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.

Seeing this make the rounds on facebook, not sure how legit it is.

Its from a rumor on Faeit, reposted on BoLS. So. Dunno. Its not the worst, but ita not the best. It really dependa on where the points go, and if the restriction applies to <Hive Tyrant> Keyword.

I, genuinely, am growing to detest this "Playtest Team". They act with an aura of superiority on social media, and if they're now slowly being used as pawns for false rumors, OR truly submitting inside information, it's pretty annoying.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I, genuinely, am growing to detest this "Playtest Team". They act with an aura of superiority on social media, and if they're now slowly being used as pawns for false rumors, OR truly submitting inside information, it's pretty annoying.

Prior to 8th edition, I don't think this group existed. Give them time to work out the kinks, it seems they want to please.

I don't mind them foreshadowing actual changes, but I would like it if there was something 'official' to how they do so. The moment I hear someone overheard something in a conversation, I lose interest in whatever the rumor is.

For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

FAQs from GW often also contain Errata. No reason this one won't follow suit.

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

 Crimson wrote:

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

Well, gw could sell Citadel points adjustment stickers that players can buy and apply to their books representing adjustments that have been made through FAQ, white dwarf, facebook status updates, and chapter approved! Hell, they can even make them thermal print so that when your numbers are so faded they're illegible, you know a new faq is on its way!

 Crimson wrote:

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

I partly agree. If CA is an annual book with new rules and missions that also compiles FAQ's once a year for player convenience, I am fine with it. But if it starts getting in the way of them adjusting the game regularly then I would rather they drop the back end of CA that contains said adjustments. They definitely need to be adjusting things as the game developed though, waiting once a year to apply changes the game desperately needs would be a bad choice. After a while it does get confusing fast however, it's part of 40k though. The game is so unwieldy at this point that you really can't expect them to get everything right out the gate. I am thankful they are actually listening to consumer feedback for once.

 davou wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

Well, gw could sell Citadel points adjustment stickers that players can buy and apply to their books representing adjustments that have been made through FAQ, white dwarf, facebook status updates, and chapter approved! Hell, they can even make them thermal print so that when your numbers are so faded they're illegible, you know a new faq is on its way!

I'd buy that for a dollar.gif

 Crimson wrote:

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

We already have a fair number of point changes in the FAQs.

They sure are making us sweat

It comes to the point where GW is doing a really good job of showing just how out of date relying on purchased, print rules is.

Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.

The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.

GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.

 Fafnir wrote:
It comes to the point where GW is doing a really good job of showing just how out of date relying on purchased, print rules is.

Same thing that happened with PP's Mark 3 rules release. They just gave up and released the rules in a free PDF. Then they had to give up on their 'codexes' and insist people use a digital card managment app.

 Carnikang wrote:
Its from a rumor on Faeit, reposted on BoLS. So. Dunno. Its not the worst, but ita not the best. It really dependa on where the points go, and if the restriction applies to <Hive Tyrant> Keyword.

That sounds like it requires a Turducken of Salt.

 oni wrote:
Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.

The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.

GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.

There is a lot wrong in the above statement;

The "Flying" Tyrant needs to be limited to one per detachment. I don't think it actually needs a price increase once it's limited and there shouldn't be a limit on the foot variant at all as it's the deepstrike + mobility that makes the flyrant so good. As for the carnifex while it's good it's not tearing down any houses right now. Even the old dakka fex with a -1 to hit (spore cysts) and hitting on 3's isn't that great since he's meh in CC and he has to get within 18" to start doing work. He's fine at 115pts. He does similar work to the wraithlord for the points and numbers but isn't as tough and isn't as good in CC. Yes he degrades but not worse than the carnifex until he's down to 2 wounds all for 8pts more and you don't see people complaining about him or wraithlords swarming the tables.

Overall I think the playtesters are doing a pretty bang up job from Nids forward. Most of the books have a lot of fun, solid choices. Some shenanigans made it through but they always will. At least unlike before those shenanigans are getting touched on every 6 months or so now instead of going on for years.

Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.

 oni wrote:
Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.

The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.

GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.

Obviously trolling. Carnifexes of all things you choose to complain about. The living tank that is essentially a dreadnaught. Are you assuming its a Leman Russ eqiuvilant that can shoot twice, can be brought in large numbers and are effective at shooting? You are mistaken.
If anything, the Tyranid codex is well balanced internally, aside from the FlyingHive Tyrant, but theyve always had issues balancing Tyrants.

C..c...c...c...clickbait!!!

 Virules wrote:
Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.

And don't enjoy character targetting immunity.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Virules wrote:
Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.

And don't enjoy character targetting immunity.

