personal insults



I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Redact the original, redact the quote..

And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument



I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.

G.A

I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.

Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.

 Traditio wrote:

 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.

The fact that you think the issues with 40k can be fixed with "relatively minor tweaks" means you don't understand what the issues are with 40k. That's it. You just don't. The issues run deeper then these few minor tweaks. You cannot fix 40k with your few small adjustments.

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).

You continue to not understand what people are asking for.

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.

People suggested flak missiles should be lower cost or free. Everyone generally agreed. Flak missiles are not your is all to end all answer.

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.

Nobody (well.. not NOBODY) brings flyrants because they are OP. People bring Flyrants because they are one of the only things that actually functions. Flyrants by being synapse remove themselves from synapses shackle. They have the durability to survive long enough to accomplish something and they have guns, that though they have no ap, are strong enough with enough shots to actually get gak done. The fact that a HT can be built in such a way that it can be given a purpose AND it's actually capable of acomplishing that purpose on the table is a rarity in the nid line up. It's abused because we have almost nothing else that does that.

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.

I have never seen anyone say this either.

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.

What you are suggesting IS easier, IS also a MASSIVE headache, AND creates new problems while not actually addressing the old ones.

You cannot fix the problem by attacking it's symptoms. You need to fix the problem.

If you can't discuss something politely, regardless of how frustrated you may be getting, then you're better off not discussing it. "I don't care anymore" is not a valid reason to break Rule #1 of Dakka Dakka

 Lance845 wrote:

 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.

1. I have a copy of the 4th edition rulebook. It's not true that everything had splitfire in 4th edition. If anything, there were much heavier restrictions on shooting in 4th edition. Here's the process you had to go through:

A. Pick a unit with which to shoot.

B. Pick a unit against which to shoot.
B1. All of your models must fire against the same unit.
B2. You must fire at the closest unit. If you want to fire at a unit that is not the closest unit:
B2a: You must pass a leadership test.
B2b. If you fail that leadership test, you must fire instead at the closest unit.

Snapshooting did not exist in 4th edition. And you couldn't fire a rapidfire weapon on the go. If you moved in the movement phase, the only thing your tactical marine could do is rapidfire. You can't shoot at 24 inch range.

2. Tactical marines are currently no worse, in my opinion, than IG heavy weapons teams. The difference is that tactical marines are more expensive, but also much more durable, stand half a chance in melee combat against most basic infantry units, and can bring relatively decent firepower to bear against things that get too close.

If you have a carnifex at 48 inch range, I'm shooting it with a krak missile. If you place a drop pod next to that tactical squad, I'm shooting krak, throwing krak and rapidfiring bolters.

 motyak wrote:
If you can't discuss something politely, regardless of how frustrated you may be getting, then you're better off not discussing it. "I don't care anymore" is not a valid reason to break Rule #1 of Dakka Dakka

Yeah... I apologize to the forum at large.

I'll keep a more civil tongue in the future.

 JNAProductions wrote:


I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.

Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.

If someone's driving you up the wall on Dakka, end the conversation. Might as well run into a brick wall over and over rather than discuss with someone who's already made up their mind on something. Venting your feelings not only solves nothing, but also destroys any argument you had previously.

Oh and Rule no.1. Don't forget that.

General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Yes, and I basically agree with this.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:

High powered game. Low powered game.

What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.

Personally, I'd prefer the option that involves memorizing fewer special rules, less randomness, rolling fewer dice, buying fewer models, fewer books, etc.

And you'll say that players who use flyrants would feel "cut out of the deal." Ok. But what about people who use termagaunts? If you massively nerf wraithknights and scatterbikes, guess what? You've just massively buffed termagaunts indirectly.

I mean, if you only play with wraithknights and scatterbikes, then yes, you are going to be royally PO'ed if those things get nerfed. But if you run a general TAC list that doesn't spam the most OP stuff in your codex, then your army would actually be receiving an indirect buff.

Again, this is why players really started to leave 40k from 6th edition onwards. When things like wraithknights, riptides, flying hive tyrants (and fliers in general), Imperial Knights etc. hit the shelves, in addition to being massively OP in their own right, the entire existing meta also received a massive indirect nerf.

Leeman Russes, Landraiders, IG infantry platoons, tactical squads etc. became a joke.

