|
Post by No One on Aug 17, 2017 3:48:17 GMT
I know I am not the best to give advice since I suck at 40K, but to try and be positive, looking for hidden gems takes a long time. Remember it was what 2 or so years when Lictor Shame was discovered. So who knows what can be found still. Very much a misnomer to say that lictor shame took 2 years to be discovered. It was only good and relevant because of the missions. Which changed a lot in early 7th. As progressive scoring picked up, someone took advantage of that very successfully. But then other people adapted. Our army isnt that much better than the last one. We had a few good choices last round that really suffered from tech creep. With the last 2 releases we're already begining to suffer the same situation. Eh, I think the codex overall is in a much better position (definitely so much better internally, but also relative to the meta). Most of our choices last ed were either a bit sub par, or very sub par, even when our codex was released - add on power creep, and even flyrants had difficulty hanging. Now, most are ~parity (take a bit), with a few well below. But, we don't have a dakkaflyrant option anymore, so we don't have any well above parity to bring us up - while overall things are more solid, and there's more potential variety, our greatest potential relative to the meta is probably about the same.
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on Aug 17, 2017 3:52:09 GMT
I'm just wanting a solid codex that doesn't rely on gimmicks that take advantage of opponents not knowing every little rule and super overpowered/undercosted units that are only good due to a codex error or a rules interpretation that makes them way more powerful than they should be. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to make an army that's good because it has well rounded competent units... well it shouldn't be but I've been playing almost 9 years now and am still waiting to see it. Maybe this edition will be the edition that restores my faith in humanity.
A lot of times I field an army that feels dirty but I know I'll just lose if I bring a "standard" army list for the faction. I've tried to just play for fun, but even then getting half your models removed turn 1 isn't fun, no matter how much cocaine I inject straight into my eyeballs.
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Aug 17, 2017 5:00:53 GMT
No One first quote is for Davor, not myself. Fairs fair about your comment of internal balance.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Aug 17, 2017 6:20:21 GMT
I think this thread is quite misguided.
There is nothing for the dust to settle on. We don't have a codex. We have a bandaid to make us playable after an edition change, like the first wave of Age of Sigmar battletomes that had all the rules like "+1 to your rolls if your beard is greater than your opponents".
The meta is also in a HUGE amount of flux, as new codex are being released/leaked every few weeks.
Tournaments are yet to settle on 'standard' missions and limitations, such as the detachment limits suggested in the Matched Play rules.
Once the game starts to stagnate again and the superior armies and their lists become prevalent for the missions being played, THEN and only then can we see what types of armies we need to run and whether they are possible with our future codex.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Aug 17, 2017 6:57:56 GMT
^this.
|
|
|
Post by Kharnx on Aug 17, 2017 10:06:54 GMT
A lot of times I field an army that feels dirty but I know I'll just lose if I bring a "standard" army list for the faction. I've tried to just play for fun, but even then getting half your models removed turn 1 isn't fun, no matter how much cocaine I inject straight into my eyeballs. I'm not sure how people have ever played Tyranids "for fun". The army has always been about combo-ing certain units and abilities together to smash peoples faces in. You either make it to the enemy line and have a feast or get shot too much on the way in, lose too many synergy bugs, and get swept in combat. Tyranids are my main/tournament army, I just use Chaos Marines for pick up and play games. I dont have to worry about having too little synapse, too few major targets, too few synergy spells, etc. that basically make the army unable to function as intended. As for the topic, I agree heavily that Tyranids are just ok, and that there isnt a ton of flavour. I think this is due to many reasons which have been discussed, such as confused MC roles, too many turds, no unique army trait, and so on. However, I think my main problem lies in there being too few auras/synergy abilities. They are, in my opinion, what made Tyranids so unique, difficult and rewarding to play. This index only has the alpha version of a monster adding +1 to hit on the smaller gribblies (broodlord to stealers, old one eye to carnifex, etc.), Malanthrope -1 to hit...and synapse. Psyker wise we have 5+ fnp & -1 to hit on a single enemy. That's it.
Due to this, our little guys are always bad. Our average monsters cant really be buffed beyond mediocrity. My favourite moment ever playing 40k was in 5th when I killed a brand new Mephiston (at the time) with only 20 hormagaunts before he even swung (I believe he had a spell that made him I10). It was a combination of Hive Tyrant's Old Adversary (reroll all hits for all tyranids with 6"), Paroxysm (WS & BS of 1 on an enemy), and a Tyranid Prime Lash Whip (to make Mephiston I1). 20 Horms with 60 attacks, attacking first, hitting on 3s instead of 5s, rerolling all hits and 4+ poison. 5th also had FNP and rerolls aura on Tervigons for Termagaunts, Venomthropes, Hive Commander, etc.
