|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Sept 8, 2013 14:51:47 GMT
I won a 1750 game against DA/GK with 2 harpies and 2 mawlocs the other day.
With those point decreases I could have added 5 hiveguard or 6 biovores (or equivalent) and tabled him even earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by jocke01 on Sept 8, 2013 17:44:56 GMT
I won a 1750 game against DA/GK with 2 harpies and 2 mawlocs the other day. With those point decreases I could have added 5 hiveguard or 6 biovores (or equivalent) and tabled him even earlier. Just because you can win against 1 opponent with those units dosen't mean they aren't inferior to other units in the game and do cost too much for their performance. |
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Sept 8, 2013 19:27:13 GMT
I won a 1750 game against DA/GK with 2 harpies and 2 mawlocs the other day. With those point decreases I could have added 5 hiveguard or 6 biovores (or equivalent) and tabled him even earlier. Anectodal evidence FTW!  The fact that the Tervigon outclasses most of our other MCs currently really doesn't say much. Our MCs suck. Period. The only one that makes the grade beside the Tervi recently is the Hive Tyrant and that's only because of the new rules for Flying MCs in 6th. The Tervigon doesn't need a nerf. It's our other MCs that need buffs. The Trygon needs to become more durable, the Tyrannofex cheaper and more reliable, and the Carnifex needs a clearly defined role. If the rumours that our MCs are hitting T7 standard are true that will help (they won't die in droves to Plasma at least) but even that still doesn't fix the problem entirely. As long as cheap missiles are wounding on 2s and 3s our MCs are a point sink. We need some kind of buffer. A 2+ save, Feel No Pain, something. That or a dramatic drop in points cost. Otherwise Havoks and Long Fangs are still going to be dropping 160-180pt Carnifexes in a single volley. Truest post this weekend. But forget about that rumour with details and stats for HQ/HS, I bet a cup of coffee that it was fabricated. |
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Sept 8, 2013 19:34:22 GMT
What I'm saying is dropping them by that much is FAR too much.
Slashing their cost by a third is just too drastic if they still perform as they currently do.
They might be slightly overcosted but not by 60-70 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Sept 8, 2013 19:40:21 GMT
I think it's mainly the flying monsters that's hard to balance - if they become spammable it gets too good *cough*Nightscythes*cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by leeroy1986 on Sept 8, 2013 19:40:25 GMT
Tbf Jabber you're a pretty damned good player, if you used them against someone your gaming skill I would say fair enough =)
The one rumour I hope does not happen is our units blowing up when we lose any TMC's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Stingray on Sept 8, 2013 19:58:04 GMT
Eight days into this month and rumors about next month's release are pouring in. Hopefully it'll be the same thing one month from now, only Tyranids instead of Dark Elves.
I doubt we're getting our statline pumped all that much. Toughness 7 Monstrous Creatures seems to good to be true, although it really is one of those weird statlines that rarely ever reach the area of 8-10. Toughness 6 really isen't much, at least not against the kind of weaponry your opponent'd be using against it, but I don't think it'll change. That's cool, though, as its not so much the statline, but the price of our Monsters that's a turn-off. If they really are going to introduce another Big Bug in the next codex, aside from the assumed Harpy/Eriyne-thing, then they really need to make it clear what each bug is expected to do. Another competitor in the Heavy slot is going to be difficult for Trygons and Carnifeces, so I am hoping for something new and unique. I love the Trygon, but introducing for the sole purpose of selling new kits and hence invalidating the Carnifex (or degrading it to be a shooting platoform, phoey!) was kind of frustrating. I'd hate to see them pull the same stunt all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by brassangel on Sept 9, 2013 2:13:35 GMT
I don't think all of our monsters need something better against missiles, or super high strength weapons. That would make our monsters too good, or they'd become priced too high that their durability isn't worth it. There's no reason Tyranid monsters should be that much better than a Wraithknight, or a Dreadknight. We should just have access to more of them, and a wider variety of options.
Super duper weapons should be able to wound them on 2's. That's right: SHOULD. That's why those weapons exist, and the ones people are using (re: NOT missile launchers right now - people just don't play them anymore), are also ultra-expensive, or on a unit that's ultra-expensive. Besides, 6 wounds is pretty darn tough. It's a lot more difficult to render an MC useless than it is a vehicle. One shaken result and that vehicle is a road block for a turn.
As I've stated many times before, the Carnifex just needs a more defined role. Not the ability to play every role. He should be a battering ram (siege-breaker type unit), really. If they keep him as-is, he'll either be too expensive for what he offers, or he'll render too many other choices useless.
The Tyrannofex needs either more firepower, ranged weapons that work more in conjunction with one another (e.g. don't pair a flamer with a 48" sort-of cannon), and/or a BS of 4. If it gets those things, his points cost won't need to change much. Maybe base 225 instead of base 250. Considering he's got a 2+ save and 6 wounds...
The Trygon is ALMOST really good. He still murders whatever he gets into combat with (except anything with the "Wraith" prefix), but he's a tad too easy to shoot down before he gets into combat. The no running + assaulting did a huge number on this guy. That said, we don't want him to be too reliable, or he becomes and auto-include that everyone complains about going up against. I don't want broken; I want good.
