Something something Codex

[Bohxim]

More attacks in rending claws for tyrant isn't bad either for toughe targets, since they have reroll wounds imo

[infornography]

You know, on the subject of what Ovipositors could do, it would be super cool if Genestealers could negate another unit's Obsec. If you deal at least one wound to a unit and make an ovipositor roll, then obsec for that unit is negated as there is now confusion in their ranks while their sergeant is dealing with an alien egg having been shoved down his throat.

That would make Genestealers REALLY GOOD at stealing objectives from infantry blobs who are not great at melee like guard or tau etc.

[No One]

piersonsmuppet said:

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. A large increase in attacks will raise MC's effectiveness vs infantry, while doing very little to their ability to take on heavier targets. I would prefer for our monsters to be able to take on other monsters or vehicles better, and S would be a more efficient fix for that. I do think that added A couldn't hurt either, but I think those extra A's should come from better rules for multiple pairs of weapons. Just doubling the A characteristic will cause Hybrid builds to immediately overshadow combat builds, and invalidate the reason for the A increase.

Inability to go after heavier targets isn't really the issue with flyrants, especially since voracious exists. If we lose that, then flyrant's will need an attack buff and some other buff. (Or just an attack buff and MRC meta again).

The weapons 100% need reworking: atm it's double scy tal for melee or MRC for hybrid, boneswords are objectively terrible and LW&BS just doesn't work well. How they're reworked to make double melee viable over hybrid...well, the easy answer is 'you don't'. There's very few units that have options for hybrid and pure melee where pure melee is a viable choice. Just give double scy tal a much stronger buff for double, but a weaker base profile (e.g. bonesword buffed, scy tal stays the same but gets a sweep for double or something). Then everything else supports hybrid, because it should, and double scy tal is sufficiently different that it might work as only pure melee build.

I've just been talking flyrant, but a similar issue applies for most of our MCs: they don't have the volume to be viable into anything. Adding S just makes them less bad into tanks, while not making them viable into anything. Adding attacks makes them...well, they've got other issues but that'd at least put output into 'reasonable' levels into some targets. Give weapons buffs so e.g. a fex isn't hitting at S6 , and army rules for mobility/durability and things might actually work outside of very specific builds.

[purestrain]

We need old adversary back, and i still contend that berserk rampage should be a monster biomorph purchasable by melee monsters.

[piersonsmuppet]

Jun 17, 2021 13:57:35 GMT No One said:

]Inability to go after heavier targets isn't really the issue with flyrants, especially since voracious exists. If we lose that, then flyrant's will need an attack buff and some other buff. (Or just an attack buff and MRC meta again).

I don't think that saying model X doesn't have issues because strat Y exists is a healthy statement, especially when talking about what should be a premiere combat unit for the codex. Our MC's should be threatening other T7 MC's & vehicles base, and by threatening I mean at a minimum able to kill those targets w/ <10W when not at full health reliably (like after having eaten 1-2 smites) or tabling those targets who are >10W. Size or Voracious should push us a low chance to kill from full for T7 <10W or dropping two tables for T7 >10W, and both should push us to a good chance to do the same. Currently we need Size & Voracious on all of our non-Character non-FW MC's to even threaten equivalent MC's.

+1S to MC's characteristic is probably the most minimal change that will help them be less reliant on Size/Voracious vs T7/T8, which is where I think the problems exist. I've never had any problems going into infantry with our monsters, but we also have the rest of the codex that is good into infantry as well. Will +1 A help us? Not w/o both Size and Voracious, and however much it "fixes" us for heavier targets we gain substantially more benefit vs infantry. We would need +3A to equal the effectiveness of +1S going into T7/T8 for most MC's, and I don't think there is precedent for such a drastic change based on most of the changes this edition revolving around +1 to characteristics. +A's is also more likely to bring back MRC & Hybrid dominance for Flyrants, which pushes them harder towards anti-infantry. I'd prefer to have more options for dealing with heavier targets, since right now we have FW & HG, instead of making 90% of the codex better against infantry.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to our infantry getting +1A, but I think the +1S still is a stronger minimum change there. +1S is equivalent to +1A for 3A base WS3+ S4 vs T4, so could be good as a buff since it hits GS/Ravs most, Warriors equally, and Horms less and +1S pairs better with the +1 to-hit buffs we have (if they remain). The only losers from that are TG and Lictors, which need a substantial re-work anyway.

