Renaming Tyranids?

[Hunger]

Jul 7, 2012 13:54:10 GMT Davor said:

The thing you have to rememeber each edition, is TOO [sic] MAKE the SPACE MARINES easier to play.

Oh please - not this again.

Taking a handful of changes between each edition out of context and saying that they benefit SM does not mean that the game is all about SM.

Almost all changes to the main ruleset affect everyone in the same way - like changing from a percentage based system to the FOC. By your logic, SM were 'buffed' because now they could take THREE devestator squads!

And then they brought out the Land Raider - how unfair to every other faction!

And THEN they made Trygons more expensive! Tyranid players being able to afford fewer trygons = buff to SM! Further proof that GW hates us and loves Marine fanboys.

See what I mean?

You could do this for every faction - Gaunts couldn't take Devourers in previous editions. Chimeras got dropped to 55pts in the current IG codex. In the last Tyranid codex Carnifexes could be taken as Elites if they were under 115pts! Now we can take them in broods of 3 and drop them right on top of the enemy!

Similarly, Necrons were the laughing stock of the tournament scene until their last book got released. Buffs to old weapons, new options etc mean they are now capable of holding their own against any power list. Dark Eldar likewise.

Stuff just changes, and SM getting having some things changed for the better is no different than any other faction having the same.

Jul 7, 2012 13:54:10 GMT Davor said:

We got first edition. There were movement stats. It's been so long, and never played it, but read the book, each Army was unique in every way.

2nd editon, not sure, don't have the book or played it.

How can you make a meaningful comment on them then? What do you mean by "each army was unique in every way?" This is just spouting nonsense in an attempt to back up a baseless argument. Did you know Blood Angels and Dark Angels shared a codex ('Angels of Death') in 2E? Did you know that 2E Eldar had lasguns as standard armament?

Reading the books gives no clues as to how all the factions interacted with each other, and you could not possibly understand what the game was like before tournament play became big without being part of what we would now term 'the meta'.

For a start, there is no 'First Edition'. Rogue Trader was the first incarnation of 40K, and incorporated a significant element of RPG material in it, as well as tabletop miniatures rules and campaign play and loads of other things new players would not associate with 40K. Comparing rules from 6E to rules from RT is like comparing apples and sea urchins.

I can tell you that I played RT and 2E 40K, and 2E was a very different game to RT. 3E was also quite a different game to 2E as well. In fact, in 2E Marines were extremely good versus Tyranids and IG because of massive imbalances between the codices.

These days the same IG models I had back in 2E regularly take apart very highly rated SM lists without much trouble. Does that sound like SM have got better and better throughout each edition? The same goes for my Tyranids - 'top tier', 'second tier' whatever rubbish people ascribe to them, my Tyranids kick ass all over the galaxy.

Overall the game has become MORE balanced as the editions have rolled on.

Jul 7, 2012 13:54:10 GMT Davor said:

3rd edition, SM got 2" of free movement. Now everyone moves the SAME distance.

4th edition. Can't remember what buff the SM got. 4th seem so much the same as 3rd I don't really see much a difference here.

5th editon, SM got the 4th editon of Fleet for FREE in a rule called a "run". I believe in their 5th edition codex they became cheaper. Maybe they got the same "cost points" but they got free grenades an dpistols too (I could be wrong on the pistols part). When other non SM codexes (yes it's official that is how GW spells it now, so debate is done LOL ) they got cheaper units, or BUT HAD TO GET STAT REDUCTIONS.

Funny how SM can get buffs and not have to pay for them, but non SM codexes do have to PAY for them.

I could list a bunch of things that did not benefit Marines between these editions. How about buffs to Poison? Poisoned weapons used to be (please do not swear), now they give a great boost to CC - but SM armies don't make as much use of poison as Tyranids and Dark Eldar.

What about Tyranid Deathspitters becoming S5 Blast in the previous codex? How about the changes to how Reserves are handled since 3E?

Is any of this proof that GW 'loves' Marines more than the other factions? No, its just the evolution of the game. When the mechanics of the rules change at the most fundamental level, everything gets shaken up. There are thousands of SM players moaning that this got nerfed or that army got better.

Jul 7, 2012 13:54:10 GMT Davor said:

6th edition. SM get overwatch. Yes once again, it's one of those "everyone gets them" but it's mainly for SM players.

How is it mainly for SM players? It is for EVERYONE. We can all use Overwatch. There is no logic in this statement at all.

Jul 7, 2012 13:54:10 GMT Davor said:

Just like me, I have to accept this humidity

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.



Sorry to pick a fight with you Davor, but this mindset of moan moan moan about how SM get this and SM get that and how hard done by Xenos players are just infuriates me, and is completely ridiculous.

Seriously, just get over it.

[Davor]

, I am over it. Just saying.

[ziyousansz]

If it's any consolation, Space, 'nids still have lackluster armor and average-at-best shooting abilities in most cases. Rejoice!

Having not played in anything prior to 5th, I can't really comment on what we were comparatively. All I can point to are the things we have that still fall in line with what you've mentioned.

We're pretty fast. Most of our units can Deep Strike or Outflank, frequently on the second round. While our guys can't assault same-turn anymore, we're in the same boat as everybody else, except that we can flood a backfield with targets. The units that can't jump in further can fly, or they can reroll runs and charges. General tab currently has a thread floating around that's doing averages on charge distance rerolls for 'nids. Based on those numbers, our footsloggers are still reliably faster than what most other armies can bring. Granted, not everything has Fleet, but the majority of things you want in CC do.

Our CC is by no means atrocious, either. The buffs to poison are a boon that few other armies capitalize on like 'nids do. In addition, we still have a straight-up "ignores armor" weapon that we can stick on a number of things. Most of the AP2 or better weapons I've seen reduce Initiative, so our 'nids have a combat speed advantage over other armor-slaying units.

I'll admit that one or two MCs could do with better weapon options (I'm looking at you, Mawloc), their stat lines are still pretty intimidating. Few other armies bring beasts that can out-muscle a Trygon, much less a Carnifex. Consider that we can bring S6/T6/W6 monsters in 3/5 of our FOC if we wanted to.

Now, do these require some upgrades? Yes, but I ask you, who doesn't? I'm not aware of any army that can go completely bare-bones and dominate a field. The game, as long as I've been in it at least, requires all of us to deck out our respective armies in certain equipment to improve their abilities. "Just Stats" doesn't seem to cut it in this environment. So, we've got options to help us improve at what we do. Better CC potency, better deployment flexibility, regeneration, etc. What we're not getting are things to improve our weaknesses - namely, armor and shooting capability. Only changes to the core rules are affect those.

So, I guess my TL;DR point is, it's not so bad from my relatively newish perspective. We still do those things better than most. It's the game that's changing more than anything.