Wh40k 10th Edition Tyranids Index

[Arbedark]

Overall, a pretty interesting set of rules IMO. I'm looking forward to giving 10th a go - I'm liking the look of the reduced (unnecessary) complexity.

[Toxichobbit]

Just now, Redcomet said:

All fair views to have. It is almost impossible to please everyone. As many people who are now happy that the game is less of a chore to play, just as many are probably angry that they can’t choose which type of pistol their troops can carry. 
 

But maybe give the game a chance and play it for a bit before writing it off? 

 

Believe me, I'm trying to. I keep saying to myself "wait until the Codex is released and see what you think". But every time a new preview hits or new rules are released, the disappointment with this edition grows. 

 

Honestly though, I can see it both ways. I can see how simplicity is good but I can also see how it sacrifices stuff that adds character & depth to people's lists. I think it's often connected to the differences in players, with some people taking stuff because it's cool, while others take it because it's good. If you're the latter, then simplicity is freeing because it allows you to make the models how you'd like and not worry about making the "wrong" choice. But for the former, things feel much more generic because there isn't much choice. 

 

And I agree, you can't please everyone. To me though, they've gone from one extreme to another. From massively over-complex to massively simplified. It's such a radical change in customisation that it's really ruining the experience of this edition so far. It feels like the things that I and all the people I play with enjoy are being sacrificed for the sake of making the game as balanced as possible.

[TrawlingCleaner]

 

This big guy is quirky as all hell, maybe this is the way forward with things like Hammerfall bunkers and other faction fortifications?

[Arbedark]

2 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

I think it's often connected to the differences in players, with some people taking stuff because it's cool, while others take it because it's good. If you're the latter, then simplicity is freeing because it allows you to make the models how you'd like and not worry about making the "wrong" choice. But for the former, things feel much more generic because there isn't much choice. 

 

I completely disagree.

 

I take stuff because it is cool, not because it is good - not having slightly different rules (which in the grand scheme of things don't actually add meaningful choices to the game) for visually different weapons is more restrictive than allowing me to model what I think looks cool without worrying about faffing around in-game with different weapon profiles within a single unit.

 

I have recently built some Raveners, I couldn't for the life of you tell you what the chest piece I used was meant to represent in the old rules, and now I don't have to care as it's all consolidated into one, no matter how I've modelled it. That is purely a benefit IMO.

[Indy Techwisp]

I wonder if we're gonna get the Space Marine Index today as well?

Maybe we can compare who's index is looking better then, since this is the first full index published for 10th.

[danodan123]

Just now, Indy Techwisp said:

I wonder if we're gonna get the Space Marine Index today as well?

Maybe we can compare who's index is looking better then, since this is the first full index published for 10th.

That'll be tomorrow :)

[Malakithe]

5 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

 

This big guy is quirky as all hell, maybe this is the way forward with things like Hammerfall bunkers and other faction fortifications?

All im seeing is a big Nope Zone generator 

[Akerkoke]

As a returning player from 5th edition , I'm pretty happy to see that these datasheets seem not overcomplicated to understand, even if they decided to sacrifice customization.
Unfortunately as far as I remember, too much freedom to customize, often means high risk of unbalanced units/combos.
For what I'm concerned I prefer they have sacrificed customization if this means less erratas/FAQs/point/rules corrections in the future, I'm hopeful

[danodan123]

Just now, Malakithe said:

All im seeing is a big Nope Zone generator 

 

But only in your own deployment zone, which is rather ehh...

 

Would be cool if it had infiltrate.

[Malakithe]

Just now, danodan123 said:

 

But only in your own deployment zone, which is rather ehh...

 

Would be cool if it had infiltrate.

Oh true...well thats kinda poo then

[Toxichobbit]

3 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

I wonder if we're gonna get the Space Marine Index today as well?

Maybe we can compare who's index is looking better then, since this is the first full index published for 10th.

 

This was the release order, according to rumours. I don't know how accurate it is, but it matches so far.

 

Marine datasheets on 9th, other Marine Chapters datasheets on 12th, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Chaos Knights on 13th, Sororitas, Mechanicus. Custodes, Millitarum, Knights, Imperial Agents on 14th, Aeldari, Drukhari, Votann, Orks, Necrons, Genestealer Cult on 15th, tournament pack & points on 16th, combat patrol on 20th, boarding patrol & crusade on 23rd.