I get that many probably want more attacks, but I'm just trying to point out that attacks are not an efficient buff for us. A smaller change to base stats means that they can fit in some more niceties on reworking the weapons/rules for us.

[kazetanade]

Jun 17, 2021 13:31:59 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Jun 17, 2021 4:05:16 GMT kazetanade said:

Pierson I compeletely disagree on the approach of +S instead of +A - our MC's issues are lack of rerolls and lack of volume. If a superhuman that's raised for war can attack 4 times with only 2 arms, something literally designed to be a shock troop with 4 arms should be attacking 8 times - it's simple maths. Likewise, a Tyrant should definitely be getting MORE Attacks than a Smash Cap can, and they're getting somewhere between 8-12 when hitting the table geared right. There is something seriously WRONG when a combat monster has the same weapon stats (usually worse stats but let's ignore that) but less attacks than something half its size.

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. A large increase in attacks will raise MC's effectiveness vs infantry, while doing very little to their ability to take on heavier targets. I would prefer for our monsters to be able to take on other monsters or vehicles better, and S would be a more efficient fix for that. I do think that added A couldn't hurt either, but I think those extra A's should come from better rules for multiple pairs of weapons. Just doubling the A characteristic will cause Hybrid builds to immediately overshadow combat builds, and invalidate the reason for the A increase. 

 Look at it this way:

4A @ S8 AP-3 3D, vs 8A @ S6 AP-3 3D; having Voracious Appetite in tow, option 2 will always overshadow Option 1. So if we're looking at effectiveness of our units, option 2 is better. From a design perspective, just doubling down on A for MC's doesnt make sense, but in context of other armies, it's barely on parr to what their combat options get to pump out. And before you go "it makes hybrid options broken", just count on your hands the number of Dreadnought lists that are running rampant out there, and Dreadnoughts are better than our Hybrid Options across every platform, EXCEPT for the Behemoth SuperFlyrant. That one only has ONE combat hand but gets 4A out of it, we have 4 hands - we should be getting 16A for a fully kitted out melee model. 

I wouldnt profess doubling A to be the *best* way to fix our codex. It's just the fastest with the least changes that would solve maybe 60% of our gripes about it (cost to output to durability - bouncing off invuls - hitting like a wet noodle - being unable to trade into enemy units despite being designed much more fragile, etc) . I would any day of the week prefer a much more cohesively designed codex, with Traits, WLTs, Relics, and Strategems that actually synergize and also create a compelling lore depository. With unit abilities that both are thematic and dont just outright suck, like the remaining 50% of our codex that's languishing from lack of identity. That actually has CHOICES. 

But at the end of the day, if we dont have an equal number of A as a combat army as what other combat armies pull out of their ass, we're not going to be a combat orientated army (and personally I am fine with the current toolbox jack-of-all-trades identity the codex has, because the lore of Tyranids does allude very often to Nids reacting and dealing with things in a very reactive, toolboxy way, as well as just being way more numerous than you can deal with, rather than just hitting better/harder/stronger/faster). I like the fact that we as an army can actually participate in all 4 (5, if morale phase was worth a damn) phases of the game rather well, and we are one of the few armies that can do that. We are also one of the few armies that can specialize if we wanted to, but as we know, army specialization is falling by the wayside in today's meta. But in terms of mix-arms and participating in all phases, we are still one of the codex that does it best, being second only to a mixed army of Eldar.


What I really want from the new Tyranid Codex though is to create armies that are all about centralized power that benefits and creates strong zones of influence. The whole should be much stronger than the sum - individually weak units that are made stronger both from army composition synergy (instead of lousy innane direct unit heirachy buffs) and direct buffs attributable to synapse. adaptability being a 2ndary concern for me. There should be some potent but limited influence onto the enemy (being only a handful of things like Shadow In The Warp, Spore Infestations/Miasma, etc) but each thing hits its respective thing hard, and whole host of aura or area buffs to affect our own units. GSC should be the opposite, where there are a few buffs to affect our own army, but a LOT of debuffs and effects that are detrimental to the enemy that either sabotage and make difficult to execute their plan, or just makes them less effective at doing a lot of stuff. 

