would the Hive mind actually do that? I figured it treated it's troops with about as much compassion as we do.



It could be tried where the first Gaunt to die each turn dosen't count, but it does strike me as fiddly.

Is it just pure Gaunt formations, or any formation including them that suffers this possible weakness?

_________________
My shifting projects

I'd be in favour of gaunt's only counting for half casualties.

It seems like a pretty good compromise to me.

The problem is not the gaunts.  It's the army choice.  7 or 8 activations at 3000 points with 2 of those being 3-unit Lictor formations that will blow away when looked at crossly is going to be very hard to play.  2500 points being 15cm or slower makes it nearly impossible.

Even an AMTL army with those kinds of numbers would be at a disadvantage.  The only army that might be solid like that is OGBM.

_________________
Neal

I'd also concur that the base move needs to be upped to 20 cm for most infantry.

The armies that do have the problem described share a couple traits in common - huge swarms of 600+ points and a lack of mobile formations.  The former tanks the activation count and the latter prevents effective screening or counterattacks.

Sounds like a credible idea to me...

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Jeridian:  I put strategy comments over in the other thread, but the comment about speed is wrong.  The list at the top of the thread has a 0cm move arty formation, the carnies move 15cm slowing down the Dom, and the Lictors move only 15cm once they teleport.  That's 2450 points that are 15cm or less.  Hojyn's army was similar.

_________________
Neal

Neal, note that their list is a little misleading because the formations can be re-assembled 'on the fly' around the core synapse units in nid v9.1,

Jeridian, you're raising some interesting points, but missing a lot of points in turn. The argument I'm hearing in response your argument is:

"yes, you may be right... but we can see a number of places where the armylist could be strengthened -- try tightening it up, then retest."  

Two examples, then a more general comment on your army list.

1) Re your point on lictors yes, they're effective, but a three lictor formation is far less effective than four because of the dynamics of fire and blast markers. There's a significant difference between a 150 point formation that breaks on its first casualty, and a 200 point formation that breaks on its second.

2) As to massed gaunt formations, there's a sharp difference in performance between two warrior synapse groups and one -- you can't expect to get anywhere near the same game results from 3xwarriors and 24xgaunts as you would from two synapse groups with 16 gaunts.

It may be a fair point that the list should do more to encourage the former formation, perhaps giving 'volume discounts' on gaunts.  NB, however, E:A 9.1 nids give 'horde of teeth and claw' by respawning as much as hordes of (expensive, delicate) plastic.

But in terms of your army list... some basic comments -- it's not clear that you're doing enough to maximize the number of synapse groups.  Raw numbers are important here because each synapse group/activation helps to insulate against hack-downs and provide extra activations. And, finally, given your complaint about limited mobility, each synapse group allows for limited -- but not insigunificant -- mobility through its respawn capability.  

By my quick (and likely inaccurate) count, you've only spent 900 points on these groups, when you could have spent 1000.  More importantly, the Dominatrix takes up a big chunk of points that could be replaced by 3 warrior groups (or, for that matter, a Vituperator and warrior group).

Which leads to an interesting point about the deceptive character of playtesting -- given that you want your army to be balanced, perhaps the problem is not that the gaunts are too weak, but rather that the trix is overpriced... In short, one question question always has to be "are we just responding to symptoms, rather than the disease?"

It's also worth taking a look at the "Infantry = Useless?" thread (I think in the IG section -- if anything the 'gaunts are the extreme version manifestation of E:A infantry.)

I appreciate the discussion, but a lot of people keep translating:

"Maybe the Gaunt unit isn't very good, perhaps a slight change"

To be:

"The entire Nid list is rubbish, I can't win with it"

As a result a lot of suggestions are army-wide, such as Ignoring the Coming Under Fire Blast Marker rule, or the Ignore additional Casualties for Losing Engagements, or simply telling me to take more 'non-Gaunt' units.
Many of the other units are quite capable, especially the WE, and giving them additional benefits just to bring the Gaunts up is a carpet bomb instead of a precision strike.

