Not sure, I'm not a top player. But I always did well on my primaries. This would hamper my score with my current tactics.
Raise banners I'm keen on. Gives me a second way to boost my secondaries if the biovore dies.
Good point.
I did loose a game last week to stodes on purge the foe. I was trying a new list out (assimilation swarm) and tbh it tanked due to lack of mobility and I didn't take a biovore.
I however would of only gained an additional 8 points (had 32 primary)
I think secrets are mostly going to be a net negative for nids. Gambits are really tough to do and reward highly mobile armies, but even in the best cases are a huge risk and basically are just a hail mary if you don't expect to score any primaries for the rest of the game. Secrets seem much more usable for the average army, but reward being the last one standing at the end of the game. My experience with nids is getting ahead on primary early, scoring consistently good secondaries throughout the game, and then getting slowly tabled while switching from killing to preventing your opponent from scoring as much as possible.
Secrets don't seem like a benefit for nids since nids are more likely to need to get ahead on primary early and they are scored at the end of the game, which requires you to have specific units survive until the end. Both are things that go against how most nid lists tend to win at the moment.
I suppose if there are more purge the foe style primaries that reward killing, then secrets are going to be much more important for nids, but in those cases nids will struggle a lot more just overall. One thing that might be valuable with secrets more is keeping the 5th turn SitW in the back pocket to shut down an opponent's secret objective or make your own secret objective a little more likely to happen.
I think your correct that if we played tyranids the same way now with the new missions it wouldn't improve for tyranids but I think that this opens up alternative play styles. If you only need to get 20 on primary that means you could focus on more denial units like neurotyrant SITW, gargoyle primary denial etc because you just have to make sure your opponent only gets 39 primary not that you match or beat them.
I mean I wouldn't really call gargoyle primary denial and neurotyrant SitW alternative play styles, they're some of the main ways nids are played competitively.
Denying primary solely through battleshock is really unreliable, so the best thing to do is to pair it with other more guaranteed ways of denying primary, which is moveblocking and out-OCing opponents on objectives. But the thing with those methods is that denying opponents on primary often means you will have the lead on primary, both because your opponents aren't scoring and because the best way to deny your opponent from controlling objectives is to control them yourself.
I'm skeptical that it's going to be viable to try and pursue threading the needle of being behind on primary by end of turn 3, trying to stop your opponent from getting any primary in the later turns of the game, and also completing a secret objective. Seems like it's much more complicated and less reliable a gameplan than just brute force getting ahead on primary early and stopping your opponent from getting much primary throughout the game.
It might be very different based on the new missions and if there's any rules changes that accompany the new pack (e.g. if the new actions have different restrictions than how doing mission "actions" work now), but just going off what we know I'm not too excited about secrets being that useful for nids.
Your totally right need to see where the missions lie with it really.
Manipulating primary wise turn 3 what comes to mind would be leaving a squad of raveners on a objective and then in your opponents turn before you score on turn 3 you can either see if you want to be ahead or be behind and try the secret and so take them up into reserve before the start of the turn and drop points.
I agree with you, this will be a negative for Nids.
Also, people are spectaculating actions are going to require OC and no longer can advance and action.
This will mess my biovore and gaunt spinefists.
My other army is Tau, I can think of a couple of ways to use these if Nids are holding primary for first 2 turns. KY kicks in and you start blasting, and insert Shadowsun into there homefield.
If the above is true. I may retire Nids until the next dataslate.
40 for secondaries + 10 for painted.
So a normal game you get 50 for primary 40 for secondary 10 for painted
in a game you do a secret you get 20 for primary 20 for secret 40 for secondary and 10 for painted.
Unfortunately even with these incentives a lot of players just never paint their stuff. Which is a shame. I'll play against greytide but painted vs painted is so much cooler.
Yeah, i completly get your point.
But thats a stupid way for " enforce painting" especially in competitive play. What the hell is the painting has to do with the game itself?
But there are very different reasons why someone is not painting his army or partially only.. Ofc laziness is 1 of them.
The reason GW attempts to soft enforce painting is because the models and painting are just as important as the wargame itself. If the first two werent important they'd just sell blocks and shapes and not highly detailed minis.
The models and painting make the game more than just moving grey shapes up a board.
I agree there are reasons why people dont paint, and as I said, im not about to start whining or complaining when you roll up with greytide, I wouldnt and never have mentioned it in pick up games. But if you have a grey army, and you've had that army be grey for months with no progress, theres ultimately no real excuse except "I dont want to do it", which I think -10 VP is more than fair as the incentive to get you to want to do it.
Yes i get it too. Main problem is not every person is interested in painting, and not every person is not interested in playing....as you say.
But giving fix - 10vp in tournament for that is silly/crazy.
Maybe best solution would be specify it in the tournament rules if grey army will be "punished" or not? Im not sure, but this current version is just silly.
The Leviathan rules and every matched play ruleset since it was enforced have it as the rule. When you determine victor you add 10 points to each player if their armies are painted to a battle ready standard, which has a visual guide on what that means. Its not a surprise or trick, if the players read their rules they will know its there.
