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.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %:
Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
But they were nerfed "HARSHER", so they aren't as OP anymore!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 11:57:55
It has been since marines 2.0 since I have not had to, when playing marines:
1) pull up 1d4chan and write out on a piece of paper allllllllll the crazy crap THIS particular bs subfaction is going to pull on me. What are their doctrines, what are their 9 stratagems, what are their 6 psychic powers, what are their 6 chaplain litanies, what are their special relics, on and on
2) make the most optimized, cutthroat, fine tuned list for whatever faction im playing
3) resolve myself that regardless of whether I win or lose itll be probably a 2-turn game. 3 turns max. And itll probably be decided mostly by first turn, since it's been a while since I've seen a marine list that didnt have those stupid stupid "if you get first turn you win" donkey-caves that get special snowflake turn 1 deep strike.
Its about as fun as the 7th ed eldar meta, but if 70% of the people you played against had 3 WK+30 Scatbikes.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Call it a nerf or not. The fact is Loyalist marines are still OP and this "re-balancing" didn't change that. We can argue the semantics of the word "nerf" until the cows come home... it doesnt change the facts.
But they were nerfed "HARSHER", so they aren't as OP anymore!
they really are still OP ... just compare the point costs of similar units and weapons... it doesnt even compare... SM have been OP to some degree consistently for 20 years... if they are not OP that would be the exception.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 12:01:50
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf. Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition. Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one. I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it". So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %: Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Sorry, not seeing the "nerfs".
That's the common misconception. SM nerfs were on average greater than the other factions. The average increase was around 15% points.
Now, look at the point changes on all the SM competitive datasheets (except chars, which were spared as a general rule).
What you can see is that the average increase on the competitive choices was huge. There is no way to look at that list and think "What a nice SM buff!". You may be able to find specific cases where someone had a bigger nerf on a model compared to them, but on average this was clearly a big nerf for SM.
This also comes on top of the doctrine nerf, which we still don't know which effects had on them, since for the most part we couldn't play a lot with it.
Is this enough to bring them on an even level with other factions? I don't know, but surely it is one more stop in the right direction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 12:23:42
Spoletta wrote: As long as Eradicators are not in the equation, I'm not going to express an opinion on the matter.
The points nerfs on marines were harsh, and I'm not sure that they cope reall well with 9th missions structure. Nids could very well be better than them at this point, who knows.
Now, put Eradicators back into the pack, and they are the best of best at everything.
You keep repeating the same "marine point increases were harsh" BS but you don't seem to fathom the fact that they were HORRIBLY underpriced in 8th
....and?
I fail to see how it is a valid counterpoint you are making.
Were the point increases harsh? Yes, that is simple math, can't argue with that.
So if I were to say "This post got longer with our messages." you would reply "That's BS! It was too short!"? Should that make my statement "BS"?
You keep using that BS word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
...and? The're not harsh at all if the base points are hugely undercosted to begin with, in comparison the +30 points a Tervigon received are much harsher than the additional cost of a Thunderfire since the former was already nearly unplayable and the latter on the other hand was oppressive asf.
Percentage increments don't tell the truth, what really matters the most is the final points cost and Thunderfires at 140 pts (with the included Techmarine) is not a steep cost (still undercosted if you consider the BS 2+ no LoS shooting that can halve any type of movement for 2 units)
You fail to understand the basics of balancing if you think that percentages don't matter.
So, on one hand you have a model which wasn't really played, so it didn't really receive a cost increase (Tervigon, 16,66% increase). On the other hand you have a model which was played a lot, so it received one of the biggest nerfs in the edition (TFC, 52%). 52% is harsh? Yes it is, maths says so. What you say doesn't matter. If you say otherwise you are wrong by definition.
Now, if I did say "SM were nerfed a lot, they are now underpowered" you could have a point. But I didn't do that, so you don't have one.
I always said "SM received a big nerf, but they deserved it".
So, again, what's your point?
I think the point is that loyalists were already underpriced and were nerfed about the same as everyone else, and are therefore still underpriced. Yes, TFCs took a big hit, but most loyalist stuff didn't compared to everyone else. They took similar hits.
But since you want to talk %:
Intercessors:up 17% vs csm: up 27%
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: up 15% vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: up 41%
Relic contemptor: down 4% vs hellforged contemptor: up 19%
Sorry, not seeing the "nerfs".