The Hive Tyrant needs to be less of a do-it-all, and more of a commander unit. Less options for shooting; more instead for army-wide benefits, close combat, and psychic prowess.
The Harpy needs to suck less. T6, perhaps a better save. Again, we don't want them too cheap or too good. Just viable.
The Mawloc needs to either be cheaper, or capable of actually doing something when he does his best Tremors impersonation. Right now, he creates a circle of enemies around him while doing very little (if any) damage, and then dies to small arms fire. Ever played him against Eldar? They can fire over 50 S6 shots a turn.
Tweaks, or army wide rules unique to Tyranids may help their cause. I don't consider them a points sink just because there are weapons that can deal with them. I don't want to see GW just stack a bunch of USR's on them as a patch. Tyranids are supposed to be the squishiest of the races, making up for that with numbers and brutality when they get close.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Special Character Venomthrope, as well as the Tyranid Prime clamshell rumors were openly declared false by the person who started them. It's all over the internet now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 9, 2013 5:09:01 GMT
having more of them would mean they're cheaper, and wraithknights are what, S10/T8. so, yeah. cheaper and higher toughness/better saves, or they sit on the shelves. all of this is kind of silly anyway, we can write about what our army needs and what we want all day. in the end, GW will do what they think will sell models and do what they want with their rules and fluff, and what we think the army needs means nothing. it's why i try to stay out of these topics. i'm a bad person though and keep commenting. it's a guilty pleasure.
carry on, nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Sept 9, 2013 8:38:16 GMT
Anyone noticed the theme with special rules only working on 4+, rumoured from different sources? This has me worried because it reads like the designers don't know how to balance Tyranids, and we end up with gimmicky, situational powers on units that cost an arm and a leg, like the new Erinye and cc Carnifex. Based on GWs track record with Tyranids it's hard to be optimistic - Trygon tunnel, Terror from the Deep, Pheilomone Trail, the list goes on. I'd take reliable over spectacular every day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuckles on Sept 9, 2013 10:31:12 GMT
Anyone noticed the theme with special rules only working on 4+, rumoured from different sources? This has me worried because it reads like the designers don't know how to balance Tyranids, and we end up with gimmicky, situational powers on units that cost an arm and a leg, like the new Erinye and cc Carnifex. Based on GWs track record with Tyranids it's hard to be optimistic - Trygon tunnel, Terror from the Deep, Pheilomone Trail, the list goes on. I'd take reliable over spectacular every day of the week. Over the lifetime of the entirety of 40K GW's track record with Tyranids is actually pretty good, probably better than Eldar or Orks in the long run. Our latest codex is pretty shabby, but until that point the trend was usually towards being slightly too good. Considering it was only when 5th Edition arrived that we started to really suffer that's over 50% success rate, which is pretty good going really. |
|
|
|
Post by Geneva on Sept 9, 2013 12:52:18 GMT
I don't think all of our monsters need something better against missiles, or super high strength weapons. That would make our monsters too good, or they'd become priced too high that their durability isn't worth it. There's no reason Tyranid monsters should be that much better than a Wraithknight, or a Dreadknight. We should just have access to more of them, and a wider variety of options. Super duper weapons should be able to wound them on 2's. That's right: SHOULD. That's why those weapons exist, and the ones people are using (re: NOT missile launchers right now - people just don't play them anymore), are also ultra-expensive, or on a unit that's ultra-expensive. Besides, 6 wounds is pretty darn tough. It's a lot more difficult to render an MC useless than it is a vehicle. One shaken result and that vehicle is a road block for a turn. I have to humbly disagree. Monstrous Creatures just go down too easily at the moment. This is from an opponent's perspective as well as a players. I play IG and Space Wolves and I have no problems blowing any if not all non-flying MCs off the board, usually by Turn 2 with both. I wouldn't argue that heavy weapons should be ineffective. Just not overly so. At T7, Sv2+ big MCs will still be torn to shreds by Lascannons/Bright Lances/Meltaguns/etc. It just puts them out of 'super effective' range of cheap heavies like Missile Launchers and other equivalents. It also gives upper strength tier heavy weapons a more pronounced role while not undermining the purpose of mid-tier weapons. (Also, I have no idea what your meta is like but Space Wolves and Tau are both rocking missiles where I play.) This is my exact opinion on all three examples. Albeit put more clearly. As long as it gets Nids where they need to be, when they need to be, with enough numbers to do their job that would make me a very happy gestalt alien consciousness. Unfortunately army wide rules can be hit or miss. Imperial Guard's Orders system is fantastic and a credit to the codex. Sisters of Battles current Faith system or the Warpflame rule in the Daemon's codex however seem more inclined to turn you away than anything. Nothing is less satisfying than feeling like you're paying points for a virtually ineffective rule. EDIT: Giga's right. This is a rumours thread, not a thread for discussing mechanics. I'll stop ranting about what the codex 'needs' now before I derail things even further. |
|
|
|
Post by brassangel on Sept 9, 2013 17:00:06 GMT
