I really think we should at least try the simple initiative penalty idea that almost everyone is in favour of, before we try anything more outlandish like instinctive behaviour.

As I stated in my earlier posts this is an idea as a possible alternative to the present system. In that post I also stated my reasons why.

There is no reason NOT to attempt to find better alternatives. Sometimes they become the answer, sometimes they aren't the answer, and sometimes they present a better alternative to the original rule. It is never a waste of time to pursue alternatives.

No one is suggesting the original rule be dumped, or that work on it should discontinue because I came up with a possible alternative. However it isn't going to 'hurt' if player-testers give it a go in a game to see how it works.

Sometimes the answer is just around the corner, it just needs a nudge to bring it to the surface. Where that answer is right now remains to be seen.

In any case, attempting to batter ones head against a wall and try to force an idea to work, when thus far all it has produced is problems, is a waste of time. Opening the door a crack to see what else is in the closet isn't going to hurt

Cheers,
Jaldon

To harsh. I would like to remove BMs from the merged swarm as with a Marshal action it can't do anything effective in this turn anyway.
Sioi see Merge as a addition to the Marshal action insteasd of a new Merge action.

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

I'm not sure there are that many problems with the initiative penalty. Make it harsh enough and the flexibility you were worried about it gone. It's simple, easy to understand, background representative and provides a concrete advantage for killing synapse.

The only disagreement has been over the minutae.

What I have seen on the boards, and I have been studying them all weekend, is loads of confusion and very little concensus on anything, really.

That leaves me, as the AC, to make some very tough decisions.

As for this thread my thinking right now are as follows, and why.

(Merging): Gone, dropped, not to be used. The mechanics of it are going to be difficult to write, doesn't fit in the background as I have laid it out in another thread, and is not the return of enough of a reward for busting ones butt to get at the synapse creatures.

(Gone to Ground): Gone, otta here, not gonna happen, and I wrote it long ago. It is just too much of a penalty to the Nids.

(Synapse Range): Gone and otta here also. It is quickly becoming a useless mechanic because of the way in which the lists have evolved.

(Initiative Penalty): Stays for now and gets pounded out to see if it is enough of a reward to the opponent for taking down the synapse. It would be dead easy to write, and very easy to impliment on the table. One thing I am considering is adding a limited number of orders to the synapseless swarm, such as may only use Hold, Engage orders.

(Instinctive Penalty): I still want to flesh this one out and I am considering a variation on the above with an initiative roll used to overcome the instinctive behaviour, with that same roll having a heavy penalty. This is just a toss in the air so don't panic, but something like; Players rolls initiative (With the penalty reducing success to two in six chance), if roll successful swarm may use an engage or double move, failure and it holds. I would like to stick in that if the swarm moves it must move towards the nearest enemy formation, but it will not be a requirement at this time. Once again I want the reward of taking down the synapse to be worth it to the enemy. That look inthe closet kinda thing.

I would very much like to get a working base Nid list for everyone to use soon as possible, and it isn't going to happen if someone doesn't start making some tough decisions right away. As AC that is my job and I will be posting the special rules to work on this week. Fast enough to get the ball rolling?

Cheers,
Jaldon

Hmm, On merging, I understand where you are going, but I think banning it could still cause unintended problems. This thread is predicated on the debate over whether a 'controlled' swarm can be merged with an 'uncontrolled' swarm resulting in a single 'merged' swarm. However it has totally ignored the other major mechanic of the list; passing units from one swarm to another to represent the 'wall' of Nids being pushed forward.

I have a horrible feeling that if we ban 'merging', we will also have to ban any form of passing units between formations and potentially even limit intermingling - is this going to have too great an effect on the overall intention behind the list?

Furthermore, I would suggest that the mechanics behind 'Instinctive' behaviour do not gel well within the E:A alternative move system because, 'uncontrolled' formations should have a chance of moving first and getting in the way of 'controlled' ones (a bit like riderless horses can impede a horse race over jumps). Equally it seems unreasonable that the hive mind could not re-assert itelf over any 'uncontrolled' bugs that somehow find themselves mixed up with 'controlled' ones (for example where the nearest enemy is on the other side of a 'controlled' formation).

