The way I wrote Expendable in Onachus was "army agnostic", it was a generic special rule that wasn't tied to the Tyranids or the way their units should behave. There was discussion about Squat Tunnelers/Transport Tractors being Expendable so they could be left behind without the formation taking a BM. Essentially my thought was anything on the first page of Onachus could be Epic: Xenos special rules, like we have Free Planetfall and Support Craft from Epic: Raiders. By putting the part about contesting/controlling there all Expendable units would be like that, I don't think that should be the case, hence why I suggested putting it somewhere else to make it Tyranid Brood creatures specific.



I think you might have missed by point. In Onachus' Expendable I included a sentence that handles what happens to Expendable units killed in a crossfire/left behind when out of coherenecy and when a formation is comprised completely of Expendable units. I did this because of the FAQs on the Grot rule (which Expendable mimics, barring the assault resolution part). I was asking why you took them out in your Expendable. If we leave them in we don't need the FAQs, it's explained in the rule.



For clarity. If a new player is looking at the units and sees "Synapse" or "Brood" in the notes they're going to wonder what those are and what they do. If they don't see them in the special rules its going to be confusing until they read the Spawning special rule. Plus it gives us a chance to explain what Synapse Units and Brood units are (as those terms are used throughout the special rules).



My point is you can easily use ZoC and follow the placing convetions already established for summoning, regenerating, teleporting, planetfalling and tunneling, while still achieveing what you want. I don't understand the need to break convention when the opposing player can surround a swarm with ZoC.



I don't dispute that it's simple and clean, merely that it seems pointless. No one was clamoring for it, so why the need for it?



I think think Synapse Creatures are capable of conveying "go up that hill and kill the creatures in that building", that seems like the ability to contest/control to me, especially when its a directed attack. Creatures out of synapse are more likely to wonder up to the objective unit by unit than herd together for an offensive push.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

See, that's a red flag to me. An unmolested Nid formation should grow, not remain static.

I'd hazard a guess that leaving the Carnifexes alone (regardless of not-spawning) was a good idea. For the points they are extremely hard to kill (4+RA at 35pts) but generally slow enough to avoid.

If I begin to see a trend where the 1+ without modifiers is crippling the Nid Army time and time again, as happened with my Carnifexes, then I will put in a +1 to Engage Rule for the Nid Army. Fair enough?



Yes, but not the only one available I do plan on trying out Leviathin next with the new special rules.



Yes seven swarms, three that could spawn. Why are the questions less relevant?



No actually I would field more little bugs for my normal army list. Also I would probably have two Genestealer Swarms of six each instead of one big swarm of twelve. In this case I had a definite goal in mind for what I wanted to accomplish in a battle test of the special rules. One was to see how far I could push the little bug swarms. Two would the independent swarms compliment the little bug swarms. Three could the independent swarms function effectively on their own in large numbers, well large numbers for them anyways. For play testing I often mold the army I use to test a rule, or rules, or list itself in a certain way. Winning the battle, even for my friends helping me playtest the list, becomes a secondary issue as we all concentrate after the battle on what we were testing out.



Different strokes for different folks, and all three lists allow for a lot of variation in force structure. For myself only three main little bug swarms would be my norm for 3k-5k. I really cannot speak for others. For example my friend Rich will field from three to five Big/Uge Ork Warbands in 3k-5k games, while I almost always field only three Big/Uge Warbands in 3k-5k games. It is not something I, or anyone, can say with certainty because the lists do allow for a lot of variation and I am very hesitant to put any restrictions in the list that would limit the choices too much.

Thanks All,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

Jaldon could you give a rough idea of how you're working with units that are brood but may appear as independents.
Things like Harridans with accompanying gargoyles, Trygons with Raveners or straight Trygon/Hierodule (the 9.2.1 version) formations.

Leviathan gives the lead unit synapse but that of course allows spawning.
I put in the Vanguard rule so that Gargoyles/Raveners go to the lower Initiative if the Harridan or all the Trygons are killed.

I was working off the principle of the Trygon Prime in 40k, which is synapse...

With resurrection-only spawning, allowing spawning for these formations is really not a problem, so I definitely recommend the synapse symbiote character as the way to go, as it doesn't need any extra special rules, and means that almost all formations follow the same ruleset, and doesn't have the weirdness of gargoyles or raveners left over from formations with different initiatives.

And.................................



In this case the questions are list specific instead of about the special rules directly, but this is OK as a broad overview of the lists (and my views on them) is needed for playtesting purposes. Now don't anyone say I am copping out

As I stated somewhere before, the Nids are the only army in the 40k universe that evolves creating not only new units but whole new armies. Under this belief Hive Fleet Behemoth could be totally different then Hive Fleet Leviathan in unit types and army list orgainization. As this evolution is carried out over time the real effect is for the different 'Hive Fleets' to keep some unit types the same, dispensing with unit types that were ineffective, and creating new unit types. Further they evolve a new orgainization for the army that reflects what they have experienced before.

In our case we have three Nid Lists, Onachus, Leviathan, and 9.2.1 to work with all with different TO&Es, and doing so is no problem because of the vision above.