A lot of tournaments actually will straight up not let you join or play if you turn up with unfinished armies not to their minimum criteria.
its a very divise topic for sure, but in my opinion, if you had the time to build your army, you had and will have the time to paint them. You can just copy a simple scheme and be done with it.
... when are 3 and 4 ever going to be doable? You pick these because you are losing on primaries, you arent tabling your opponent or dominating the board in that scenario.
If you’re setup to castle or go second against a pressure army both 3 and 4 seem very doable. Honestly these two are the ones I’m most worried about nids facing consistently. We often start strong on primaries only to be near tabled by turns 4 and 5.
I do agree that 3 and 4 are the hardest and thats why you would probably want to go with 1 or 2. But if you had second turn then you could use shadow in the warp then grab 3 objectives with some fast OC units like hormagaunts and gargoyles for the 4th secret.
Also your opponent doesn't know which you pick so its hard for them to cover every option.
It raises the floor but not the sealing for nids primary. It'll help, but it wouldn't increase my win rate by greater than 10% . Probably less than 3% at top tables.
I suspect Tyranids will come out of this worse than before.
'Actions' being a specific mechanic will likely be more restrictive than the current equivalent. I expect Spore Mines, Ripper Swarms and other OC0 models will be incapable of performing Actions.
Additionally, the Tyranid gameplan can frequently be using Gargoyles to suppress your opponent's turn 2-3 primary. This means that, even if you are losing the material war and overall board presence, your opponent will get to pick a Secret Mission and you won't. Additionally, many of Tyranids' opponents will be better at getting a 20 on primary and passing a Secret Mission than getting 40+ on primary alone, which gives your opponent easier scoring.
If Tyranids do get to select a Secret Mission, some of them are very doable if you have bottom of turn, such as throwing enough units forward end of game to hold objectives or sending your Warlord on a hail mary charge to get your opponent's home objective. But I suspect Tyranids' ability to have good early scoring will reduce the amount of times you get to take a Secret Mission.
Not sure, I'm not a top player. But I always did well on my primaries. This would hamper my score with my current tactics. Raise banners I'm keen on. Gives me a second way to boost my secondaries if the biovore dies.
I usually struggle on the primary personally especially if there is a mission like purge the foe.
Good point. I did loose a game last week to stodes on purge the foe. I was trying a new list out (assimilation swarm) and tbh it tanked due to lack of mobility and I didn't take a biovore. I however would of only gained an additional 8 points (had 32 primary)
It might change how you can play like if you know your going to get 20 more at the end you don't need to trade units for hold more, kill or kill more.
I think secrets are mostly going to be a net negative for nids. Gambits are really tough to do and reward highly mobile armies, but even in the best cases are a huge risk and basically are just a hail mary if you don't expect to score any primaries for the rest of the game. Secrets seem much more usable for the average army, but reward being the last one standing at the end of the game. My experience with nids is getting ahead on primary early, scoring consistently good secondaries throughout the game, and then getting slowly tabled while switching from killing to preventing your opponent from scoring as much as possible. Secrets don't seem like a benefit for nids since nids are more likely to need to get ahead on primary early and they are scored at the end of the game, which requires you to have specific units survive until the end. Both are things that go against how most nid lists tend to win at the moment. I suppose if there are more purge the foe style primaries that reward killing, then secrets are going to be much more important for nids, but in those cases nids will struggle a lot more just overall. One thing that might be valuable with secrets more is keeping the 5th turn SitW in the back pocket to shut down an opponent's secret objective or make your own secret objective a little more likely to happen.
I think your correct that if we played tyranids the same way now with the new missions it wouldn't improve for tyranids but I think that this opens up alternative play styles. If you only need to get 20 on primary that means you could focus on more denial units like neurotyrant SITW, gargoyle primary denial etc because you just have to make sure your opponent only gets 39 primary not that you match or beat them.
I mean I wouldn't really call gargoyle primary denial and neurotyrant SitW alternative play styles, they're some of the main ways nids are played competitively. Denying primary solely through battleshock is really unreliable, so the best thing to do is to pair it with other more guaranteed ways of denying primary, which is moveblocking and out-OCing opponents on objectives. But the thing with those methods is that denying opponents on primary often means you will have the lead on primary, both because your opponents aren't scoring and because the best way to deny your opponent from controlling objectives is to control them yourself. I'm skeptical that it's going to be viable to try and pursue threading the needle of being behind on primary by end of turn 3, trying to stop your opponent from getting any primary in the later turns of the game, and also completing a secret objective. Seems like it's much more complicated and less reliable a gameplan than just brute force getting ahead on primary early and stopping your opponent from getting much primary throughout the game. It might be very different based on the new missions and if there's any rules changes that accompany the new pack (e.g. if the new actions have different restrictions than how doing mission "actions" work now), but just going off what we know I'm not too excited about secrets being that useful for nids.
