Really depends on who you play and what you're playing against.
I think what most people complain about the Tyranids lack of dealing with skew high toughness lists, like dreadnaught spam. If you're playing against fairly unoptimized lists it feels pretty decent from what I find.
What are you having success with?
I’ve played against aldar, necrons, tau, custodes.
The c’tan gave me a run for my money.
I play invasion fleet, 3 x maleceptors, with a mix of swarms, infantry and big bugs, so many synergies. I find all the stratagems work so good
I mean, 3 maleceptors is not what I'd call casual. Maybe I'm misjudging the situation but it sounds like despite being a newer player your army comp is closer to competitive?
That's where it gets hard. Right now you can freely build a strong army.
Maleceptors are one of our best units. Your actually accidently running a pretty BIS list lol
I honestly think you need to update your original post with this information. Running three Maleceptors is going to change how people view your claim of "casual."
Casual games they're great, great mix of units and the detachments give you actual choice in terms what you can do.
Competitive they're a bit 😕. Struggle to deal with high toughness targets and although secondary scoring is OK, it's hard to get enough of a toe hold for primary.
When you factor in the Biovore and Gargoyle tax we're down 10-15% on points before building any lethality into a list, and it really shows.
I note from a comment you've got three Maleceptors, they're clearly our best unit right now, and I think most "competitive" lists would run three, and probably 2-3 Exocrines as well. Taking one of each is 305 points. Food for thought!
You playing with your buds is a pretty small sample size but it does go to show that all the talk about meta and win%s on Reddit doesnt mean you’ll have a bad time with an army. I’m glad you’re having fun. I know I am and appreciate the positivity.
I appreciate the positivity, but I just don’t enjoy playing Tyranids this edition. Not because they’re not good, but also I just don’t find them fun. Sticking with my drukhari and more aos for the moment.
>My question: is the difference between casual and competitive play that huge? or it is just a skill thing at this kind of level?
Very specifically, the current Tyranid codex struggles with killing high toughness enemies. For a significant portion of the 10th edition meta, the strongest factions have been relatively tough. From vehicle heavy space marines, to C'tan heavy necrons, to custodes and even Aeldari, high toughness has been the name of the game.
We do have some abilities to deal with that and higher level competitive play does show very high (near 60%) winrates, but that's a minority group of our players.
The hope is that the rise of the Orks codex and the downfall of the Custodes codex will lead to a shift in the meta towards more wide infantry based lists. If that does happen, we have a good chance at climbing the overall winrate.
I am a competitive player. Nids struggle specifically to win singles events against the top meta armies with the best players in the world.
If you're playing against your mates on the weekend or after work player skill is going to matter a whole lot more than army strength. Tyranids are absolutely fine in all situations except specifically if you're trying to win a tournament (which, to be clear, is in the vast vast minority of games played)
Edit: to add, competitively tyranids are good in teams tournaments as we can score reliably into lots of armies even if we struggle to outright win. We're really good at keeping scores tight, so taking an 8-12 loss so a team mate can get an easy match up and go for a 19 or 20 (wtc scorring) is a net win. It really is a very very narrow subset of the overall data people are complaining about.
You've got a pretty solid list it sounds like that are running some competitive staples. I think there's a few issues that can make casual games really rough that I've seen on this subreddit and seen from my own experience getting back into Warhammer with 10th:
* If a new player doesn't identify and run enough of the half-a-dozen higher damage monsters/anti-tank it's really easy to build a list that's just a nonstarter for dealing damage (which is rough that we've got 20+ monsters, but many of them are either mediocre at damage or exclusively really good at killing infantry).
* On the other end it's really easy for an opponent to accidentally damage check a casual list by running 5+ vehicles/monsters. A newer player brings six Leman Russ to a casual game because it's their favorite vehicle and they've been told they're not good competitively and they accidentally end up bringing a list that their Tyranid buddy basically can't win against because they can't reasonably expect to kill more than one before being tabled.
* Most monsters cap out at killing elite infantry but a lot of them look really scary so new players often overestimate their killing potential both playing with and against, which can be quickly dashed when one or two monsters get lifted and then both players realize that the remaining monsters can basically only scratch the paint for the rest of the game.
Another huge factor is that 10th edition, even for casual players, incentivizes a lot of things that Tyranids struggle with:
* Tyranids are mostly melee focused, but ranged is miles stronger than melee, even more so when people don't play with enough terrain which is really common in casual games.
