Subterranean Assault?

[Nightmare20]

So why not give our units special rules or biomorphs to overcome these inherent handicaps? Or perhaps points efficiency to make our units expendable enough that we still come out on top when we play to our strengths (using cover, assaulting)? I just really wish that our bioengineered killing machines spent more time killing and less dying considering how few guys we actually get.

[nurglitch]

The codex actually does give access to assault grenades, and other units without them are good for locking the enemy overwatch and intiative penalty down. Carnifex broods, Harpies, and Lictors all have Assault Grenades. Rippers aren't slowed down by difficult terrain, and plenty of units I personally enjoy the fact that Tyranids don't have Assault Grenades as it requires more forethought in setting up charges.

The cover rules make sense, whether or not we agree with them or like them. I would personally prefer Snap Shots to be resolved by re-rolling successful rolls, but I won't deny that a flat BS1 doesn't make sense. I just think that a re-roll would maintain the relative skills of the shooters, and fit the curvy (i.e. not flat) mold of Warhammer 40,000. Digression aside, we have options to remove the cover penalty, which is basically just an incentive to exercise these options: Pinning weapons, or simply encouraging a player to have a unit go to ground, so that they don't benefit from the penalty on the attackers. Units that are falling back don't inflict this penalty either, or units already locked in combat.

So use Pinning weapons (and Terrify if you're facing an opponent with Fearless units), leadership modifiers (Aura of Despair - handy because a unit that fails its regrouping test is annihilated after you make the charge move), and expendable units like Rippers and Termagants to hold up enemy units until the heavy hitters arrive.

[chuckles]

Pinning is not remotely reliable or consistent enough to be used as a substitute for Assault grenades, and the approach you're advocating requires using lots of different aspects of the list to accomplish one goal. I don't have any problem with the idea that Tyranids need to co-ordinate different units together in order to win- heck that's one of the things I like about the army. But when you're using 3 or 4 units just so that another unit can get a charge and not be smacked down in the melee because they don't have assault grenades, that's just too many things to potentially go wrong for me to stomach.

[nurglitch]

Pinning is plenty reliable when you consider what happens when you inflict multiple pinning tests. Likewise, Tyranids have lots of pinning weapons, like Spore Mine Launchers, Stranglethorns, Stranglewebs, and Barbed Stranglers. Co-ordinating units is pretty straightforward, but I'm curious about why you think 3-4 units are necessary to get 1 unit into combat. It should only be one unit, engaging multiple enemy units.

Although something that I've noticed is that people have an aversion to taking large units when we can take units of 9 Ripper Swarms for less than 100pts, and units of 30 Hormagaunts/Termagants/Gargoyles for 150-180pts to multi-charge and lock as many units as possible.

At the beginning of 5th edition I was kind of put out to see that Tyranids couldn't have multiple small units without exposure to Tervigon Death Syndrome and No Retreat, but eventually I found that fielding the big units really paid off in terms of them being able to engage multiple units at once.

[chuckles]

That only works if said pinning tests are inflicted by multiple units, which is where I got the 3-4 units from. To be sure of a pinning test working, against Ld 9 (which is pretty standard for 40K), you will need 3 pinning hits to reliably expect a failed test. If you want to jiggle the odds with Aura of Despair (and I've no idea how you could do this, since it's used in the Assault phase and doesn't last until the Tyranid shooting phase) then that still adds an extra unit into the mix, and like I said it won't work anyway.

The fact of the matter is that expecting a pinning test to make your enemy susceptible to a charge through cover is not nearly as reliable as assault grenades, since assault grenades will ALWAYS work for this purpose while pinning tests won't (especially on Fearless units, again not exactly unheard of in Warhammer 40,000). Claiming that losing assault grenades gives us, as an army that is supposed to be capable of winning through assault, any kind of advantage is simply incorrect. Imagine if the Tau had a special rule that said they can only shoot enemy units if said unit has a markerlight counter on it. You could argue that it makes you think more about the shooting phase, that it isn't really an obstacle anyway since several different units in the Tau army can take markerlights, anything you please. But the fact of the matter is that it is a weakness- having a precondition on shooting makes the Tau less good at shooting, since they have a prerequisite to meet that nobody else does. This is roughly the same scenario Tyranids face in 40K with regards to charging through cover and assault grenades. Only daemons have a similar issue, but the units in the Daemons book which can take assault grenades are actually more likely to get use out of them than a Carnifex (Initiative 3 on the charge? Well that's all my problems solved!), a Lictor (5+ armour save= dead lictor, assuming they don't get gunned down the turn they appear anyway), or a Harpy (S10 instagibbed or shot out of the sky before it can get near a juicy target unit).

Units of 30 Hormagaunts aren't particularly scary. They can and will be shot down to a much more manageable number by a competent opponent, before then getting taken apart in close combat due to striking last and being very fragile. As it happens I wouldn't really mind if Hormagaunts couldn't take assault grenades but when you're defending the idea that genestealers, a unit which in both fluff and crunch is intended for highly powerful charges through broken ground, should not be able to attack before power fists when charging through terrain, then you're in a strange place. I'd almost call it Stockholm Syndrome if I'm honest.

