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.

 Dynas wrote:
Is ITC format not followed at Adepticon? I've only ever played ITC missions in 8th, and I do notice that Nids can give up KP like crazy with all our MC.

How hard would it be for a TO to just say, you cannot take more than 2 of the same HQ datacard. So at most you would have 2 Flyrants and a Swarmlord in a single list. Problem solved.

I do not know all the codexes, but are not some of them very short on HQ? They have already made similar restrictions on Tau commanders. Only one per detachment.

 Dynas wrote:
Is ITC format not followed at Adepticon? I've only ever played ITC missions in 8th, and I do notice that Nids can give up KP like crazy with all our MC.

How hard would it be for a TO to just say, you cannot take more than 2 of the same HQ datacard. So at most you would have 2 Flyrants and a Swarmlord in a single list. Problem solved.

Some factions have few or no HQs. Imperial knights. Harelequinns. Ynnari. Deathwatch. Custodes. GSC.

These hard limits are very restrictive in a lot of cases.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
Is ITC format not followed at Adepticon? I've only ever played ITC missions in 8th, and I do notice that Nids can give up KP like crazy with all our MC.

How hard would it be for a TO to just say, you cannot take more than 2 of the same HQ datacard. So at most you would have 2 Flyrants and a Swarmlord in a single list. Problem solved.

Some factions have few or no HQs. Imperial knights. Harelequinns. Ynnari. Deathwatch. Custodes. GSC.

These hard limits are very restrictive in a lot of cases.

Theres always the old WHFB 8th rules. No morethan 25% of your army can be heros and lords.

I think 25% pts for each type other than troop is a good way to go.

Eg: with a 1000pts army you could have 250pts of HQ, 250 pts fast, 250pts elites, and 250pts heavy if you wanted but troops would always be unlimited.

We can't possibly stand a chance at getting top placements in tournaments if flyrants gets limited to 1 pr. detachment?

Timeshadow wrote:
I think 25% pts for each type other than troop is a good way to go.

Eg: with a 1000pts army you could have 250pts of HQ, 250 pts fast, 250pts elites, and 250pts heavy if you wanted but troops would always be unlimited.

Was it mentioned already that is was very much akin to 2nd edition.

3rd edition introduced the concept of units for filling out a force org. Then some armies found they could min/max the troop tax.

If you have a 25% point minim (actually 50% is best if you include most elites/other foot units in the mix). This way you don't have all characters/tanks on the board...but rather a lot of balanced lists.

You don't have 7 Flyrants or 3 BaneBlades to contend with. (in Narrative....yes you can....in Apocolypse games ... yes you can) In a balanced TAC game.....everyone is assumed to be bringing some sort of equity balanced force....and then you use your skill set on the table rather than army builder to win the game.

 killerpenguin wrote:
We can't possibly stand a chance at getting top placements in tournaments if flyrants gets limited to 1 pr. detachment?

I think we can. Tyranids literally have the best overall codex out right now. Flyrant are definitely good, but you don't need them to win. I do fine with 2 (2 battalions so this restriction wouldn't bother me at all).


The only thing we lack is allies that actually bring somthing to our table. GSC doesnt really shore up our weakness's (durable troops, long range AT, lack of psychic powers) and if you take a guard detachment as well, you dont have enough points to get anything worthwhile.

Eldar and Imperials have so many different allies they can take and combos they can build for its just not going to be fair.


If allies were limited Nids would be top of the food chain easily.

I myself actually think that a GSC and guard ally can allow us to bring some things that we really need. You can take a very cheap patrol detachment for the GSC and then you can pick up a Shadowsword/Baneblade or a Tank Commander and some Leman Russ so you have the heavy hitting power of the tanks with the speed and bodies the Tyranids can jam up the board.

Well maybe not so much need, but generate a little additional flexibility.

Karang029 wrote:
I myself actually think that a GSC and guard ally can allow us to bring some things that we really need. You can take a very cheap patrol detachment for the GSC and then you can pick up a Shadowsword/Baneblade or a Tank Commander and some Leman Russ so you have the heavy hitting power of the tanks with the speed and bodies the Tyranids can jam up the board.