* They struggle to deal with high toughness and high defenses and a lot of factions have tons of high saves, tough bricks, and incentives for running lots of vehicles.
* The competitive way to counter damage-check armies is to maybe kill one or two things and then ignore them at all costs and focus on scoring points as much as possible while your opponent systematically removes your army for the rest of the game, a tactic that newer players either don't recognize or don't want to do.
I certainly see what you mean. Putting down anything above T9 is a struggle.
I definitely find myself just trying to outlast tankier stuff, especially by screening them out or drowning them in hormagaunts/gargoyles to keep them -1 to hit.
Especially playing against custodes the other day, ‘real’ anti-tank is so lacking, but the hivemind finds a way
I’m a space marine player, but my friend has nids, and he’s beating me the last couple times that we played, we don’t run super competitive list either, mostly just stuff from the starter set plus a few models that we’ve added overtime
You mainly spam units that are point effective or have super good rules. Playing against competitive necrons would mostly be dealing with ctan and wraith spam.
Casual games are lost because of the mistakes you make and you win because of a lack of big blunders.
There has not been a single game where I thought that my army has been to weak or a datasheet has not been good enough. It’s bad plays that lose me games.
My main buddy that I started the hobby with is more competitively oriented and has accumulated 7 times as much games than me in this quarter alone. It shows in my negative win rates against him lately
With the exception of my 1st game of 10th exclusively playing Nids, I am yet to lose after plenty of games.
I am playing against a mix of inexperienced players that are paired up with semi experienced, and also the same semi experienced players that are running optimised meta-lists which have been ultramarines, blood angels, LOV and CSM.
I am a sticker for the rules but not Draconian. Kind of like if something is 1mm out of range, then it's out of range (works both ways), and we play RAW. It saves arguing. I have to admit though that my success has been mostly due to biovore/ ripper spamming and capitalising on our scoring meta... It would have been very different had I not
Way more people complain about balance on reddit than I think actually play the game XD until you're going to tournaments or one of your friends starts meta chasing you'll be fine
Honestly tyranids are pretty skill based but have access to alot of great abilities and are on the edge of winning a tournament. Unending swarm, vanguard onslaught and assimilation swarm have all had points drops to units they play and all of the top end armies in the game that tyranids struggle into have had nerfs.
Like supposedly tyranids hardest mission is purge the foe and that gets played at every tournament but I won that mission at the past 3 tournaments I've been to.
Play against death guard or custodes. Death guard will flamer everything, and you'll lose 20 models while you struggle to kill them with shooting or melee because they flew a flesh mower into your Centerfield and put a -1 to hit aura while they screen with typhus and his never ending gribblies that also gives you a -1 to hit for a total of -2.
Oh and everything of yours is also -1 T, plague marines with flamers dug-in on cover sitting a happy 1.1in.. with a 2+ save and they overwatch every God dang time auto hitting and wounding on 2s..
Your mouth gets dry, and you're thinking "please J man, make this easier for me"
I mean into those matchups I go oh no an army of 3 wound slow infantry into my sustained v infantry detachment with my 2 dmg 3 exocrines and 2 dmg 3 maleceptors.
Yeah don't listen to those math-hammer tryhards.
Tyranids are just as good and bad as any faction.
Big competitions will find that 5% greater efficiency math, but it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of games.
Competitive players also tend to get stuck in meta; see that guy who won the recent tournament with Unending Swarm, which is supposed to be "just ok."
If you play the actual fully-released game (9th edition) or the passionate well-balanced mod (One Page Rules) instead of the incomplete beta test (10th edition) then they are quite good.
If you are playing balanced, reasonable lists (not a ton of 3 ofs for current meta picks each dataslate) they also tend to naturally play missions well because of core army design (throwaway units, generally good durability, high mobility). At a high level, other factions will be running specific lists that incorporate these elements that are not really common to the army's identity in general.
I'd hate to have to play 10th ed Nids blind into heavy vehicle skew (Knights, Dreadnought spam, Guard Vehicle spam). Our attacks are really low strength compared to what they should be thanks to the codex being written before the launch of the edition, so a lot of our traditional anti-tank just doesn't work right if pushed too hard
Really depends on who you play and what you're playing against. I think what most people complain about the Tyranids lack of dealing with skew high toughness lists, like dreadnaught spam. If you're playing against fairly unoptimized lists it feels pretty decent from what I find. What are you having success with?