If Tyranids got some sort of benefit in exchange for losing assault grenades, if we were an otherwise devastatingly powerful assault army shackled by this one mechanic in the name of balance, then you might have a point. But compare a unit of genestealers, a brood of Carnifex, or a brood of hormagaunts to equal points in Grey Hunters or CSM tooled for combat (MoK, swap bolters for BP+CCW, icon of rage or vengeance for flavour), and it becomes clear that this function of the army list simply makes us not very good at close combat.

[yoritomo]

Pardon my short response, I don't have a lot of time.

When you talk about pinning being not effective, is that a problem with the codex or is it because GW hands out fearless like candy?

Look, I wish Cruddace did some things different, like give us a more reliable way to deal with assaults through cover, but I still think the codex isn't too bad.

[chuckles]

I'm not saying the Codex is utterly awful, but I think we can all agree that the areas in which it is strong are not identical to the areas where it ought to be. How many Tyranid army lists do you see at tournaments designed to see any combat whatsoever? I'm not saying we shouldn't have any shooting or anything, but Tyranids shouldn't be IG with fleshier guns.

[GuardDog78]

Honestly...i think it's the flat I1 for assaulting through cover that's flawed...
An I7 Broodlord going after an I2 Necron is ridiculous...
Assaulting through cover should have been a modifier to initiative...say a -3 or-4...and units utilizing assault grenades would negate said penalty. That way units like Banshees, Genestealers and Harlequins which are supposed to be agile and fast aren't equated to a Necron warrior doing the same thing.

[Nightmare20]

Fearless is a problem for sure but the problem comes more from high leadership stats. 2d6 will come up 6-8 more often than any other number which means the vast majority of the time we are talking about failed pinning unless you stack multiple pinning checks which you really shouldn't have to to get supposed combat specialists like genestealers not to simply get slaughtered. Considering genestealers cost 14 points base and have the same number of attacks as MEQ at the same S with no guns and worse armor, they should have something to swing things in their favour especially since fluffwise they are supposed to be ambush masters. Otherwise we are looking at a point reduction so mass numbers are feasible. 10 point genestealers or flesh hook upgrades are really needed. And the codex isn't rubbish but if the BRB is not kind to us, it is the codex that is supposed to mitigate that and i find it lacking.

[nurglitch]

Why shouldn't you have to force multiple pinning tests? A Sweeping Advance of I6 vs I2-4 is pretty brutal? Units that fail to regroup when charged are wiped out. Units that have been forced to fall back automatically fail morale tests. In general there's a rule of thumb in Warhammer 40,000 by which the more payoff there is in some event occurring, all else being equal, the less likely it is to occur. But the nature of the game means several things: The earlier in the game something happens, the more 'impactful' it will be, the less likely something is to happen the less players will notice the impact, and units usually address each other on a 1:1 basis.

Part of the game is gaming your opponent, and part of the game is optimizing your army to game your opponent. Most people seem to forget the former in their rush to create a The List.

[chuckles]

And yet Tyranids have a considerably greater investment, and get the same payoff as every other race. Tyranids pay extra points for having, on average, higher Initiative than the "standard" of I3, but this investment is either wasted, or must be protected with further investment in the form of pinning weapons (I should point out that Tyranid pinning weapons are rather rare and specialised as well). In exchange for which? We are not particularly devastating in close combat. If genestealers, for example, were total combat powerhouses then you might have something here, but as it is our close combat elites are no more elite than anyone else's. I'm not complaining about that fact as I think it's reasonable, but we are paying a cost nobody else is for the same return. Why does that not strike you as poor rules design?

I agree that the greater problem comes from the overall rules set of the game, but surely a competent rules designer should bear this in mind when writing the rules? This isn't a problem that has emerged as a result of 6th edition rules, the last edition had the same problem. If the rules were different then yes Tyranids would be better, and this codex would have been fine in 4th edition (more or less) when the penalties for charging into cover without assault grenades worked differently. But we're not in another edition, the rules are what they are, and they are poorly designed.

If we're looking at the quality of the book as a whole then it's pretty hard to defend things like Lictors, Pyrovores, and the fact that the codex has a pretty massive range of tiers for the various units within it in general. I don't think Cruddace wrote the worst rules ever, and he's certainly no Gav Thorpe, who has no redeeming qualities as a rules designer or writer whatsoever. His Empire book is very well done, and I believe the IG codex to be one of GW's best ever releases, although Vendettas are undercosted. But in the case of the Tyranids book he goofed. Not criminally, and it's nowhere near as bad as what he did to TK, but nevertheless, he goofed. I don't see anything wrong in saying that.

[nurglitch]

A competent rules designer completes his deliverables to spec, nothing less. A good rules designer errs on the side of caution where balance is concerned.