Well maybe not so much need, but generate a little additional flexibility.

And this sort of thinking is why we can't have nice things.

i personally dont like allies for nids. They (TO's) could also institute and Ally MAx % as well, to like 25% or something. So if you played Ultramarines, you could take a max of 25% of your points in Guard, Mech, or whatever...

If they put the Tau rule across all armies I would be fine with that.

@Eihnlazer- how do you consider those our weaknesses. I can sorta agree with the lack of durable troops, but the swarm/hordes make up for that, and GS are fairly durable. Rippers you can often hide. Gaunts die by the thousands. I think we have sufficient ranged anti tank, HVC on X unit, Flyrants, Hive Guard, Tfex, Carnifex, etc... Lack of psychic powers? Really? The only power i think is useless is Dominion, unless you are running a low Synapse creature list. The only tweak I would like to see is if Psychic Scream could be used to snipe characters, rather than just be treated like smite.

 Dynas wrote:
i personally dont like allies for nids. They (TO's) could also institute and Ally MAx % as well, to like 25% or something. So if you played Ultramarines, you could take a max of 25% of your points in Guard, Mech, or whatever...

I actually like this. In 2nd edition your allies came out of your 50% support (heavy weapons/vehicles/etc) That way no list was all power pieces.

25% max non faction allies is a great start.

Yeah but 25% would also invalidate a lot of models that people can take without being broken. I mean most heavy tanks and Knight models come in over 500 and would no longer be takeable with that rule. Just talking in a general sense not necessarily a Nids one

Karang029 wrote:
Yeah but 25% would also invalidate a lot of models that people can take without being broken. I mean most heavy tanks and Knight models come in over 500 and would no longer be takeable with that rule. Just talking in a general sense not necessarily a Nids one

A better solution is to just declare you are allowed 2 faction keywords in your army at most. So GSC could bring Guard or Tyranids but not both.

Then, from there, your secondary keyword is limited to 700 points. So you've got roughly 2/3 of your army as your primary faction.

I would also place the restriction that individual detachments must be mono-faction in regards to faction keyword.

Sorry to go off on a tangent but this discussion has got me thinking...

I honestly think that the real problem here is that what a lot of people see as a bug or issue in 40k is actually a feature. GW, despite any recent changes to their methodology, still mostly write the rules for flexibility, not for balance. This is to provide for the possibility of competitive play, but also narrative/open play for those simply looking for a way to plop models on a table and roll some dice. (And let's be clear, but not go into at length: their primary goal is to SELL PLASTIC. In volume. They don't sell models if you are happy with yours forever.)

Instead of focusing on weird arbitrary percentages and what have you, or explicitly limiting the numbers of certain types of units and changing the way armies are built overall, GW should make a greater effort to fine-tune their points values, the existing metric for the value of a given unit as compared with another. I think they have been doing and clearly intend to continue to do this with each year's Chapter Approved volume. But perhaps they need to be more aggressive, like bumping that up to twice a year. This is the ultimate pathway to a more "balanced" competitive game. And the results can be staggering. Increasing the humble guardsman by a single point has been discussed, and it would really impact both AM list-building as well as much Imperial soup construction. Look what appropriately costing conscripts did to the overuse of that unit. Unfortunately that went hand in hand with changing the rules to make commissars completely useless...so neither unit fared well in the outcome. But given a choice between the two I would opt for the points increase over the rules change most of the time, except in cases where rules are obvious typos or are completely impractical or broken.

By contrast "Power Level" is a good start at a general, but simplified points system for more casual encounters. And the two don't have to be anything alike and should be developed almost independently of each other. If one army should be more powerful than another for narrative purposes, I am totally fine with that. How often would the Guard reasonably prevail against a Tyranid invasion? (Without consciously throwing WAY more bodies at them?) In this case it may make sense to say the Tyranid player gets 100 PL, and the guard player necessarily may need 125 to triumph. Some players might even find it fun and challenging to figure out what that perfect number is. (EDIT: Although then "power level" might not be the best term for this point system...but you get my gist)

I guess my point is that arbitrary limits to list-building seem anti-fun. If the way a player wants to have fun is to field an entire army of Hive Tyrants, I do believe they should be able to do that. There should be downsides (less available CP seems to work on some level...a good start), but if those units were appropriately costed to begin with they would have to really make a decision as to whether fielding 2000 points of them is worth it for the fun, or if diversification would make their list more powerful/competitive. Over time and through observation GW should be able to alter the point values based both off value they obviously represent (wounds/armor/mobility/weapons/etc), and those imperceptible advantages certain units benefit from in combination with other rules, armywides, etc. (the ability to fly, shoot without LoS, etc, etc).

