Arka0415 wrote:These weren't targeted nerfs, designed to make Tyranid players switch armies or anything, but rather the effects of poor balancing, incompetent writing, and lack of imagination. I'm sure that Cruddace and the other Tyranid writers thought they were adding new life to the codex with each update, but their changes were totally out-of-touch with how the game was played. We also see examples of codex releases that added too much new life to armies, such as the big Necron revamp many years ago.
Let me enlighten you. Cruddace himself said in an interview once that he kept losing with Imperial Guard against his friends Tyranids and that he thinks they are OP and deserve nerfs.
So since it's always just one person working on the Codex (or at least that's how it used to be back then) and GW only VERY roughly proofreading those, yes the nerfs were intentional and removing all the good and interesting stuff was pretty much the opposite of adding new life to the codex (in some way they alreay experienced what we are experiencing now with the Index and the removed options).
Not intended by GW, but intended by a guy working for GW who should never have been allowed to ever touch anything about Tyranids since he obviously acted personal bias against those. Twice. In a row.
I don't doubt that GW does things like pricing popular units in a way they earn more and designing formations to sell rarely used models more etc., but the way their design process for Codices and models on a rules-basis used to be, means that that's not how they used to try and get us to buy more of a specific model.
The saying that the left hand not knowing what the right hand does is pretty accurate for GWs business model. Or, again, it used to be that way. They changed a lot of things internally in the past (almost) 2 years.