I've heard people getting annoyed at the list, particularly older versions, but I've not heard "I'm never playing against that list again!" for any v9+ games I've played or watched.

Older versions, sure, and, perhaps people are still smarting from some loss there, but since Tyranids can now take Blast markers, they are no longer "unstoppable" and I recall one player who had only faced the older versions say, after a v9.x game, "Wow, it's like we're actually playing Epic with the Tyranids!"

To me, it's more trying to figure out the "why" of people's frustrations, the implication seems to be that it's "impossible" to beat Tyranids, or at least "no fun" to do so, and that these people find it pointless playing them. Yet, 1) Tyranids *do* get beat, and 2) I've seen and experienced people having fun playing with and against them. So, what is so horrible about these people's experiences that they want to swear off them completely?

*ESPECIALLY* if people are *playtesting*, I don't see how the process is frustrating. If it's competitive gaming, with a list the opponent is completely inexperienced with, and the Tyranid player is not *helping* them at all to figure things out, then it's the Tyranid *player* who is at fault, not the list; the Tyranid player should be *teaching* their opponent the ins and outs of the army, not trying to beat thing soundly due to their inexperience. It's the same thing with Necrons. Do people not talk about their games afterward? We also discuss "what should I have done differently?" or "why did you do that?" and it's always a learning experience.

No one likes to be surprised by things, especially us "competitive gamers"; we feel we're being made a fool or something perhaps.

I have only once experienced a "dice-thrown-down-in-anger-that-army-is-stupid-and-I'm-not-playing-them-again!" moment in all my years of playing E:A. And that was me playing bog-standard Orks vs bog-standard Marines, when an Ork Landa disgorged six Stormboyz that "locked in" a mounted Tactical Detachment with Supreme Commander. This was a very competitve "star" Marine player, who had never been on the receiving end of an "air assault", and he was so angry that he couldn't finish the game. We did eventually play Orks vs Marines again, and he now knew what to expect and was a better player for it.

Lastly, someone saying, "I can't beat the Tyranids with my usual tactics" is not an indictment of the unplayability of the list.

I agree with Chroma's definition of Spawning, most of it is in fact stray (Lurking) Tyranids scattered across the battlefield.

The idea that this applies to every army can be true at a stretch but Tyranids do it a lot more.

For one, there are many more Tyranids than the enemy in almost every piece of background on a Tyranid invasion. The landscape is teeming with Nids and Nid plantlife.

Second, Nid strategy (or lack of it) is to saturate a world with Nids, a Nid assault that is beaten back will scatter into the wilderness awaiting new Synapse creatures. An IG assault, for example, would withdraw to a Rally point miles back to recieve new orders, rearm and recoup.

For what it's worth, I like the spawning rule as something that gives the 'Nids their character...

The problem with 'spawning' for other factions is that it partially overlaps with the mechanics for breaking, blast markers, and suppression.

True, but that means that Tyranids should spawn whenever they want. With the spawning rule you have to wait for your troops to be killed, and later re-spawned, that gives the impression they are being resurrected and teleported to the opposite corner of the field.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

That's because we're playing a game, not witnessing something in "real life"; it's an abstraction for playability, to give a feel for the "ever growing horde" of the Bugs, because you can't just grow more models as you play... cuz you'd be selling them for profit on eBay instead!

Everything in the game is an abstraction; does it bother you that bitter enemies on the field of battle take *turns* attacking each other instead of going all out immediately?

Why does "spawning" stand out as some how less valid an abstraction?

It stands out because it's unique to Tyranids and is designed to annoy the opponent, it's meant to be frustrating.

You unleash bolt and laser and bomb and shell, and yet more Tyranids take the place of the one's you've killed. The endless horde.
The Spawning rule represents this unceasing tide which can be annoying for opponents who suffer from it (with good Spawn rolls, or key re-spawnings at just the right time/place).

But almost every army has these 'annoyances', also known as 'characterful special rules'. The Eldar "A Special Rule for Every Problem" are my favourite example of annoyance armies.

It's the "respawning" part of spawning that I dislike too really. I don't mind them having some mechanic for adding new troops, but the current mechanic feels more like necron-style coming back from the dead.

It can also lead to gameyness:

"Oh, I need more units in that formation, but I've nothing in the spawning pool, so I'll deliberately move these guys who are in a useless position out of formation so that they're removed, so I can spawn them somewhere useful."

Have alternate spawning mechanics ever been considered? Off the top of my head you could buy a "spawning pool" of units before the game starts, at a discounted price, but they can only enter through spawning.

Has this ever actually happened? With any kind of regularity? With the ways that an enemy can stymie spawning, it seems more like a desperate gamble over a reliable tactic. I'd much rather march that other formation into a new position over sacrificing things for a d3 spawning points.

And if you've got *nothing* in your spawning pool, I'd say you're doing pretty well and arent' bothered by that fact! *laugh*



I don't believe an alternat "source mechanic" has been tested/tried. With a "pre-purchased" spawning pool, isn't the new complaint going to be that it "feels like Chaos-style summoning, how could the right creatures always be in the right spot every time?" or something? *laugh*

Plausibly, in a "real world" situation, a Tyranid army should be able to end a battle with more units than it started, but I don't think that's going to fly in as a game mechanic.

Spawning is an abstraction of a lot of things; would people have less of a problem if the rule was called "Without Number" with "Growth Points" or something? Is it the semantics that are causing the problem? Maybe it's just a mindset, as it's never felt like "resurrection" to me, but as growth and reinforcement, because I know that's what it's supposed to represent.

Well you can have a "Spawning Pool". It's SporePods. Introduce Tyranid Spaceships let them planetfall brood creatures via SporePods and let them pick up by Synapses.
Pro: You will have a large number of brood creatures in one spot ready to be absorbed into a probably battered Synapse Swarm.
Contra: As with all Planetfall you have to pre plot where the SporePods will land.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

To me it absolutely feels like resurrection, because that's exactly what happens.

I'm much rather a system that allowed nids to end with more than they start with, whether that be a paid for spawning pool, planetfalling spore drops or whatever, rather than the current respawning system.

The Tyranid rules already allow a player to retain a number of units in a "spawning pool" but they will be paying full cost. It isn't used very often because spawning isn't reliable enough to get the units you want when you want them.

The spawning pool idea I can't see working as people intend. You either allow dead stands to go into the spawning pool as now which doesn't solve the current objections or you don't and have to reduce the cost of all the nids anyway so why not just take more units on the field instead of the spawning pool. The spawning pool units have to be significantly cheaper to be worth taking so it becomes a list building exercise to maximise the amount you can spawn to gain a points advantage on the field early on via the Dominatrix and Marshall actions.

Spore Pods will be in modern fleet lists and function exactly as you'd expect, a full formation is dropped in (including synapse) just like any other drop capable list and there is no way you're going to get a discount on units, you pay for its tactical use (via Spacecraft cost). It isn't really a spawning alternative.

It only feels like respawning because having an unlimited free pick from any model you have on hand would be grossly unfair (not that I'm suggesting anyone thinks that's a good idea). An artificial limit for balance I think is a fair trade.

It only feels like respawning because it is respawning. I know it represents other things, but what's happening is respawning.

Respawing is *precisely* what's happening, but it's a game mechanic to represent a bunch of different things, why is it so tough for that to be acceptable?

Just like "teleport" can represent a variety of different things, but it's still just "magically appearing" in game.

Hmm why would this be bad? is it because the pool points for different types of model don't represent how good they are.. if so maybe you need to increase the varience, and have the spawning points gained increased in line..

_________________

My Photobucket