Lastly, I would mention that despite the challenge of creating a "balanced" or true all-comers list, 40k is still largely a rock-paper-scissors-rending claws sort of a game. For every unit there is a type of weapon or strategy that is effective against it. Part of the game is reading your meta and attempting to get out ahead of it. Part of most competitive games, in fact. Unfortunately, part of any game of chance (and 40k is that both in list-building and dice-rolling) and strategic depth is that you may show up to an event and be paired against your weakness every single round. It sucks, but it is a risk you take when you decide to play. And I understand that unlike other hobbies, adding bits and changing parts of your army can get costly and time-consuming in 40k (the part GW loves) but this need to adapt to survive is a natural outcome for this type of game. Hence why it has been an effective business model for all these years.

 Dynas wrote:

@Eihnlazer- how do you consider those our weaknesses. I can sorta agree with the lack of durable troops, but the swarm/hordes make up for that, and GS are fairly durable. Rippers you can often hide. Gaunts die by the thousands. I think we have sufficient ranged anti tank, HVC on X unit, Flyrants, Hive Guard, Tfex, Carnifex, etc... Lack of psychic powers? Really? The only power i think is useless is Dominion, unless you are running a low Synapse creature list. The only tweak I would like to see is if Psychic Scream could be used to snipe characters, rather than just be treated like smite.

We dont have any troops who can really hold a table corner by themself (with the exception of hidden rippers who die If you spit on them). Other psyker armies have 2 disciplines they can pull from, but we only get 5 useful spells. HVC spam lists aren't competitive and barbed Heirodules are overloaded by about 20% (seriously compare to 2 lemon Russ battle tanks).Y

 Marmatag wrote:

Karang029 wrote:
Yeah but 25% would also invalidate a lot of models that people can take without being broken. I mean most heavy tanks and Knight models come in over 500 and would no longer be takeable with that rule. Just talking in a general sense not necessarily a Nids one

A better solution is to just declare you are allowed 2 faction keywords in your army at most. So GSC could bring Guard or Tyranids but not both.

Then, from there, your secondary keyword is limited to 700 points. So you've got roughly 2/3 of your army as your primary faction.

I would also place the restriction that individual detachments must be mono-faction in regards to faction keyword.

So you would invalidate an entire different branch of models that don't have HQs and the only way to actually play them currently is to hodgepog them into a different detachment. For example the Vindicaire models can only be taken as a 1 off if you pay a CP under the rule you proposed.

I hope the timing and results of one event doesn't influence the FAQ for an entire game system.

Is this becoming "whack a mole"?

Silly stuff.

 Marmatag wrote:

Karang029 wrote:
Yeah but 25% would also invalidate a lot of models that people can take without being broken. I mean most heavy tanks and Knight models come in over 500 and would no longer be takeable with that rule. Just talking in a general sense not necessarily a Nids one

A better solution is to just declare you are allowed 2 faction keywords in your army at most. So GSC could bring Guard or Tyranids but not both.

Then, from there, your secondary keyword is limited to 700 points. So you've got roughly 2/3 of your army as your primary faction.

I would also place the restriction that individual detachments must be mono-faction in regards to faction keyword.

I main Chaos and hear alarm bells.