Me, I like that Tyranids need to make up for a material deficiency with tactics. The fact that the player can develop their , and play with parts of the rules that are too frequently ignored strikes me as good game design. I think that, like Fearless in 3rd edition, and Eternal Warrior in 4th edition, the widespread distribution of rules that reduces the number of live tactical options available to players is the poor rules design that GW has done a good job of rectifying. In other words, a rule that lets you ignore other rules, like assault grenades do, is bad rather than the opportunity to problem-solve, to play.

I mean, it would be nice if, instead of a flat I1 penalty for units assaulting across difficult ground, there was a curve related to some index of the Initiative characterstic, but unlike Snap Shots there's no roll that can be re-rolled, and the Initiative characteristic itself orders combat. Giving a flat Initiative 1 penalty works well enough, given the distribution of rules like Assault Grenades, and the weights of various close combat Initiative-addressing rules. And, like I said, gives us the opportunity to play, and in particular to explore the depth of play available in the basic rules rather than ignoring them.

An excellent game designer is one that gives players the most depth of play in a game.

The fact that you see nothing wrong with publicly stating that Robin Cruddace "has no redeeming qualities as a rules designer or writer whatsoever" gives us a good indication of the time and thought you've put into this matter. I mean, I thought the same, and nearly ebayed my army when the 5th edition codex came out. But eventually I learned better, and I'll offer my honest opinion that if you want to get the most out of this Warhammer game you would be wise to buy an Imperial Guard army to complement your Tyranid army, as these armies best exploit the depth of the core rules in 5th and 6th.

I'll certainly acknowledge that my opinion is an extraordinary minority, but consider: I like playing this game. I enjoy appreciating the work I can perceive behind the rules I use to play this game. It really works for me. It's a shame it doesn't work for you, and it's a shame that you waste your time with something for which you have so little regard. It would be awesome if we could spend our time on these boards appreciating the game we play, and our favourite army, and use the opportunity to problem solve with the product we have rather than grouse about the product we have doesn't meet some impossible standard of being all things to everyone and a slice of cheesecake.

But hey, if rubbishing other people's work is your bag, and bringing negativity to the hobby works for you, then all the power to you. It takes all kinds.

[chuckles]

The fact that you failed to read my post properly and therefore realize that when I said "has no redeeming qualities as a rules designer or writer whatsoever", I was talking about Gav Thorpe and not Robin Cruddace doesn't speak well of your ability to have a discussion on this subject, as opposed to a lecture.

Well good for you. I'd prefer it if playing a particular Tyranid build did not have an additional entry cost that playing similar builds in other armies lack, for no return. I'm not a WAAC player and I don't play more than 2 or 3 tournaments a year if that, but I like well written army books, and had I not already invested a substantial portion of my time and money into Tyranids I would probably have gone to IG when their book came out, but painting one horde army is enough thank you very much. As it is I have shelved my Tyranids for the time being as they simply aren't fun for me to play any more. Instead I've moved on to Chaos Space Marines, as their new book strikes me as being much better and gives me a lot more viable options for list building than the Tyranid book does.

Again, I really don't see why I should be made to feel embarassed of disliking the codex and expressing that dislike. I don't see the value in pretending that things are other than they are, and as I don't agree with your assessment of our book I don't feel the need to act the part of somebody who doesn't have a number of conceptual problems with the current Tyranids codex. You can make all the disparaging comments you want about my choosing to do that but it's not likely to make me do it any less.

[nurglitch]

You're certainly right, I mistook you being rude about Robin Cruddace when you were actually being rude about Gavin Thorpe. Mea culpa.

I beg you to consider, however, shelving your need to discuss Tyranids along with your models, so that you're not adding any more negativity to the discussion than already exists. Alternately, trying enjoying your hobby for a change.

[chuckles]

Just because I'm British doesn't mean I feel the need to be pointlessly polite to people, and certainly not about people who aren't even participating in this discussion. I'm not saying either Gav Thorpe or Robin Cruddace are horrible people, but I think there's a sufficient body of evidence that Gav wasn't cut out for a career as a rules designer or a writer.

You can beg all you like, but I was under the distinct impression that this was a discussion forum about Tyranids? Apparently I was wrong about that?

As for the adding negativity comment- do I take it then that you'd prefer it if everybody just agreed with you? It certainly makes life easier when that happens so I can understand the desire. That being said, I might just as well ask you to stop being so obliviously positive and blind to the faults of the Tyranid Codex. Why should I leave this discussion? If you're allowed your opinion, surely I'm allowed mine? It's not like we're doing any harm to anything or anyone by talking about this.

I enjoy the hobby just fine thanks, that would be why I still play it. Just because I'm disappointed with the rules for my main 40K army doesn't mean I can't enjoy the game, I just focus on something else until things change. It's a tactic that stood me in good stead when Gav took Chaos Space Marines to pieces, it's working fine so far, and I'm sure it will work fine in the future.