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.

its true - most local metas do not play allies that much. It is considered uncool. Everyone plays by matchplay though and everyone plays the cheesiest army they can. A few people play allies - usually the bad players who can't win without an unfair advantage and end up losing to my Ultramarines. Balance should always be directed by tournament play though. Cause there is no other metric where the balance matters more.

Insectum can play tacticals in his meta. He would get obliterated in mine. Sometimes I'll run 2 squads of them just to be nice to my opponent and soften up my list. Fun is the ultimate goal. Nothing is more fun though when everyone's army is balanced. You can have some really fun games like that. I always arrange matches anyways.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Balance should always be directed by tournament play though. Cause there is no other metric where the balance matters more.

From GWs perspective that's probably not the case. It's better to achieve balance for accessibility in non tournament environments, because that's the vast majority of their revenue stream.

Insectum can play tacticals in his meta. He would get obliterated in mine.

Maybe, maybe not.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Balance should always be directed by tournament play though. Cause there is no other metric where the balance matters more.

From GWs perspective that's probably not the case. It's better to achieve balance for accessibility in non tournament environments, because that's the vast majority of their revenue stream.

Insectum can play tacticals in his meta. He would get obliterated in mine.

Maybe, maybe not.

^ this guy gets t, i'm 100% sure only 1% the play base even cares about tournaments

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Balance should always be directed by tournament play though. Cause there is no other metric where the balance matters more.

From GWs perspective that's probably not the case. It's better to achieve balance for accessibility in non tournament environments, because that's the vast majority of their revenue stream.

Insectum can play tacticals in his meta. He would get obliterated in mine.

Maybe, maybe not.

^ this guy gets t, i'm 100% sure only 1% the play base even cares about tournaments

That is a well known fact, even among the users of this forum a poll demonstrated that the ones that actually care about truly competitive play are a quite a minority.

Want to use tournament results for balance? I disagree with the general idea but indeed it is the only form of data we have so we have to make something out of it. What is more interesting though is how you use it, because the way that it has been traditionally used is "Look at the top 10 of x major event, what is there is OP, all the other results are worthless" which is overly dumb. The top tables are the LEAST important part of the data, usually when you look at a bunch of results, you cut out the head and the tail. It is the average data of the middle tables which tell you what really is the state of the factions.
Top results can tell you if there is something clearly overperforming, but as far as telling how good a faction is, they are completely useless.
The "look at top 8" approach is good only in contests like MtG, where you assume by defintion that every player will look for the most broken deck, there is no such a thing as affection toward a color, a theme, a card or a playstyle. You are not interested in making all the colors and themes balanced with each other. In 40K we do, so we are more interested in the middle table data.

But we have another problem here, which is that most of our tournament data comes from the ITC format, due to them being commonly reported but ITC cannot be a meter for 40K balance, because it is simply another game. It introduces rules and mission changes that drastically hit or promote some units, without changing point costs! Just look at how incredibly good are no LoS shooters in ITC! In Canon 40K they are nowhere as good, because claiming no LoS is really hard! Too bad that point costs are made for canon 40K, not for ITC.

Now that this game is finally supported, and there is a maintenance process of the rules going on ITC is obsolete as a meter, because the maintenance of the rules is based on the canon rules and missions. Balancing is done for a contest that is not ITC.

Canon 40K could be the most balanced game on earth and yet ITC would be unbalanced, or on the other hand ITC could be perfectly balanced while the base game is not.

If we really want to go at this with a standard method and a rigorous approach, then as a logical consequence all ITC results should be disregarded.

Spoletta wrote:
That is a well known fact, even among the users of this forum a poll demonstrated that the ones that actually care about truly competitive play are a quite a minority.

Not to mention online users are minority of a player base. So minority of a minority. Now of course non-forum users could have higher % of hardcore tournament players but...generally I doubt it. At least here in Finland most of regular tournament players you can see online as well.

Now that this game is finally supported, and there is a maintenance process of the rules going on ITC is obsolete as a meter, because the maintenance of the rules is based on the canon rules and missions. Balancing is done for a contest that is not ITC.

Then again even "canon 40k" is divided so that can't actually be claimed as source of point costs either really as it's self-divided itself.

Marmatag wrote:You can't assume any FLGS is the same as yours.

Regardless, Tyranids are hard countered by a few armies out there. Do we agree on that?

I do, yes. Knights in particular don't make for a fun game.

We disagree on it being a problem of our dex, because i can't count the number of factions out there who simply fold if pitted against knights.