[kazetanade]

Jun 18, 2021 14:41:27 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Jun 17, 2021 13:57:35 GMT No One said:

]Inability to go after heavier targets isn't really the issue with flyrants, especially since voracious exists. If we lose that, then flyrant's will need an attack buff and some other buff. (Or just an attack buff and MRC meta again).

I don't think that saying model X doesn't have issues because strat Y exists is a healthy statement, especially when talking about what should be a premiere combat unit for the codex. Our MC's should be threatening other T7 MC's & vehicles base, and by threatening I mean at a minimum able to kill those targets w/ <10W when not at full health reliably (like after having eaten 1-2 smites) or tabling those targets who are >10W. Size or Voracious should push us a low chance to kill from full for T7 <10W or dropping two tables for T7 >10W, and both should push us to a good chance to do the same. Currently we need Size & Voracious on all of our non-Character non-FW MC's to even threaten equivalent MC's.

+1S to MC's characteristic is probably the most minimal change that will help them be less reliant on Size/Voracious vs T7/T8, which is where I think the problems exist. I've never had any problems going into infantry with our monsters, but we also have the rest of the codex that is good into infantry as well. Will +1 A help us? Not w/o both Size and Voracious, and however much it "fixes" us for heavier targets we gain substantially more benefit vs infantry. We would need +3A to equal the effectiveness of +1S going into T7/T8 for most MC's, and I don't think there is precedent for such a drastic change based on most of the changes this edition revolving around +1 to characteristics. +A's is also more likely to bring back MRC & Hybrid dominance for Flyrants, which pushes them harder towards anti-infantry. I'd prefer to have more options for dealing with heavier targets, since right now we have FW & HG, instead of making 90% of the codex better against infantry.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to our infantry getting +1A, but I think the +1S still is a stronger minimum change there. +1S is equivalent to +1A for 3A base WS3+ S4 vs T4, so could be good as a buff since it hits GS/Ravs most, Warriors equally, and Horms less and +1S pairs better with the +1 to-hit buffs we have (if they remain). The only losers from that are TG and Lictors, which need a substantial re-work anyway.

I get that many probably want more attacks, but I'm just trying to point out that attacks are not an efficient buff for us. A smaller change to base stats means that they can fit in some more niceties on reworking the weapons/rules for us.

If I had to choose between just +1A or just +1S, I would choose a Space Marine Army and stop supporting Tyranids. Neither actually helps our army go anywhere, and almost every trick in our book is replicated elsewhere with better effect. The only thing we do better than anyone else is move 36" before getting into combat. 


For Tyranids to be "fixed" using small characteristic changes, you would literally need:


+1WS
+1S
+1A
+1AP
+1D (selected weapons)


for us to actually have much of a net benefit. You're basically increasing the entire scope of our melee ability for a small but noticeable boost to performance compared to what we're getting today. It's ludicrous how bad our base is right now. 

Honestly - +1A isnt going to bring back any Flyrant build. Woohoo, I went from 4A to 5A, meaning I kill 0.25 extra marines, or 0.5 more sisters! +1S would be better compared to +1A I dont disagree, but it just bumps us from S6 to S7 - meaning you're still only getting 2 wounds on a bog standard TRANSPORT, and not even likely to degrade a tank once. 

Assuming you didnt want to change our statline too much? You would need some massive rework on most unit's inbuilt abilities, weapon profiles and roles, and basically re-write 70% of the codex. You know, like what Hive Bahamut did in the first post. 

[piersonsmuppet]

Jun 18, 2021 21:21:23 GMT kazetanade said:

Cut for brevity...

