|
|
Post by Silegy on Oct 30, 2013 16:42:59 GMT
If I want a codex full of well-rounded units, Ill go play chess. I WANT my dedicated CC units, I want them now and I want them viable (at least a bit). Otherwise Im selling my stuff and going for Necrons. EDIT: Zoeys on flying bases?  |
|
|
|
Post by greyseer on Oct 30, 2013 16:55:02 GMT
EDIT: Zoeys on flying bases? Well, they've been "floaty" for a while. So it could work! Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by arnestig on Oct 30, 2013 19:44:33 GMT
I already keep my zoans on flying bases. Just drill a hole underneath their tail.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeroy1986 on Oct 30, 2013 20:56:30 GMT
Having a think about our units:-
- Swarmlord needs to be more survivable vs ranged. He just dies far too easily and I think he needs a bit more mobility, maybe via psychic powers a guaranteed Gate I think would be good.
- Tyrant also needs to be more survivable and will need a gun to replace the soon to be nerfed devourer.
- Tyrant Guard need to provide better protection. Think id prefer T5 with a 2+ save.
- Warrior Alpha needs to be worthwhile. Maybe AP1 in melee with an invulnerable save & 18" synapse.
- Other unit Alpha's would be nice like Lictors, Raveners, Hive Tyrant etc. Give them an extra toughness, synapse but an increased points cost.
- Hive Guard will get Skyfire which is needed. But they should really have a 3+ save at least.
- Zoaneys need to stay pretty much the same but some anti-psychic defence nullification(So they ignore Deny the Witch or something) would be good for them and immunity to instant death ofc.
- Lictors need to be survivable in melee. I think they need a dodge type save perhaps.
- Venomthropes/Pyrovores need to be useful and bring something better to the army. Venomthropes are too easy to pick off and a standard flamer for the Pyrovore is useless perhaps give it a nid autocannon or something.
- If Ymgarls stayed the same id be happy, no complaints.
- Warriors NEED instant death immunity, other than that i'd say they're fine.
- Genestealers I think need a better armour save maybe a 4+ or increased cover save. They die far too quickly to waves of bolter fire.
- Termagants well cheap and cheerful can't complain. Spinegaunts I think should be cheaper though or the same price.
- Tervigons probably need a nerf but not a big one. I suspect this will be over done so they becom redundant.
- Hormagaunts need to be quicker. Far too slow and fragile for an assault unit.
- Rippers well if they can't hold objectives they will never be used.
- Shrikes/Raveners are nice but to me they got beaten down in combat too easily so need a better save/instant death immunity.
- Skyslashers would be nice if they were worthwhile to use, so again see Rippers.
- Gargoyles aren't too bad, quite like these.
- Harpy needs to be tougher at least T6 with a 3+ save as a minimum and more than 2 attacks in melee.
- Carnifexes need better guns other than devourers and need to be made alot cheaper.
- Biovores are quite nice, would be great if they were a bit tougher than a 6+ save though.
- Trygons are nice but they really need better anti-force weapon protection, perhaps an invulnerable in addition to Shadow in the Warp.
- Mawlocs all they are is a ordnance blast, need to be made useful really. Perhaps a ranged Trygon give them a gun or something.
- Tyrannofex needs BS 4. That's all, would make it useful
I think the odd invulnerable save for Nids would be warranted as would all synapse creatures immune to instant death and Shadow in The Warp I think needs to remain the same but I imagine they will rejig it. Plus a few new units would be good as well: Dominatrix I like the sound of and the other anti-flyer Flyer Erinye.
I am actually hopeful of this new Nids book, but I don't think we will get half of what I think is needed above without cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by gman25639 on Oct 31, 2013 1:48:10 GMT
And our own special fortifications, capillary towers, hive nodes, etc. to make up for our inability to use emplaced weapons. Also lots of different supplements to make up for lack of allies to fill in gaps. I also wanna see taking a Flyrant unlock Gargoyles, Shrikes, and Sky-Slashers as troops choices, to allow for a flying circus.