SHUPPET wrote:Yeah well when your Kryptonite is Dark Eldar and Knights, two of the strongest and most popular dexes right now, it's a bit of a hostile meta for Tyranids. Upper mid tier army at best. Potentially lower. Can get a bunch of wins, odds heavily stacked against winning a tournament though

You phrase it like it is a bad thing.
Yes Tyranids are not longer top dogs after the nerfs, they are mid tier, the place where all factions should be, what is wrong with that?
Our internal balance isn't that bad either, in the first page i listed my wishlist for fixing internal balance of the nids, and it came out quite a long list, but nothing enormous. They were all also small changes (except sporemines).
The fact that i was able to put together a list like that, means that the faction is in a good place. Many other faction don't even have an idea on how to fix some of the models!
Also, the difference between a top tier tyranid list and a mid tier list, is actually small. At least small if compared to what this means in other factions. Only IG has as much freedom as nids do in list building.

Spoletta wrote:

SHUPPET wrote:Yeah well when your Kryptonite is Dark Eldar and Knights, two of the strongest and most popular dexes right now, it's a bit of a hostile meta for Tyranids. Upper mid tier army at best. Potentially lower. Can get a bunch of wins, odds heavily stacked against winning a tournament though

You phrase it like it is a bad thing.
Yes Tyranids are not longer top dogs after the nerfs, they are mid tier, the place where all factions should be, what is wrong with that?
Our internal balance isn't that bad either, in the first page i listed my wishlist for fixing internal balance of the nids, and it came out quite a long list, but nothing enormous. They were all also small changes (except sporemines).
The fact that i was able to put together a list like that, means that the faction is in a good place. Many other faction don't even have an idea on how to fix some of the models!
Also, the difference between a top tier tyranid list and a mid tier list, is actually small. At least small if compared to what this means in other factions. Only IG has as much freedom as nids do in list building.

Did I say it like that, or did I say it more like "I'm all for saying that we are fine in the meta". Because that's a copy paste of my earlier post in this thread. I simply phrased it as it is.

That being said, mid tier might be where all armies should be, but it's not where they are. It's highly unlikely for a Tyranid, a Dark Angels, an Ad Mech, or any similarly powered solid mid tier army is going to win a tournament anytime soon. Maybe that's the ideal place for a dex, but it doesn't change the facts that mid tier balance does not = tournament viability. It's even worse when a dex is kind of narrow and has easily exploitable gaps to get around it. Knights and DE doing an extremely good job of tearing up Nids, similar to Eldar for DA. And how soon do you predict Aeldari to be weaker? Because you might be waiting a very long time lol.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

SHUPPET wrote:Yeah well when your Kryptonite is Dark Eldar and Knights, two of the strongest and most popular dexes right now, it's a bit of a hostile meta for Tyranids. Upper mid tier army at best. Potentially lower. Can get a bunch of wins, odds heavily stacked against winning a tournament though

You phrase it like it is a bad thing.
Yes Tyranids are not longer top dogs after the nerfs, they are mid tier, the place where all factions should be, what is wrong with that?
Our internal balance isn't that bad either, in the first page i listed my wishlist for fixing internal balance of the nids, and it came out quite a long list, but nothing enormous. They were all also small changes (except sporemines).
The fact that i was able to put together a list like that, means that the faction is in a good place. Many other faction don't even have an idea on how to fix some of the models!
Also, the difference between a top tier tyranid list and a mid tier list, is actually small. At least small if compared to what this means in other factions. Only IG has as much freedom as nids do in list building.

Did I say it like that, or did I say it more like "I'm all for saying that we are fine in the meta". Because that's a copy paste of my earlier post in this thread. I simply phrased it as it is.

That being said, mid tier might be where all armies should be, but it's not where they are. It's highly unlikely for a Tyranid, a Dark Angels, an Ad Mech, or any similarly powered solid mid tier army is going to win a tournament anytime soon. Maybe that's the ideal place for a dex, but it doesn't change the facts that mid tier balance does not = tournament viability. It's even worse when a dex is kind of narrow and has easily exploitable gaps to get around it. Knights and DE doing an extremely good job of tearing up Nids, similar to Eldar for DA. And how soon do you predict Aeldari to be weaker? Because you might be waiting a very long time lol.

I though that you implied that being mid tier was somehow a a "drawback" of the nid codex, if it wasn't like that, i beg your pardon. My mistake.