That's the common misconception. SM nerfs were on average greater than the other factions. The average increase was around 15% points.
Now, look at the point changes on all the SM competitive datasheets (except chars, which were spared as a general rule).
What you can see is that the average increase on the competitive choices was huge. There is no way to look at that list and think "What a nice SM buff!".
You may be able to find specific cases where someone had a bigger nerf on a model compared to them, but on average this was clearly a big nerf for SM.
This also comes on top of the doctrine nerf, which we still don't know which effects had on them, since for the most part we couldn't play a lot with it.
Is this enough to bring them on an even level with other factions? I don't know, but surely it is one more stop in the right direction.
But thats 8th edition competitive...
It means nothing for 9th edition. Your favourite units went up a ton, now go buy the new stuff and the stuff no one has been using in a while... theirs your new competitive stuff.
Just because the old OP stuff isnt as OP anymore doesnt mean SM arn't OP overall as a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some of the stuff no space marine players will touch because you simply just have "better options" are still twice as good for value/abilities/stat lines then other factions have at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/24 12:26:59
As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.
RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Yeah, that's 8th edition competitive.
We have no idea what is 9th edition competitive. All the other factions are measuring their buffs and nerfs on what currently works, because no one knows what the meta will be in 4 months.
Based on that, that list qualifies as a nerf to SM as we know them now.
2.) what's are Tyranids' Ragnar / Aggressors etc to lean on if not OOE and Genestealers? Tyranid player picked some of the best units in the dex and none of the junk ones. Yeah, Ragnar and aggressors are a lot better than anything he has - that's the entire point. It's not balanced.
OOE encourages you to run your Carnifexes in a blob. Vulkan and Agatone encourages you to run aggressors and cents in a blob.
Whomever gets the charge usually wins (ignoring that D3 weapons on W4 models is very painful). You can't charge Centurions without something cheap to take the O/W. The marines had plenty of guns to block the genestealers so most everything from there was an expensive unit. The Tyranids have to make several charges where the marines had to make one or two. Throw in Salamander's buddy O/W and you just aren't getting in.
Literally the only ranged weapons the Centurions wouldn't straight up ignore (based on units the nids had) would have been the VC / HVC and we have no idea what he had.
It would be dumb to push your whole army into a melee with the marines, but I'd bet that's what he did. The MAX move of the marine army was 6". He should have literally ignored half the marine army, ran past, taken out the long fangs and intercessors, grab secondaries, and force their blob to split to be able to cover objectives. The tyranids had plenty of wounds to deal with the occasional bolter fire. The salamanders weren't even 11" flamers. You could easily kite them.
But people are going to sit here and say, "well if I smash these non-descript models into those models and I lose that means the army is bad".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 14:02:49
SM would probably look quite hard done by if the new units didn't seem incredibly cheap.
Eradicators are the obvious one, but going to keep banging the drum for the bikers too. As White Scars they seem set to be an especially effective assassin of small objective holder/stealer units, with the speed to get around the table and the wounds to not just die if you look at them funny.
Especially if (when?) the kit comes out and you can stick some assault guns on the bikes instead of rapid fire.
But isn't this a lore vs game problem for some new players? They like nids, they read about nids, in lore the tyranids charge as a unstoppable wave, crushing everything in the end with thier big bugs, while taking heavy loses among the smaller ones. Only in the game this often means they lose the small ones, then they lose the big ones and then they are in for un happy times.
I think this is the key-what kind of game is 40K to you? what are you looking for?
With the right mindset and like minded players it is a great game, with the wrong mindset it is a terrible game system.
It was not and never will be "balanced" there are to many factions and to many unique abilities and gear now for that to ever happen.
40K when i got into it (3rd) was still very much the kind of game you describe and it was great for that reason, but it is terrible as a straight up competitive tournament environment game
Unfortunately for the players like myself who want the more thematic game GW has gone the direction of hard competition. to the point it has become the focus point of the game. this leads us to the never ending discussions about "balance"
The game now is all about damage output comparisons, not about what those units would actually do if they behaved as in lore.
If you want the kind of lore/narrative based rules you have to go back to previous editions codexes like 3rd, 4th or 5th where the army/unit rules actually caused you to behave more in accordance with the lore.