|
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Oct 31, 2013 10:37:22 GMT
Things like 'inter-unit synergy' (other word for dependability) and 'highly specialized' doesn't sound good at all. In tournaments you need rules that are good against most anything, not units that depends on matchups and other units to be viable. I tend to respectfully disagree (purely personal opinion as a game designer). Having a roster full of well rounded units means that all tactics homogenize into a single blob, and there's little evolution of play. The game gets stagnant because everyone adapts to the same meta, because the meta is filled with units that can do a little of everything. If you have a diverse roster of units with a defined role (and those roles need to have a realistic presence in the game), you'll have a more dynamic play arena. People will bring different lists, and the meta will need to adjust to meet the advantages that such lists bring. It requires more player engagement and, thus, keeps things interesting. If I could put together one competitive list that covered all bases equally well, what motivation do I have to try different lists or tactics? If they all "good against most anything" wouldn't that just get boring after a while? Like most of our current Tyranid codex was said to be all about "synergy", yeah 9 Hive Guard isn't really synergistic. But I rather have 9 genericly effective Hive Guards than inter-dependent rock-paper-scissor units that are laughed off the table. Units need to be very viable on a basic level on top of any 'inter-unit' bonuses. GW has a nasty habit of either making deliberate combos insanely costly, ineffective/unworkable, or having in built flaws that turn them into a liability. |
|
|
|
Post by innocent on Oct 31, 2013 12:39:38 GMT
-Look for a small number of highly specialized new units to shore up 6th edition deficiencies in the army I don't like the sounds of this. I like that our weaknesses will be shored up, but I was hoping they would move away from "highly specialized" units in our new dex. Doesn't that kinda fit our fluff, though? The Hive Mind seems to rely on spawning creatures to fill a specific role instead of creating well-rounded critters. Each beast has a place in the overall process that is this galactic invasion, from the vanguard infiltration units, to the lowly Rippers and Malanthropes that clean up after everything's done. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using proboards Yes but if the 5thed codex is anything to go by it is unplayable. I too would much rather a solid coherent army rather than a bad army with some clumsy crutch units alla Hive Guards (rumored to have been added at the last minute to the 5th codex when they realized 5th ed was a tank-fest). |
|
|
|
Post by innocent on Oct 31, 2013 12:44:04 GMT
One of the few imbalances in 6th edition has nothing to do with the rules or codices at all. It's the fact that people still play with terrain like we are in 4th or 5th edition. Those old plastic trees and small footprint ruins were fine in 4th when a Dreadnought was the tallest model in the game. 1 square of terrain in each quarter of the board was fine in 5th when every army zoomed around in tanks and needed roads. Some of the latest models are 6-8 inches, or taller; there are flyers on tall stands; objectives are more important (thus requiring a larger variety of units), yet people are still playing on the same, low-profile pieces of terrain and using far too little of it. I can't count how many tournament organizers I've seen set tables up this way; let alone the number of internet battle reports that are still just a green board with 1 block of terrain in each quarter of the table. If people used tighter terrain that offered a wider range of heights (see the inside of a GW Battle Bunker, for example, or a White Dwarf report), a lot of armies would be able to utilize mobility and close combat more effectively. Currently, Eldar and Tau (together), as well as Chaos Space Marines are shooting their way to victory across tournaments because they can just sit back and shoot another army to pieces. If we thought more like Cityfight instead of marsh flats we'd probably see a less shooter-dominant game. I can not say enough how true this is. You nailed it. Good thing is, I'm not the only one in my area saying it anymore, other non Nids players have started to wake up to the fact that 4th ed terrain is meaningless in 6th (especially with the pletora of ignore cover options). Hopefully tournaments will start to change and add more LoS blocking terrain. |
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Oct 31, 2013 13:20:57 GMT
I have always played with plenty of terrain, where I game the house rule is you completely fill 1/6th of the play area with terrain, then you disperse that terrain across the entire field and get both players to agree that it is a fair distribution before rolling for mission or sides or anything.
It works well this way and always has sufficient coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by j0rdan on Oct 31, 2013 13:30:19 GMT
If I want a codex full of well-rounded units, Ill go play chess. I WANT my dedicated CC units, I want them now and I want them viable (at least a bit). Otherwise Im selling my stuff and going for Necrons. 1. Queen, well-balanced? Please. Nerf badly needed.  2. Making our dedicated CC units viable is a different (but just as important) issue. We do already have them though. 3. I don't think anyone wants a codex full of well rounded units at the expense of ANY specialized units. I think people simply want more options than the two or three mentioned. Isn't it okay to have both? You know, like Necrons? Posted by leeroy1986 "- Swarmlord needs to be more survivable vs ranged. He just dies far too easily and I think he needs a bit more mobility, maybe via psychic powers a guaranteed Gate I think would be good." So you want Swarmy to be invincible? Isn't it okay that he has one weakness? |
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Oct 31, 2013 13:41:49 GMT
Swarmy doesn't have just one weakness, he is slow, weak to krak missiles and other ranged shooting, and has no ranged capabilities himself to speak of aside from psyker powers. He is really REALLY good at wiping out deathstars in melee, but he is terrible at actually managing to engage deathstars in melee.