Are we absolutely sure that merging cannot be managed in an acceptable and balanced way?

"Passing" bugs, i.e. pre-game and in-game reorg, is out. Not only does the majority of the community support this, Jaldon's post that, in part, compares the hive mind's C3 with Red Army C3, does the same.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Epic is suppoesd to be a game where there are no 'forced moves'. We have had this discussion in the past, and no unit is ever forced to move - even at the cost of destruction.

This is not a direction I agree with and feel it takes something away from what Epic:A represents - a strategic wargame of chess.

There are better ways to represent this - some of which have already been mentioned.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

While I understand the Red army C3 allusion for general command and control, I suggest that it breaks down when considering the original intentions behind the list. To me the location of the synapses represents the focus of the Nid strategy - channeling bugs to attack at this point - rather than some more structured communications mechanism.

I accept the two alternative lists provide proposals intending to make the 'Nids more playable, but to me at least it seems that they are 'throwing the baby out with the bath-water'. The main problem was actually the 'Synapse range' which seems to be fixed by replacing it with the 'Initiative' penalty. However these other changes (no merging, no 'passing bugs') are effectively turning the Nids into a 'variant' ork or IG list rather than reflecting the relentless hordes of bugs you see in the 'starship troopers'. I might add that IIRC the spawning rules were originally predicated on the ability to pass bugs forwards for exactly this reason.

Much of the debate centres on how the list works under 'tournament conditions', and how the opponent is 'unfairly penalised' by such practices - so they must be banned outright rather than finding ways of balancing them, or even of accepting the validity of such actions as being appropriate to balance the other weaknesses in the army.

IMHO there should be no 'tied' position at the end of the game; battles against the Nids are very brutal and very binary:- one side or the other wins. So if the opponent has failed to destroy the swarms, they should be deemed to be capable of being reinforced or recovering and destroying the opposing forces. This could be represented by altering the victory conditions to read "the NIDS count any remaining swarms at full strength to represent their numbers and recuperative abilities" - but I think it is actually fairer to the opponent to make the Nids player demonstrate these abilities on the table. As such, IMHO the Nids player is entitled to do anything he can to maintain or increase their strength such as passing bugs around or merging swarms.

I do not see it this way and I have posted the reasons why I don't feel this is an accurate representation of how the bug command system works.



If I hadn't already been playtesting the ideas I am presenting, while I was away for work, I might have second thoughts on this issue. But I have and I am pretty sure they will create the endless horde effect I am seeking to make. As for the Horde comment the same can be said of the Dark Eldar, Eldar and Tau. The Nids ARE a horde army and are going to have the same 'look' as other horde armies like Orks, the comparison is inevitable.



There is much more at issue here then just the mere effect the opponent gains. There is also the matter of the writing of the rule and the implimentation of the rule. From my reading of the post there is no real consensus on this issue, a lot of debate, and no real clear cut agreement on it at all. My job as AC is to make tough calls, so I am making one of those tough calls. Unlike most though I am also presenting an alternative that is much simpler and easier to write as a rule, another job the AC is supposed to perform. For now merging is out the door with the bath water, the tub, and the baby.



What in the world has the merging of two formations got to do with the rules on intermingled formations? A merged formation is two formations becoming one formation. Intermingled formations are two seperate formations and rules for that are already in the Epic-A rule book. So I see no problem here in the least.

Cheers,
Jaldon

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

Jaldon

Any reply or consideration in regards to the below?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

There will be NO forced moves of any kind in the Nid list. How this idea came about in my comments I do not know, and if I have said anything to create this impression I clearly state now it will not be in the Nid list as long as it is under my control.

Even the original 'Instictive' rule that I have written, but not posted, states that the NId player can opt out of the forced engage or double move and accept a hold action.

I apologize if I have left this impression on anyones mind.

Cheers,
Jaldon

I have to say that I'm generally in favour of this direction. This is the sort of minimalised special rules I went for in leviathan, and if it turns out that we need more in the future they can be brought back, but clearing out the clutter is the main thing for now.

I still think a harsh basic initiative penalty provides enough of a bonus for killing synapse without needing any more complicated instinctive mechanic though.

Thanks for that Jaldon. I must have read it wrong so it's good to get that clarification

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats