Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have only a few tyranids (A flyrant, carnifex, zoanthrope and like 20 or so gaunts, and the codex). I'm thinking of expanding my nids by building up a skyblight / skytyrant list with like 7 FMC or something absurd like that. My question is - should I even bother with this? Are tyranids really worth the money or the time? I've heard so many awful things about them online, and I'm not sure if this would be a waste of money. It just seems like they don't have answers to so many things like high AV values. So, tyranid players - what makes your bugs successful? And what makes you keep playing them?
-Arcticor
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Flyrants are one of the Big Five units running the tournament scene right now (Wave Serpents, Knights, Flyrants, Broadsides, Riptides), so if you're worrying because you think they won't be any good, don't, because they're still doing well and having large showings at tournaments.

I'd personally advise you to play the army you like, because ultimately every army except perhaps Sisters has at least one build that's *useable*, and you'll do a lot better with them/persevere longer with an army you're really behind. If you like Nids, but you get told they suck and you should play White Scars so you play White Scars, chances are you'll be pretty reasonably happy with winning all the time until the next book, where you have an army that is no longer top dog and you didn't find it inspiring in the first place. I won my first game as Grey Knights today, after losing my first seven games (and nearly being tabled, or being tabled, in every one of them). But I love paladins in space, so I'm keeping at it. If you really like the army, you'll find a way to make it work :eek:k:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
Two Flyrants with two TL Devourers each is disgusting. It's the same reason Dark Eldar spam Venoms but effective against so much more. The secret to a good Tyranid army is to have multiple high-level threats and spread them out. Making them fast-moving is good too. It can be tough to prioritize two Flyrants, a Tervigon, an Exocrine, a Zoanthrope brood and a Hive Guard brood, while also not ignoring all the little things. Sure, those Gaunts(whatever variety) won't do much, but left unchecked, they can whittle any army down or tarpit your best units.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,376 Posts
What??? Nids don't suck otherwise a large portion of tournament players would not be playing them right now. The people saying bad things about them either got their asses handed to them by Nids or they do not know how to play Nids correctly and so they get tabled.
It is your army if you like Nids build your army and play them learn the army inside and out. I love orks and have played them since 1994 and will keep doing so until I decide to stop. I have heard it all from orks suck to ork are cheese.

I would say if you like your army build it and forget what other people say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
Another big source for Tyranid hate comes from a large chunk of veteran players. I know three myself, who have played them since before fifth edition. They used almost pure assault swarms with very little guns and, in on case, lots of Genestealers. They had their army the way they liked it and don't want to change. For them, it would take buying a bunch of new models and/or breaking bone swords and scything talons off painted models to add gun bio-morphs. But that is not a product of the Tyranid codex. It is more to do with the main rules changing. But long-time players who are either unable or unwilling to change is a big source of complaint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for the words of encouragement guys. It means a lot, especially when one of my good friends keeps telling me how rubbish they are. (Maybe I'll just have to prove him wrong). What are people bringing to tournaments nowadays? Is it just flying circus w mawlocs? I feel like that would be pretty frustrating to face.
 

·
Jeepers
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
I think this comes down to one of the rules of thumb for selecting an army. Do you like the models and do you like the fluff? If yes to both or even just the one, you will have a more fun time playing that army irrespective of that codexes 'power level'. If you want to go with 'Nids, go with Nids.

I'm currently rocking me Sisters of Battle and having a blast, I'm loosing more than I'm winning but the wins are more satisfying, the loses are still fun and it's worth it, the fun I have is immense because I love my army. I've tired armies that are 'over 9000', but because I have no attachment to the fluff or the models, to me they just feel soulless.

So I'd go with the 'Nids and shove the hate. There will always be places and people to help you get better should you struggle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
No, not Flyrants. Flyrants are awesome, but what makes the list work are Crones. Crones win games, because fucken haywire man.
Er, Tyrants have Ignores Cover Haywire (auto-hit plus Ignores Cover and unlimited shots makes it better than firing two Tentaclids against anything but Flyers, and since when were vehicle Flyers relevant? Or able to survive Flyrants?) plus a Devourer, or two Devourers, which make for pretty horrifying anti-tank (or indeed basically anti-anything, and the Flyrant is waaay tougher and while Jink hurts them pretty badly, they don't suffer nearly as much as the Crone does). I think you'd be hars pressed to fit Crones into a Nid list that wasn't limited in detachments or something by tournament house rules; 2 min squads of Rippers and 2 Flyrants with Electroshock Grubs and 2x Brainleech Devourers is a legal Combined Arms so bring that ad infinitun, and a Malanthrope in one of the detachments would almost certainly be the way I'd run it.

Like many armies, you *can* make them super-hard to beat at the expense of nobody wanting to get steamrolled by your boring, unengaging army outside of a dedicated tournament, or you can make pretty decent casual lists out of it. For the sake of people playing you more than once, I'd go for the latter.

EDIT: Actually, that depends on whether you're going to a lot of competitive tournaments. From my observation, Brits will hate you and never play you if you bring a competitive list (one guy at my local club bought 9 Night Scythes full of 5 man Warrior squads and Stormteks when 6th ed dropped, used it for a month and never found an opponent for the army ever again, causing him to quit to go and play Warmachine and spew bile about how GW suck), but particularly in the USA competitive armies are regarded as the good type to have and you can find a lot of organised tournament scenes. Basically, don't bother with the 'lololol spam FMCs i will faceroll the game and make it unfun for everybody' if you're in Britain, but knock yourself out if you're in the US of A (for some reason, while we English are huge fans of one-upmanship, we also have a complex convention of fairness to make sure that you're legitimately superior or something).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
for some reason, while we English are huge fans of one-upmanship, we also have a complex convention of fairness to make sure that you're legitimately superior or something
I think it is more to do with having a "Fair fight". If one person is seen to winning due to an "Unfair advantage", it is seen as poor sport and clearly they are unskilled if they are completely relying on an army of cheese to win them battles.

However, if the forces are more evenly matched (ignoring of course GW terrible balancing system), and then someone wins, then there has been no foul play and it has been a good game.

But then of course if the game is completely unbalanced you see that the crowd immediately routes for the underdog. They could completely despise the person who has brought a terrible or unfit army, but suddenly they are on their side from the word go when up against a tournament army.

We brits are just hard to please during competitions...in fact in general really.


Sorry off topic!
Got a mate who runs a flying circus of nids and also Daemons (separate armies not together). Both do fantastically well. I'd say go for it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
Hey, I just wanted to chime in. Like others have said, play an army you like but tyranids are definitely still competitive if not more so with multiple builds. I played a tournament two days ago and was in 4th place before the final match where I lost to eldar even though I had an amazing first turn and probably should have won had I been a bit smarter and has more experience against wraith knights (my gaunts were tying them up but my zoanthropes died and I lost synapse which could have been avoided had I been smarter with my tyrants). The eldar player took 1st overall because of painting scores but battle point wise the guy in 1st was a different tyranid player with a completely different build.

Point being, tyranids are very good but can be tough to play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
I find the best armies are those that can be competitive but have a steep learning curve and are very unforgiving when it comes to mistakes. They are fun to use and fun to fight and you can't really "blame the dice" so much as your strategy. Sure, you can have an off day with bad rolls but if you have no sense of how to properly wield your units than luck hardly matters.

Fortunately, the no thrills, shove-everything-you-got-forward armies have all but disappeared. A minimum amount of strategy is required for most. But the finesse armies are a healthy challenge for both their player and opponent alike.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top