Just for clarification purposes before commenting, just my two cents for the moment.....Ok

Upon taking over responsibility for the Nid list I had the following major goals, all of which were the same for the v1.0 list.

(1) To return the army to a seemingly endless horde of little critters backed up by a handful of bigger critters. (Most Brood Creatures)

(2) That the little critters themselves should have below average to substandard stats in all categories except assault where a certain number of them should be above average to good.

(3) The handful of bigger critters should be pure specialist in one type of combat, and sub-standard in all other categories.

(4) That the Nid army would have to depend almost exclusively on its little critters to carry the weight of combat and victory.

(Little critters are defined as all the common brood creatures)

During my long 'work vacation' I applaud and thank those that carried on the work on the list they did a fine job.

While the v9.0 is a good list that did accomplish the goals I set for it, reducing the number of special rules and moving the entire list closer to the way the core Epic-A rules work, it isn't the finished product and still needs work.

The major problem is it violates the above four major goals as players can build an army that doesn't depend on the little critters. I aim to fix that by instituting what will probably be some unpopular changes to the list. Playtesters are encouraged to remember the four goals above as those are the target the list is shooting for and all other conditions are secondary to it.

Put a bit more bluntly. Forget the Independents, Bio-Titans, and Un-commons and concentrate on making sure the little critters come first in all categories.


Just how much randomness is desirable?
The intention is to provide the feeling of a "Wall of bugs", but should this include some random variation in it (ignoring all other considerations for the moment). Also, while the simplicity of the "Fixed" method makes it more practical, what issues does a lack of variation cause to game-play and "fluff":-
- How representative is the "Fixed" approach and is this better or worse than a random mechanic?
- If randomness is desirable, what variation in spawning points would be reasonable;  +-1, +-2, +-3 etc?

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

I fully agree to your 4 goals.  

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

Jaldon

While I think the community understands and largely agrees with your four goals, we do seem somewhat split over the means, which is why I was trying to frame the questions in those terms.

Personally, I really dislike the extreme variations that 3D3 and 4D3 can produce (especially if this single throw forms the basis of spawning for the turn), because it has too much impact on the Nid strategy - and I have a tendency to throw low numbers    Consequently I would really prefer to fix the initial spawning values, 'boring' though that may be because it does not handicap the 'Nid player further. However, you seem somewhat averse to a fixed system of spawning points (also Hena it seems) because it does not "feel" right. Could you explain further what you "feel" should be right.

Equally, I am really in favour of applying modifying factors to this base spawning value, especially where they result from successfull tactics of the opponent - because this introduces the element of skill that we all prize so highly in E:A. There are two broad reasons to this:-
1) This move the point where the bulk of spawning occurs away from the opponents forces which is beneficial for many reasons
2) It reinforces the 'relentless' wall of the bugs that is at the core of the Tyranid racial makeup.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Acouple of wild ideas that may not work regarding restricting the use of Uncommon critters, how about

• Requiring the player to re-spawn the big critters first. While at first glance this seems counter-intuitive to the intentions of the list, in practice it should impose a subtle constraint on the initial army composition, away from the 'Nidzilla' list in any guise, because it would mean that you need to have Big spawning capabilities - or die!.
• A further (or separate) constraint might be restricting the types of uncommon critter that can be purchased to the synapses that the player selects - so for example if you only have tyranid warriors you can only field common critters; Hive tyrants additionally allow Carnifex to be purchased; Harridans and Nodes additionally give you Exocrines and Biovores; while you can only get Hierodules if you field a Dominatrix (you can work out the precise list). This constraint is also a subtle way of limiting the 'Nidzilla' because it forces the use of expensive Synapse creatures to be able to get the bigger uncommon critters

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think the idea with the 3d3 spawning is that it would be done for every swarm and not applied across the board for an entire turn.

On the limiting the bigger stuff, I totally agree.  I have tried to build my army with the biggest little stuff to big stuff ratio as I could (72 stands of ga(u)nts will be basecoated as of next week). I'm not one for power gaming and try to model my armies to the background as close as possible.

Obviously not everyone does this. So enforcing it through the army list is the next best solution and one I support.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I think the idea with the 3d3 spawning is that it would be done for every swarm and not applied across the board for an entire turn.

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

For random spawning we seem to be looking to use up to four dice, but this produces quite a wide variation, which increases with the number of dice. My concern is that this make the initial position too random and the results actually become more certain as dice are removed. How about doing this the other way round, starting with a base spawning figure, and throwing a number of D3 to remove spawning points according to the additional factors?

So for example, the base value of a Dominatrix is 12 - 1D3.
- 1D3 if within 30 cms of enemy
- 1D3 if Broken

This adds the random factor desired, and increases the variation as the circumstances get further out of the control of the 'Nid player.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I would go for something simple like '5 spawning points per formation'.
Then -2 for broken, -2 for being within 30cm, and then if rally roll is '1', -1, or if '6', +1 (a bit like chaos initiative). That would generate some randomness. If the unit does not need rally roll, it is still rolled for this.

You'd only be rolling the 4d3 if the army has a Dom. and that would only be once per army anyway.

The rest would be 3d3, 2d3 if broken or if within 30cm, and 1d3 if broken and within 30cm. Given all those modifiers its not a huge variation. There's no remembering numbers per each synapse creature/swarm and the mechanics are fairly easy to remember since they're based on the rally modifiers anyway. I tested the variation like this quite a few times and found it quick and simple.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

But with 3D3, the range of results is between 3-9 (and 4D3 it is 4-12). Personally I think that is too extreme under normal circumstances, even on a per-swarm basis. Furthermore, as you remove dice, the results actually become more predictable as the spread of results is reduced. What I am suggesting is in effect a means of combining the Fixed points system with the Random one.

IMHO a variation of 1-3 per swarm is more acceptable as a starting point and by removing additional D3 points for particular circumstances you get the same overall effect as the random mechanic, while also increasing the possible variation in the results which fulfills the requirement for unpredictability.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

4D3 seems the way to go for me, yes the range is 4-12 but with 4 die the chances of the extreme ends are much reduced, you'll be 90%(not an actual calculated figure!) certain of getting a mid range number.
By the way as I've no experience of Nids I've not voted in the poll.

_________________
I'm involved in Nunnery Practice
My latest Blog http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net ... p?blogId=8

Distribution of 4d3 (done originally for the Daemon Summoning discussions):

4 – 1.2%
5 – 4.9%
6 – 12.3%
7 – 19.8%
8 – 23.4%
9 – 19.8%
10 – 12.3%
11 – 4.9%
12 – 1.2%

_________________
Neal

with 4 die the chances of the extreme ends are much reduced

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Finer granularity?

1d3 per swarm, +1d3 for not being broken, +1d3 for not being within 30cm.

What would you suggest to replicate that with d6s?

Also the bell curve with the d3s will yield a bigger middle ground and more extreme extremes.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17