This in an example of a Detachment I might use; units and their faction keywords:
- Daemon Prince: CHAOS, NURGLE, HERETIC ASTARTES, WORD BEARERS
- Warp Talons Squad: CHAOS, KHORNE, HERETIC ASTARTES, WORD BEARERS
- Raptors Squad: CHAOS, SLAANESH, HERETIC ASTARTES, WORD BEARERS
- Chaos Spawn: CHAOS, TZEENTCH, HERETIC ASTARTES, WORD BEARERS
- Hellblade Interceptor: CHAOS, (no alignment), HERETIC ASTARTES, EYRINE CULTS, WORD BEARERS

That’s eight faction keywords in a single Detachment from a single Legion :/

In the example of GSC and their second detachment, an IG Detachment will not only have AM and GSC faction keywords, but also IMPERIUM, and likely MILITARUM AUXILIA, ASTRA TELEPATHICA, and like a dozen other organisations. Even the GSC themselves bring the TYRANIDS faction keyword, which immediately rules out the AM.

I would like to see more balanced tournaments, but a prescriptive cap on faction diversity seems likely to cause massive shockwaves

Lot of stuff here that would probably be better served in general discussion or potential rules.

I'm just throwing this out there - my competitive Nids list hasn't had a flyrant in it since the start of 8th and I've done just fine. Wouldn't expect to 6-0 a GT but winning RTTs hasn't been a problem. Genestealers and swarmy slingshot are just fine.

tag8833 wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I did not keep up with news and missed most of the adepticon coverage and build up. What in particular in the mission pack favored flyrants and mucolids, aside from the obvious trash deploy with mucolids/deep strike flyrants strategy?

1) Kill points (the points value of units completely destroyed) were huge in the missions. It was a Kill Point differential. Mucolids don't give up KP, so a Tyrant drop list with mucolids has less KP to give, and can drop in and harvest some then play keep-away.

2) The missions had progressive components so mobility was huge.

3) In ITC champs missions Flyrants hemorrhage points. They give up KP, they give up head hunter points, they give up kingslayer points, they give up big game hunter points. Meanwhile lots of Eldar lists give up practically no points. So in the standard meta that I (and probably most of us) are used to, there are huge downsides to spamming flryants. The adepticon missions essentially removed all of the downsides, and at the same time incentivized a meta with lots of light infantry where flyrants can shine the most.

thanks.

I wouldn't say ITC is most of anybody. Or any tourny for that matter.

If the majority of players were those playing tourney there really wouldn't be that many players.

The majority are playing casually following the basic rule books.

As a new Tyranid player, I am facing a dilemma in choices. It is tempting to take 30 (maybe 25?) Termagants with Devourers to pump out a ton of shots (w/Single-Minded Annihilation) or go with several small squads to screen. I kinda like the idea of a huge blob popping up with a Trygon Prime but that seems very expensive (for Tyranids anyways).

I'm overwhelmed with choices that Tyranids can provide and not quite sure which direction is the best to go.

Wayniac wrote:
As a new Tyranid player, I am facing a dilemma in choices. It is tempting to take 30 (maybe 25?) Termagants with Devourers to pump out a ton of shots (w/Single-Minded Annihilation) or go with several small squads to screen. I kinda like the idea of a huge blob popping up with a Trygon Prime but that seems very expensive (for Tyranids anyways).

I'm overwhelmed with choices that Tyranids can provide and not quite sure which direction is the best to go.

So, i've played in 4 tournaments this year with my Tyranids.

I am going to drop the Trygon + Dakka Termagant portion of my list.

It just doesn't have the use case you would want. It's difficult to hit the sweet spot, and is best used to clear chaff, but in general those are now protected by scout moves. Considering it costs so many points, I would prefer to invest those 400 points into something that will be useful immediately.

It's also worth keeping in mind it is a colossal investment, and against its ideal targets, like Guardsmen, it's overall not that amazing. Investing 400 points and 2CP to wipe out 2-3 squads isn't really that great. And you're not scoring any secondaries doing that.

It does give you board control, but rippers are already great at this.

The best part about this ball is the Trygon, but being t6 3+ with no invuln, he gets taken apart rather quickly and easily. He's a good distraction Carnifex. My opponents who ignore him learn a valuable lesson, but that's usually people before you start getting swiss paired.

At the end of the day there are better ways to spend the points.