Comments about my army list and my gaming ability, or apparent complete lack of, should be directed to my army list thread. I'll try to explain or justify my reasonings for my list there, and of course, take on the in-depth advice greatly given.

Fair points, Jeridian. There are a lot of cooks all too willing to toss their own spice into the mix. I think your instinct to try to keep focused on one element of the problem makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, it is probably a mistake to consider the gaunts' strength or weakness in isolation. In general, E:A is a game of combined arms, so the lists have to be evaluated holistically.

Specifically with the 'nid list, synapse creatures are a force multiplier.  This presents the problem that any 'buffs' to gaunts may be magnified in other force compositions.

Jeridian:  I think Carrington said that well.

The issue is the assault marine predicament.  Ground formations suck.  Thawk assaults are fine.  Ground assault marine forces are flavorful and should work, but trying to make ground formations work means that Thawk assaults become overpowered.

Thus, the use of gaunts in the overall army/strategic context has to be discussed when it comes to questions of balance.  Saying "They work when you use them like this..." is not to say "Jeridian sucks, can't you play any better than that?"  It's to point out that if a particular strategy works, then boosting them is likely to make that particular strategy overpowered.

_________________
Neal

Agreed, I am looking into the idea that a Gaunt/Warrior brood isn't ever supposed to Engage. It's an ideal Supporting Fire formation. The Warriors pop a BM on by shooting, whilst a horde of Termagants can provide Supporting Fire to a Heirophant charge for example without fear of retaliation, or the crippling Termagant casualty Combat Res tally.

This however, means to me Hormagaunts are utterly pointless, hence I've dropped them from my list.

The change proposed of 0.5 Combat Res kills per Terma/Hormagaunt doesn't improve this Supporting Fire role at all, any other roll the Terma/Hormagaunts fill that would be unfairly boosted by such a change?

If everything except Gaunts lost expendable, and the french "no BMs for being shot at" rule was brought in, would gaunts not then have a useful role to play?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

for a second I thought you were referring to the french army.
my inital reaction was "hah, maybe they won't surrender so quickly"
then I was puzzled about the existence of BM's in real life.

ahem.




is that for being shot at ie coming under fire = one BM
or the BMs for losing units to ranged attacks?

_________________
My shifting projects

Ah.  Okay, I see where you're coming from.

I completely agree that Warrior/Termie is a monster support formation.

I mostly agree about Hormies.  They have limited use.  I use a few because they are cheap meat shields (meat-shielding Termagants - heh ) and they help ward off CC assaults that try to take advantage of the Termie weakness.  The other use is to recycle the meat shields as spawns once the enemy is close.   They can Engage 40cm from their spawn point at 4+ rather than 30cm at 5+ for Termies.  Not completely useless but I still wouldn't take more than a handful.

The point I would disagree on is the "never engage" conclusion.  I think gaunts can make a fine assault late in the game when they get in range and most formations are chewed up.  Half kills might still be okay here, but it could be a problem.

What are the other consequences?

If gaunts only count half in assault, why would anyone ever take Raveners?  A Termagant in assault would have the same FF fire and only count as 1/2 kill per hit versus a Ravener's 2/3 kill per hit (failed armor saves).  Raveners are basically only functional as offensive assault troops anyway because on defense in assault or against ranged fire the likelihood of cover saves is pretty good.  Not an over-powered problem, but still a problem.

What happens to the relative strength of a Dom that's trudged across the board and slowly spawned 4 or 8 over a couple turns?  Perhaps it's not common enough to matter, but it is something to consider.

Same question for a Harridan or Vituperator.  It's a common tactic around here for them to move to a prep position, spawn disposable broods and assault in the following turn.  Half kills makes that tactic considerably better.  I actually see this being a bit of a problem.

Last on for now, half kills is a very large boost for a full on "horde of gaunts" army.  No one's done a batrep with one in a long time, but last time I looked they did work.  That's a potential major problem.

_________________
Neal