|
Just thought I should voice my impressions of the latest Tyranid version. The last couple of months, I have introduced a couple of new gamers into Epic, and supply four armies (marines, guards, orks and tyranids). We are just about to start with aerospace units and 3k match-ups, so my views are not founded on tournament-sized games, but 2K to 2.5K with ground forces only. With nids, that is not a problem, but rather for their opponents.
The nids (being a little controversial for beginners) have not seen battle as much as the standard three armies, but have fought marines three times and guards one time. The marines have had the hardest time (apart from a fluke game where the tyranid player failed three 4+ saves to see his largest synapse swarm disintegrate during the final activation of turn 2. One game the marines could not avoid half the push and failed to gain ground on the other half. The third game was an entertaining sluggathon where formations wiped each other out in ferocious assaults, leaving Tyranids with the win due to giving up BTS (marines had several and could not protect them all). The guards lost on a tie-break, mainly because they were a bit too eager to make contact with the enemy. All games were entertaining, and the tyranids in most respects felt very Tyranid to us.
These are simply our views on some of the rules and ideas discussed in this thread:
1/2 gaunt: Having played with and without it, I would vote for a toning down. Without the 1/2 gaunt, Gaunts just make swarms too vulnerable to both receiving and launching assaults when basically the Tyranid army is all about assaults. As I said in some other Tyranid thread, no other army paints 75 points for four units with basically only a 5+ FF. Sadly, the 1/2 gaunt rule can also feel like cheating, and to some of us like the Tyranids are "bending the rules" a little too much.
Example: In a long-range assault three Hormagaunts and one Malefactor just reaches within 15 cm range of an enemy formation. All three hormagaunts die, but the Malefactor makes all saves (not unlikely). Add it up, and you have +1 for the defendant, and unless it is a large formation (orks/guards), the tyranids have +2 outnumber, at least equal kills and should have +1/+2 due to blast markers advantage. I understand players feeling robbed of a chance instead of ending up losing with three or four pips. Otherwise, in more "fair" all-out assaults, the 1/2 gaunt rule works because the enemy racks up kills.
Suggestion: Keep the 1/2 gaunt, but round kills up. In that way, it is the 1st, 3rd etc kill that counts. It becomes more of a bonus rather than a perceived unfair advantage. In large assaults, the result would be the same. In smaller assaults, the enemy still gains 1 or 2 kills.
Spawning: Spawning makes for an interesting element in Tyranid tactics. The current rule feels about right. My issue is rather that some units are spawned more often than others (or really, just Raveners). Some people feel that spawning should be increased closer to enemies, rather than decreased (a reversal). I see some merit in the suggestion, but am not entirely convinced. Tyranids sitting in cover and denying areas can be quite effective, but not completely out of flavour. I think of a threatening jungle or ruins infested with Tyranid creatures patiently waiting for their prey. Not all Tyranid attacks are or should be blind charges towards the enemies. I am not decidedly for or against the suggestion, I see plausible explanations for both. However, I think people would be just as annoyed by "offensive withdrawals" into 30cm range of say artillery positions and increased spawning as a result. I think the current spawning rule forces you to not be careless with your swarms, which I find positive.
Blast markers: I find that after rallying unbroken swarms, I usually have no blast markers left. It takes really concentrated fire to leave rallying swarms with a blast marker at the end phase. The only time I stack blast markers is after rallying broken swarms. In conjunction with the 1/2 gaunt rule, as explicated above, this can cause players to feel "cheated". Moreover, it makes tyranids feel like they have "tons" of special rules when they really do not. I would rather tone down the 1/2 gaunt or change the Rally modifier to +1 (see below) than playing blast markers normally, but the combination of Brood, 1/2 gaunt and +2 to Rally can be negatively perceived. It is not a major issue on its own. Tyranid swarms are still susceptible to blast-marking/retain/assault with no blast markers.
Light vehicles: I think the LV rule encourages mixed swarms, something I did anyway. However, I do take a lot of Raveners, and re-spawn them constantly. Except the turn 2 sudden loss against Marines, BTS has not been scored against Tyranids. However, since the rule forces the Tyranid player to take more AV:s and LV:s, I also feel that the Tyranid armies "shrunk" a little with 9.2.1. Perhaps a -25 reduction to the Assault Swarm would compensate enough to purchase another gaunt brood.
Mobility:
This is a bit unclear to us. We (as non-native-speakers) wonder whether the current wording actually allows AV:s to enter, for instance buildings. We do not allow it, but the wording is not expressed in rules' terms (a common GW phenomenon, by the way), making interpretations possible.