In lore being put into a chaos dreadnought was punishment and the marines put in them went insane. so they had rules where they might do insanely good things for you, or they might turn around and attack their own forces in a fit of rage. you didn't know until the dice gods decided.
In those editions many of the units people point to as "sub-par" in the OPs explanation, especially for nids were actually some of the best units to take because of their biomorph options, the way synapse worked and so on.
I don't think 9th ed is the kind of game the OP thinks it is or should be. there is a reason why those of us who have been around the game for a while are familiar with terms like "power gamer", "rules lawyer", "min/max", "WAAC" and "band wagon jumper"
because the tourney players have been successful in breaking the game in every edition trying to squeeze the most insanely powerful combos into an army even if they make no sense in the lore. including changing armies based on whatever the new winning meta is at that point in time.
It is just easier to do it now with the way GW changed the mechanics of the game in 8th and has followed on with it into 9th.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 14:09:08
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear/MCP
Yeah the real problem here is that a person who buys the starter box from last edition + the starter from this edition is going to have an army that their opponents are going to need to bring their version of tournament optimized vs to have any chance in hell.
I see tons and tons of new players. Anyone who starts with marines nowadays fething ragdolls anyone who doesnt.
I honestly don't give a gak about tournament competitive play balance. Marines are absolute autowin for new players and it means 100% of new players who actually stick around are playing marines because everyone else loses every game.
If someone goes "oh ill get my start collecting and a couple more kits" and the other guy goes "oh ive got indomitus cool" then the first person will quit if hes playing against the second his first few games. He will just get smashed again and again and again, and the sheer amount he gets murdered by is going to be demoralizing.
Oh, you bought start collecting orks? Your buddys bike squad and assault squad kill either of your infantry units in one single round of attacks. Also, your buddy's antitank unit one shots your vehicle effortlessly even outside melta range, it gets zero saves. You probably moved it up once 6" and then it got blown the feth away by a single shooting attack. Doesnt matter if youre behind cover. Doesnt matter if you try to be on the other side of the board, they can advance and shoot you and still kill you in one shot.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
nekooni wrote: To nerf something means to make it not as good as it was before. It has nothing to do with how well balanced the end result is, Kurt.
Rebalancing can go either way, both up and down. Buffing means going up, nerfing means going down
This is totally false, wrong and defies the very nature of a nerf.
NERF
"reduction in power of a game feature for the sake of balance"
That's exactly what I said. What's your point?
What is wrong with the second part that you think this is "false, wrong and defies the very nature of a nerf"?
You can slap a 10 points increase on guardsmen and that's a nerf.
You can slap a 1 point increase on a leviathan dreadnought and that's a nerf.
One is over the top, the other not nearly enough of a nerf. But both are nerfs.
They are both aimed towards general balance
Yes, even if one is completely over the top - the reason behind any nerf or buff is game balance. It's not like I said otherwise, so - as I've asked earlier - what's wrong with my statement from earlier?
Both are aiming towards general balance, but one of them does not yield a well-balanced end result. So the "absolute" result doesn't matter for it to be called a "nerf" - it could still be overpowered. What matters is that the thing being changed isn't as good as it was before the change.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/07/24 15:31:28
Tyel wrote: SM would probably look quite hard done by if the new units didn't seem incredibly cheap.
Eradicators are the obvious one, but going to keep banging the drum for the bikers too. As White Scars they seem set to be an especially effective assassin of small objective holder/stealer units, with the speed to get around the table and the wounds to not just die if you look at them funny.
Especially if (when?) the kit comes out and you can stick some assault guns on the bikes instead of rapid fire.
The only thing I see is that both units suck at protecting babysitters.
2.) what's are Tyranids' Ragnar / Aggressors etc to lean on if not OOE and Genestealers? Tyranid player picked some of the best units in the dex and none of the junk ones. Yeah, Ragnar and aggressors are a lot better than anything he has - that's the entire point. It's not balanced.
OOE encourages you to run your Carnifexes in a blob. Vulkan and Agatone encourages you to run aggressors and cents in a blob.
Whomever gets the charge usually wins (ignoring that D3 weapons on W4 models is very painful). You can't charge Centurions without something cheap to take the O/W. The marines had plenty of guns to block the genestealers so most everything from there was an expensive unit. The Tyranids have to make several charges where the marines had to make one or two. Throw in Salamander's buddy O/W and you just aren't getting in.