In other words:

The entire existing player base "got cut out of the deal."

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Yes, and I basically agree with this.

Glad we agree

Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:

High powered game. Low powered game.

What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.

I mean yeah, I see where you're coming from; the problem is the unforseen consequences when you buff up a single unit like you see when a Codex gets updated, and whether or not such changes will be apparent against certain units. That Flyrant can still use a Heavy Venom Cannon to get through the Marine's save, no matter how much better at killing things they are. Some things will stay the same, and even on theoretically terrible units, that will still make them viable choices. And now you have the reverse effect where Marines don't feel very strong at all.

Personally, I'd prefer the option that involves memorizing fewer special rules, less randomness, rolling fewer dice, buying fewer models, fewer books, etc.

Come check out either my blog or my profile page where I'll be posting up my own 40k game, that pretty much fits your description perfectly, sometime next year - Christmas will be coming late, I'm afraid

And yes, I'm 100% serious. Unfortunately.


Speaking of serious, I don't think 40k will ever become a game like the one you described. It's why I picked up a pen and some paper in the first place. 40k 7th is the way it is, and I don't feel confident that 8th will make much difference.

And you'll say that players who use flyrants would feel "cut out of the deal." Ok. But what about people who use termagaunts? If you massively nerf wraithknights and scatterbikes, guess what? You've just massively buffed termagaunts indirectly.

I mean, if you only play with wraithknights and scatterbikes, then yes, you are going to be royally PO'ed if those things get nerfed. But if you run a general TAC list that doesn't spam the most OP stuff in your codex, then your army would actually be receiving an indirect buff.

Again, this is why players really started to leave 40k from 6th edition onwards. When things like wraithknights, riptides, flying hive tyrants (and fliers in general), Imperial Knights etc. hit the shelves, in addition to being massively OP in their own right, the entire existing meta also received a massive indirect nerf.

Leeman Russes, Landraiders, IG infantry platoons, tactical squads etc. became a joke.

In other words:

The entire existing player base "got cut out of the deal."

This is roughly the same point as I made above about unforseen consequences. The best solution is to buff everything up to a level where units with similar roles on the field feel fair against each other (when they're matched correctly in terms of points, of course), rather than let an imbalance created by buffing/nerfing something balance the game for you. That can theoretically work, but probably won't. If it did, I'm sure a lot more of those "quick fix" threads would be popping up here, and 40k as a system would have a lot less glaring flaws and opportunities for abuse.

G.A

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Yes, and I basically agree with this.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

Here is ultimately the point that I'm making:

High powered game. Low powered game.

What's the practical difference? Either way, you lose your automatic win buttons. If we massively buff tactical marines, but we leave flyrants as is, then guess what? Flyrants have just received a de facto nerf.

omg... No. It doesn't work that way.

If everything has 2+ armor then everything becomes much harder to kill and less actually gets done in the game. Every turn becomes a slog with every unit firing volley after volley of shot for little to no effect. If everyone gets nerfed down to 6+ armor then suddenly everything dies to a stiff breeze and the game becomes a significantly different experience. Suddenly everything dies in droves. Positioning probably becomes really important.

Saying that buffing everything up and nerfing everything down is effectively the same thing is wrong on EVERY. SINGLE. LEVEL.

There is a VERY practical difference and NEITHER option is good. This is why your simple fix philosophy doesn't work. There are no simple fixes. Once again, the issues with 40k run deeper and you are attacking symptoms not the source of the issues.

@Traditio Please can you spell Tyranids correctly for once............

 JNAProductions wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Redact the original, redact the quote..

And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument



I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.

G.A

I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.

Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.

At least you get any replies, Traditio has never, ever replied to any of my posts adressing any of his nonsense...

nou wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Redact the original, redact the quote..

And now you've just lost any upper hand you may have had in this argument



I will say Traditio that your argument seems to be all over the place; the point being made was that balance is relative to the measurements you use to determine it and how units of similar types and roles stack up against each other.

Making 40k a high powered game would be better than nerfing, as nerfing stuff always makes players feel cut out of the deal. Call that "not liking it because they don't have an instant win button" but whenever you weaken something you discourage its use, no matter how strong it was before. Hell it could still be OP and still not be used for quite a while.

