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.
Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
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?
That is very true. I don't think many people worry about some world champ class player beating their store army with one that costs 2000$ upwards. The problems are when people start or play for some time, and suddenly one or two players feel as if playing against their friends makes no sense.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Dandelion wrote: Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
Tyranid units are pointed for being half in synapse and half out. They are not supposed to have the penalties, but they are also not pointed including an immunity to morale. Synpase units pay something for it because it also comes with a penalty for enemy psykers.
Now, just to give an example of different approaches between SM and Nids.
Haruspex and assault terminators. Both are elite choices, slow and durable. Termies have the deepstrike, but apart from that these 2 units cover similar roles.
On one hand you have the assault terminators, where after you have read the model profile and the weapon profile, there isn't much else you need to know.
On the other hand you have the haruspex, which is based on self healing abilities for which it must kill enemy models. He can do so both in the assault phase and in the shooting phase with a close ranged attack, but in melee he has 2 different melee profiles, One of the 2 melee profiles is weaker but if he gets kills with that, he gets bonus attacks with the other profile... in short, playing correctly the haruspex requires experience and a master degree in biological engineering.
Apart from the carnifex, the nids don't have many units which are "There are my stats, use me". The stats are always interwined with some peculiar rule they are based on.
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".
This my friend, is called the Chaos Tax. Its been with us for over two decades and is a core feature of every edition. I used to downplay the chaos tax. After 9th and the leaks ive seen, it is unavoidable. The tax is real and its heavy this coming edition. Dont compare your army to marines unless you want a aneurysm.. Of course, other players will peg you as a whiner if you bring this up. See you in 10th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/25 12:22:23
Dandelion wrote: Could you give an example of “bad stat, but good quirk”? I’m not too familiar with nids units.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the melee. Wouldn’t a carnifex and a dreadnought be subjected to the same problem? And don’t they have shooty fexes? I don’t see how that’s an inherent problem specific to nids.
Synapse is the only real difference I can see and understand, but it seems simple to maintain, no? It’s 18” right? And shouldn’t nids be balanced between having synapse and not having it? As in, gants and such are pointed for being out of synapse, but warriors and such act as buffers by providing synapse (which they pay for).
Tyranid Carnifexes. The shooty version with the right upgrades can do a lot of damage to the right targets. If you pick the right gun, and the right upgrades, and the right targets. They don't care about being in synapse, unless they end up closer to something you don't want to shoot than they are what you want to shoot. Or if you plan to split fire. Then they want to be in synapse. Also, the box doesn't have enough of the correct gun. They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
babelfish wrote: They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
They're the same toughness, wounds, and save as every other dreadnought and you can give it -1 to be hit. The problem with fexes is they pay 10 points more than marines plus another 10 for BS3.
babelfish wrote: They are substantially less durable than dreadnoughts, so they will die, and quickly. If you make any mistakes with them (wrong loadout, wrong deployment, wrong movement, wrong target), then you have handed your opponent a couple hundred points advantage.
They're the same toughness, wounds, and save as every other dreadnought and you can give it -1 to be hit. The problem with fexes is they pay 10 points more than marines plus another 10 for BS3.
I don't know Marines all that well, so I pulled up battlescribe and looked at all of the dreadnoughts. Most of them are more durable than Carnifexes in some way (T8, or 10 wounds, or whatever) but not nearly to the extent that I had thought. The -1 to hit basically makes up for the differences.
I may just be used to only seeing the very specific really good ones that my local group run. Today I learned that Space Marine dreadnoughts suck more than I thought they did.