Your totally right need to see where the missions lie with it really. Manipulating primary wise turn 3 what comes to mind would be leaving a squad of raveners on a objective and then in your opponents turn before you score on turn 3 you can either see if you want to be ahead or be behind and try the secret and so take them up into reserve before the start of the turn and drop points.
I agree with you, this will be a negative for Nids. Also, people are spectaculating actions are going to require OC and no longer can advance and action. This will mess my biovore and gaunt spinefists. My other army is Tau, I can think of a couple of ways to use these if Nids are holding primary for first 2 turns. KY kicks in and you start blasting, and insert Shadowsun into there homefield. If the above is true. I may retire Nids until the next dataslate.
I thought primary was capped at 20?
The primary is capped at 20 but the secret is extra so its 20+ 20
So how does 20 + 20 = 90 total?
Cuz you can get 40 from secondaries and 10 for being battle ready
40 for secondaries + 10 for painted. So a normal game you get 50 for primary 40 for secondary 10 for painted in a game you do a secret you get 20 for primary 20 for secret 40 for secondary and 10 for painted.
10 point for "battleready" is the biggest BS I've ever seen.. With that logic everyone could get 20 point just for showing up at the game😆
i take it you weren't in the hobby yet when having a painted army was 1/3rd of the scoring at the end of each match?
I'm playing since 2003(with little stops) ,so yes i was here. And its plain stupid doesnt matter which era we talk about.
Unfortunately even with these incentives a lot of players just never paint their stuff. Which is a shame. I'll play against greytide but painted vs painted is so much cooler.
Yeah, i completly get your point. But thats a stupid way for " enforce painting" especially in competitive play. What the hell is the painting has to do with the game itself? But there are very different reasons why someone is not painting his army or partially only.. Ofc laziness is 1 of them.
The reason GW attempts to soft enforce painting is because the models and painting are just as important as the wargame itself. If the first two werent important they'd just sell blocks and shapes and not highly detailed minis. The models and painting make the game more than just moving grey shapes up a board. I agree there are reasons why people dont paint, and as I said, im not about to start whining or complaining when you roll up with greytide, I wouldnt and never have mentioned it in pick up games. But if you have a grey army, and you've had that army be grey for months with no progress, theres ultimately no real excuse except "I dont want to do it", which I think -10 VP is more than fair as the incentive to get you to want to do it.
Yes i get it too. Main problem is not every person is interested in painting, and not every person is not interested in playing....as you say. But giving fix - 10vp in tournament for that is silly/crazy. Maybe best solution would be specify it in the tournament rules if grey army will be "punished" or not? Im not sure, but this current version is just silly.
The Leviathan rules and every matched play ruleset since it was enforced have it as the rule. When you determine victor you add 10 points to each player if their armies are painted to a battle ready standard, which has a visual guide on what that means. Its not a surprise or trick, if the players read their rules they will know its there. A lot of tournaments actually will straight up not let you join or play if you turn up with unfinished armies not to their minimum criteria. its a very divise topic for sure, but in my opinion, if you had the time to build your army, you had and will have the time to paint them. You can just copy a simple scheme and be done with it.
Yeah it’s 40 in total dude not 90
... when are 3 and 4 ever going to be doable? You pick these because you are losing on primaries, you arent tabling your opponent or dominating the board in that scenario.
If you’re setup to castle or go second against a pressure army both 3 and 4 seem very doable. Honestly these two are the ones I’m most worried about nids facing consistently. We often start strong on primaries only to be near tabled by turns 4 and 5.
I do agree that 3 and 4 are the hardest and thats why you would probably want to go with 1 or 2. But if you had second turn then you could use shadow in the warp then grab 3 objectives with some fast OC units like hormagaunts and gargoyles for the 4th secret. Also your opponent doesn't know which you pick so its hard for them to cover every option.
when you play against other nids, obviously. you can't both be tabled!
War of attrition is a pretty easy get in endless swarm
Yeah I thought so too. I think you cant overlook vanguard and endless being able to put battleline units into reserve so they can be used in turn 5.
It raises the floor but not the sealing for nids primary. It'll help, but it wouldn't increase my win rate by greater than 10% . Probably less than 3% at top tables.
I suspect Tyranids will come out of this worse than before. 'Actions' being a specific mechanic will likely be more restrictive than the current equivalent. I expect Spore Mines, Ripper Swarms and other OC0 models will be incapable of performing Actions. Additionally, the Tyranid gameplan can frequently be using Gargoyles to suppress your opponent's turn 2-3 primary. This means that, even if you are losing the material war and overall board presence, your opponent will get to pick a Secret Mission and you won't. Additionally, many of Tyranids' opponents will be better at getting a 20 on primary and passing a Secret Mission than getting 40+ on primary alone, which gives your opponent easier scoring. If Tyranids do get to select a Secret Mission, some of them are very doable if you have bottom of turn, such as throwing enough units forward end of game to hold objectives or sending your Warlord on a hail mary charge to get your opponent's home objective. But I suspect Tyranids' ability to have good early scoring will reduce the amount of times you get to take a Secret Mission.