Quote:
Jeridan: I'd rather see one Tyranid list done well ... I think it's quite possible to create a single Tyranid list (at least initially) that is balanced and reflects a 'generic' Tyranid army with the kind of flexibility and variety of the original SM, Ork, IG lists.
I agree with all this. One good, flexible, main list for the tyranids is best - like exists here with the community developing Net-EA list. Praise Chroma

The existence of E&C's Leviathan list and his expressed desire to keep the new shiny units exclusively for himself and his list should not stop the official Net-EA list from using many units which have every right to be generally available to tyranid players.
Players doing their armies with newer units, older units or a mix of the two is something best left for individual players to choose themselves as is the case now - people can theme in one direction or another if they so desire or choose to field generally from the list - such themeing choices are present in very many army lists in epic and other GW systems and are fine. If an individual player happens to theme his own army strictly to a particular style of creatures and avoid some others then it causes him no harm whatsoever if these others exist in the same list as they do currently -
everyone can field an army selection for themselves that they are happy with.
An artificial, arbitrary, split from high countermanding existing freedom of choice and forcing players to choose between either fielding older style tyranid units and newer style units like E&C proposes is uneeded, unnecessary and bad for tyranid playtesting even if there were a strong background or W40k army list support reason for it when there distinctly isn't - the background is vague and undefined, interpretable in different ways and gradually added to over time rather than newer background needing to be seen to replace older background.
People are free to play Leviathan or any list they so desire, but lets not cripple the flexible main list here on account of it please.