Geneva: My meta looks like every tournament scene: virtually no Space Wolves, IG only in the hands of the most capable players, and a few Tau. S7 is the sauce right now. In tournaments (which is the only relevant gauge as far as balance is concerned - some local kid's tweaked-to-beat-you list doesn't count), Chaos Space Marines, Necrons, and Eldar are everywhere. All of them are massing S7, with a few S10 options. Nothing should really be immune, or reliably resistant to S10 anyway, so the key is how we fare against S7. We get a few boosts to T7, and it makes a big difference. Wounding 50% of the time instead of 66.67% of the time matters. I field Venomthropes anyway, so my monsters usually have a cover save, or I actually keep Catalyst on Tervigons to grant FNP to my bugs. Why people trade them in on a Tervigon in the hopes of striking the Iron Arm lottery is beyond me. I will concede that some armies do shoot them down efficiently, but if that's not possible, the MC's immediately become too strong. Making them significantly cheaper means they will likely make them softer as well. It's almost as if people are asking for our MC's to literally be immune to all but S10 weapons, and to also get IWND/FNP standard. That's absurd. Tyranids are made of flesh and bone - while it has more tensile strength than the equivalent weight of steel and concrete, they don't have the skeletal-muscular density to compete with, say, a giant robot or a tank. Even still, we get far more W6 monsters than anyone else. having more of them would mean they're cheaper, and wraithknights are what, S10/T8. so, yeah. cheaper and higher toughness/better saves, or they sit on the shelves. all of this is kind of silly anyway, we can write about what our army needs and what we want all day. in the end, GW will do what they think will sell models and do what they want with their rules and fluff, and what we think the army needs means nothing. it's why i try to stay out of these topics. i'm a bad person though and keep commenting. it's a guilty pleasure. carry on, nothing to see here. S10/T8 on a Wraithknight is fair, because there's nothing else in the game that is simultaneously that big and that swift. It also functions within a different army than ours do, so direct points comparisons are illogical. Even so, he's not cheap; he's not Tyrannofex expensive, but he's not cheap. He does what he's supposed to do as a giant Eldar monster. We just need ours to do what they are supposed to do as Tyranid monsters: squishy, but brutal if/when they get there. 6th edition codices all play pretty well with each other, however, so selling models alone clearly hasn't been the only goal. Also, if the rules were bad, and the game wasn't playable under this rules set, the models wouldn't sell. Seeing as how GW's sales (in volume) have trended consistently upwards since the advent of 6th, I can't buy into this idea that they are just money-grubbing worms hoping to screw their customers over. People declare their satisfaction with their wallets. Thus far, no edition of 40k has sold better. No edition has had this many books written and released so close together. No other edition of the game has had it's respective codices so close together in power level. As a result, I'm not too worried about how our book will fare. We are simply discussing a mix of rumors and wish-listing. Someone earlier pointed out the gimmicks and the need to roll a lot of 4's to make them happen. I can't see that making it's way into the codex. Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition has all but died because of how unreliable and random it's become. It's a game where movement is the most important strategy, but charges are completely random. It's a game with a need to center around magic users, but the magic phase can be completely unreliable. 40k 6th has random elements, but pretty reliable methods of delivery (again, I'm focusing on the books made since 6th edition, and including Grey Knights and Necrons). Even rolling on a psychic table isn't crippling to an army's overall strategy, as most of the powers are useful in a subtle way; not game-breaking. GW may be in the business of making models, but this rules set has been the best to date (and I've played since Rogue Trader). It's certainly the most fun. I think they have a good grasp on what needs to happen for Tyranids; the rumors of randomness are just people speculating. BACK ON TOPIC: I'm pretty sure those absurd stat-lines for the Hive Tyrant/Swarmlord are false as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by vecuu on Sept 9, 2013 18:35:56 GMT
With regards to the Toughness posts, I just want to add one thing which I find incredibly important:
Tyranid Monstrous Creatures shouldn't be naturally out of the damaging scope of typical small arms fire.
We have access to a lot of MCs. To completely invalidate s3/s4 weapons doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I like the intensity that comes up in a game where 20 Bolter Shots get poured into my Trygon and I don't know if he'll survive the salvo. It's exciting for me, as well as my opponent. I don't think upping our base toughness to t7/8/9 will correct the survivability of our MCs in the right way.
Tyranids shouldn't strive to be invincible. They should just take a metric (please do not swear) ton of shots. I think bumping up the overall wound count would be a better decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bot on Sept 9, 2013 19:29:17 GMT
I like the intensity that comes up in a game where 20 Bolter Shots get poured into my Trygon and I don't know if he'll survive the salvo. I hope you mean a really badly wounded trygon. I mean 20 bolter shots would deal what? 1 wound to a trygon? Bah... I get your point though and I totally agree. Anyone noticed the theme with special rules only working on 4+, rumoured from different sources? Not at all. :/ Could you post a link? ...It really sounds like something that would better fit orks. |
|