[Lord Abaia]

Does anyone see any rules or strategems that interact with the Great Devourer keyword? I notice it's on almost every datasheet, with the only exceptions being the two types of warriors. Is there some lore reason I'm not aware of regarding warriors that makes them less hungry than everything else? The keyword appears to be almost redundant with the faction keyword Tyranids. I suppose mechanically it could be used to allow some rule to exclude use with warriors.

[DemonGSides]

16 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

Believe me, I'm trying to. I keep saying to myself "wait until the Codex is released and see what you think". But every time a new preview hits or new rules are released, the disappointment with this edition grows. 

 

Honestly though, I can see it both ways. I can see how simplicity is good but I can also see how it sacrifices stuff that adds character & depth to people's lists. I think it's often connected to the differences in players, with some people taking stuff because it's cool, while others take it because it's good. If you're the latter, then simplicity is freeing because it allows you to make the models how you'd like and not worry about making the "wrong" choice. But for the former, things feel much more generic because there isn't much choice. 

 

I mean, this is just factually untrue.  I only buy models I think are cool and my Tyranid force is like, 1000 points of random stuff plus a crap-ton of Termagants.

The character and Depth shouldn't come from words on a paper.  They should come from your models, from how you build and paint them, to the stories you create about them.  I have no interest in how "Good" my army is, because I play this game with friends over beer and pretzels.  I play because it's fun, it's the closest thing you can get to IRL Starcraft, and seeing the cool kitbashes and models is the primary push.

Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as just "some people taking stuff... because it's good." is just trying to justify your disappointment over things changing and externalizing it.  I'm not sure what you were expecting or wanted out of 10th, but "More or less, the same as 9th" isn't really interesting to a big part of the community, because the game is so bloated.  So. Freaking.  Bloated.  There's over 50 Strategems that Tyranids have access to in 9th.  How is ANYONE supposed to keep that in line?  Streamline that stuff, fold some of those things into unit abilities that are ever present right in front of you, and make the game easier to access.  There's still plenty of depth there; actual battle tactics matter just as much as they always have, but now there's less of the Gotcha bullcrap that strategems create.

 

16 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

And I agree, you can't please everyone. To me though, they've gone from one extreme to another. From massively over-complex to massively simplified. It's such a radical change in customisation that it's really ruining the experience of this edition so far. It feels like the things that I and all the people I play with enjoy are being sacrificed for the sake of making the game as balanced as possible.

 

What things are being sacrificed?

Edited June 8, 2023 by DemonGSides

[TrawlingCleaner]

1 minute ago, danodan123 said:

 

But only in your own deployment zone, which is rather ehh...

 

Would be cool if it had infiltrate.

 

 

Step1) Stick 3 in reserves

Step 2) Deep Strike in the middle of the board

Step 3) Drop 12 of these a turn:

Step 4) Block your opponent in their deployment zone and away from objectives

Step 5) Profit

[Toxichobbit]

1 minute ago, Magpie Knight said:

Does anyone see any rules or strategems that interact with the Great Devourer keyword? I notice it's on almost every datasheet, with the only exceptions being the two types of warriors. Is there some lore reason I'm not aware of regarding warriors that makes them less hungry than everything else? The keyword appears to be almost redundant with the faction keyword Tyranids. I suppose mechanically it could be used to allow some rule to exclude use with warriors.

 

Probably something in the Codex. Unless it's to differentiate Tyranids with GSC, who had the Tyranid faction keyword previously so  the two armies could ally. Though I'd have thought they'd just dump Tyranids as a faction keyword on GSC and replace it with GSC keyword.

 

There's no lore reason for Warriors not having it. The Great Devourer is just another name for Tyranids, it applies to all of them. I'd guess that they don't have it because of a copy + paste error or something.

[Metzombie]

5 minutes ago, danodan123 said:

 

But only in your own deployment zone, which is rather ehh...

 

Would be cool if it had infiltrate.

You could put in a Tyrannocyte, I think.

[Emperor Ming]

No points?

[danodan123]

2 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

 

 

Step1) Stick 3 in reserves

Step 2) Deep Strike in the middle of the board

Step 3) Drop 12 of these a turn:

Step 4) Block your opponent in their deployment zone and away from objectives

Step 5) Profit

 

A fun idea, but how would you deep strike it still?

