Quote: (Chroma @ 24 Apr. 2009, 21:20 )
Quote: (Dave @ 24 Apr. 2009, 20:34 )
It's one line retorts like this that make me question even contributing sometimes.
My "retort" wasn't meant in disrespect, but it was directed towards the thought that the "A-list" of an army had to allow all armies made from it to be viable... I'm sorry, but an all-Predator Destructor army, while legal, is *not* going to be effective in the core Marine list.
In a "Marine Armour" list, it might have access to options that make it viable.
Yes, but you're in danger of flipping your own example -- some, including me -- would say that the army list you have here is doing the equivalent of discouraging tactical marines in favor of Predators and Vindicators.
You may be right to judge that the 'swarmagaunt' army is less interesting and fun to play than a 'combined arms' swarm using GW metals... but I think the general consensus was that the swarmagaunt army was almost balanced in 9.1.
My critique of 9.2.1 is not that it's a bad list or uninteresting, just that it moves off in a new direction just before the original goal had been reached.
Quote: (Carrington @ 24 Apr. 2009, 19:58 )
There's another way of understanding spawning, which is that spawns (and the synapse nodes that lie at the center of the spawns) are waves in a sea of bugs. Don't bother modeling the sea -- just the waves -- i.e. there's an order of magnitude more little toothies and ehm 'fry' than are actually represented by scale models.(and yes, neal... this should be bringing Heisenberg headaches rather than Lacan headaches :-) )
Or less metaphorically bases on the table represent only _coherent_ formations of bugs, with an ongoing chitter of activity occuring below E:A's level of simulation.
Speaking of which, one of the nice things about the spawning rules is that they also provides a degree of strategic mobility that the modeled bug swarms lack tactically -- bugs can 'die' on one portion of the board and reappear on another.
(... speaking of which... that would be a neat way of modeling tunnels and/bug-drops: the ability to 'drop'/place a synapse node during play -- then spawn around it.)
I do hear you about Synapse being organized swarms in a constant "flux" of non-controlled bugs. This is a good way of viewing it.
I also agree with you that Spawning makes for a tactical element of playing Tyranids that is fun to use.
What I meant was simply that the "horde of teeth and claw" (if one speaks of gaunts, gaunts and more gaunts) would be easiest accomplished by lowering the cost or upping the number/brood IF that was what one would wish from the list.
You get 4 units for 75 points that are infantry without armour save, means of transportation and only fight in engagements, something they do not excel in. This does seem expensive to me. Spawning is obviously tied to this fact.
Are there other armies that are viable if they only take formations of their lowliest units? All-guardian armies without aspect warriors, skimmers and titans. All infantry company IG without tanks and artillery? Just ork warbands without oddboyz, landas and kults of speed? My real question still is: Why should this be a Tyranid requirement?
/Fredmans