Literally the only ranged weapons the Centurions wouldn't straight up ignore (based on units the nids had) would have been the VC / HVC and we have no idea what he had.
It would be dumb to push your whole army into a melee with the marines, but I'd bet that's what he did. The MAX move of the marine army was 6". He should have literally ignored half the marine army, ran past, taken out the long fangs and intercessors, grab secondaries, and force their blob to split to be able to cover objectives. The tyranids had plenty of wounds to deal with the occasional bolter fire. The salamanders weren't even 11" flamers. You could easily kite them.
But people are going to sit here and say, "well if I smash these non-descript models into those models and I lose that means the army is bad".
So, this is the whole difficulty i have with this conversation.
When do people look at their games and ask "what could i have done different"? at what point do people take responsibility for their own losses, accept that perfect balance will never be attained, and choose to focus on what they could have done differently?
I've played 8 games with Tyranids in 9th now, and ill freely admit I've lost more than I've won with them, but every game I've played, the games are getting closer, and I'm learning from my mistakes. Obviously, that is not going to make me some top tier Warhammer operator, but close games are fun and I've had a lot of them with my Tyranids.
that said, that list was scattershot. OOE is a great model, and he does want to see a mob of carnifexes with him, but carnifexes are hardly the "competitive option" in the codex unless you are running 9 of them as dakka fexes. If we wanted to discuss the power units in the Tyranid codex, it would obviously be the hive guard. everything else is just filler (with a special mention to flyrants if kitted outright). The Tyranid player probably didn't understand all of the options available to him. So the lessons to learn here are how to maximize efficiency and build some synergy in his list. If he wanted to run GS bomb, then he needed a swarm lord and more gene stealers and brood lords. If he wanted to run warrior spam, then he needs a lot more warriors and Tyranid primes in that mix. The list feels very unfocused, based on the information given.
so, step one, would be to look at the list and figure out what he wanted to do with the army.
Also, someone said it, but i'll second it. The Tyranid players in this edition are going to be fast. Expect behemoth, and they will be all over the table. Everyone says hordes are dead, but I've been playing with 20 GS, 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles ripper swarms, swarm lord and a brood lord, plus extra stuff (either flyrant, or trygon prime, or warriors, there are points to play with in that list...a lot of points) and so far, in my games where i have decided to go full-on horde, my opponents just haven't had the shots to deal with all of that and keep up on scenario. It's been strong. Tyranids have a lot of strats that really push their mobility up, between consolidating 6" bounding leap on hormogaunts, the swarmlord, behemoth, and new terrain rules, it been tough and my wins have been with building something like this.
That said, I wouldn't have gotten there if I just threw my hands up the first time I lost and said "marines OP" and not kept trying new things.
again, not saying my experience is universal, but if you want to not lose as much at the game, you have to look at yourself and ask what you could have done better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/24 17:36:26
Seabass wrote: So, this is the whole difficulty i have with this conversation.
When do people look at their games and ask "what could i have done different"?
at what point do people take responsibility for their own losses, accept that perfect balance will never be attained, and choose to focus on what they could have done differently?
I've played 8 games with Tyranids in 9th now, and ill freely admit I've lost more than I've won with them, but every game I've played, the games are getting closer, and I'm learning from my mistakes. Obviously, that is not going to make me some top tier Warhammer operator, but close games are fun and I've had a lot of them with my Tyranids.
that said, that list was scattershot. OOE is a great model, and he does want to see a mob of carnifexes with him, but carnifexes are hardly the "competitive option" in the codex unless you are running 9 of them as dakka fexes. If we wanted to discuss the power units in the Tyranid codex, it would obviously be the hive guard. everything else is just filler (with a special mention to flyrants if kitted outright). The Tyranid player probably didn't understand all of the options available to him. So the lessons to learn here are how to maximize efficiency and build some synergy in his list. If he wanted to run GS bomb, then he needed a swarm lord and more gene stealers and brood lords. If he wanted to run warrior spam, then he needs a lot more warriors and Tyranid primes in that mix. The list feels very unfocused, based on the information given.
so, step one, would be to look at the list and figure out what he wanted to do with the army.