It doesn't matter anyway, 40k is a mess that will have no chance of being fixed unless 8th does a miracle. Until then, just give the little Nids that you can chew to pieces with your Bolters Beast and be done with it.

G.A

I'm done caring, really. It honestly felt good to speak my mind-I'm usually pretty dang polite.

Okay, that's partially a lie. I do care, but at the same time, I'm tired of saying logic and reason and other such things and seeing them bounce. Obviously, letting loose a small tirade will have virtually no effect either, but made me feel better about myself.

At least you get any replies, Traditio has never, ever replied to any of my posts adressing any of his nonsense...

He also avoids addressing me when I prove him wrong.

 Lance845 wrote:


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

Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


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

Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.

Excellent. So you spend 40 ppm to have a unit whos primary purpose is to be beaten to death and (hopefully) take some people with him. Watch out everyone. Pyrovores are gunna getcha!

 Lance845 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.

Excellent. So you spend 40 ppm to have a unit whos primary purpose is to be beaten to death and (hopefully) take some people with him. Watch out everyone. Pyrovores are gunna getcha!

I disagree greatly. The Pyrovore is most definitely intended to be a heavy flamer platform. It's just so poorly built that it might as well just be a bomb.

Of all the many poorly built units in the nid dex the pyrovore is the worst.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


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

Yes they can. They have a special rule that allows them to do just this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: wait never mind, that was last codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm pretty sure he's built around his Acid Blood, though, not his Flamespurt. He's the cheapest source of acid blood in the codex by far, and I have a strong suspicion that that's supposed to be the Pyrovore's primary function (Volatile serving to minimize the reduction in the effectiveness of AB caused by ID). Not the flamer. He gets into combat and enemies kill themselves by beating on him.

He is not built around Acid Blood or Maw - those are "self defence" ideas that GW trew at him, because Pyrovores are single model units that cannot hide themselves by joining units like IC can. Pyrovores have their use - they were probably designed to be guardian creatures for Biovores and they are quite good on massively cluttered tables against non Power Armour armies, but this is so niche application (and definately non-competetive), that it rarely sees play. A formation of Biovores, Pyrovores and Zoanthropes could be quite nice and fluffy pre-plastic-MC-outbreak "Artillery Node" for casual power level.

The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.

 Imateria wrote:
The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.

I don't really think that Volatile rule RAI hit everything on a table (and that this hit is multiplied by nearby creatures). It is just purely worded ID Acid Blood-like ability without initiative test... And RAW? Just drop three Pyrovores in Tyrannocyte near a large squad, deploy it 1" from it and then this enemy squad with as many low BS Heavy Venom Cannons you can fit in the army... With carefull placement you can "chain reaction" half of the table this way with just a bit of luck... Just keep enough bodies in reserves. Or for even better trolling: combi-charge Pyrovores and Mucolids at anything (and maybe some Gargoyles first to sponge overwatch) - the perfect living atom bomb...

But as my little poll indicates, almost no one plays RAW.

Nobody would ever allow someone to play Pyrovores Volatile RAW. Anyone who even tries would be beaten to death.

 Lance845 wrote:
Nobody would ever allow someone to play Pyrovores Volatile RAW. Anyone who even tries would be beaten to death.

...and explode "volatile'y"

 Lance845 wrote:
Nobody would ever allow someone to play Pyrovores Volatile RAW. Anyone who even tries would be beaten to death.

Kinda like when the CSM book 1st came out and the Old Daemon book was still out and Allies was just out at the same time.

You could get Epidus (spelling) use his 1 time attack (It hit all models friend or foe) to kill off a unit of Cultist to boost him into a God mode.

LOL that was fun 1 time then no one would let you play it ever again.

nou wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The worst thing about the Volatile rule is that it hits everything on the table, and given how squishy Nids are it means your Pyrovore will likely do more damage to it's own army than your opponents.

I don't really think that Volatile rule RAI hit everything on a table (and that this hit is multiplied by nearby creatures). It is just purely worded ID Acid Blood-like ability without initiative test... And RAW? Just drop three Pyrovores in Tyrannocyte near a large squad, deploy it 1" from it and then this enemy squad with as many low BS Heavy Venom Cannons you can fit in the army... With carefull placement you can "chain reaction" half of the table this way with just a bit of luck... Just keep enough bodies in reserves. Or for even better trolling: combi-charge Pyrovores and Mucolids at anything (and maybe some Gargoyles first to sponge overwatch) - the perfect living atom bomb...

