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.

Kitane wrote:
Not disagreeing with the rest of the stuff said, Tyranid rules are in general obnoxious, pointlessly conditional, uninspiring, pre nerfed to n-th degree, and failing at implementing anything resembling the actual Nid lore.

But those "missing" attacks on Tyranids with triple pairs of scything talons are all hidden in their base attack characteristics. Raveners have more attacks than dual scything talon warriors, Trygons have 7 attacks with talons and Mawlocs what, 8? I haven't actually physically attacked anything with a Mawloc in ages.

Yeah this is true, I was being hyperbolic there. But I will say in general, Nids are the only army I know of where you frequently have fewer attacks than arms/weapons.

Kitane wrote:
Not disagreeing with the rest of the stuff said, Tyranid rules are in general obnoxious, pointlessly conditional, uninspiring, pre nerfed to n-th degree, and failing at implementing anything resembling the actual Nid lore.

But those "missing" attacks on Tyranids with triple pairs of scything talons are all hidden in their base attack characteristics. Raveners have more attacks than dual scything talon warriors, Trygons have 7 attacks with talons and Mawlocs what, 8? I haven't actually physically attacked anything with a Mawloc in ages.

Its not that impressive when a basic Primaris has 3 attacks. Assault intercessors have 4. Outriders have 5 on the charge ect ect.
The nids stats still live in a world where a marine had 1 attack.

Nids have awesome lore and models and are nice and easy to paint on top of that. I wish they had more fun rules. I think their thing should be absolute buckets of low to medium quality attacks and shots, and their mid sized creatures and monsters should have tons of wounds at the expense of armour saves and toughness. Make them seem overwhelming to face.

the_scotsman wrote:

Hive Tyrant: S6 Ap-3 D3 and variations // if winged can fly, can move much faster than any of the others. 4++, Psychic Powers, synapse, lots of options for wargear.
Carnifex: S6 AP-3 D3 // not nearly as tough as the others since it has only 8 wounds. Can use Sx2 weapons, has many unique wargear options (eg cysts), is basically a walking bag of tools
Tervigon: S7 Ap-3 Dd6 // unreliable AF in melee, doesnt do gak at range. pretty slow, is only there to command termagants
Haruspex: S7 AP-1 Dd6 or S14 Ap-3 Dd6 // incredibly short ranged, has regeneration abilities and a ton of attacks in melee
Maleceptor: S7 AP-3 Dd6 // weird psyker thing
Toxicrene: S7 Ap-2 Dd3 RR wounds // no idea, mortal wounds? actually don't see much of a point to this one, but i've seen enough hentai to know this has a purpose ;-)
Trygon: S7 Ap-3 D3 // drop pod that also charges into melee.

Yes, there are major variations in damage output primarily driven by WS and Attacks and seemingly only extremely loosely correlated to the point cost of the model or the value of its abiliites....but it doesn't really change that GW put out seven melee-only creatures and the best they could do to differentiate them were such mind-blowingly incredible abilities as:

-Deep strike
-Poops out a 50-point min size infantry unit
-Heals 1 of its 13 wounds if it kills something in melee, an ability so exciting GW gave it to all daemon engines for free by default
-Is a basic 2-power psyker for 170pts
-Does a bunch of gak that does 1MW on a 6 to models within 1" of it.

"Sword guy" i was referring to was the Justicar, whose "fight last" ability is more impactful than any of the unique special abilities on any of the 160-180 point gigantic nid creatures with their various super exciting usually "mortal wound on a 6" based abilities.

OK, so the Justicar is about as creative as the Toxicrene, since that also has an ability that affects the melee activation order, but the Toxicrene has additional abilities.

Going by your logic Marines are just T4 bodies with minor stat line changes (+1 W here, +1 T there, +1Sv over there) and they even have the audacity to have the same BS/WS across basically all non-HQs. Sure, some have some weird abilities like "is a basic 2 power psyker" or "can revive another T4 body on a 3+". Super boring, needs way more diverse units and abilities!