+2 to Assault/Rally:
I think the +2 to Engagement is necessary because Tyranids have no options. They cannot shoot when holding. When we played with +1, Tyranid swarms failing engagements felt very disappointing and a bit clownish with the Hive Mind considering a Marshal or Shoot with one Venom Cannon. Having no serious options, +2 is needed. The Rally part (as mentioned earlier) makes it very easy to shed blast markers. The Brood rule combined with Rally leaves most swarms un-marked until they lose an assault and sub-sequently rally. We find that broken swarms rarely create problems or cause further threats. We humbly suggest +1 to Rally, although it would look inconsistent, but we feel it would feel less all-or-nothing, because until broken, Tyranid swarms "feel" fearless. It would also dampen the effect of +2 to engage. However, this would perhaps make the Dominatrix mandatory. I leave this to more experienced Tyranid players to decide upon, because changes can cause further changes. However, with the +2 to Engage and almost always having 0 blast markers, Tyranids are very good on laying blast markers (Dactylis) followed by a certain retaining Assault. It strengthens the Dactylis case against Biovores/Exocrines.
Units:
Raveners: To be honest, I think they are a little too versatile, and most importantly that they replace both Termagaunts and Hormagaunts, being essentially both with armour. When they are needed to protect the Synapse as well, it makes them the uncontested number one candidate for spawning. I suggested FF6+ in another thread and it could easily be justified by numbers.
Harridan: It has been a key model in every battle so far. Someone asked how the MW attacks were justified, and I would say "the model's claws and talons" (see below). It is fast, can create cross-fires and contest objectives. Could probably do with a +25 increase. I use to add a gargoyle and keep it transported to increase the "break value".
Haruspex/Malefactor: I guess it is a balancing factor to make Malefactor 5+RA, but I also want to be able to "perceive" stats on models. I see very little differences between Haruspex and Malefactor, not enough to warrant different saves. I would keep them the same, whether it is 4+RA or 5+RA. It makes it easier to keep in mind as well. We play that AV:s may not enter buildings, and so the easiest way to deny Haruspex MW:s is to remain within the building (or charging it with a skimmer). Overall, I think the Assault Spawns are much more feared than what they are capable of. Their primary use (in our view) is in soaking AT and assault hits (which they excel in). The movement buff was well needed.
Lictors: Ironically (since there seems to be a Marines vs Tyranids issue), this unit suffers greatly against Marines. Teleporting with Strategy 1 often means death. I think Free Planetfall could be a solution (if I have understood the rule correctly this time). Needless to say, we feel that this unit underperforms. Another suggestion would be 4 for 150 as a base formation cost. Also, the unit stats annoys some people quite rightly claiming it has "every special rule in the game". It could for instance increase its save (especially as LV) and shed the Invulnerable save.
Bio-titans: We have only played the Hierophant so far. It has been very useful, but not over-powered. As with the Harridan, its perceived unbalance rather lies in the abilities that Tyranids mostly lack, resilience, ranged fire-power, great objective contester/holder.
Overall, our gaming group cannot possibly claim Tyranids being neither under- nor over-powered yet. The only thing we can contribute with is our impression of how Tyranids play compared to other armies.
We do not agree that Tyranids are unforgiving to play with. Assault-and-not-being-assaulted is extremely hard to perform with large infantry swarms consisting mainly of lowly common broods. To do the three-swarm-push you have to forfeit cover (unless the Tyranid player would be able to set up terrain AND gets to choose deployment first). Artillery wrecks swarms, and hugging cover slows them down. Cross-fire rips armoured nids to pieces. Even against a three-swarm push, a well-placed Terminator teleport can acheive multiple cross-fires, and if the Tyranid chooses to engage the Terminators, they at least slow them down.
If anything, we find the Uncommon brood selection to be a little repressed. We suspect it is to promote the appearance of common broods and avoid Nidzilla lists, but we do find that Tyranids pay a lot for quite disappointing abilities. Notable exception: Dactylis. With the 2:1 ratio and low numbers/selection, you end up paying a lot for very little. The fact that you have to attach shooting creatures to engagement-oriented swarms makes you pay a lot for something rarely used.
Being a little hung up on unit looks/data, I still find Trygon claws not being MW a tad disappointing. Points values can be tweaked, models cannot. I cannot help but "feeling" that the Trygon and Haruspex bio-designs should be interchanged. Haruspex for mowing down masses, Trygons to attack the armoured stuff. This could also be an incentive for lowering the Assault Spawn cost.
These impressions/suggestions make no claims to balance Tyranids towards better/worse. Instead they express our "feeling" of Tyranid armies and how they play (or rather, how we currently play them). Reading through the post I notice that we suggest a few "downgrades". If so, these could be adressed by changing points' values. However, we do feel that it is important for opponents to not feel "cheated" by Tyranids "breaking the rules". I can honestly defend Tyranids by saying that most (all?) armies break rules concerning initiative, but it is important that players do not get a negative feeling about facing Tyranids. Our major concerns is (as stated above), Tyranid Gaunt losses not counting, and tyranid swarms auto-shedding blast markers to 0 every turn.
Anyway, we really appreciate the Tyranid list, do not find it remarkably over-powered and we will try to use it more often by the end of this summer (full rules and 3K+).
/Fredmans
_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636
|