But as my little poll indicates, almost no one plays RAW.

Thats the point Lance was making though, it's obviously not intended to wound everything on the table but it's so badly worded that it's not fit for purpose. The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.

 Imateria wrote:
The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.

I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...

nou wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.

I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...

What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?

 Imateria wrote:

nou wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.

I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...

What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?

I am also interested in hearing about your studies. Please let us know what you found.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

nou wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
The Tyranids codex in a microcosm basically.

I know, it took me no less than half a year of changing it and playtesting those changes so that it can finally be ballanced against my (casual and fun) Eldar... And I really don't think that it could be fixed (or more correctly: "salvaged") with less effort...

What were the main issues you found in your changes and playtesting?

I am also interested in hearing about your studies. Please let us know what you found.

First, I must say that my goal was quite specific - to ballance Tyranids against Eldar without nerfing Eldar to the ground. We also predominantly play Maelstrom and wanted every unit type to be usefull (in both armies), so we don't have to stick to monobuilds and can utilize any models we like aesthetically. And not all this ballance comes from improving Tyranids per se. No matter how good those alterations are in achieveing desired goal, scenario type and terrain layout can significantly alter the ballance - on an open tabletop without enough terrain Tyranids still have a hard time. One more thing - we like our games to catch a "feel" of the army as described in an overall fluff. So Eldar should be significantly outnumbered and rely on pinpointing objectives, not stomping the enemy, and Tyranids should overhelm in numbers and be near unstopable in direct "wipe-everything-out-to-win" clash. So probably a lot of those changes wouldn't satisfy the "balanced, competetive meta" players.

A bit of analysis of unmodified codex first - it is completeley non-fluffy mess of usually non-working units, which double- or triple-up their intended purposes or have no purpose at all. Small bugs are completely useless gainst almost anything, and usually pose no threat at all (unless they are equipped with toxin sacs and play against Wraith army, then Wraith army have it really, really uphill). Warriors/shrikes are too slow or too fragile to fullfill their role well, Zoantropes are unreliable offensively and work almost solely as overpriced Synapse nods. All Elite medium bugs must compete against each other for list slots at army building stage which seriously harm usefullness of each type: Zoantropes as independent synapse nods, Biovores and Hive Guards as artillery backup, Venomthropes as support units... Large bugs are either quite decent, with just some minor tweaks to make them work in intended way or don't work at all in any real in game situations. The whole army suffers from almost hard cap of AP4 and really does not have good anti heavy infantry weapons.

[Some bigger picture of relevant core rules changes we utilise is also required to understand how this army now works: you can assault from non-standard deployment and deep strike after succesfull LD roll and charge range varies from Initiative value minimum to 2d6 maximum. Run distance is either flat Initiative or d6 roll. Fleet gives you +1" run distance, not a reroll. Blast Weapons scatter only after initial To Hit roll misses (and can still hit on scatter dice hit result). Tabling gives only additional VPs but is not an automatic defeat. We use more than that, but those are important here (overall the game we play is faster by increased mobility, more important deployment/scout/infiltration decisions and faster reserves, so this time gain can be utilised for some detailed in-game and scenario mechanics)]

Now to the actual list of Tyranid changes (without going into exact details)

- Army wide Move Through Cover. Synapse creatures have double toughness ID immunity and can explode spore mines remotely instead of their shooting attack (a single cluster per creature, not all in 24" radius as in 4th ed). Spore mines interact wth Overwatch by exploding on the spot instead of in base contact and their stat increase depending on the number of mines is different: one: s4ap4, two: s5ap4, three: s5ap3. Shadow in the warp changes harnessing to one point worse and has -2Ld penalty, both within synapse range (so is increasable by Dominion etc) [I don't want to shut down psychic phase completely with Shadow].

- Gaunts: Termagaunts and Hormagaunts get small point reduction and can purchase 4th ed "Without number" rule. Gargoyles change to Jet Pack Infantry and get their 2nd ed Flamespurt. "Endless swarm" formation works as long as Warriors live and is a bit more unreliable alternative to paying points for "Without number", but those gaunts can "mutate" on the come back to different type/loadout within standard point cost of entire unit, so there is more "endless" and not "resurecting" feeling to it. And Hormagaunts are Beasts (they lose Bounding leap), which makes them the ultimate "tactical glue", which gives the army a lot of it's intended "hive mind will rearranging the battlefild landscape at whim" feel.