Note how I never talked about these units being GOOD or BAD in the meta. I just said there's more to a Tyranid monster than it's Strength characteristic.

Do you really think that a stratagem that allows a Mawloc to do 3 MW on a 4+ makes them decent all of a sudden?

I didn't say anything about their viability, just that there's a ton of stuff in that book and if you're calculating without the Strat, you're underselling Mawlocs. But to answer that: Being able to come up next to multiple units, a 4+ 3MW per enemy unit in range is decent for the price in my opinion. It's certainly nothing game-breaking, but it's not useless either.

I've played about 20 games of 9th so far, including as and versus Tyranids, Guard, Marines and Sisters (and quite a few others on the "vs" part). Noone forces you to bring just the melee monsters, if you want shooting you can bring Exocrines or Hive Guard. Why are you planning to use Tervigons to create new squads instead of replenishing existing blobs of Termagaunts?
I really can't tell you much about Maleceptors and Toxicrenes since I don't own them, and I've only ever played against a Maleceptor once in 9th (got torn apart by a LR Achilles of mine, IIRC).

Being able to upgrade 2 of your units due to PABoB is also pretty useful.

Oh man, don't defend Nids MC rules, please.

I just said they're not all the same, and - since who I was responding to was calculating without the strat - pointed to BoB for new rules. Reading isn't that hard either, c'mon. What you're listing has nothing to do with what I posted. The Mawloc isn't like a Tervigon. I still wonder why anyone would think it's basically the same.

Just to stop you from another rant: I'd love to see the Mawloc become much beefier, and yes - it's much less scarier in melee than what it looks like as a model, there's a disconnect there.
But you can't have it charge from its current DS capabilities, not with an improved profile. once you give it better stats and the special deep strike ability to a regular 9 inch DS you've got yourself a Hive Tyrant, though. So yeah, THEN, at THAT point, you could argue it's just like a hive tyrant.

 Snake Tortoise wrote:
Nids have awesome lore and models and are nice and easy to paint on top of that. I wish they had more fun rules. I think their thing should be absolute buckets of low to medium quality attacks and shots, and their mid sized creatures and monsters should have tons of wounds at the expense of armour saves and toughness. Make them seem overwhelming to face.

Would be nice, especially considering just how little damage all those big grooblies do compared to similarly priced big things from other armies.

A defiler, not particularly a useful model by anyone's accounting, rocks 5x S16 Ap-3 Dd6 and 3x S12 Ap-2 D3 attacks on the charge, AND gets a twin heavy bolter, AND gets a free battlecannon, for about the same price as one of those big A4 nid lunks with degrading weapon skill.

the_scotsman wrote:

Hive Tyrant: S6 Ap-3 D3 and variations // if winged can fly, can move much faster than any of the others. 4++, Psychic Powers, synapse, lots of options for wargear.
Carnifex: S6 AP-3 D3 // not nearly as tough as the others since it has only 8 wounds. Can use Sx2 weapons, has many unique wargear options (eg cysts), is basically a walking bag of tools
Tervigon: S7 Ap-3 Dd6 // unreliable AF in melee, doesnt do gak at range. pretty slow, is only there to command termagants
Haruspex: S7 AP-1 Dd6 or S14 Ap-3 Dd6 // incredibly short ranged, has regeneration abilities and a ton of attacks in melee
Maleceptor: S7 AP-3 Dd6 // weird psyker thing
Toxicrene: S7 Ap-2 Dd3 RR wounds // no idea, mortal wounds? actually don't see much of a point to this one, but i've seen enough hentai to know this has a purpose ;-)
Trygon: S7 Ap-3 D3 // drop pod that also charges into melee.