It created a bond between big bugs and little bugs. Little bugs were worthless on their own, but could be complete monsters with the right support. You also had more flexibility where the auras buffed all units, not just something like genestealers or carnifex. This index is lacking, and even armies like Space Marines get massive auras on their heroes now...
|
|
|
Post by meavar on Aug 17, 2017 11:32:53 GMT
I think you are looking at it wrong. The tyranids are not in such a bad spot. It is just that the marines (both chaos and imperial) are the main focus now and slowly get all the at some point focus of an alien race. Half the arguments I hear here are very similar to the forums of other xenos.
Want to be fast, here chaos gets strike first/twice and advance and charge. Bigger threat range and better damage then (dark) Eldar now. Want to shoot no matter what, sure here your whole ultramarine army can move out of combat and shoot and let's give you some extra skmmers to boot. craftworld/harlequin / tau jumb shenenigans Want to have heroes buffing the rest, sure all your heroes now give big bonusses to the others. Tyranid hyve boosting small guys/ eldar psykers Want to be harder to shoot, sure here have a -1 to hit when the enemy is 12" away. Tyranid spore effects/ flyers Want to be indestructible, here get a 5 or 6 save after everything and some bonus t/wounds for most things for nurgle. Necron survivability is still a little better though, but way better then dark eldar monsters. Want some bigger guys, sure we will give you some characters that are bigger and better. Tyranid / dark eldar monsters want to have no problems with leadership anymore, sure we will give you a bonus point so small squads can ignore it, it is not enough, sure here take some character that can also let you ignore it. Tyranids/ orks The reason why we feel sucky is because the marines have one basic army with all the neccesary units to emulate any xenos race depending on what specialisation they pick. but they do not loose acces to most other units while we do.
|
|
|
Post by Overread on Aug 17, 2017 11:34:27 GMT
Armies should always have a degree of synergy within them; its a sensible way to build an army up by having options and choice; rather than having almost any combo work.
The dividing line that Killer is reffering to is when those combos are not just part of the army building; but broken in game balance and yet essential to win in the competitive scene. Ergo such as when you "had" to take flying hive tyrants with twin-linked devourers in most serious tyranid lists. When an army is boiled down to one or two trick combos that work super well most are going to want to take them to win. Which means that you're either winning with a broken list or losing with a nonbroken list.
The ideal is having units of a strength such as there's variety of choice, whilst not having any one or two lists/combos/tricks that are super powered.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Aug 17, 2017 11:46:59 GMT
There is nothing for the dust to settle on. We don't have a codex. We have a bandaid to make us playable after an edition change, like the first wave of Age of Sigmar battletomes that had all the rules like "+1 to your rolls if your beard is greater than your opponents". I actually wrote the post and said I'm hoping for changes from the codex. I play Lizardmen/Seraphon and they haven't changed much at all in the past 2 years. They are typically a lower tier army but they have a TON of synergies that I still have fun playing around with 2 years in. I don't think you actually read what I wrote. And none of that changes any of the points I was trying to make in the OP. Like I said, I don't think you actually read it. I'm calling (please do not swear) on that. No amount of the meta solidifying will make CC oriented MCs that need 4s to hit with a punch (and gets worse from there) meta busters no matter what the type of mission. I guess if they come out that only MCs that are CC oriented and need 4s to land a jab can score objectives, then in that case they would be great. Point is this, I've played a ton of games and a few tournaments in the last 2 months. I played 'nids exclusively for the first month and about half the time with my other armies. Even at a basic index level the other armies have more imagination, more synergy, and more potential to unlock. I haven't seen anything in the first few codexes to suggest that the new codexes do anything other than place a layer overtop the basic index. You get strategems, relics, allegiance abilities, obsec troops and a few point adjustments, but nothing that drastically changes the baseline profiles. I hope we are good, but I've played more than enough games to declare that our index is bland and unimaginative. For (please do not swear) sake, the HQ of choice for nearly everyone is the malanthrope which isn't even in our index.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Aug 17, 2017 11:54:47 GMT
The reason why we feel sucky is because the marines have one basic army with all the neccesary units to emulate any xenos race depending on what specialisation they pick. but they do not loose acces to most other units while we do. I don't think we suck. In fact, I think we have an army that can wreck face. My argument was, and is, that our index is bland and unimaginative with few viable synergies.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Aug 17, 2017 12:37:53 GMT