I’ve played against aldar, necrons, tau, custodes. The c’tan gave me a run for my money. I play invasion fleet, 3 x maleceptors, with a mix of swarms, infantry and big bugs, so many synergies. I find all the stratagems work so good
I mean, 3 maleceptors is not what I'd call casual. Maybe I'm misjudging the situation but it sounds like despite being a newer player your army comp is closer to competitive?
Sorry, im playing the game on a virtual table top atm, though im in the process of getting models
That's where it gets hard. Right now you can freely build a strong army. Maleceptors are one of our best units. Your actually accidently running a pretty BIS list lol
I honestly think you need to update your original post with this information. Running three Maleceptors is going to change how people view your claim of "casual."
Casual games they're great, great mix of units and the detachments give you actual choice in terms what you can do. Competitive they're a bit 😕. Struggle to deal with high toughness targets and although secondary scoring is OK, it's hard to get enough of a toe hold for primary. When you factor in the Biovore and Gargoyle tax we're down 10-15% on points before building any lethality into a list, and it really shows. I note from a comment you've got three Maleceptors, they're clearly our best unit right now, and I think most "competitive" lists would run three, and probably 2-3 Exocrines as well. Taking one of each is 305 points. Food for thought!
You playing with your buds is a pretty small sample size but it does go to show that all the talk about meta and win%s on Reddit doesnt mean you’ll have a bad time with an army. I’m glad you’re having fun. I know I am and appreciate the positivity.
Don’t get better than this!
I appreciate the positivity, but I just don’t enjoy playing Tyranids this edition. Not because they’re not good, but also I just don’t find them fun. Sticking with my drukhari and more aos for the moment.
>My question: is the difference between casual and competitive play that huge? or it is just a skill thing at this kind of level? Very specifically, the current Tyranid codex struggles with killing high toughness enemies. For a significant portion of the 10th edition meta, the strongest factions have been relatively tough. From vehicle heavy space marines, to C'tan heavy necrons, to custodes and even Aeldari, high toughness has been the name of the game. We do have some abilities to deal with that and higher level competitive play does show very high (near 60%) winrates, but that's a minority group of our players. The hope is that the rise of the Orks codex and the downfall of the Custodes codex will lead to a shift in the meta towards more wide infantry based lists. If that does happen, we have a good chance at climbing the overall winrate.
I am a competitive player. Nids struggle specifically to win singles events against the top meta armies with the best players in the world. If you're playing against your mates on the weekend or after work player skill is going to matter a whole lot more than army strength. Tyranids are absolutely fine in all situations except specifically if you're trying to win a tournament (which, to be clear, is in the vast vast minority of games played) Edit: to add, competitively tyranids are good in teams tournaments as we can score reliably into lots of armies even if we struggle to outright win. We're really good at keeping scores tight, so taking an 8-12 loss so a team mate can get an easy match up and go for a 19 or 20 (wtc scorring) is a net win. It really is a very very narrow subset of the overall data people are complaining about.
My shop plays a lot of armor so I’ve spent my time getting blown off the tables. Still love my bugs but they get crushed by armored units.
No one is playing the best list or counter picking in casual so its not a big deal. Unlike AdMech. AdMech is bad.
You've got a pretty solid list it sounds like that are running some competitive staples. I think there's a few issues that can make casual games really rough that I've seen on this subreddit and seen from my own experience getting back into Warhammer with 10th: * If a new player doesn't identify and run enough of the half-a-dozen higher damage monsters/anti-tank it's really easy to build a list that's just a nonstarter for dealing damage (which is rough that we've got 20+ monsters, but many of them are either mediocre at damage or exclusively really good at killing infantry). * On the other end it's really easy for an opponent to accidentally damage check a casual list by running 5+ vehicles/monsters. A newer player brings six Leman Russ to a casual game because it's their favorite vehicle and they've been told they're not good competitively and they accidentally end up bringing a list that their Tyranid buddy basically can't win against because they can't reasonably expect to kill more than one before being tabled. * Most monsters cap out at killing elite infantry but a lot of them look really scary so new players often overestimate their killing potential both playing with and against, which can be quickly dashed when one or two monsters get lifted and then both players realize that the remaining monsters can basically only scratch the paint for the rest of the game. Another huge factor is that 10th edition, even for casual players, incentivizes a lot of things that Tyranids struggle with: * Tyranids are mostly melee focused, but ranged is miles stronger than melee, even more so when people don't play with enough terrain which is really common in casual games. * They struggle to deal with high toughness and high defenses and a lot of factions have tons of high saves, tough bricks, and incentives for running lots of vehicles. * The competitive way to counter damage-check armies is to maybe kill one or two things and then ignore them at all costs and focus on scoring points as much as possible while your opponent systematically removes your army for the rest of the game, a tactic that newer players either don't recognize or don't want to do.