Yes, there are major variations in damage output primarily driven by WS and Attacks and seemingly only extremely loosely correlated to the point cost of the model or the value of its abiliites....but it doesn't really change that GW put out seven melee-only creatures and the best they could do to differentiate them were such mind-blowingly incredible abilities as:

-Deep strike
-Poops out a 50-point min size infantry unit
-Heals 1 of its 13 wounds if it kills something in melee, an ability so exciting GW gave it to all daemon engines for free by default
-Is a basic 2-power psyker for 170pts
-Does a bunch of gak that does 1MW on a 6 to models within 1" of it.

"Sword guy" i was referring to was the Justicar, whose "fight last" ability is more impactful than any of the unique special abilities on any of the 160-180 point gigantic nid creatures with their various super exciting usually "mortal wound on a 6" based abilities.

OK, so the Justicar is about as creative as the Toxicrene, since that also has an ability that affects the melee activation order, but the Toxicrene has additional abilities.

Going by your logic Marines are just T4 bodies with minor stat line changes (+1 W here, +1 T there, +1Sv over there) and they even have the audacity to have the same BS/WS across basically all non-HQs. Sure, some have some weird abilities like "is a basic 2 power psyker" or "can revive another T4 body on a 3+". Super boring, needs way more diverse units and abilities!

Note how I never talked about these units being GOOD or BAD in the meta. I just said there's more to a Tyranid monster than it's Strength or Toughness characteristic.

Do you really think that a stratagem that allows a Mawloc to do 3 MW on a 4+ makes them decent all of a sudden?

I didn't say anything about their viability, just that there's a ton of stuff in that book and if you're calculating without the Strat, you're underselling Mawlocs. But to answer that: Being able to come up next to multiple units, a 4+ 3MW per enemy unit in range is decent for the price in my opinion. It's certainly nothing game-breaking, but it's not useless either.

Now I don't know how much 9th you have played but how hard do you think it is to kill a T7 3+ model?

I've played about 20 games of 9th so far, including as and versus Tyranids, Guard, Marines and Sisters (and quite a few others on the "vs" part). They're not hard to kill, which is why I like running 3 Fexes and OOE, for example. Having improved terrain rules and smaller boards, as well as Strategic Reserves, actually helps a lot when comparing this to 8th edition.

Noone forces you to bring just the melee monsters, if you want shooting you can bring Exocrines or Hive Guard. Why are you planning to use Tervigons to create new squads instead of replenishing existing blobs of Termagaunts?
I really can't tell you much about Maleceptors and Toxicrenes since I don't own them, and I've only ever played against a Maleceptor once in 9th (got torn apart by a LR Achilles of mine, IIRC).

Being able to upgrade 2 of your units due to PABoB is also pretty useful.

Oh man, don't defend Nids MC rules, please.

I just said they're not all the same, and - since who I was responding to was calculating without the strat - pointed to BoB for new rules. Reading isn't that hard either, c'mon. What you're listing has nothing to do with what I posted. The Mawloc isn't like a Tervigon. I still wonder why anyone would think it's basically the same.

Just to stop you from another rant: I'd love to see the Mawloc become much beefier, and yes - it's much less scarier in melee than what it looks like as a model, there's a disconnect there.
But you can't have it charge from its current DS capabilities, not with an improved profile. once you give it better stats and the special deep strike ability to a regular 9 inch DS you've got yourself a Hive Tyrant, though. So yeah, THEN, at THAT point, you could argue it's just like a hive tyrant.

Boy, you really got me with that observation that marines basically have a ton of identical units with no meaningful distinction of roles between them.

That, yep. Got 'em. I sure...wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with that.

Certainly wasn't pointing out earlier in the thread that having tacticals, intercessors, assault intercessors, infiltrators, inceptors, and heavy intercessors basically all armed with identical weapons with near identical statlines is meaningless fake diversity.

What marines do have is dozens upon dozens of units to fill nearly every conceivable battlefield role. Tyranids do not. Basically every big nid monster is the same kind of anti elite infantry/anti light tank slow moving beefy thing role, with very little meaningful distinction.