I think some things got lost. The +1S argument was aimed at your statement for the "First major change", so this would not be the only thing needed to fix Tyranids. However, it is the one change that would improve MC's the most while staying in-line with other 9th ed codex improvements. Also, my proposed weapon changes modified 2xMST Tyrants/Carnifex to have +3A, and Trygons to have +5A. So I do see the need and agree that we need more attacks, but model characteristics are not where an increase to number of attacks should be applied imo. My #1 goal was to make MC's less reliant on Voracious, with the least amount of characteristic change. I think with the comparison between Dreadnaughts and Tyrants, the fact that Dreads outperform is lost on nobody. However, they outperform and don't have to spend 1 CP to do it, so 2-3 can outperform at the same level every turn. Any changes that fix MC's should not include Voracious in the check for "is it fixed?", otherwise we only fix one MC a turn as long as we have CP.

I do agree that the codex needs some serious work, but I think model characteristics are healthy atm. Just bringing weapons, unit rules, and psychic powers in line with other factions 9e boosts will provide significant power to us, so I'd opt for a more cautious change to characteristics to allow the designers more room to provide buffs through Synapse and Hive Fleet traits.

[kazetanade]

piersonsmuppet these are fair comments and opinions and are in line with my own as well - having to use voracious to fix MCs is not a great look. I think the main difference is really in that take of what else is required, while I had been thinking from a "all else stays the same, this will make the difference" mentality, and I also feel the sting on our troops and infantry line more than on our MCs - primarily just because of build choices.

[mattblowers]

Jun 14, 2021 20:31:46 GMT kazetanade said:

Talk identity- what core identity do we want the codex to fill? Nids have traditionally been the SM of xenos faction, basically being able to do everything but not being the best at anything in general.

I don't agree with this assessment at all. We are a melee centric army that thrives when the rules favor close combat and we have good combat units. We flood the objectives with bodies (numbers has always been our durability) and outscore our opponent because they can't wade through the bodies fast enough before we whittle them down. When our shooting is good it is most often as a support role. Flyrant spam of 7th was an outlier ran by expert generals while most of the lists struggled to out of the bottom half with. I do agree that most our units don't tend to be the best at anything, but that's because of poor design. Melee beasts that degrade in WS, attacks, and strength? WS 4+ on close combat only bodies? Lictors that infiltrate but don't actually work? Etc.

I hope they bring us back something fun. It doesn't need to be top tier for me. Average to above average is fine by me. If it's the same crapshoot it has been I'll probably sit out this whole addition. Giving Orks T5 really gives me hope that they could come up with something innovative for us. I think T5 Orks (and still keeping the 6+ save) is the most innovative game mechanic they have come up with since the GSC dropped in late 7th.

[purestrain]

doubling attacks would have worked in 7th, imagine canifex with 6(3 base? I cant remember) attacks, if they were ws3 they would have been pretty decent, but we can muster 6 attacks out of them right now, and they still dont do anything, because they dont have proper cohesion with abilities within our codex.

Things like adrenal glands, on the charge, should grant +1 str(maybe 2 for monsters?). toxin sacs should be 5+ +1 dmg and Scything talons on Melee beasts should free (that have the choice, otherwise bake the cost of the weapons into the model but reduce it by 20%) and lift the restriction of only getting 1 attack no matter the amount of talons, 1 attack for each set of talons on the chassis (IE trygons, mawlocs and ravenors get 3A, tyrants and fexen/warriors would gain 2)

Carnifex should have 6A base, so they can jump to 8, Trygons should have 7, so they can jump to 10. ALL MELEE MONSTERS should have a sub ability called slam where they sacrifice half their attacks, but their melee attacks ap and Damage are increased by 1 for that melee round (up to them if they keep the PA adaptive stuff, if Murderous size still exists that just means you can make one or two hyper deadly and im fine with that) Make haruspex ws3 and flat 3x attacks with his maw, either 12 guardsmen eating attacks or 6 marine eating attacks. genestealers would be Str5 and able to fight with their peers and not really destroy what orks have in the process of being this way, makes gants with glands more appealing, although reduce the cost on non monsters because thats just (please do not swear) to pay like 45% of the units cost in one upgrade. D6 Weapons should be flat 4 (d3+3 with 10 attacks seems steep and wont step on our FW bugs shoes as premier powerhouse units) Theres other ideas in my head about it but what we have and what we have had is just lazy and uninspired worksmanship or because GWS left hand doesnt truly know what its right hand is doing.

