Breaking off from the "list structure" thread.


I don't think inter-swarm spawning has a problem interacting with the victory conditions. Both BTS and the Tiebreak are based on the formations as they stand at the beginning of the game. As long as the beginning swarms are fixed (and that certainly seems to be the overwhelming opinion), the BTS and Tiebreak values are set at the beginning of the game. Spawning is no different than Necron regeneration or Chaos summoning daemons in that respect. And it's cleaner than the Baran Siege IG adding random Sapper units to various formations (which actually does shift point costs/BTS).

Merging is not a problem if the original swarm counts as destroyed. The absorbing swarm is obviously that much farther from the opponent claiming it, but it's at the cost of guaranteeing the opponent full value for the absorbed swarm.

Maybe Nids end up with an advantage for BTS and Tiebreak, but every army has goals that are easier or harder to achieve. Siege IG are better at DTF and TSNP. Eldar are better at quick victories but start to suffer if the game goes 4 turns. If Nids want to draw things out to win in an attrition game (protecting their BTS and keeping their Tiebreak points low), that would certainly seem to fit stylistically. Different strategic desires is alright as long as the overall balance of the army in the GT scenario is okay.

===

To me, the real question of inter-swarm spawning is whether it feels "gamey" for a Nid player to always pick only the most optimized spawn units for a formation's particular tactical situation.

Personally, I haven't felt like spawning was abusive or gamey since the volume was dialed way back but it seems from comments elsewhere that other people have different opinions.

Inter-swarm spawning does mess with tiebreak. A swarm that was comprised of a few expensive units can be brought above half-strength more easily by spawning back the cheap stuff. BTS is more of a stretch, but spawning back a fearless Carnifex that didn't start the game there can make things more difficult.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Yes, it interacts with both.

The question is whether that interaction is a problem for bookkeeping, balance or fun (perceived gamey-ness or unfairness).

I'd definitely have a problem with an opponent pulling the former. Tiebreaks are usually close in the games I play, I think it goes against the spirit of the game for a player to deny me points for a formation I blasted the crap out of. No other army list can do something like that.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

No opinion here but I thought I'd throw it out as a simplifying idea:

Has it ever been toyed with to have the spawning go back to a pre-defined formation? In other words, have spawned units go back to the smallest formation, or the largest, or the one with the most synapse creatures, or the least synapse creatures, or the farthest from an opposing formation, or any other description. Something like this would keep the fluid nature of the spawning rule without having to keep track of which formation the units came from. It would also inhibit players from purposefully stacking the deck for a specific formation (BTS, victory point changers, etc.). It would be fast and simple. Thoughts?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Spawning, and the Tyranid ability to re-grow and merge formations, are the reasons the BTS rule has been run off of Synapse creatures in previous iterations of the list.

If you're going to have spawning and merging, I suggest keeping to that rule style.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Necrons and Chaos can return or add units.

You might argue that it would be especially easy for Nids but we really don't know because it hasn't been tested. The Nids have to hold objectives in order to push the game to tiebreak, and that limits their ability to retreat and spawn. It might be that spawning does relatively little to change tiebreak points.

Of course, it might very well turn out to be a problem. I'm only saying that I don't think it's a "theoryhammer" problem.

Both in a very clear manner, though.

Necrons can never change their formation composition, and Chaos can only add at most two extra unit types (Lesser and Greater Daemons). Tyranids get far more byzantine than that, however.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The ability to completely reorg before and during the game was a major factor. There was also a design concept of making synapse creatures as important as possible.

Spawning has been dramatically reduced from when the synapse-focus was first implemented. Reorg is gone. Synapse can be emphasized in other ways. It's an entirely different environment. There's no reason to assume that the old solutions would still be required.

As I said, maybe that will turn out to be wonky, but I don't think we can reach that conclusion without testing.

I know those two armies can return/add units, but they can't do it in a manner that abuses the tiebreak rules. Necrons have to go back to the original formation, and while Chaos can bring demons in where ever they want it's in the action phase (where the other player can still do something about it) and they go away in the end phase unless there's an icon present. Allow 'nids to spawn where they please will allow them to do it in the end phase (where the other player can't do anything about it) and they will definitely be sticking around.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

What if spawning was an activation rather than automatic?

It's currently after both regrouping and rallying in 9.2.1/Onachus and Leviathan. Removing it after rallying would definitely mess with costing and it still wouldn't get rid the "spawn back the cheap stuff" tiebreak issue I mentioned above if we allowed inter-swarm spawning.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Seemed to be overlooked in the discussion. Feel free to bat it around.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

This suggestion is based on using the standard BTS conditions. Since BTS is a "morale" victory condition, I think the current 9.2.1 Tyranid BTS rule reflects the Tyranid mindset better. Break enough synapse=break control.

Has people really tried out the 9.2.1.5 BTS suggestion of killing half the synapse creatures (each DC=1 creature)? After that change, acquiring BTS from Tyranids is not that difficult anymore. It was when Dominatrix counted as one synapse creature that it was impossible to achieve without killing the Dominatrix.

Re-introducing standard BTS means re-introducing problems with spawning and merging.

/Fredmans

Mosc: Spawning is swarm-by-swarm so that all of the swarms slowly grow/regenerate in a Nid fashion - a steadily growing wave coming from all directions at once. Concentrated spawning as allowed by the Mycetic Spore mechanism felt all wrong - dozens of Nids just blinking into existence like daemons during a massive assault. I'm not sure how spawning could be implemented as an army-wide process without a lot of detailed restrictions on what can go where.