- Genestealers get old fleshhooks (fight at initiative) and Patriarch is a Codex Tyranids creature, which blessings can only target Genestealer squads [this was before Genestealer Cult codex though, I'm still thinking at what to do with Brood Mind powers and haven't tested him with Biomancy].

- medium bugs: Warriors are sv3+, Shrikes are sv 4+ (shrikes with lashwhips become deadly, warriors can finally guard artillery or backfield on their own). All Elite bugs can be bought as one squad but deployed separately. Zoantropes change their role completely and are now cheaper and have only toned down Maleceptor-like power and Dominion. Biovores are unchanged (but Spore Mines are), Pyrovores get Torrent, Hive Guards get to choose ammunition on the fly (as Missile Launchers) from either S8AP4 homing or S5AP3 homing. Venomthropes are unchanged.

- Deathleaper gets back it's disappear ability back, so he can relocate and no longer works solely as Mawlock homing device... (I haven't dwell deeper into Lictors yet..)

- Malanthrope is unchanged (one of the very few units that are well designed with a clear goal in mind).

- flyers: Hive Crone utilises 6th ed Vector Strike and has endless supply Tentaclids. Harpy benefits from changes to how Blast Weapons and Spore Mines work, Sonic Screech works as a -3I Vector Strike.

- big bugs: Trygons are MC Beast and Trygon Prime is an HQ choice. They have +1 to their reserve roll and if Tyranid player goes second, he can roll for entry in his first turn on 3+ (in other words, they have one turn shift in reserve roll). One-unit-per-turn limit stays. Exocrine is unchanged, Tyrannofexes Acid Spray is AP3 and Rupture Cannon is cheaper and is S10AP3 and changes to a single sDap2 if both hits score (we play with toned down '6' on D table - 2d3 wounds with inv/cover saves still possible), Fleshborer Hive is 10xDevourerTermagaunt equivalent [but Tyrannofex hasn't been playtested enough yet, just a couple of games]. Mawlock is unchanged. I haven't dwell on Tervigon or Toxicrene and Haruspex is beyond salvage, as is Maleceptor (I have an idea of complete overhaul for him, but still in concept phase). Carnifex: with LD charge after unusual deployment, just use a stonecrusher in a Tyrannocyte really [I have some working "standalone" Carnifexes, but they those are very detailed fixes working under heavily modified core rules, with basically 2nd ed Carnifex in mind] Tyrannocyte has a near Drop Pod cost. Dimacheron is Jump Gargantuan Creature [but sitll insuficiently playtested].

- Flyrant must trade a single pair of scything talons for wings but utilises 6th ed Vector Strike rule. Any type of Tyrant has acces to Divination and walking Tyrants and Swarmlords have access to Biomancy (with +2S+2T iron arm modification and a sort of "shield creatures" summoning power instead of Haemorrhage) for a point cost.

- Tyranid prime is an upgrade option for Warriors and Shrikes changing the battlefield role of a squad to HQ. It is obviously a significantly cheaper upgrade

That's about it. There are more minor point and stat tweaks, but this should be enough to draw an image of where I'm going with my "fandex". The feeling of playing against this army is that you really have to focus on achieving specific goals - if you lose focus, you lose the battle by drowning in bodies. Most of our games end with just a couple of Eldar models on the table but usually with very close VP point results. I don't claim that this list, as presented, is universally balanced against each existing faction and every possible scenario, but I think it moves current Nids in a good direction. And one last disclaimer - we don't play any superfriends unkillable deathstar bullcrap, so those are completely out of scope of this fandex balance.

@Nou, yes I said it and I'll say it again, Nids cant be fix with any "quick" updates, they need a full over haul.

I like some of your ideas, other I feel there are better solutions.


I truly am hugely opinionated that Trygon Prime should be a GMC and nothing else changed to his rules other than GMC update.

And I like the Synapse that was talked about in IB topic, units that need synapse and are in synapse uses the LD of the Synapse model (LD 10) has FnP 6+ also (Models with Synpase has 5+ FnP).