Also, someone said it, but i'll second it. The Tyranid players in this edition are going to be fast. Expect behemoth, and they will be all over the table. Everyone says hordes are dead, but I've been playing with 20 GS, 30 Hormogaunts, 30 Termagants, 30 Gargoyles ripper swarms, swarm lord and a brood lord, plus extra stuff (either flyrant, or trygon prime, or warriors, there are points to play with in that list...a lot of points) and so far, in my games where i have decided to go full-on horde, my opponents just haven't had the shots to deal with all of that and keep up on scenario. It's been strong. Tyranids have a lot of strats that really push their mobility up, between consolidating 6" bounding leap on hormogaunts, the swarmlord, behemoth, and new terrain rules, it been tough and my wins have been with building something like this.
That said, I wouldn't have gotten there if I just threw my hands up the first time I lost and said "marines OP" and kept trying new things.
again, not saying my experience is universal, but if you want to not lose as much at the game, you have to look at yourself and ask what you could have done better.
I think what you are saying is completely legitimate. I also generally agree with your take on Tyranids in 9th (Although did you mean Behemoth, or Kraken?). I've played 4 games so far of 9th and won 3 of them.
I also generally think there's a tendency to over-emphasize listbuilding and army choice, when player tactics on the battlefield matter a huge deal. I've beaten meta lists run by bad players, using a faction generally recognized as underpowered.
That said- I've played 8th Ed games using the current Marine rules over TTS, and in comparison to Tyranids where I need to bring my A-game and really stay on top of things, it's felt like a much more forgiving experience. It's not an auto-win and the army doesn't play itself, but it's less necessary to take top units and well-known synergies and specific stratagems to win.
I see this disparity even in the casual community: Just about every casual Tyranid player I run into is running Hive Guard and Genestealers, and often Exocrines too, and the most common Hive Fleets by far are Kraken and Kronos. Conversely, I see plenty of casual Marine players with no Chaplain Dreads, no Leviathans, no Thunderfires, and running whatever chapters they like. They get by fine with scattershot Primaris purchases, while new Tyranid players wind up on Reddit and Facebook asking for meta suggestions because they keep getting stomped.
The frustration you're seeing is with the replies that focus on what the Tyranid player brought, and treat it as if the Tyranid player getting stomped was a natural result of bringing a bad army- neglecting both that the Marine player didn't appear to be using hyper-optimized units either, and that the whole reason Tyranids are so susceptible to building 'bad armies' is because they're weaker to begin with. It doesn't take a huge disparity in overall power to turn a mistake in generalship or slightly-less-optimal army, or a combination of both into a one-sided stomp. Or to put it more simply, I don't think you can fairly blame losing on army imbalance, but at the same time, to neglect army imbalance as a factor just because there are other factors (including generalship) is wrong too.
To be clear: This isn't intended as a Tyranid player woe-is-me bitchfest. I don't feel like my army is underpowered against most of the factions in the game. It's literally just Marines at the moment that feel like they punch well above their weight.
2 players used armies they were inexperienced with for 1 game in a new edition and this is evidence of major game imbalance
TL;DR:
Two players of similar skill levels field lists from two different factions of similar quality (relative to the faction) and one player gets absolutely destroyed due to power discrepancies.
Moreover, even though this is merely anecdotal and not a giant resource of data, are you really going to claim that Space Marines and Nids are balanced against each other, in a casual setting?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2 players used armies they were inexperienced with for 1 game in a new edition and this is evidence of major game imbalance
TL;DR:
Two players of similar skill levels field lists from two different factions of similar quality (relative to the faction) and one player gets absolutely destroyed due to power discrepancies.
Moreover, even though this is merely anecdotal and not a giant resource of data, are you really going to claim that Space Marines and Nids are balanced against each other, in a casual setting?
I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard.
I have a terrible solution that won’t work one bit... restricted lists for overpowered units in tournaments. You can bring a maximum of one of each restricted unit. Once that hits the tourney scene, maybe it’ll work it’s way into the non competitive scene and GW will balance things better to sell models because no one is buying play sets (3 full units) of busted things they want to sell like hot cakes...
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Asmodios wrote: ...I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard...