The fact that other factions also have that problem in particular areas, like the marine troops role, does not change that. It's just a paticularly egregious example with Tyranids, where not only are they these wild, crazy, awesome looking gigantic monsters, but they're almost all universally regarded as terrible.

except that marines being more or less the same but armed with differant weapons isn't exactly old news dude. hell there is more differance between a Intercessor and an infiltrator then there is between a tactical marine and a devestator.

I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.

With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.

 Arschbombe wrote:
I think tyranids are still paying the price for nidzilla in 4th.

With the game seemingly all marines all the time, I think maybe it's about time for the game to pivot to two-player Co-OP game as marines vs NPC factions. They could just call it Space Marines. It would be liberating for them. They could stop pretending to care about all the factions that aren't marines.

I mean you say this, but I did create kind of a fun alt game mode for new necromunda that pits a single squad of space marines given abilities making them worth 1/2 of the value of a whole gang, vs a huge, GM controlled, semiautomated Chaos or Genestealer Cult.

It's pretty fun tbh.

BrianDavion wrote:
except that marines being more or less the same but armed with differant weapons isn't exactly old news dude. hell there is more differance between a Intercessor and an infiltrator then there is between a tactical marine and a devestator.

frankly, their was a time i felt that was a feature, not a bug.

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

now, the feeling i'm getting off people these days is that the only thing marines cant do better than everyone else is run a pure numbers horde army. they can out shoot, out chop and out run everything else. I dont know if thats just pure salt form a minority of the fanbase (and it is worth remembering, we English-speaking, forum-going folks are a minority of the total 40K playerbase), or a reflection of a greater feeling, or something else. i cant find a local gaming group that can actaully meet given the current unplesantness, so its hard to get a feel of what the people and players i'd actually meet and play against think about this all.


anyway, more on the topic of this thread:

i can make a coherent argument for the choice to have a large number of different "bolt" weapons. I can't promise its a good one, or one you think applies in this case, but it goes like this:

one of the major reasons to have identically stat-ed but different named weapons in different lists is so you can indevidually adjust the relative power of each in the name of "balance" ie, you can boost one faction's "Holy Power Swords" to increase their effectiveness, while leaving another's "Infernal Power Swords "alone, or visa versa.

you can apply this same logic to the 30+ "bolt" weapons, as now GW can play with the power and cost of each gun on each unit, so that they can, for example, make one troop choice better or cheaper without disrupting the balance of another type of troop (ie up the cost of heavy intercessors using, heavy bolt rifle, without also upping the cost of regular Intercessors using almost identical one that isnt as OP when they have it)

the other big reason is that you can;t trademark "Bolter", but " Executor Heavy Bolter" is much easier to do.

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.

It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.

It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.

Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.

Well, they kinda did.

For example, a Marine squad in 4th utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee on the charge.

(21 attacks, 14 hits, 10 wounds, 5 dead, Ld-5 for morale meaning only snakeyes pass, sweeping advance deletes the 7 remnants)

So you thinking the combat knife did nothing is you just hiding capabilities from yourself.

That's precisely when L2P argument works, because there aren't any hidden levers with them. The rest is down to tactics and using those to leverage maximum oomph out of all the phases they can contribute in.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, they kinda did.

For example, a Marine squad in 4th utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee on the charge.

(21 attacks, 14 hits, 10 wounds, 5 dead, Ld-5 for morale meaning only snakeyes pass, sweeping advance deletes the 7 remnants)

So you thinking the combat knife did nothing is you just hiding capabilities from yourself.

that might have been the case on 4E but in 5E yeah that combat knife didn't do anything.

Basic marine units, while somewhat awkward depending on edition and subfaction, were pretty functional in those older editions. I got great use out of my basic CSM's, especially in early 5E. Needing to win combat by just 1 and being able to wipe an opposing unit was huge, in the current meta having to actually kill everything leaves many CC units far too pillow-fisted. The hidden Powerfist also added a lot more than it currently does.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, they kinda did.