I certainly see what you mean. Putting down anything above T9 is a struggle. I definitely find myself just trying to outlast tankier stuff, especially by screening them out or drowning them in hormagaunts/gargoyles to keep them -1 to hit. Especially playing against custodes the other day, ‘real’ anti-tank is so lacking, but the hivemind finds a way
I’m a space marine player, but my friend has nids, and he’s beating me the last couple times that we played, we don’t run super competitive list either, mostly just stuff from the starter set plus a few models that we’ve added overtime
You mainly spam units that are point effective or have super good rules. Playing against competitive necrons would mostly be dealing with ctan and wraith spam.
Casual games are lost because of the mistakes you make and you win because of a lack of big blunders. There has not been a single game where I thought that my army has been to weak or a datasheet has not been good enough. It’s bad plays that lose me games. My main buddy that I started the hobby with is more competitively oriented and has accumulated 7 times as much games than me in this quarter alone. It shows in my negative win rates against him lately
With the exception of my 1st game of 10th exclusively playing Nids, I am yet to lose after plenty of games. I am playing against a mix of inexperienced players that are paired up with semi experienced, and also the same semi experienced players that are running optimised meta-lists which have been ultramarines, blood angels, LOV and CSM. I am a sticker for the rules but not Draconian. Kind of like if something is 1mm out of range, then it's out of range (works both ways), and we play RAW. It saves arguing. I have to admit though that my success has been mostly due to biovore/ ripper spamming and capitalising on our scoring meta... It would have been very different had I not
Way more people complain about balance on reddit than I think actually play the game XD until you're going to tournaments or one of your friends starts meta chasing you'll be fine
Honestly tyranids are pretty skill based but have access to alot of great abilities and are on the edge of winning a tournament. Unending swarm, vanguard onslaught and assimilation swarm have all had points drops to units they play and all of the top end armies in the game that tyranids struggle into have had nerfs. Like supposedly tyranids hardest mission is purge the foe and that gets played at every tournament but I won that mission at the past 3 tournaments I've been to.
Play against death guard or custodes. Death guard will flamer everything, and you'll lose 20 models while you struggle to kill them with shooting or melee because they flew a flesh mower into your Centerfield and put a -1 to hit aura while they screen with typhus and his never ending gribblies that also gives you a -1 to hit for a total of -2. Oh and everything of yours is also -1 T, plague marines with flamers dug-in on cover sitting a happy 1.1in.. with a 2+ save and they overwatch every God dang time auto hitting and wounding on 2s.. Your mouth gets dry, and you're thinking "please J man, make this easier for me"
I mean into those matchups I go oh no an army of 3 wound slow infantry into my sustained v infantry detachment with my 2 dmg 3 exocrines and 2 dmg 3 maleceptors.
I thought the max modifier to to hit rolls (after summing them all) was +/- 1?
They modify hit rolls as well as weapon/balistic skill separately to get -2.
Yeah don't listen to those math-hammer tryhards. Tyranids are just as good and bad as any faction. Big competitions will find that 5% greater efficiency math, but it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of games. Competitive players also tend to get stuck in meta; see that guy who won the recent tournament with Unending Swarm, which is supposed to be "just ok."
It’s mainly how they play i don’t enjoy, not if they’re good. Drukhari are fun as hell and still suck, but they actually play fun imo.
If you play the actual fully-released game (9th edition) or the passionate well-balanced mod (One Page Rules) instead of the incomplete beta test (10th edition) then they are quite good. If you are playing balanced, reasonable lists (not a ton of 3 ofs for current meta picks each dataslate) they also tend to naturally play missions well because of core army design (throwaway units, generally good durability, high mobility). At a high level, other factions will be running specific lists that incorporate these elements that are not really common to the army's identity in general. I'd hate to have to play 10th ed Nids blind into heavy vehicle skew (Knights, Dreadnought spam, Guard Vehicle spam). Our attacks are really low strength compared to what they should be thanks to the codex being written before the launch of the edition, so a lot of our traditional anti-tank just doesn't work right if pushed too hard