On the topic, being able to win tournaments is not a design requirement for a codex. The only requirements are:

1) Having about 50% chances to win against another mid tier codex, all things being equal.
2) Fulfilling the previous requirement with all lists that follow a reasonable creation criteria.

Those 2 requirements identify a perfect codex.
In an ideal game were all codici are perfect, then winning a tournament has nothing to do with the faction that you play, it is only a contest between players.

Now, clearly this is not the present situation (still LOADS better than 6th and 7th), so there need to be some changes. The changes though have to happen to the factions that are underperforming and to the ones that are overperforming. Mid tier codici like nids should be kept exactly as they are, and used as a meter for balance.
If you change codici like the nid ones to match current strong codici so that they can compete in events, you are only enlarging the issue.

I understand that aeldari have been OP since forever, but it's also true that they are the most nerfed faction probably, so we are getting there. Maybe only IG has received as many nerfs as they did, ynnari in particular. The only outliers here are DE, which only suffered one nerf at the start of 8th, but if i were a DE player i wouldn't count on the next CA being lenient on them.
The game has been out for about one year, and the meta has already changed more times than in the whole 6th and 7th put together. Things are happening, and they are no longer as slow as they used to be.

I don't think anyone should put their models down on the table and feel like there is nothing they can do to win. To me that isn't fun.

You can argue that is a byproduct of "competitive" meta, but that seems short sighted. Essentially saying, "because only some people run into this problem, it's not a problem."

100% of people are not affected by cancer. In fact relative to the population on Earth, it is a very small number. Should we abandon efforts to cure it?

Of course the tournament community is a lot bigger than people are making it out to be. I think there are over 1000 people going to LVO this year.

And what is the ratio of that 1000 LVO attendants to every other 40k player? How many of that 1000 are even going to be serious competitors?

 Insectum7 wrote:
And what is the ratio of that 1000 LVO attendants to every other 40k player? How many of that 1000 are even going to be serious competitors?

Same as the ratio of leprechauns to unicorns. It's wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

A balance issue exists. You not experiencing it doesn't diminish it.

"Black mambas aren't dangerous because they're in Africa, and I am not." -Inscetum7, probably

If it's irrelevant, why'd you bring it up?

"Of course the tournament community is a lot bigger than people are making it out to be. I think there are over 1000 people going to LVOthis year." - Marmatag

I'm certain there are balance issues. I'm also certain there are people that gripe about "percieved" balance issues because they lose consistently. I'm certain that ITC is not the norm, and can skew perception of balance. And I'm also certain that the game and GW benefits from some amount of "churn" and that's just part of the expected landscape that is 40k. Within that, there's still room to discuss balance, but you have to keep all of the above in mind.

I think we are griping about the wrong stuff. I view competitive 40k as not only the tournament scene at ITC events. It includes local tournaments and any game where you are playing match play rules and both players are playing to win. It should be balanced at that level.

There should be no auto include units or army traits or especially not auto not includes. I am not sure why anyone argues against this point...

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

Your argument is utter nonsense.

You have no evidence to suggest ITC games are the minority. If you do, prove it. In fact, there are a lot of ITC tournament format games being played every week in the USA. Even if you look only at tournaments, when that doesn't factor in competitive league play, tournament practice games, and people generally playing under the standard because it's widely accepted.

Further, even if you could prove your baseless claim, it's *still irrelevant* because the balance issues that exist with Tyranids are not ITC specific. You don't have a hope and prayer to counter Knights, proper Eldar Soup, Tau, Guard Gunline, etc, whether or not they get 20 models = 1 point reaper or not. They will still keep you off of objectives, they will still out-kill you from range.

Your entire post history in this thread is to announce that:

(a) metas are different and therefore we can conclude nothing
and then
(b) because we can conclude nothing, we therefore MUST CONCLUDE that everything is fine because Insectum7 doesn't see a problem and his local meta is indicative of the average player.

This thread has been derailed enough by you. Can you just bounce out, and let those of us interested in balance have a discussion on the topic?

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are griping about the wrong stuff. I view competitive 40k as not only the tournament scene at ITC events. It includes local tournaments and any game where you are playing match play rules and both players are playing to win. It should be balanced at that level.

There should be no auto include units or army traits or especially not auto not includes. I am not sure why anyone argues against this point...

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That's my take on this too.
The difference that i see here, is that at the local tournament level tyranids are solidly mid tier. While some internal balance changes do have merit, because no one likes to take those hive guards in all lists, i'm against external balance changes, because as far as external balance goes we are fine, that's the point that i'm trying to make.

We cannot buff nids to compete with the upper tiers, because it would be a step in the wrong direction to balance the game.

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are griping about the wrong stuff. I view competitive 40k as not only the tournament scene at ITC events. It includes local tournaments and any game where you are playing match play rules and both players are playing to win. It should be balanced at that level.

There should be no auto include units or army traits or especially not auto not includes. I am not sure why anyone argues against this point...

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That's my take on this too.
The difference that i see here, is that at the local tournament level tyranids are solidly mid tier. While some internal balance changes do have merit, because no one likes to take those hive guards in all lists, i'm against external balance changes, because as far as external balance goes we are fine, that's the point that i'm trying to make.

We cannot buff nids to compete with the upper tiers, because it would be a step in the wrong direction to balance the game.

Can you explain what you mean by "internal" balance then? Are you implying that Hive Guard should be nerfed? Any buff to Tyranids can potentially affect external balance.

I guess since Marines are performing better than Nids it's time to jump on the nerf marines train.

In reality all of the armies that got codexes after Nids are strong hard counters to them. Power creep seems to be a real problem in 2018. You say Tyranids are mid tier, but the definition of mid tier is continuously shifting as more codexes are released. Space wolves are an assault army, but with really solid long range shooters, especially with stratagems. How will Nids stack up against an army that's going to be very good in assault and also very good (marine level) shooting?

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are griping about the wrong stuff. I view competitive 40k as not only the tournament scene at ITC events. It includes local tournaments and any game where you are playing match play rules and both players are playing to win. It should be balanced at that level.

There should be no auto include units or army traits or especially not auto not includes. I am not sure why anyone argues against this point...

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That's my take on this too.
The difference that i see here, is that at the local tournament level tyranids are solidly mid tier. While some internal balance changes do have merit, because no one likes to take those hive guards in all lists, i'm against external balance changes, because as far as external balance goes we are fine, that's the point that i'm trying to make.

We cannot buff nids to compete with the upper tiers, because it would be a step in the wrong direction to balance the game.

I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the power level of nids - is where you'd like the rest of the game to be. That's all fine if that is the direct GW wants to go. Nerf eldar/DE/Quinns/IK/IG and buff space marines/necrons/admech/orks/ect. That is a lot harder to do though. It is much easier just to buff every army to the top and then everyone will have relative strength that is equal. No one likes nerfs - nerfs make people quit the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are griping about the wrong stuff. I view competitive 40k as not only the tournament scene at ITC events. It includes local tournaments and any game where you are playing match play rules and both players are playing to win. It should be balanced at that level.

There should be no auto include units or army traits or especially not auto not includes. I am not sure why anyone argues against this point...

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That's my take on this too.
The difference that i see here, is that at the local tournament level tyranids are solidly mid tier. While some internal balance changes do have merit, because no one likes to take those hive guards in all lists, i'm against external balance changes, because as far as external balance goes we are fine, that's the point that i'm trying to make.

We cannot buff nids to compete with the upper tiers, because it would be a step in the wrong direction to balance the game.

Can you explain what you mean by "internal" balance then? Are you implying that Hive Guard should be nerfed? Any buff to Tyranids can potentially affect external balance.

I guess since Marines are performing better than Nids it's time to jump on the nerf marines train.

In reality all of the armies that got codexes after Nids are strong hard counters to them. Power creep seems to be a real problem in 2018. You say Tyranids are mid tier, but the definition of mid tier is continuously shifting as more codexes are released. Space wolves are an assault army, but with really solid long range shooters, especially with stratagems. How will Nids stack up against an army that's going to be very good in assault and also very good (marine level) shooting?

How do nids do angainst -2 to hit flyers?

Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

bananathug wrote:
Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

Also, a Nid horde list just finished 2nd at wargames con here in Tx so the idea that nids cannot compete in tournaments is just a false premise. I think they need help in some areas but i would argue that stats like those above show SM as being in a much worse position

 Marmatag wrote:
Your argument is utter nonsense.

You have no evidence to suggest ITC games are the minority. If you do, prove it. In fact, there are a lot of ITC tournament format games being played every week in the USA. Even if you look only at tournaments, when that doesn't factor in competitive league play, tournament practice games, and people generally playing under the standard because it's widely accepted.

Well for one you should consider itc is primarily us thing. Outside other formats are more popular. Us does not majority make.

Also gw would be hard pressed to make such profits with just tourmament players. Too few


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That statement shows you lier either deliberate or ignorance.

Anyway if you wanp balance matched play is worst way to do it. It has it's points but it's not designed for balance. Any point system ensures game is unbalanced. So by not playing matched shows more interest in balanced game

bananathug wrote:
Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

I was referring to the GT level, not RTT. As you know I win RTTs like all the time with Nids, doesn't make them good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How do nids do angainst -2 to hit flyers?

I played a game against Eldar + Dark Eldar soup that had 3 Alaitoc Hemlocks, 10 reapers, battalion of kabalites + venoms, and your mandatory eldar extras like rangers, farseers, etc.

I ended up winning that game by ignoring the hemlocks altogether. They received 0 damage from me. One had 11 wounds remaining because of a perils.

All in all, it was a brutal game and while I won by tabling him i wouldn't feel confident in the rematch. I run a counter-meta list so people are surprised by me, and they don't have a canned strategy they can employ like in 90% of games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

Also, a Nid horde list just finished 2nd at wargames con here in Tx so the idea that nids cannot compete in tournaments is just a false premise. I think they need help in some areas but i would argue that stats like those above show SM as being in a much worse position

I'm aware that Nids can compete in tournaments. I simply reject the statement that Nids are fine and need 0 boosts. I posted a wishlist. You'll notice much of it is reasonable, and only a few things are "wow that's dumb overpowered." But hey, it's a wishlist.

 Marmatag wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

I was referring to the GT level, not RTT. As you know I win RTTs like all the time with Nids, doesn't make them good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How do nids do angainst -2 to hit flyers?

I played a game against Eldar + Dark Eldar soup that had 3 Alaitoc Hemlocks, 10 reapers, battalion of kabalites + venoms, and your mandatory eldar extras like rangers, farseers, etc.

I ended up winning that game by ignoring the hemlocks altogether. They received 0 damage from me. One had 11 wounds remaining because of a perils.

All in all, it was a brutal game and while I won by tabling him i wouldn't feel confident in the rematch. I run a counter-meta list so people are surprised by me, and they don't have a canned strategy they can employ like in 90% of games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Marm,

Not sure where you are getting SM outperforming Nids but according to BCP (which seems to be the best source of competitive 40k data) SM are not outperforming Nids.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-august-22th-drukhari-strike-back.html

SM #3 played faction not even in the top 10 winning factions
Nids # 6 played faction number 6 winning faction

Like the other posters are saying, boost the crappy units in the Nid dex but leave the good ones alone. Nids/tau is where the dexes should be. IK, AM, ALL ELDAR and some chaos units need to come down. Power armor and Crons need boosts.

There will still be good dexes and bad ones and good match-ups and bad ones but if knights/am/eldar came down they wouldn't invalidate entire swaths of faction builds and I doubt you would feel that certain match-ups are auto-losses or at least you'd have an option in your dex to actually create a TAC list vs a rock/paper/scissors auto-lose/win lists.

Also, a Nid horde list just finished 2nd at wargames con here in Tx so the idea that nids cannot compete in tournaments is just a false premise. I think they need help in some areas but i would argue that stats like those above show SM as being in a much worse position

I'm aware that Nids can compete in tournaments. I simply reject the statement that Nids are fine and need 0 boosts. I posted a wishlist. You'll notice much of it is reasonable, and only a few things are "wow that's dumb overpowered." But hey, it's a wishlist.

Comments like "Considering Tyranids have fallen off the face of the planet in every competitive meta, i know for a fact it's not just "my meta."" make it sound as if you think they cannot compete

Well anyone can compete if the circumstances are right and the competition is light. I was speaking in reference to GT level play.

How about this: Tyranids need some buffs. They have some useless units and some overcosted units. These should be addressed. Fair? Maybe we can discuss what they are, and how to fix?

 Marmatag wrote:
Well anyone can compete if the circumstances are right and the competition is light. I was speaking in reference to GT level play.

How about this: Tyranids need some buffs. They have some useless units and some overcosted units. These should be addressed. Fair? Maybe we can discuss what they are, and how to fix?

I think a 70 person GT is up there in competition... But yes there are lots of units in the Tyranid codex that can use a look and a bit of love.

Ok, so let's rewind.

Warriors have a 4+ save. I proposed they get a 3+ save. Thoughts on this one? Currently these clawbois don't get any play. This would really help their durability in a big way, with how common -3 weapons are, a 6+ save against them would actually be nice.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ok, so let's rewind.