I do like him, a lot, but to claim he has only one weakness is just blind to his issues. He does need either better survivability (ideally a 2+ armor and an always on invuln of probably 4 or 5+) or better mobility to deliver on his promise. He either needs to be that immense melee threat coming up the board and buffing/tossing around psyker powers as he approaches while shrugging off enough incoming firepower to warrant his cost, or he needs to be able to reliably and quickly close with his preferred target and mulch them while remaining fairly fragile otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Oct 31, 2013 14:27:35 GMT
So you want Swarmy to be invincible? Isn't it okay that he has one weakness? For 280 points, yes, 1 major weakness is ok, several is not. |
|
|
|
Post by innocent on Oct 31, 2013 14:34:56 GMT
I have always played with plenty of terrain, where I game the house rule is you completely fill 1/6th of the play area with terrain, then you disperse that terrain across the entire field and get both players to agree that it is a fair distribution before rolling for mission or sides or anything. It works well this way and always has sufficient coverage. Yeah we do the same. It's not so much terrain but LoS blocking terrain that is an issue. With true line of sight, the crazy shooting range of some armies and ignore cover, the usual mix of craters, forests with 3 plastic trees and ruins full of holes just doesn't cut it. I reckon each table should also have a minimum of 4 bastion sized pieces of LoS blocking terrain. |
|
|
|
Post by brucelich on Oct 31, 2013 15:43:14 GMT
I tend to respectfully disagree (purely personal opinion as a game designer). Having a roster full of well rounded units means that all tactics homogenize into a single blob, and there's little evolution of play. The game gets stagnant because everyone adapts to the same meta, because the meta is filled with units that can do a little of everything. If you have a diverse roster of units with a defined role (and those roles need to have a realistic presence in the game), you'll have a more dynamic play arena. People will bring different lists, and the meta will need to adjust to meet the advantages that such lists bring. It requires more player engagement and, thus, keeps things interesting. If I could put together one competitive list that covered all bases equally well, what motivation do I have to try different lists or tactics? If they all "good against most anything" wouldn't that just get boring after a while? Like most of our current Tyranid codex was said to be all about "synergy", yeah 9 Hive Guard isn't really synergistic. But I rather have 9 genericly effective Hive Guards than inter-dependent rock-paper-scissor units that are laughed off the table. Units need to be very viable on a basic level on top of any 'inter-unit' bonuses. GW has a nasty habit of either making deliberate combos insanely costly, ineffective/unworkable, or having in built flaws that turn them into a liability. I, for one, think there is a sweet spot to achieve in between "highly specialised" and "Jack of all trades" units in a codex. To me, "specialised" means the unit perform awesomely well in a single specific role and is mostly useless outside of its preferred context. By using highly specialised units, you are defining what your army is good at dealing with (and what it blows against). So right off the bat, by picking specialised units, you are gambling against your opponent's list. I'd say this is similar to lottery; spending a little here and there can't really hurt you but basing your whole game plan this way is a different matter. In short, a list based on units that are too specialised is very risky because of your lack of redundancy. On the flip side, having units that are too good all around opens up a different can of worms. In a competitive mind-set, it forces players to auto-include some units and potentially spam them. In some cases, this may turn out to be a "good strategic" move but it also means those lists become very common. The end result, of course, is a codex that players tend to dislike playing with or against. So really, I think the solution would be to have a core of units that are jack of all trades (i.e can fill in many roles while not being, point for point, the most effective solution) and a few highly specialised units to complement our lists. By achieving this balance, a codex can truly open up synergy options because all units become "viable alternatives". In that given context, i'm pretty sure we'd be seeing more variance in lists. Of course, this is much easier said than done but I still think this should be what devs should try to keep in mind when designing a Codex. |
|
|
|
Post by tylertt on Oct 31, 2013 16:58:30 GMT
I honestly can't wait for the dex to come out just for these "this is what the tyrnaids need to be!!!" debates to end.
|
|
