Tie breaks would be an issue if it was shown that different groups with different metagames ended up in tie breaks.

As it is, are there really enough games from different groups to show this?

I cannot remember our games (although they are all posted up here on battle reports), however I cannot remember tie breaks being an issue - I may be incorrect however.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

How about for BTS that you have to destroy the Synapse Group wich costs the most points?
In this case you don't have to kill a continously respawning formation but only it's leaders.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Bingo. I like this idea a lot.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Depends on how the list is set up and what is meant by "synapse group."

One of the great features of BTS as highest points is that you have to trade off using the fighting ability of a powerful formation versus the need to protect it. If you can use the list to create a high-synapse-moderate-point formation as the BTS, you can protect it without losing fighting ability.

In Leviathan, buying 6 Warriors would be 250 points of synapse (assuming that's what is meant by "synapse group"), which could pretty easily be the BTS under this scheme. Putting them with 8-10 gaunts that can spawn back would still make it extremely hard to kill the Warriors. Same for 2 Tyrants/3 Fex as Fearless, good save AVs (with LV commons). Since the BTS formation could come in at ~400 points, you could reasonably keep it back as a Blitz guard formation to protect it further without hindering a 3000 point army overall.

That solution also messes with the VC which I'm not in favor of. You don't have to kill off an entire formation, only part of it. That brings up balance problems in the tourney scenario.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I do take Neal's point that under this definition the Nid player could make the BTS an expensive Synapse group supported by few bugs (using the rest of the army elsewhere) thus making the BTS smaller than other formations if measured by different means. However, I am not sure that it would matter greatly whether it is more appropriate to use the cost of the Synapse group, the 'spawning cost' or the 'army cost' of the entire swarm to determine which is the BTS - once defined, killing it would be the important consideration. By adopting this strategy, the Nid player is gambling that the enemy cannot easily attack his BTS - and most armies have good deep-strike optioins that could provide an unpleasant surprise.

Also, doesn't the swarm go to ground (die) in the end phase if all the synapses are dead? If so, killing the synapses would effectively kill the swarm wouldn't it?

Now it may not be easy to kill off the 'BTS' (and the Nid player could spawn back stuff to make it even harder) - but that is also true of other races, especially if they keep the BTS back to cover their Blitz and play conservatively.

Not any more, the suggestion we're looking at is instead giving them an initiative penalty for not having synapse. They will no longer go to ground.

Ah - I thought we were still with 9.2.x and that 'synapse' still applied. This puts a whole different slant on things. Well, I always thought that the 'Synapse' aspect of the Nids represented the 'hive mind' rather well - what is the problem?

Indeed, going down this path is a major change that was not clear from the threads - I wonder who else is labouring under the same misconception?

So, where can we look to see what is proposed to replace it - and don't say 'Leviathan' or 'Onachus' because these are (or should be) merely lists adopting the same Nid core mechanics.

Currently, a bunch of polls and debate threads posted by Nealhunt and Zombocom.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There's not a hard mechanic proposal, Ginger. There's only a rough consensus on general concepts.

1) synapse range/destruction is out
2) heavy Initiative penalty replaces synapse range
3) in-game reorg is removed except for merging a leaderless swarm
4) swarms are fixed at army selection (no pre-game reorg)
5) GT victory conditions should be standard, or as close as practically possible

Thanks for the pointers Neal.
See my comments elsewhere, but in brief, while dropping synapse control range seems Ok, why not keep swarm destruction when the synapses die?

From the debate on the 'merging' thread'

On Spawning, I agree with the others that restricting spawning to returning units to their swarms feels like resurection. While it is apparent that completely 'unrestricted' spawning may also have its problems IMHO it does represent better the concept of the Nids crawling out of the ground / woodwork / floor etc. I would prefer to develop other restrictions to spawning rather than limiting them to resurecting units back to their swarm.

Some possible alternatives

1. If we are going down the path of some form of modular army system, could we restrict spawning to the 'common' bugs for the swarm type?
2. Require bugs to be spawned evenly by type across all eligible swarms (so if one swarm recieves a 'gaunt, all other eligible swarms must get one if possible)
3. Require bugs always to be spawned from smallest to largest (so all the 'gaunts are allocated, then the Gargoyles, then 'fexes etc)
4. Combining the above with some form of 'army-wide' spawning calculatioin for speed

That said, Jaldon has yet to explain his reasoning for his proposed restricions and his proposed mechanics, and I am waiting "with bated breath" as they say

extracted from the Merge Mechanics thread.


I agree that irrespective of the number of formations, a given number of synapses ought to be able to return the same number of bugs (assuming all other conditions are unchanged). However, IIRC this caused problems with the size of bugs that could be generated and where they return; if a swarm can return 12pts of bugs, people are going to want to return large WE or Carnifaxes etc. and have these appear as if by magic right in the face of the opposition.

To some extent this mimics the impact of titans or very powerfull formations in other races: you know that they are particularly dangerous, and if you do not take extreme care they will shred your prized formation and hand it back to you in tatters. So I am not sure this is a huge problem in principle, but I do accept that the sudden appearance of such big critters in your face does tend to go against the Nid ethos.

Perhaps we could specify the bigger the bug, the further away from the enemy that it is allowed to 'spawn', something like this

• 1-2pts bugs can spawn beyond 15cms from the enemy
• 3-4pts bugs can spawn beyond 45cms from the enemy
• 5-6pts bugs can spawn beyond 60cms from the enemy

The current system already covers this. You get a bonus to spawning by being more than 30cm away, which allows you to spawn bigger stuff. It's impossible to summon anything big if you can't get enough spawning points due to being too close. It's much more elegant.

II am not sure that it does - if you were able to get a lerge number of spawning points in a formatioin, even these restrictions might not be sufficient to prevent something large from suddenly 'appearing'. IIRC it was this consideratioin that was one of the reasons for toning down the spawning capacity.

Given an implied intention of a reduced number of 'larger' formations, coupled with the Ork style list mechanic which could produce the Nid equivalent of a 'Uge formation, I suggest that this might well have spawning capabilities to match - hence my suggestion.