[purestrain]

You know what else? The Swarmlords attacks should stay at ap-3 3d but his swords ability should essentially reduce Invuln ap by 2 aswell (IE when using an invulnerable save against an attack made with this weapon, reduce the total by 2{ie 3+ invuln becomes 5+}) Its not the old reroll successful, but seems like it would make him a brutally powerful melee combatant against anything he encountered. The reduction should also not be capped at 6+, you got a 5+ base? none for you.

[piersonsmuppet]

Jun 19, 2021 19:21:25 GMT purestrain said:

You know what else? The Swarmlords attacks should stay at ap-3 3d but his swords ability should essentially reduce Invuln ap by 2 aswell (IE when using an invulnerable save against an attack made with this weapon, reduce the total by 2{ie 3+ invuln becomes 5+}) Its not the old reroll successful, but seems like it would make him a brutally powerful melee combatant against anything he encountered. The reduction should also not be capped at 6+, you got a 5+ base? none for you.

If Belakor can Ignore ++ on the thrust profile, I don't see why SL can't Ignore ++ as well. I would prefer the simplicity of not having to calculate new ++'s against every unit he attacks with them. It is stronger than what you propose, but if SL stays mostly the same he will only gain a large buff against things he should straight murder and only a smaller buff against other T8 ++ bodies (especially once tabled). I'd be fine if he lost MW's on the wound-roll to compensate, rule only occasionally worked well in 9E for killing 4W models prior to the FAQ that changed MW's dealt by attacks to after all damage. I also wouldn't mind losing the 3++ from Blade Parry (going to happen) as long as Blade Parry gets changed to something like "This unit can always use Invul saves in melee regardless of other rules and melee attacks deal half damage".

[purestrain]

Jun 21, 2021 18:36:31 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Jun 19, 2021 19:21:25 GMT purestrain said:

You know what else? The Swarmlords attacks should stay at ap-3 3d but his swords ability should essentially reduce Invuln ap by 2 aswell (IE when using an invulnerable save against an attack made with this weapon, reduce the total by 2{ie 3+ invuln becomes 5+}) Its not the old reroll successful, but seems like it would make him a brutally powerful melee combatant against anything he encountered. The reduction should also not be capped at 6+, you got a 5+ base? none for you.

If Belakor can Ignore ++ on the thrust profile, I don't see why SL can't Ignore ++ as well. I would prefer the simplicity of not having to calculate new ++'s against every unit he attacks with them. It is stronger than what you propose, but if SL stays mostly the same he will only gain a large buff against things he should straight murder and only a smaller buff against other T8 ++ bodies (especially once tabled). I'd be fine if he lost MW's on the wound-roll to compensate, rule only occasionally worked well in 9E for killing 4W models prior to the FAQ that changed MW's dealt by attacks to after all damage. I also wouldn't mind losing the 3++ from Blade Parry (going to happen) as long as Blade Parry gets changed to something like "This unit can always use Invul saves in melee regardless of other rules and melee attacks deal half damage".

Sure, but I would rather him be sub 350 points.

[piersonsmuppet]

Jun 21, 2021 19:35:16 GMT purestrain said:

Sure, but I would rather him be sub 350 points.

I don't think those two changes would push him much pts-wise. The change to Blade Parry is certainly much weaker than either of Belakor's defensive rules, and is more restrictive than the similar rule printed on the Sister's Paragon. Belakor also has a much better weapon attached to the Ignore ++ saves. S12 AP-4 w/ D3d3 is worlds different against T8 models than S8 AP-3 D3, and the end result between Ignore Invul or -2 Invul is objectively the same. Against 3+/4++ bodies, -2 Invul by two would be a 6++, ignore Invul w/ AP-3 would be 6+. The only time it is different is against anything which has an Armor save equal to or worse than the Invul with a 4++ or better, which I think is only Zoans and Tzeentch units.

SL is more at risk of pts increase from the 9E codex power creep imo, especially if they glam him up to be our "Primarch" equivalent.