I've been reliably informed that this has been talked about at length before, but I'm new to the table and don't want to raise dead threads, wade through them and have everyone shrug away.

I've started a new thread, as I don't want to keep hijacking the 3000pts battle report of another poster (I recommend reading it, beautiful board and detailed report).

To carry on an example from that thread.

Let's take your Devs in a T-Hawk example; assuming characters, that's 800 points of Marines.  An equally pointed, Common Brood swarm would look like this:

800 Point Assault Swarm
3 Tyranid Warriors
8 Gargoyles
12 Hormagaunts
16 Termagants

One variable you seem to be leaving out, Jeridian, is that Tyranid infantry, unless assaulting, should almost *always* be lurking in cover... and using the Tournament Scenario terrain guidelines for setup of the battlefield, there should be a *lot* of cover to hide in... that throng of Gaunts having 5+ or 4+ cover saves is really going to reduce the number of kills they take, and now the enemy is ready to be snacked on.

Hormagants can reach out 40cm to engage the enemy, while Termagants are limited to 35cm... if the enemy is moving formations to lay Blast markers and support, they are now within engage range of the Bugs.

I'll write more later... gotta go watch the season premiere of LOST!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Cover is a difficult thing to factor into theoryhammer, it's not like you can take it with you around the board. Opponents have a nasty habit of putting objectives in open fields in between pieces of terrain.

Find me a board where I can put 39 infantry stands in cover and I'll show you a rainforest.

Cover is a downside too, as LOS of the defending formation (the Nids) is reduced, and can be manipulated by the attacker clipping at the right spots.

Hormagants can reach out 40cm to engage the enemy, while Termagants are limited to 35cm... if the enemy is moving formations to lay Blast markers and support, they are now within engage range of the Bugs.

You raise a good point Jeridian, although theoryhammer certainly has limitations.

Operationally, I'd suggest two issues with the particular example you cite:

1) It's probably best theoryhammering with ground troops -- the problem with the air assault you posit is that it entails the SMs committing significant airmobile resources.  THe problem is that the involved SMs are liable to become 'leg' infantry as a result.

2) The second question is whether the 'nids were operating with mutally supporting formations, in which case your assumption that the 'nids will never be attacking may be a little off -- If the 'nids have the opportunity to counter-activate on an isolated SM formation then we may have a game...

I'll chime in again and say that I agree with Jeridian's analysis. I'm well aware that this was my first game under the current rules and I will certainly playtest more, but seeing my Tyranids lose assaults by +5-6 because of the casualties really felt... inappropriate.

And during my game vs. Flogus, he never had to shoot/assault at 'nids in cover as they were so numerous they couldn't all fit in buildings/forests. Also, since Tyranids are supposed to be the ones doing the engagement, the cover saves will generally go to the opponent's troops.

Synapse, Independant and Uncommon creatures feel perfect. Even Common broods are balanced with regards to their power/cost ratio. It's just that, when you've taken 2 turns of heavy shooting and you finally manage to engage the enemy, you'd expect something different than "OK, I've killed 7 Gaunts, now try and win this fight."

Why would 'nids casualties affect them more in assault? Surely losing a Gaunt to enemy fire or losing it to a CC/FF hit should make no difference to them? If anything, the 'nids should get even more "berserk" and heedless of their casualties once they close to the enemy.

it's been suggested about bringing in a fully scaleable 'outnumbering table' for 'nids:

to qoute
+1: outnumbering
+2: outnumbering by more than twice
+3 ...thrice
+4 ...etc

Whether you'd need to take it to about +4 i don't know. I can see the downside being making nids a little overpowering versus elite formations such as terminators.
Although simple i'm not too keen on Hena's 6+ "combat save", as well as being 'another special rule' it doesn't feel rooted in any 'reality' of the army; ie.e. WHY do 'nids get a save in combat? Rules purely as a balancing act don't really float my boat...
that said i've not many ideas myself!

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

Well okay, if discounting gaunt casualties altogether is overpowered (and it certainly seems pretty harsh) how about just halving the number of them for purposes of assault resolution. I.e. in addition to getting +1 for every non-gaunt unit killed add +1 for every two (or three) gaunts, or part thereof.

Having only had 1 game with the nids that was a whitewash for them against Space Marines I have not many suggestions although I can see the arguments for both sides. I am really liking the layout of the FERC nid list and think your 6+ save in combat is simple to initiate and will help to balance out the losses sustained (how many saves are you realistically going to make?)

I want to get a game with my nids in at some point in the next week and think I will use the FERC with 6+ assault save.

[edit] ^^vytzka, I think that introduces another level of micro gaming into the engagement. A simple save for all units (6+ for gaunts, normal for other bugs) is much easier and is explained at the beginning of the game much quicker.
- "All gaunts get 6+ in combat, ok? Good."

[/edit]

D.

_________________
Epic:Armageddon... Like Apocalypse but for grown-ups.

[b]Bearded Dice[/b]: [url]http://bearded-dice.co.uk[/url]

It's good enough for me, people just are complaining that it's not sufficient so I thought I'd throw that one out. Assault-only armor saves would work too and there's a precedent in Wyches.

What I really wouldn't like to play against is a formation where your 10 kills won't count for anything at all and you can only ever win combat through miscellaneous bonuses, as in that gaunts example. Yes, you can theorethically do that with Orks but I doubt it's practical at this magnitude.

a kind of TSKNF for gaunts?

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

I kinda like the idea of semi disposable!