List developement is going to begin after the special rules are pretty much fleshed out, and in this case instead of acting like the all-mighty AC, I'll be instead like an overseer. Both Dave and Zombocom have already done a lot of hard work on their lists it would be wrong for me to take that away from them. Besides I think they have done an excellent job So, for now, I will step back and let the lists stand as they are now for playtesting. Later, after the special rules are fleshed out, I will work closely WITH Zombocm and Dave on matching THIER lists to the special rules developed. As to 9.2.1 I am planning on trying to either wedge it in between Onachus and Leviathan, sorta like a transition list between the two, or create a third entirely differnt list reflecting a Hive Fleet that comes after Onachus and Leviathan.

I know I have not directly answered the question asked, but the special rules must come first or the list developement cannot proceed. To answer list specific questions now would be muddying the waters for the more important work on the special rules, and we cannot fall into that trap as it would slow down developement, kinda like putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks All and Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

Thanks for the replies.

On the numbers of swarms, I was trying to get a very broad steer on the number and size of formations that we might expect to see in a Nid army (while I absolutely understand the reluctance to lay down some definitive statement). Using the Marines 3K lists as an example, in the UK we regularly see armies between 10-13/14 formations, giving an average formation cost of ~225pts - 300pts. It is obviously easy to field less viable combinations (eg Warlord with large forces) reducing the formation count to a minimum of ~7 formations, while it is possible to 'pop-corn' the army out to ~20 formations. Note, I am not commenting on the viability of such practices. Also numbers obviously increase as the army size increases to 5K (though not in a linear fashion - what seems to happen is that as the army points increase, the formation sizes tend to increase as people take more upgrades).

In the case of the Nids, the steer seems to be towards using fewer, larger formations; so in a 3K army a minimum of ~4 formations might be one end of the scale, while the maximum 'popcorn' effect might be ~15, giving an average formation value of ~200pts - 750pts, while the lists sweet-spot might be anticipated as ~6-8 formations. What is less clear is the numbers of unots in each formation, though here you seem to be suggesting that 12-15 is a reasonable number for the Nids swarm.

The ratio of swarms to independants is less easy to predict, as this is definitely a case of personal style and what the list is intending to represent. However if we assume the independants will be restricted against the other swarms, that would suggest between ~2-8 swarms and ~0-4 independants.

Obviously the figures are only guides to the list builders to shape their lists accordingly. However they do indicate what we mioght expect to see. The point of the analysis (and the questions) is that ultimately we need to ensure such low activation lists are viable (so for example ~6 big Nid formations against ~13 small marine formations).

Finally, with reference to the comments on the boards; when using fewer formations against a canny opponent (who deliberately spreads out the objectives on the Nid side), there will be a tendency to spread the Nid formations which makes questions of Merging less relevant (as they will be too far apart) and spawning is then only relevant to the individual circumstances of each swarm (which is actually under the opponent's control to a greater or lesser degree).

Does that make more sense?

Those symbiote led swarms would be very vulnerable (for things like the Trygon Prime led formation, a 3 Hierodule formation or a formation of 3-5 Harpies) to the point that they may not be viable in that configuration. Move them to independents (without the synapse symbiote so they act like Genestealers) and you've still got the same problem with units behaving differently depending on where they are bought from.

Carlos and I hope to try out the new rules on Monday night in central London in the "Escape", the current venue of the Central London Wargames Club.

More than fair enough, it was just to make sure we understood each other.



I would start with the go-between. As a frequent 9.2.1 player, I would be a little concerned if the only two supported lists would be the modern approach and the "oldest" approach. But I might be of a minority opinion, I usually am.

/Fredmans

There isn't a fleet that comes after Leviathan, it's the most recent one in the GW background and assumed to be the finger tips of a galaxy-sized hive fleet arriving from below the galactic plane. There aren't likely to be any hive fleets after it, as it's assumed that Leviathan will devour the galaxy.

Again, just to guage expectations here, we are aiming at a set of rules that are consistent for all variations of Nid armies.

However, the background seems to suggest very different battlefield experiences for each stage of Nid invasion, so how far would these variant armies be the subject of additional rules as opposed to unit notes etc:

1. None at all; the variations are presented by different units and formation compositions
2. Some units may have different capabilities in the different stages of invasion, so these units will have different notes
   
   (representing different stages of insect development (larvae, pupae, adult); So the same Nid bug may go through stages of tunnelling, crawling and flying, and may develop other capabilities eg mind control of opponents (see below)***)
3. The mechanics of each stage are so completely different that we will also need separate rules for particular circumstances
   
   (tunnelling being an example; others might be egg-laying / hatching; absorbsion (Borg-like); etc)

*** Mind control
A wacky idea that probably won't work, but good for a laugh. This is a CC weapon note: During an assault, enemy casualties inflicted by this bug are diced for using D6. On a '6' instead of being killed, the casualty's mind has been taken over and the unit now comes under the control of the Nid player if it is in coherency with other members of the swarm, otherwise the unit dies. NB this test occurs before WE criticals

Yes the special rules will cover all Nid army lists.

I am opposed to any additional rules for the varient army lists as it will throw off play balance. IMHO the variations can appear in units and TO&Es of the varient lists. For example, and just an example not a fact, the 9.2.1 list could have no tunnelers while the Onachus list could.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

I'm opposed to an action bonuses with an initiative of 1+. There's only one army at present that gets an automatic retain (Necrons with a marshal), that's rather telling. You said it yourself, an initiatve of 1+ makes them "relentless" enough, we don't need a special rule for it. An automatic retain with an engage seems powerful for any army, let alone one that's geared towards assaults.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17