Warriors have a 4+ save. I proposed they get a 3+ save. Thoughts on this one? Currently these clawbois don't get any play. This would really help their durability in a big way, with how common -3 weapons are, a 6+ save against them would actually be nice.

Ok, i agree, let's restart the discussion we are not going anywhere.

Frankly i do not believe that at the present point cost warriors should have a 3+, they are too cheap, with the difference that contrarily to marines they also hurt quite a lot.
Would they be better with a base cost of 24 and a 3+? Maybe, but i would need to test it to be sure.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ok, so let's rewind.

Warriors have a 4+ save. I proposed they get a 3+ save. Thoughts on this one? Currently these clawbois don't get any play. This would really help their durability in a big way, with how common -3 weapons are, a 6+ save against them would actually be nice.

Sure, with extended carapace for 3-4pts. Dont forget Tyranids can have cover anywhere if they dont run, if you are walking around with 2+ save shooting warriors with a beta melee turn on turn 2-3, i think that might be a bit to strong for their current points. Remember they get Assault D3 S8 -2ap D3 in every 3, or a D6 shot HB that is assault.

Having 51 of them on the table with 17 ML's and all with Power swords with a 2+, -1 to hit, that its on 3+ duo to Prime rules with 3 units being max Size for Double shoot/Melee strat.

2+ doesnt sound strong, but when -1 to hit and on 3W models, its kinda strong, when 1 unit can also have FnP its even better. At that point you are playing better/cheaper Terminators.

Cover is a Hive Fleet trait. Which means you're giving up on our only access to shooting rerolls (Kronos), our access to mobility (Kraken), our access to FNP (Leviathan). Splitting hive fleets is immensely difficult because we depend on Synapse to function.

Secondly, you can already make 3+ warriors for their base cost with Jormungandr. No one does it for a reason. Warriors with a 3+ save are not that strong, especially if they lose that when they advance or attempt a charge. They're expensive for what they do. Yes, you can take some weapons per 3, but that is already available. Let's not forget that if they're 3+ going to 2+, they lose that cover save in melee.

tneva82 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Your argument is utter nonsense.

You have no evidence to suggest ITC games are the minority. If you do, prove it. In fact, there are a lot of ITC tournament format games being played every week in the USA. Even if you look only at tournaments, when that doesn't factor in competitive league play, tournament practice games, and people generally playing under the standard because it's widely accepted.

Well for one you should consider itc is primarily us thing. Outside other formats are more popular. Us does not majority make.

Also gw would be hard pressed to make such profits with just tourmament players. Too few


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

If you don't care about balance- play narataive play. Which I think it is fair to say....NO ONE FREAKING PLAYS NARATAIVE PLAY.

That statement shows you lier either deliberate or ignorance.

Anyway if you wanp balance matched play is worst way to do it. It has it's points but it's not designed for balance. Any point system ensures game is unbalanced. So by not playing matched shows more interest in balanced game

Can you explain what you are saying? Because it makes no sense to me.

Spoletta wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ok, so let's rewind.

Warriors have a 4+ save. I proposed they get a 3+ save. Thoughts on this one? Currently these clawbois don't get any play. This would really help their durability in a big way, with how common -3 weapons are, a 6+ save against them would actually be nice.

Ok, i agree, let's restart the discussion we are not going anywhere.

Frankly i do not believe that at the present point cost warriors should have a 3+, they are too cheap, with the difference that contrarily to marines they also hurt quite a lot.
Would they be better with a base cost of 24 and a 3+? Maybe, but i would need to test it to be sure.

So, they're not good now, and they can have a 3+ with Jormungandr for no extra points. Remember, one reaper launcher kills an entire warrior. They don't get a save against Hellblasters, they don't get a save against Hemlocks, ravagers have a field day with them, etc.

Warriors are really, really in a bad spot right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth pointing out that the warriors best way to be kitted is generally with a deathspitter and boneswords, which puts them at 27ppm.

You absolutely need to upgrade out of scything talons at least into rending claws or boneswords or their melee is really awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to point it out.

Assault marines are 11 melee attacks with a 3+ save.

3 scything talon, devourer warriors have 12 attacks, with a 4+ save.

The warriors cost more...

Unless we're prepared to argue that assault marines are in a good spot we shouldn't argue that Tyranid Warriors are, either. Moving them to a 3+ save would be the right call. Or, I would be fine with increasing the cost of assault marines to be 72 points per 5.