For example, a Marine squad in 4th utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee on the charge.

(21 attacks, 14 hits, 10 wounds, 5 dead, Ld-5 for morale meaning only snakeyes pass, sweeping advance deletes the 7 remnants)

So you thinking the combat knife did nothing is you just hiding capabilities from yourself.

that might have been the case on 4E but in 5E yeah that combat knife didn't do anything.

What changed about that chain of events in 5e?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
For example, a Marine squad in 4th utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee on the charge..

In 4th ed, everyone utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee...

 insaniak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
For example, a Marine squad in 4th utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee on the charge..

In 4th ed, everyone utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee...

Well, except other firewarriors and Guard. And guardians. And storm troopers. And a lot of stuff really.

10 Guardsmen on the charge (21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 3-4 dead)
FW back:
12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds, 2 dead.

FW test LD on 7 or 6 rather than 2, and it is far more even in future turns if the FW stick around after the charge. In fact, damn near identical (ws2 and ws3 are countered by 4+ wave and 5+ save, respectively).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.

It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.

Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.

Hahaha. There is a serious gap in your understanding of L2P then. L2P isn't about gimmiks, its about learning to play.

 insaniak wrote:
In 4th ed, everyone utterly trashed a firewarrior squad in melee...

I've beaten Tau armies with nothing more than a Jump Pack Chaplain.

Ahh... the good old days...

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm massively out of date for recent table top gameplay experience (like 10+ years out of date), but i feel like back in 3rd and 4th, the "hat"/shtick of the codex SM force was "jack of all trades, master of none". They were a forgiving, easy(ish) army to play, one that wasn't the fastest, or the most shooty or the most choppy, but a force that could move, shoot and chop pretty well, and it was built around that flexability, of being able to have a OK-ish counter to almost every other army while still not as good as those armies in their niche. it couldn't out-shoot a gunline army, but it could move fast enough to get into melee and get choppy. it couldn't out-chop a melee army, but it could shoot them to pieces.

This was the intention, but in general 40k has never worked well enough that Jack of all trades worked. You either shot well, or your assaulted well. Being in the middle meant you got left in the dust because you were paying points for an advantage you never truly leveraged because sure you'll outpunch a Tau better then shooting them with your bolter, but your combat knife wasn't exactly going to do much either.

It worked fine, you just had to know how to use your units. I've been getting good value out of Tactical Marines since 3rd edition.

Dude none of the Marine units had any hidden abilities and equipment. The L2P argument doesn't work.

Hahaha. There is a serious gap in your understanding of L2P then. L2P isn't about gimmiks, its about learning to play.

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.

You're in opposition to GW on that one lol

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is the go-to argument with people in casual as all hell metas that refuse to admit there are problems with the game or simply won't acknowledge them, hence why it is to be ignored.

Oh I admit there are problems with the game. But I also think that catchy gimmick rules are no substitution for good play.

You're in opposition to GW on that one lol

Well, they're still not a substitution for good play. But the design focus on strats, etc. is pretty obnoxious.

The bigger problem with Nids MCs is having 7 or 8 attacks that hit on 4+ means you will only get about 3 or 4 hits. and with saves maybe 1 attack actually does damage.

So a Haurspex can kill roughly 1 marine a turn. That beast should eat squads a turn.

Not to mention the boost to marines wounds have made our elite troops a joke. a Tyranid warrior used to be roughly equal to 3 marines. now some marine have as many wounds as a tyranid warrior... wtf , this no longer a war game. its a pay to win collectible minis game.


In the grim dark future, there is only Imperial victory.

^Yeah, Carnifexes etc. being kinda lacklustre in CC is pretty brutal.

I also preferred this relationship to Warriors:

We also know what the next six codexs are for the ninth edition but don't have a clue what is going on with kill team.