Wayniac wrote:
As a new Tyranid player, I am facing a dilemma in choices. It is tempting to take 30 (maybe 25?) Termagants with Devourers to pump out a ton of shots (w/Single-Minded Annihilation) or go with several small squads to screen. I kinda like the idea of a huge blob popping up with a Trygon Prime but that seems very expensive (for Tyranids anyways).

I'm overwhelmed with choices that Tyranids can provide and not quite sure which direction is the best to go.

Both options are good but they do different things. The big blob is super killy, point and shoot. (Use shooting x 2 stratagem.)

The smaler screen is more tecical. They need synapse though.

It depends on what your army looks like and what you need.

 Byte wrote:
I hope the timing and results of one event doesn't influence the FAQ for an entire game system.

Is this becoming "whack a mole"?

Silly stuff.

Guess you are out of the loop then...cause that 'Adepticon' list was:
1st and 3rd at Caledonian Uprising in UK (January event with 100+ attendees)
2nd and 3rd at Dark Millenium in UK (30-60 person GT event)
2nd at Barrie bash (Canadian 60+ person event in February)

Plus other tyrant spam variants like
5 tyrant list was 2nd at Last Chance Open (another January ITC GT sized event in UK),
6 Tyrant list took 1st at Warzone Slagalese in Denmark in February (Major event so 60+)

Sure there was more in March also, just easy to find those on Blood of Kittens.

Pretty sure that hammer was falling regardless of Adepticon - not because the list is good but because it's indicative of an issue (whether that is with Tyrants or Supreme Command is debatable).

I think people are assuming GW delayed the FAQ because of the Adepticon 1st place, but could easily be the 2nd place list (eg free models from poxwalker + free model from cultist uprising = unbeatable without overt luck like what Matt Root ended up having), or a host of other things they saw on all tables or was presented to them by all the playtesters in attendance.

 Marmatag wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
As a new Tyranid player, I am facing a dilemma in choices. It is tempting to take 30 (maybe 25?) Termagants with Devourers to pump out a ton of shots (w/Single-Minded Annihilation) or go with several small squads to screen. I kinda like the idea of a huge blob popping up with a Trygon Prime but that seems very expensive (for Tyranids anyways).

I'm overwhelmed with choices that Tyranids can provide and not quite sure which direction is the best to go.

So, i've played in 4 tournaments this year with my Tyranids.

I am going to drop the Trygon + Dakka Termagant portion of my list.

It just doesn't have the use case you would want. It's difficult to hit the sweet spot, and is best used to clear chaff, but in general those are now protected by scout moves. Considering it costs so many points, I would prefer to invest those 400 points into something that will be useful immediately.

It's also worth keeping in mind it is a colossal investment, and against its ideal targets, like Guardsmen, it's overall not that amazing. Investing 400 points and 2CP to wipe out 2-3 squads isn't really that great. And you're not scoring any secondaries doing that.

It does give you board control, but rippers are already great at this.

The best part about this ball is the Trygon, but being t6 3+ with no invuln, he gets taken apart rather quickly and easily. He's a good distraction Carnifex. My opponents who ignore him learn a valuable lesson, but that's usually people before you start getting swiss paired.

At the end of the day there are better ways to spend the points.

At 48 points per damage vs T7/3+ (Without figuring in the reroll), I think you've maybe missed the boat on using Termagants as a passable source of AT.

I have had good success using them against a huge range of targets, including stormravens, razorbacks, etc.

If someone has screens that are pushing your arrival out, then you should easily be combat hugging those screens with your stealers/horms and avoiding counter fire.

Aside from drastically altering your list (Assuming you're still using the same style I am), I don't see much at 240 pts that can fill the same role as the dev gants. What would you take instead? 20 more stealers? Another Flyrant?

I still haven't played a game where I felt as if I couldn't win, through board control at the very least. My losses have come from my own poor choices, or in one case, being unable to roll a goddamn 5 on a psychic test, even after rerolling both dice.

Don't get me wrong - i'm doing well so far, 11-0-1 - but the Termagant ball is not helping enough to justify its cost.

And it jumps to about 400 when you factor in the Trygon.

There are simply better tools to target what these guys are targeting.

I am tossing around the idea of a brigade with 3xCarnifex and 3xSpores. I already have the elite/troop/hq slots covered.