Yes and no. On one hand playing one game with players unfamiliar to the armies isn't a fair test of tournament balance, but on the other hand the first impression the two players unfamiliar with the armies get out of that one game is awful. I feel like the thing people don't parse about balance is that a more balanced game is also more new-player-friendly because the new player can pick the models they like and play the game instead of needing to sit down and do legwork figuring out whether the models they like are unplayable because nobody at GW likes the army and they haven't gotten a real update in a decade or something.
macluvin wrote: I have a terrible solution that won’t work one bit... restricted lists for overpowered units in tournaments. You can bring a maximum of one of each restricted unit. Once that hits the tourney scene, maybe it’ll work it’s way into the non competitive scene and GW will balance things better to sell models because no one is buying play sets (3 full units) of busted things they want to sell like hot cakes...
It won't work.
Because there are the haves, like Marines, who look at units like Eradicators and say "Good, but I've got better" and so can still fill a brigade with OP nonsense.
And then there are the have-nots, like... Most other factions, actually, that get maybe three competitive units across their entire Dex.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Asmodios wrote: ...I wouldn't claim they have balanced this edition..... Also wouldn't claim that they are imbalanced. Playing 1 game with players unfamiliar with the armies is the most laughable test of balance that I have ever heard...
Yes and no. On one hand playing one game with players unfamiliar to the armies isn't a fair test of tournament balance, but on the other hand the first impression the two players unfamiliar with the armies get out of that one game is awful. I feel like the thing people don't parse about balance is that a more balanced game is also more new-player-friendly because the new player can pick the models they like and play the game instead of needing to sit down and do legwork figuring out whether the models they like are unplayable because nobody at GW likes the army and they haven't gotten a real update in a decade or something.
I have no idea where SM stand in the current meta, they could be everywhere from top to bottom as much as we know.
That said, even if SM and nids were 100% balanced, that game would have gone the same way.
SM are a faction designed to be easy to play. Tyranids are hard to collect, hard to transport and hard to play. They are an unforgiving faction on many levels.
On their first game, the SM player will always crush the nid player.
Nitro Zeus wrote: He didn't have Hive Guard and his opponent didn't have vehicles for them to shoot at, or thunderfires to counter his ground assault. That works both ways.
<snipped quote tree>
Absolute nonsense. Carnifexes are one of the better units in the dex without a doubt. I contributed to that discussion. YOUR answer was "maybe, if you work hard enough at it". Other people's answers were either "they seem pretty good" or "time will tell".
I'm sorry, let's just take a step back here anyway - are we genuinely arguing that there isn't a serious power level imbalance between the Marine codex and the Tyranids?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what, you're right. We should wait and see. I suspect Marines are broke as hell, but we don't know. I thought this thread was about 8th cause it was made two weeks ago, but I see OP was testing 9th rules.
This still works both ways though. If we don't know what's strong yet, it's way too early to also say that the Nid players list was gak. Looks tight enough to me, and yeah I'm standing strong that Carnifexes arent bad - depends on their loadout but I think they've actually improved.
I think we are actually in agreement more than we think. My main argument is that a new player with one of the hardiest to learn armies losing to a new player with one of the easiest to learn armies isn't proof of brokenness.
I think Hive Guard would have helped him, because they are excellent at killing MSU units when not distracted by tanks.
Getting Carnifexes right is hard. A good list can kill two of them a turn, so you have to bring threat saturation so that they actually get to do something. I hope that 9th will shift that dynamic enough to make them more useful. I love big monster builds. I posted a 9 fex list in the other thread (which i need to get back to, i think i made a points mistake) that I have the models to field tomorrow.
I suspect marines will be strong, possibly broken. I suspect 'nids will be in the middle of the pack. I'm not going to panic over one game at the start of the edition.
Dandelion wrote: What exactly makes nids hard to play? (Assuming they are balanced)
First of all Synapse. Contrarily to SM which have auras that buff you, not taking care of your auras with Tyranids will cripple the army.
Monster creatures. These things are big and want to enter melee. This means that you have to plan a path for them at the start of the game, because changing idea and going around a building costs an entire turn of movement.
Then it's mostly a matter of having stuff that is on the squishy side of life and that depends on rules interactions and special abilities to what it must. Rarely a tyranids unit is good for its stats, they all have some quirk and you need to know how to best make use of it.
