Well it's pretty hard to do that.

I can't think of a more elegant way than using LVs.

Your argument cuts both ways here, GlynG -- in essence you are saying that fluff and model size shouldn't be all-determining in statting out army lists.

Which again raises the question: why does making warriors LVs help the army? And could the same benefit be achieved with a less dramatic change?

I note that a certain number of play reports have spoken to this issue -- and it is helpful in supporting the change.  But the basic rationale for the change remains to be explained -- in terms of the direction of the army list... rather than through resort to fluff.

Making Warriors LVs does not help the army, it does not make it better. Rather, it makes it more balanced.

With Warriors as Infantry it's quite hard for the opponent to achieve BTS if you take an army consisting mostly of Warriors + Gaunts, as he has to plough through 10-12 Gaunts before even reaching your Synapse... and that's only for ONE formation, and those Gaunts can be spawned back. It is of course different if you also take WE Synapse and/or Tyrants, but that only makes those units less attractive compared to Warriors.

Warriors as LVs encourages mixed formations and makes the Warriors more vulnerable. This, in turn, makes Tyrant and other Synapse more attractive, not to mention Zoanthropes, Biovores and Raveners who suddenly become a lot more interesting. It's better for the list internal balance and it's better for its overall balance, as scoring BTS is now easier.

I thought objectives where supposed to be hard...

So the Nid list is better because it is easier to lose with now. Interesting.

Victory goals are still hard.

Against any other opponent, a player can focus on the BTS formation to claim it, if that's what they want to do.  Against Tyranids, you *still* have to fight against multiple swarms to get BTS, but now, it's a more fair challenge for the non-Tyranid player.

So the Nid list is better because it is easier to lose with now. Interesting.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

For me, the sentinel is pretty much the cut-off point where infantry becomes a light vehicle. Tyranid warriors are not sentinel sized. They're barely bigger than a terminator, about the same size as an Ogryn in 40k.

Personally I'm not a fan of the "synapse = BTS" rule anyway, so I don't see that as much of a justification.

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

Did you look at the pictures I posted earlier?  The Tyranid Warrior takes up a significantly greater volume than a Terminator.

How else do you break the Tyranids' "spirit" than by eliminating Synapse creatures?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Maybe 40% more volume, but as I said, similar in size to an Ogryn. A sentinel is a LV with a 6+ save, thus pretty much the minimum for LV status. Whatever, this argument is irrelevant anyway.

I just didn't see the need for this change. Tyranid Warriors weren't overpowered, and the Warriors + Guants horde is a very fluffy one, and should be viable, but it no longer is.



By destroying the largest formation, just like any other army. The scenario goals are abstract, and shouldn't be messed around with for different armies. Otherwise, Tau shouldn't be getting objectives for capturing terrain and Dark Eldar shouldn't care about anything other than killing.

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

Hmm...current classification of unit type is this:

Infantry = single Wound models, 3-7 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k unit.
Mounted Infantry = single Wound models, 2-4 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k (Jet-)Bike, Cavalry or Beasts unit.
Light Vehicle = a single Vehicle with all around Armour of 10 or a single (Jet)-Bike, Cavalry or Beast model with more than one Wound in Wh40k.
Armoured Vehicle = a single Vehicle with armour 11 or greater on at least one side or a single Monstrous Creature (usually with at least Toughness 6 and at least 4 Wounds)in Wh40k.
War Engine = War Engine (usually with at least 2 Structure Points) or a Gargantuan Creature (usually with at least Toughness 7 and at least 5 Wounds) in Wh40k.

What really is missing is Heavy Infantry
= models with more than one Wound, 1-3 on a base represents one, half or a quarter of a Wh40k unit.

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

The thing is, that type of horde is *not* "fluffy"... I have found absolutely no references to Tyranid Warriors hiding in hordes of Gaunts.

I've found references to Warriors and Gaunts in close proximity, with the Warriors being singled out for "heavy weapon fire" since they stand out from the Gaunts.  I've found references of hordes of Guants surging ahead as their own "wave of bodies" as well, but nothing of them being used for "cover" by Warriors.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Mounted infantry is actually 2-4 models per stand.

What really is missing is Heavy Infantry
= a single model with more than one Wound in Wh40k.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Let's not get into this again. We understand each other's arguments and disagree.

I do think this is something you should poll though, just to see where the general opinion lies.

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

@Chroma: Right i have edited the Mounted Infantry.
And yes 1-3 models per stand for Heavy Infantry (Obliterators come to mind).
And as i said Heavy Infantry would move exactly like generic Infantry (so don't need Walker).
If basing an Armoured Vehicle would give a -1 to hit modifier or if they would profit from a Cover Save is up to debate. Iwould say yes for both because as very agile creatures they can go to ground, seek cover, remain a low profile, etc to take advatage of terrain feature as smaller Infantry.

Models wich fall under the Light Vehicle rule are simply to slow, clumsy or big to take advantage of terra in an other way as that they are harder to hit.

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

More balanced is what I meant.. and I appreciate your argument.

But my concern, even given your points:  fiddling around with the TW stats to balance the army seems about as wise as fiddling with tactical marine stats to ensure players take more Vindicators and Land Raiders.

The problem here, as it would be with changing Tacticals: the single change to the warrior sets loose a whole cascade of effects through the rest of the army list -- relatively nerfing gaunts, buffing LV and AV nids, nerfing spawning (because it has less role in preventing BTS), and others we have yet to see.  It may be that the change is a BRILLIANT insight on Chroma's part -- somehow all these nerfs and buffs balance out -- but it seems to me the equivalent of trying to level out a table by making four random cuts to its legs.

In general, especially in a late-stage armylist, I think it is wise to distrust brilliance and applaud caution. Were there other ways of achieving balance that would not have been such a radical change (such as, for example, reducing the point cost of LV units or other synapse creatures)?

But then perhaps I am mistaken: TWs are not core Tyranid units, and/or the 9.2 list was not a late-stage army list.

As to the physical volume of TW figures... can I propose a 3+ armor save for my Mk1 SMs because of their diminutive stature?  

Enough... Perhaps I'll come back to the argument after writing up some fluff for Warp Rift.

Yes a Heavy infantry designation which function identically as infantry but can be shot by AT weapons would be ideal (and should then be incorporated into other relevant units like ogryns, terminators and nobz but that would require those lists to be re-balanced).

Nid LV's are essentially heavy infantry (missing cover from AV's and infantry cover saves) but it is a work in progress so things can be changed.

It still doesn't fit quite right but a perfect solution is unlikely. Gaunts do not provide shielding to warriors so LV works on that point. However they are more vulnerable, probably too vulnerable.

I think Chroma is thinking about this in a different way. In a combined swarm there will be multiple AT targets (Warriors, Zoanthropes and Raveners) so the synapse portion should stand a good chance at surviving. Everyone else is thinking in more rigid terms of synapse with bodyguards when it's more like multiple alternate targets within a large combined force.

Essentially there is an idealised swarm ("The Combined Swarm") that contains multiple Nid LV units and if you veer away from that setup there is a punishment in that the synapse warriors are very vulnerable. That vulnerability in other lists mixed LV/Inf formations is not so damaging if all the LV's are destroyed. So it feels as if LV "bodyguards" are needed for swarm longevity and that is forced taking of raveners or zoanthropes as the most cost effective option (extra warriors aren't that cheap).

The one thing I'm slightly worried about though is the Phase III list which has a more limited access to raveners to use as "bodyguards".