The fundamental issue (and what appears to be the only sticking point) with the spawning rule is where do dead nids go?
9.2.1 - Dead nids go into a global spawning pool.
Resurrection spawning - Dead nids go into a formation spawning pool. Only spwan from own pool.
Hybrid - Dead nids go into a formation spawning pool. However if a formation pool is empty it may take from any used pool.

Now there are two points I'd like to make.

1) Adding a global pool with discounts for units bought for it is a feature that I think can be accomodated at the list level as a minor extension to the general spawning rule.

2) An alternative idea is to allow spawning from the formation specific spawning pools (containing only dead nids from that formation) but after spawning in the end phase allow the tyranid player to move any (or a limited) number of dead nids to any other formations spawning pool. (Spawning focal points (Tervigon/Dominatrix) could get a unit rule to allow a limited number of moves prior to spawning). It would give opposing players a chance to react to something nasty potentially turning up a bit too close and give the Tyranid player a bit of thinking to do.

Why does this follow? There is a perfectly usable and completely logical mechanic that already exists that does not add a logic chain to what should be an easy rule.

On the one hand, the rule is not too complex to understand, as you say. However, there is a distinct logic chain feel to it that is antithetical to how Epic rules usually work. If the rule needs an example to understand, it's too complex. It also sinks back into the quagmire of cross swarm spawning and all that entails, even if it professes not to change the VCs.

The Spawn pool needs not be a shadow of the Chaos Summoning pools. First, there's no reason to add the "I got a 6, the gods must like me!" reward. Second, the Chaos formation gets the Summoning Focus, and the Tyranids get the ability to spawn from Synapse units, allowing it to be sniped away. Third, the current variable d3 Spawning structure works fine as does the number of spawn points units cost, and can be transplanted into the Summoning Mechaninc instead of the fixed 2d3 Chaos gets. Fourth, the Spawn pool consists of the same set of unit as the normal list, as opposed to the Chaos lists that have their own subsets of units for Summoning. Finally, keep the spawning as part of a Regroup action or in the rally phase as part of a sucessful Rally roll, instead of as part of a successful activation roll as in the Chaos lists.

Essentially the only similarity is that both have a prepurchased set of reinforcements. This does get back to the "Spawn to order" idea somewhat but the number of meals is limited, so "to order" must take into account all possible future orders as well since the units don't go back to the pool after death.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

It hasn't been ignored it has been filed, by me, as a possible alternative. I fmy idea doesn't pan out then I will move in a different direction. Also what you posted is a variation on a theme I have seen before, and I am not trying to be rude saying it so please do not take it that way, so I filed it as a possible. I am sorry if I didn't respond to it.



If this was true then none of the Epic-A rules would ever need an FAQ. Complexity cannot be defned by this standard alone. For me execution on the gaming table defines complexity in a rule, it is a fact some very simple rules to execute on the gaming table are sometimes difficult to explain in printed text and need an example to make them clearly understood.



A month ago I would have agreed with this statement, but our playtests have shown this not to be a true fact, actually running the numbers in a game will sometime upset hard felt feelings (A hard lesson I had to learn long ago), so even though none of our playtest games ended in a Tie Breaker, we ran the numbers anyways just to determine what effect spawning was having. As I stated before opponents that went hard at wiping out swarms in turn won around half those Tie Breakers (Sorry at a friends right now and the exact numbers are not at my fingertips), and those opponents that didn't lost the majority of those Tie Breakers tests. This weekends games included the new 'cross spawning' idea, though small in numberof playtest battles (Just two) in my opinion, the early numbers confirmed this opinion.

I can, to some extent, see why this is occurring. Basically Nid Brood units are so weak in armor saves that they fall like wheat leaving the swarm to spawn back pretty much only the units they originally contained. In this situation the swarms rarely had a chance to spawn back units from other swarms (In both battles the opponents went for the crushing the swarms in turn, with BTS being achieved in one battle). Allowing limited cross spawning forced opponents to do this to prevent the Nid ability to cross spawn from reducing their chances to obtain victory in the battle.

There is nothing wrong with this as one cannot look at a special rule in isolation to determine what results it will return on the gaming table. For example: At one time the Ork Horde list was far more flexible in force structure then it is right now, with the same identical special rules it has at present. One playtester came up with the 'Burning Wheels of Death' Ork Horde list which exploited both the Special Rules AND TO&E of the Ork Horde list at that time. We were then left with either re-writing the special rules to compensate for the new 'possible' list, or modifying the force structure of the list to eliminate the ability to build this type of army. No one, at that time, felt there was anything wrong with the special rules for the Ork Horde list, so we modified the TO&E to prevent this type of army from being able to be built. The point is that one cannot make a blanket claim that result 'A' is going to happen without playtesting it first using the rules and TO&E as they stand. One MUST playtest FULLY to determine if the results are correct or incorrect. Put another way, there are just too many 'other' factors (TO&E, Special Rules, Unit Data) that effect an army list to make a blanket statement that result 'A' is going to happen .

Even further, the same tactical situations repeat themselves, in real war, over and over again. The only real changes happen in execution and operational tactics (How one carries out, and then exploits these repeated tactical situations across the battlefield). For example a viable tactical situation against the Eldar is to use containment to prevent them dominating the battlefield using their hit and run tactics. This, in isolation, is perfectly fine, but without an overall operational plan that exploits this tactical situation one is doomed to lose the battle. That is left up to the players to accomplish, as it should be.

Right now the prevailing trend to defeat the Nids is to tactically destroy each swarm in turn to overcome thier ability to 'spawn back' dead units. This not only reduces the number of actiations they have available to use but also reduces the number of units they can spawn back onto the battlefield. A perfectly viable tactic useable by any army in Epic-A against the Nids. Thereafter it is left up to the opponents of the Nids on how to exploit this tactic to achieve operational victory on the battlefield.

My opinion right now, based upon very early data, is that the present spawning rules (Being as low as they are) combined with the low armor saves of the Nids in general, the other Nid special rules, and the viable tactics available to opponents to overcome these advantages, are very close to being in balance in game terms. Simply put I am going to playtest the limited cross-spawning rule too see if it works within the framework of the present Nid list as it applies to units stats, TO&E, and possible force structures, taken as a single whole. It is the only way to determine if it is workable or not.

On the bright side at least the Nid special rules have been reduced to just balancing spawning, and nothing else. That alone is a good achievenment by all involved (This means all of you helping me put it together.)

Cheers All,
Jaldon

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