Don't get antsy Frogbear, Chroma is a reasonable fellow.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I know. I guess I am just tired.

I do get tired of people not wanting to play against or as the Nids as well.

I do not want to merely change the rules as then any battle report I supply is useless to the cause of getting this towards a finished list.

It is just frustrating overall and could potentially be fixed with two official nods and 2-3 months of playtests. Its not the Tau - it cannot be that hard.

That is how I felt at first. Lack of players and opponents have changed my mind however

How many opponents and players Hena?

Frogbear, I'm saying that without giving any reasons for why they don't want to play against/with Nids, the "feedback" you're presenting has no information in it at all; there's no context.

As an example, if I tell you that five people in my local EPIC group refuse to playtest against/with your World Eaters, does that mean your list must change? What changes will you make to get them interested? If provided you with no information at all as to *why* they won't play, so how can you respond in any meaningful way?

What are the "two official nods" you're talking about?



Some of "Zombo's" suggestions are getting rid of the 15cm Synapse Coherency and doing away with spawning. Are you saying those two changes will make your opponents like playing against Nids again? If so, why don't you try out some of the suggestions and see if your opponents like the army better? Playtesting is experimenting and trying things out and reporting on results, it's not waiting for the Army Champion to say, "Try this. Now try this. And then this."



This is *PRECISELY* what you *SHOULD* be doing, in small, incremental steps, and then reporting. That's exactly what does help the cause of getting this towards a finished list.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the main draw back for the bonus of spawning" here.


Er... there's absolutely nothing preventing Tyranids from making "long lines" in the current rules; you can have 30cm, plus base width, between Tyranid Warriors (and/or Zoanthropes) and do these long lines. One can easily spread out a big swarm to control/contest multiple objectives, it's one of the best uses of the Tyranid Warrior based swarm.

Ok. I will try some changes and convince some players to bare with me for the tests

Just as long as it is not seen as me trying to de-rail the work you have done so far, then we should be fine.

I *hope* you mean "bear with me", as I don't need photos of nude Aussies playing EPIC in any battle reports.


That's why you make small changes and test them, and even do "go backs" if things don't work out.

Remember that PLAYTESTING is a co-operative effort between the two players, not a competitive one. You should both be talking, discussing, explaining, and suggesting as you go through the game. It's not a tournament where you're tying to demolish the other person, it's an experiment where you're trying to figure out what works or not.

FB, could you indicate, specifically, what "two nods" you were referring to as, potentially, sufficient changes?

Personally? I am in disagreements on some things but here goes some talked about. Choosing two would be a benefit:

Note: I do not have the list in front of me at the moment so I will come back with a more thought-out list tomorrow

- 15cm Synapse Coherency - I am pretty much ok with this going
- doing away with spawning. - not quite sure, however more troops (cheaper) rather than spawning appears to be an answer
- Buying troops and then planning out the force after you see the enemy is not required IMO
- The restrictions in the list (1/3 this and 1/3 that) I feel (no answer as yet however) need to be reviewed and brainstormed.

This one, that there's "cross-over" in the various "1/3" limits, is going. It'll just be 1/3 Indpendent and 1/3 Synapse as limits... nothing about Bio-Titans/War Engines, in the next version.

Regarding the Synapse range of 15cm, it is effectively a unique aspect of the list enabling the passing of stands between synapse bubbles and rescuing of Synapse-less formations. The alternative to that is dropping the range limit entirely. This would have two effects:
1) You can't wipe out a small portion of very large swarms by eliminating single synapse creatures (pertains more to long lines and killing the central synapse creature of 3).
2) Stand swapping between swarms is removed or rewritten to allow jumping between swarms at the owners discretion. The choice depends on whether you would still allow swarms that have lost their synapse to join another synapse group.

If you don't allow stands to swap to another swarm then the negative initiative modifier for synapse-less swarms is better than outright swarm death.

Was there any conclusion to the issue of identical swarms with different rules after casualties due to differing selection groups? (Eg Tyranid Warrior and Gargoyles vs Harridan and Gargoyles, Warrior-less gargoyles die but Harridan-less gargoyles carry on as normal, same with Raveners). Assuming a solution is wanted then a species specific leadership rule is the only thing I could come up with (Harridans leading Gargoyles and Trygon leading Raveners, if the Harridan/Trygon dies then the swarm suffers the full effects of no synapse (initiative penalty/swarm death)

My ideal direction for the list would be to remove swarms and synapse range, replacing with fixed (though flexibly built) formations and an initiative based synapse system.

I'm ok with spawning staying I guess, though it has always felt a bit of a cop out; surely just having cheaper units is better?

I'd also like to see a branch of the list dealing with the more modern leviathan units once the special rules are finalised.