This.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 Virules wrote:
Flyrants are criminally undercosted right now. A winged daemon prince is 180. A flyrant costs close to the same amount but can do a bunch of shooting, cast 2 powers, has more wounds, has a 4++ instead of a 5++, moves farther, and can deep strike without using 2 CPs, and is T7 instead of T6, and is synapse.

And don't enjoy character targetting immunity.

This.

Easily explains the point similarity.

Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.

I mean, Demon Princes are still really good.

But holy crap, Flyrants are so much better.

 Virules wrote:
Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.

In tournaments that favour them. Eldar laughed them off the table at LVO.

I'm fine with a detachment cap nerf. Id rather iconic units get to be powerful with limits to save ourselves from our dark gamer urges.

 Eldarain wrote:
In tournaments that favour them. Eldar laughed them off the table at LVO.

I'm fine with a detachment cap nerf. Id rather iconic units get to be powerful with limits to save ourselves from our dark gamer urges.

One set of house rules favours Flyrants, one set hinders them.

Hopefully GW do some testing with the rules they produce - you know, the official ones - before making a decision.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

odin wrote:
For all the peaple that say you cannot faq points they can faq chapter aproved to change the points.....

They could, but I don't think it is a good idea. The point costs being scatteted across diffetent books is annoying enough already without adding the FAQ in the mix.

I partly agree. If CA is an annual book with new rules and missions that also compiles FAQ's once a year for player convenience, I am fine with it. But if it starts getting in the way of them adjusting the game regularly then I would rather they drop the back end of CA that contains said adjustments. They definitely need to be adjusting things as the game developed though, waiting once a year to apply changes the game desperately needs would be a bad choice. After a while it does get confusing fast however, it's part of 40k though. The game is so unwieldy at this point that you really can't expect them to get everything right out the gate. I am thankful they are actually listening to consumer feedback for once.

Let's wait if CA 2018 even contains point changes from CA 2017 or if you need BOTH...

Well it's all smoke&mirrors from them. They aren't aiming for balance anyway since the closer GW would get balance the more it would hurt their sales anyway.

 Virules wrote:
Doesn't even come close to evening out the difference. Especially not when you want to get close with those units anyway, and characters don't block characters anymore, and you're already spamming the unit. You don't see daemon prince spam winning. You do see flyrant spam winning. Because flyrants are better.

I'd definitely not say Flyrants are better in such a blanket definition.
Are they spammable? Absolutely.
But that's how they survive. The spam of a unit is absolutely a way of protecting said unit, and while is indicative of a problem, does not immediately mean there is a problem with the unit itself.

A single Flyrant is not terribly difficult to kill. A dreadnought can do it, or even a few IG tanks.

But a Daemon Prince is an absolute nightmare to actually get a chance at killing.
It's either in combat, not the closest unit, or a mixture of both.
Are they spammable? Hell no, they were clearly built to use the character rules.

That's the difference between a Hive Tyrant and a Daemon Prince.

While I will agree the Flying Hive Tyrant is probably too efficient, the walking Hive Tyrant shouldn't suffer for that fact ( just make wings more expensive) and I'd make the wager that the bigger problem is our ability to spam units in this edition.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 oni wrote:
Increasing the points on the Hive Tyrant and limiting it to one per detachment is exactly what's needed.

The Carnifex stat line needs tossed in the dumpster while they're at it. The Carnifex should have been 10 wounds with a degrading stat table from the start. It too needs a points increase and Spore Cysts need to be 30 points minimum.

GW... play testers... etc. seriously dropped the ball with the Tyranids codex. So much so that i'm inclined to believe that the Tyranids codex wasn't play tested at all.

There is a lot wrong in the above statement;

The "Flying" Tyrant needs to be limited to one per detachment. I don't think it actually needs a price increase once it's limited and there shouldn't be a limit on the foot variant at all as it's the deepstrike + mobility that makes the flyrant so good. As for the carnifex while it's good it's not tearing down any houses right now. Even the old dakka fex with a -1 to hit (spore cysts) and hitting on 3's isn't that great since he's meh in CC and he has to get within 18" to start doing work. He's fine at 115pts. He does similar work to the wraithlord for the points and numbers but isn't as tough and isn't as good in CC. Yes he degrades but not worse than the carnifex until he's down to 2 wounds all for 8pts more and you don't see people complaining about him or wraithlords swarming the tables.

Overall I think the playtesters are doing a pretty bang up job from Nids forward. Most of the books have a lot of fun, solid choices. Some shenanigans made it through but they always will. At least unlike before those shenanigans are getting touched on every 6 months or so now instead of going on for years.

If you put limit but not point increase you don't actually fix the problem which is it's too good for it's points. 0-1 limitations don't fix the balance. They just bandaid and make it smaller but IT STILL IS BROKEN UNIT. Every tyranid player will simply max 3.

Game balance wise 0-1 limits solve nothing and aren't needed if GW would actually bother to fix the issue rather than go for lazy solution.