I am waiting to see what happens in the march FAQ.

 Marmatag wrote:
Don't get me wrong - i'm doing well so far, 11-0-1 - but the Termagant ball is not helping enough to justify its cost.

And it jumps to about 400 when you factor in the Trygon.

There are simply better tools to target what these guys are targeting.

I am tossing around the idea of a brigade with 3xCarnifex and 3xSpores. I already have the elite/troop/hq slots covered.

I am waiting to see what happens in the march FAQ.

I wholly disagree that there are better tools. The Termagants are one of our most flexible and cost efficient weapons. Anything that is more cost efficient is either melee, or specialized in nature.

The termagant bomb is powerful because it is good (Not great) vs most targets (Except T8, and 2+).

The Trygon is definitely too squishy, but I've won several games solely off the Trygon's damage that definitely wouldn't have been replicated elsewhere.

I agree that the FAQ will absolutely determine how we proceed, but I fully disagree that a Trygon+Devgant bomb can be replaced with something else for 400 pts that fits into the same style of play the Trygon bomb does. There are plenty of lists we can build without it, but I don't think 3 fex+3 spores fills the same role, and I think they present easy AT targets when our list is built more about denying easy AT targets.

 winterman wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I hope the timing and results of one event doesn't influence the FAQ for an entire game system.

Is this becoming "whack a mole"?

Silly stuff.

Guess you are out of the loop then...cause that 'Adepticon' list was:
1st and 3rd at Caledonian Uprising in UK (January event with 100+ attendees)
2nd and 3rd at Dark Millenium in UK (30-60 person GT event)
2nd at Barrie bash (Canadian 60+ person event in February)

Plus other tyrant spam variants like
5 tyrant list was 2nd at Last Chance Open (another January ITC GT sized event in UK),
6 Tyrant list took 1st at Warzone Slagalese in Denmark in February (Major event so 60+)

Sure there was more in March also, just easy to find those on Blood of Kittens.

Pretty sure that hammer was falling regardless of Adepticon - not because the list is good but because it's indicative of an issue (whether that is with Tyrants or Supreme Command is debatable).

I think people are assuming GW delayed the FAQ because of the Adepticon 1st place, but could easily be the 2nd place list (eg free models from poxwalker + free model from cultist uprising = unbeatable without overt luck like what Matt Root ended up having), or a host of other things they saw on all tables or was presented to them by all the playtesters in attendance.

Your right. I had no idea. I don't tend to chase the meta to see what's hot and not.

 Byte wrote:

 winterman wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I hope the timing and results of one event doesn't influence the FAQ for an entire game system.

Is this becoming "whack a mole"?

Silly stuff.

Guess you are out of the loop then...cause that 'Adepticon' list was:
1st and 3rd at Caledonian Uprising in UK (January event with 100+ attendees)
2nd and 3rd at Dark Millenium in UK (30-60 person GT event)
2nd at Barrie bash (Canadian 60+ person event in February)

Plus other tyrant spam variants like
5 tyrant list was 2nd at Last Chance Open (another January ITC GT sized event in UK),
6 Tyrant list took 1st at Warzone Slagalese in Denmark in February (Major event so 60+)

Sure there was more in March also, just easy to find those on Blood of Kittens.

Pretty sure that hammer was falling regardless of Adepticon - not because the list is good but because it's indicative of an issue (whether that is with Tyrants or Supreme Command is debatable).

I think people are assuming GW delayed the FAQ because of the Adepticon 1st place, but could easily be the 2nd place list (eg free models from poxwalker + free model from cultist uprising = unbeatable without overt luck like what Matt Root ended up having), or a host of other things they saw on all tables or was presented to them by all the playtesters in attendance.

Your right. I had no idea. I don't tend to chase the meta to see what's hot and not.

Maybe less sweeping comments about things you profess to be ignorant about?

Hive Tyrants are good, yes, but I'm on board with the several other posters who think there are perfectly good and winnable lists that don't spam them, and I am doubtly they'll do much more than limit them slightly, and maybe bump the points on MRCs. It'd be pretty overkill to do more.