[BluejayJunior]

17 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

Honestly though, I can see it both ways. I can see how simplicity is good but I can also see how it sacrifices stuff that adds character & depth to people's lists. I think it's often connected to the differences in players, with some people taking stuff because it's cool, while others take it because it's good. If you're the latter, then simplicity is freeing because it allows you to make the models how you'd like and not worry about making the "wrong" choice. But for the former, things feel much more generic because there isn't much choice. 

Agree with Ardebark above. I see it as the opposite. The people who want to take what is good are more likely to dislike it because they lost the granularity that they want to make the most point efficient units. There is no puzzle to solve for what is best. The "take what is cool" group now have more freedom to model what they want and don't have to worry nearly as much about handicapping themselves by taking suboptimal choices. I'm in the cool group, so I enjoy not having to worry about whether the axes or swords are more efficient for a unit. I can just take whichever one I want to. 

[Indy Techwisp]

12 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

This was the release order, according to rumours. I don't know how accurate it is, but it matches so far.

 

Marine datasheets on 9th, other Marine Chapters datasheets on 12th, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Chaos Knights on 13th, Sororitas, Mechanicus. Custodes, Millitarum, Knights, Imperial Agents on 14th, Aeldari, Drukhari, Votann, Orks, Necrons, Genestealer Cult on 15th, tournament pack & points on 16th, combat patrol on 20th, boarding patrol & crusade on 23rd.

 

... I don't see T'au on that list.

[danodan123]

Just now, Indy Techwisp said:

 

... I don't see T'au on that list.

Shame ;)

[CL_Mission]

1 minute ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

... I don't see T'au on that list.

Probably in the big batch of Xenos factions on the 15th

[Toxichobbit]

2 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I mean, this is just factually untrue.  I only buy models I think are cool and my Tyranid force is like, 1000 points of random plus a :cuss:-ton of Termagants.

The character and Depth shouldn't come from words on a paper.  They should come from your models, from how you build and paint them, to the stories you create about them.  I have no interest in how "Good" my army is, because I play this game with friends over beer and pretzels.  I play because it's fun, it's the closest thing you can get to IRL Starcraft, and seeing the cool kitbashes and models is the primary push.

Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as just "some people taking stuff... because it's good." is just trying to justify your disappointment over things changing and externalizing it.  I'm not sure what you were expecting or wanted out of 10th, but "More or less, the same as 9th" isn't really interesting to a big part of the community, because the game is so :cuss:ing bloated.  So.  :cuss:ing.  Bloated.  There's over 50 Strategems that Tyranids have access to in 9th.  How is ANYONE supposed to keep that in line?  Streamline that :cuss:, fold some of those things into unit abilities that are ever present right in front of you, and make the game easier to access.  There's still plenty of depth there; actual battle tactics matter just as much as they always have, but now there's less of the Gotcha bull:cuss: that strategems create.

 

 

What things are being sacrificed?

 

Every player I know who "plays things they think are cool" is disappointed with this edition. So no, it's not factually untrue. It doesn't apply to everybody, but that goes without saying. Unless of course you are saying that my and others opinions and feelings are factually untrue? I have no idea where you got the idea that I was dismissing anybody who disagreed with me. I don't remember telling anyone that their opinion was incorrect.

 

I don't need to justify my disappointment. It's an opinion & emotion. I was expressing it, because that's what forums are for.

 

I find it amusing that you're saying that I'm dismissing other's opinions and factually incorrect, then proceed to tell me where character and depth should come from, as if you are the authority on it and anybody who gets character and depth a different way is wrong.

[Squark]

I'm largely in favor of removing laregly meaningless choices that frequently have a mathematically correct answer and ounish people who pick the wrong thing for aesthetic reasons*. It's even worse if the differences are so minute that most people who own the models don't notice the difference *cough* bolt rifles *cough*. And since there is a mathematically correct choice much of the time, it also makes your models less future proof.

 

That being said, the implementation feels sloppy. Some things still feel too similar (Devourers and Fleshborers on Termagaunts), and sometimes things that genuinely had different roles have been mashed together (Combi-weapons are the poster child here). Warrior melee weapons feel a little too homogenized- Perhaps 2 options, one for cracking open power armor, another for horde clearing, would have felt better?

 

 

*Age of Sigmar Liberators are probably the most blatant example- Swords used to hit on 3+ and wound on 4+, while hammers hit on 4+ and wounded on a 3+. In theory identical and meaningless, except that bonuses to wound were harder to find so the hammers were just better.

[Indy Techwisp]

I've had another look through the datasheets.

Didn't Tyranids previously have a lot of anti-psyker stuff?

Where'd all that go?