There is nothing for the dust to settle on. We don't have a codex. We have a bandaid to make us playable after an edition change, like the first wave of Age of Sigmar battletomes that had all the rules like "+1 to your rolls if your beard is greater than your opponents". I actually wrote the post and said I'm hoping for changes from the codex. I play Lizardmen/Seraphon and they haven't changed much at all in the past 2 years. They are typically a lower tier army but they have a TON of synergies that I still have fun playing around with 2 years in. I don't think you actually read what I wrote. And none of that changes any of the points I was trying to make in the OP. Like I said, I don't think you actually read it. I'm calling (please do not swear) on that. No amount of the meta solidifying will make CC oriented MCs that need 4s to hit with a punch (and gets worse from there) meta busters no matter what the type of mission. I guess if they come out that only MCs that are CC oriented and need 4s to land a jab can score objectives, then in that case they would be great. Point is this, I've played a ton of games and a few tournaments in the last 2 months. I played 'nids exclusively for the first month and about half the time with my other armies. Even at a basic index level the other armies have more imagination, more synergy, and more potential to unlock. I haven't seen anything in the first few codexes to suggest that the new codexes do anything other than place a layer overtop the basic index. You get strategems, relics, allegiance abilities, obsec troops and a few point adjustments, but nothing that drastically changes the baseline profiles. I hope we are good, but I've played more than enough games to declare that our index is bland and unimaginative. For (please do not swear) sake, the HQ of choice for nearly everyone is the malanthrope which isn't even in our index. I read the OP, but like I said, the thread is misguided. You are making criticisms of an index as if it was a codex, as are most. NONE of the index have anything imaginative or particularly unexpected in terms of synergies or special rules. They have blanket +1s and re-rolls, with a few unique unit rules that are basically copy/pasted or reworks of previous editions. Can you name anything new that's come from any index we didn't have last edition??
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Aug 17, 2017 13:31:43 GMT
All of our guns aren't assault anymore.
Gained access to allowing charge.
Swarmy useful.
Tyrannocyte hilariously strong vs large Gribbly packs.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Aug 17, 2017 13:40:35 GMT
The basic rules changes for movement, shooting and charging are responsible for all of those.
The tyrannocyte was certainly improved, but removing the restrictions on targeting was hardly imaginative or new. It was simply to make it usable as originally intended I expect.
|
|
|
Post by peacemaker on Aug 17, 2017 13:51:35 GMT
So what you all are saying is that Tyranids is just perceived to be good but it is a low tier army. And codex creep will just make it worse.
....so I should sell my models niw and then rebuy when people figure this out, get frustrated and sell their new mini's on the cheap? ....sweet.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Aug 17, 2017 13:58:02 GMT
Can you name anything new that's come from any index we didn't have last edition?? I'll just use Eldar as an example: - All their skimmers have fly and can take a 5 point upgrade to shoot heavy guns without the -1. - Each Phoenix Lord offers fantastic buffs for the specific aspect temple they are from. (ie Jain Zair prevents overwatch on Howling Banshees, Fuegan gives a reroll of 1 to wound whilst Baharath gives a reroll 1s to hit which buffs their respective aspect in the best way possible) - The Avatar buffs all units around him very well and he has 8 wounds, - Autarch give a 6" buff to all troops. - Asurman gives an invul to all aspects and 4++ to dire avengers. - Illic makes rangers better. - Eldar's 2 psychic trees have powers that you can use to customize your army to run the way you want it to. - Eldar's CC units work quite nicely as CC units and their shooting units are best at shooting. Is that enough or do you need more? I can do the same for my Dark Eldar, Harlequins and Imperial Guard lists. Some of the combos have worked and some haven't. Again, if you had followed what I was saying, it wasn't that we are bad or that we can't stand up, it's that we are boring and very surface. To say wait for the codex and all will change is believing in unicorns and rainbows, it would be nice if it were true, but your assertion hasn't really been supported with the first few codexes and certainly not from AOS. So what you all are saying is that Tyranids is just perceived to be good but it is a low tier army. And codex creep will just make it worse. Direct quote, second paragraph, first 2 sentence. "Don't misinterpret, I'm not saying we are bad. We can actually be quite good."But you read it how you want.
|
|