|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Jul 8, 2012 8:23:46 GMT
As I mentioned in another thread, we've gone through a lot of changes. The most important one I'd have to point out is we're no longer an assault army.
Now what do I mean by this?
See when someone says an army is "an assault" army or a "Shooty" army or a "Mech" army and so on, what they mean is the backbone-gimmick of that army is their reliability on that form of game play.
Even after all the crazy psychic powers and special guns in 40k, you can rely on a Space Marines Power armor to to be a 3+ save. That power armor never goes away, it's always part of the basic characteristics of the army, and anything that can defeat it is considered lucky or a specialty weapon.
No matter what, you can rely on having a (please do not swear) load of wounds on your board if you Play Orks or IG. No matter how good an opponent's fire is, if they don't have enough guns to shoot, they're going to get overwhelmed by all those models of yours. You don't roll and suddenly your ork models cost twice as much just for the heck of it, they're always going to the options to get them cheap.
Thing is neither we, nor really any army, can rely on assault anymore.
We are still able to assault, and when we do it's a nasty business, but we can't depend on it; trust that nine out of ten times it'll be available to use in some form or another.
Long assault range is no longer a given to us. Prior, it was something that might occasionally be taken away by some power or circumstances, but something we ourselves could maneuver to take advantage of and rely on.
Now, we'll never have that basic strength to fall back on, because Assault ranges will always be random, always a gamble.
You don't have to worry that sometimes your space marine army will have a 5+ save. Sure some guns ignore the 3+ armor save, but the whole point of ap3 weapons is how rare and special they are. With toughness 4, you know that nearly every standard unit in this game is going to have to get lucky to wound the Marines. You make them gamble.
Sure statistically speaking our charges should go through, but the same could be said about eldar psychic powers. Yet eldar depend of having fast vehicles, great LD, and good armor penetration. Psychic powers augment that, build off of that, but they're not the underlying structure of the army.
In 5th we often dealt with cover, but again it was something that we could opt out of, chose to ignore and take alternative calculated risks. Heck, with the advent of Gaunt shields a lotta 'nid players only used cover for larger units like Trygons. Even then they rarely put them IN cover, just hid them behind it.
So I'm trying to ponder what are we now, what's are new meta?
Are we like IG; more shooty with large numbers, but can also be a batch of deadly super units with tons of fire power?
Are we more Orks with massive expandability, lacking centralized strength in trade for combined strength in numbers?
Do we more resemble Eldar, using seemingly disperate specialist units like fast MCs, Gaunt shields, and Tarpit Rippers to box in the enemy?
What do you think our new back bone is?
We'll always have good combat stats, but getting to use them is no longer quite the given it was back in 5th, and especially 4th and 3rd.
What is, no matter the enemy or the game mode, our inherent strength, the thing that we have access to no matter the dice rolls?
|
|
|
|
Post by andy089 on Jul 8, 2012 8:36:17 GMT
Well that's the thing about nids - we aren't a one-trick-pony.
You can play nids like you play IG - lots of wounds with some heavy hitters ("biotanks").
Or like Space marines with our basic troops being warriors and stuff.
Or like eldar, using psychic powers and fast (flying) creatures.
The thing is though - for this versatility, we pay the price. We can't really do ONE thing well.
Our heavy hitters aren't that heavy from further away.
Our Warriors aren't anywhere as cost-efficient as Space marines.
Our psychic powers aren't as potent and our fast units not as fast.
I'd say what we really excel at is a mix of IG, Orks and Eldar -
We use large amounts of small critters to shield our big guys who are pretty good in CC and support them with psychic powers...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elof Valantor on Jul 8, 2012 9:28:26 GMT
If Tyranids were real and they found that on World X for whatever reason they couldn't reliability get into hand to hand with the defending forces, what would they do?
They wouldn't bemoan how things have changed. They'd breed more 'nids with guns. Form new strategies to try and neutralise some of the random element to their charges. In a word: adapt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Jul 8, 2012 10:02:05 GMT
If Tyranids were real and they found that on World X for whatever reason they couldn't reliability get into hand to hand with the defending forces, what would they do? They wouldn't bemoan how things have changed. They'd breed more 'nids with guns. Form new strategies to try and neutralise some of the random element to their charges. In a word: adapt. Um... if you actually had read my post you'd see that thats what I was trying to do... |
|
|
|
Post by eeknight on Jul 8, 2012 12:51:14 GMT
Excellent post.
What we still are is fast. We have speedy units thanks to move through cover, fleet, and a lot of deep strike options to put units in the enemy's backfield or midfield, and they'll show up faster and more reliably thanks to reserve. I'm with John Madden: speed kills.
Modern warfare is about mobility and firepower -- being able to come and go quickly and put a lot of "sh_t on target" as they say. The mobility we have, probably only Dark Eldar are better, and we're less fragile. The firepower not so much, but we have some big guns and psychic powers, Hive Guard in the midrange, and a lot of good Str 4 and 5 assault weapons -- and the awesome dakka of the devourer with brainleech worms.
Still, I think we can control the tempo of most games. We can overwhelm one part of the battlefield and tarpit the other, destroying the enemy in detail. The extra terrain will help with this in shielding us and slowing them down. Our enemies had better keep their heavy hitters well-protected by infantry, because now even deepstriking lictors and gargoyles have a very good chance of destroying up to medium armor between rear shooting and assault.
To sum up, I think we're back to being a swarm, just a more integrated one, with the swarm elements protecting the MCs and Independent Characters (I'm thinking the Parasite might be very cool now with a bodyguard of gargoyles). We've all learned just what a demon our little 5pt termagant can be if he's got a tervigon backing his unit up. Synergy was key to 5th and it's even more the case now -- tervigons going in behind trygons and PE hive tyrants in a blob with big shooters. I think when assembling a list we have to choose based on what the unit can do and how it can help other units do their jobs better, looking at the ranges of our various weapons and arranging the forces on the battlefield so they overlap.
My play style is still going to be surviving Turn One in order to give the enemy a banquet of bad choices in Turn Two. We're still an assault army, we just have to hurt them a little bit more before we go in with the teeth and talons.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by nalathani on Jul 8, 2012 13:48:38 GMT
We're going to end up a Hybrid army very much like Eldar in my guess. Since we can move and shoot no matter what, and there's no more running and assaulting, we need to be approaching and shooting at all times. I had my first 6e game yesterday. Going on that wee bit of experience I've come up with a few things:
1) We need to use mycetic spores. No question. Devilgants and Dakkafexes dropped in spores will get our firepower where it needs to go, when it needs to be there.
2) Put guns on everything that can have it. Since you can't run and assault, there is less of a downside to shooting before assaulting. I had some outflanking warriors with deathspitters/venom cannon and a Prime that were a resiliant shooting force that no one wanted to assault (bone swords and lashwhips included). We just keep marching forward and shooting, while our opponents keep firing back. The upside is our shooting units are still better than most other "general purpose" units in CC.
3) Trygons/Mawlocs tunneling, Fexes in spores, and Flying tyrants and harpies will put our monstrous creatures in the thick of things immediately. No running across the board getting shot at forever. I did end up crashing while swooping, taking two wounds, but then swooped again the next round while my two mawlocs came up and a fex crashed down. On turn 2 (2+ reserve rolls are badass!!!) I had 4 monstrous creatures in assault range, 3 of them with full wounds and one of them swooping with two wounds. We need to take advantage of this. In a 2000 point army there's no reason we can't have 4 or 5 monstrous creatures in their backfield on turn 2. Swooping harpies and tyrands can move 48 inches or more by the end of turn 2.
Mind you, I was playing Tau, and he was trying an infantry heavy list since firewarriors can now move and shoot. My list was the worst possible matchup for him. I'd need to go up against some marine players who are more resilient in CC before I can make any swift judgements, but at least against a full shooty army our ability to deepstrike and shoot just about everything, and fly like mad with whatever's on the board, are going to be our main strengths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Jul 8, 2012 16:03:03 GMT
If Tyranids were real and they found that on World X for whatever reason they couldn't reliability get into hand to hand with the defending forces, what would they do? They wouldn't bemoan how things have changed. They'd breed more 'nids with guns. Form new strategies to try and neutralise some of the random element to their charges. In a word: adapt. Um... if you actually had read my post you'd see that thats what I was trying to do... I can understnad where he is coming from, it "could" have been considered another whine post. After reading it twice, I noticed it wasn't but reading all the whining going on in other forums, it was easy to missunderstand that this was another one. I know I keep telling people to adapt as well.  What we are, Tyranids I mean, are the Jack of all trades, master of none. Fluff wise, we would be able to tailor our lists. The problem is, game wise, we usually make an "all comers" list so it's hard to play fluff wise. Well you can either go GW way, forcing us to buy new minis to play the way GW made, by Nerfing Stealers and Hormies, because we already have alot of them. Or we have to find a new was of using Stealers and Hormies. I for ont, think if using Outflanking, you have to acept now to CC on the turn we arrive, and EXPECT to take some losses at being shot up at. So now you have to plan for that. OR Run them on the board from Turn 1, and try to hide them in cover so they can't be spotted, or use another tactic. OR Not use them at all wich it seems GW has intended so we buy more stuff. I say we might have to make our broods bigger to soak up the wounds. Yes it will be harder hide, but it's a start at least. We play a few games, see what happens and then change our tactics, like how the fluff does. Millions of Tyranids get slaughtered in Fluff, but come out stronger later with new tactics. That is what we have to do in our first 10 or so games with 6th edition. Try things, and rework our strategy. Also instead of just having one brood of Stealers, why not 2 broods of stealers? Only one of them can be shot at. So instead of say 1 brood of 16 stealers, have 2 broods of 8 stealers. It's still the same thing, bunch them up together as one brood, but since it's 2 broods, only one of them gets shot. OR Both of them gets shot, but then not all the fire power is on the first brood. Will it work? Who knows. Try it and see. Maybe the new Tyranid tactic is instead of having on type of brood coming up apon a unit, have 3 or 4 types. Stealers in one brood, Hormies in another brood, a Brood of Carnifex all bunched up together charging the enemy instead of them all being spread apart. Is it good? Maybe not, BUT it's the first time I seen anyone try and come up with new tactics. We need to try them out and see what happens. The as a Hive Mind we discuss what went right, what went wrong and see if we can find something that we didn't notice before. |
|
|
|
Post by insanious on Jul 8, 2012 17:31:16 GMT
I expect tyranids to use psychers as our response to different armies. In on FoC you can get 17 psychers. That's A LOT of powers every turn and our psychers are strong in shooting and cc as well. I mean dakkaflyrants, tervigons, broodlords no one wants to fight these in CC and with psychic powers no one wants to keep them at range. Take advantage of that.
Vs hords we spam psychic scream and assail
Vs flyers spam OM and assail (OM causes glances, assail auto hits even flyers)
Vs low model count armies spam biomancy
Get HT, tervigons, zoans, broodlords and spam powers all over the board.
I mean you have 5 or 6 stealers + a blord going to attack some MeQ start off hitting them all with assail its a free s6 autohit that halves their I and when they pile in they take dangerous terrain tests.
Orc hordes getting hit with 11 instances of psychic scream and 6 instances of assail and see how many models we kill in a shooting phase.
All our units get a 5+ def vs psychic powers + SitW.
We will live and die by our psychers is my prediction.
However we need to play more and I could be completely wrong.... We don't know what other armies will run yet.
If its all horde, then biovore and harpy spam will reign supreme.
If its transports still then go go flyrants and dakkafexes.
Who knows what the meta will bring?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Jul 9, 2012 0:22:39 GMT
Tyranids no longer an assault Army? Baah! Watch me. I'll be eating my opponents face in bloody melee with my Tyranid army, til the day this planet will get devoured by flying green pigs.
Sure the assault phase has been nerfed, but MC's vs Vehicles are now doing better. We are now able to Tarpit our opponents in waves of Termagants. We no longer have to fear the fact that we are fearless (Arggh!!! Paradox! It burns!!). Psychic powers like enfeeble makes us even greater in combat, and with the vehicle nerf, the meta might change to a game packed with more infantry than Vehicles. We even get rewarded with victory points for being in our opponents deployment zone. This could lure people closer to us in a attempt of scoring some points on that front.
The Assault has truly been nerfed... But I believe we are still fully able of dominating the assault phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by Space is pretty big on Jul 9, 2012 7:07:27 GMT
Ah, but there's the rub! Getting into assault is whats been nerfed in 6th, not the actual combat.
You take away overwatch and random assaults, neither of which are part of the actual combat, and Nids would be the highest tier army due to the removal of fearless kills.
It's just getting there is something that we can't depend on as easily anymore, or easily at all really. >.>
Interesting, something I hadn't much thought of, but a great point.
Still, the consensus seems to be that we're an army of specialist units, sorta like if the old assassins codex was able to be run without needing other armies.
It makes sense, means we don't have a driving tactic, but still doesn't mean we're done for in the least.
So really, synergy is our new back bone then. It's an interesting concept, but only works if the combined strength of each unit is greater than the sum of those two units alone.
Rippers + any sorta frontal assault unit
Gaunts + any sorta frontal assault unit
Venomthropes + Fexes and Tervs
Multiple Broodlords.
Hive Tyrant with really anything and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnogaunt on Jul 9, 2012 18:35:43 GMT
If Tyranids were real and they found that on World X for whatever reason they couldn't reliability get into hand to hand with the defending forces, what would they do? They wouldn't bemoan how things have changed. They'd breed more 'nids with guns. Form new strategies to try and neutralise some of the random element to their charges. In a word: adapt. Note that with the following, I'm not trying to pick on you in particular; I see this type of post a lot and in the majority of them I think it's a cop-out. Read this rant with moderate sarcasm. At best, the "adapt" post goes something like this: Someone asks a question: How can I make a new strategy to cope with [X new change]? Someone gives an answer: Make a new strategy and cope with it. At worst, the "adapt" post goes something like this: Q: How do I improve my army's performance in close combat? A: Take some martial arts classes and learn how to fight. 40k hasn't been a role-playing game in some time. "Thinking like a Tyranid" out-of-game is not going to change how my Tyranids work in-game. It's not going to magically give me more options for building a list. It's not going to improve the profiles of my units. From the gamer's perspective, if this "adaptability" characteristic is not written into the Tyranid rules, it's not something we have. Don't get me wrong, I like the 40k background and I like Tyranids, but telling Tyranid players to "adapt" leaves me with the same frustration I feel when people use fluff in rules debates. |
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Jul 9, 2012 19:20:26 GMT
Actually "Adapt and Overcome" is great advice. Not because of any role-playing bull, but because it encapsulates the attitude that is required to brainstorm new strategies.
Basically the notion is to stop being a pessimist or an optimist, and to start looking at the conditions which define whether a strategy is good or bad. Once you understand the conditions in an objective, essentially knowing the lay of the land with regard to the potential moves and counter-moves, then you can start applying those strategies.
Which is to say that Tyranids are what they have always been: Tyranids. It's the context in which they exist as a playable army that has changed, and it's up to players to take that change as an opportunity to be enjoyed, rather than a crisis of identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xantige on Jul 9, 2012 22:29:57 GMT
Adaptation isn't really that unique to Tyranids. What army, real or imaginary, sticks to doing the same thing over and over whether it works or not? Granted, fluffwise we're supposed to extremely mutable and always shifting and changing. We're supposed to adapt on a faster, biological level by changing our very soldiers, not just their weapons, but we're not the only army that adapts when things change and shift.
I'm the last person that should be saying anything about what Tyranids were and what we've become. However, I remember reading an article on how to start a Tyranid army, and I think some of what was in that article should be repeated. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
There are two very broad and very basic ways to play Tyranids (and possibly any army): Aggressive, and Reactive. Basically, an aggressive list seeks to dictate the game and force it's enemy to always be on the defensive, and always reacting. Reactive armies are the opposite, seeking the counter the enemy army and shut them down. The poster also said, than an aggressive army must gamble and take chances, and that you can't play such an army with any guarantee of getting certain results.
So.... with that said... maybe the all-assault style is still a viable army, but now it's just more of a gamble. Is getting into an assault less of a guarantee? Yes. But from what I've read, and what I've heard, once we're in combat, we're better than we were in 5th, if only because we don't take fearless wounds.
Would an all-assault army be a viable tornament list? I wouldn't know. Is a shooty army easier? Probably. Only play testing will tell.
I'd like to think that we're still a very "sandbox" like army, in that we're able to make a variety of viable builds, whether that's a gun line or a nid rush. Granted, I don't think we do any one thing "better" than the more focused armies, but maybe what makes nids nids is that we can be whatever we want. Or maybe we're now the new psychic-spam army. I haven't gotten that far into the rules and I don't know any other armies like I know nids.
Again, I just want to add that I'm speaking from utter inexperience here, and I'm partially conveying what others have said. let me know if I'm utterly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Jul 10, 2012 0:45:09 GMT
Would an all-assault army be a viable tornament list? I wouldn't know. Is a shooty army easier? Probably. Only play testing will tell. So far, it is pretty much like 5th edition. An All-assault Army ain't good, nor is an All-shooty list. A list needs some of both to really be able to do anything. I mean, for an example, we still aren't much without Ranged-Anti-vehicle units like Hive guards and/or Zoanthropes. |
|
