Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Merge Mechanics

 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Couple of thoughts: I think that an initiative penalty for being synapseless combined with the general Nid +2 to Engage is enough to represent them milling around until something comes close enough to attack. Even shooty beasts would want to enter assaults to firefight, as shooting in epic is supposed to represent long-range firing at enemies barely seen, no? Doesn't really sound like something critters do on instinct. (If the Nids lose the armywide +2 to engage, leaderless formations would need to keep it if it has an init penalty IMO.) I do like the idea of limited actions, as it would mean that leaderless swarms are rather stationary - the player can't move it around to where it can engage the proper targets. Not sure if it's needed though.

I also want to add my vote against spawning only lost units, as if feels strongly like resurrection. Necrons resurrect in the end phase too, btw, but only one unit. The best result IMO would be that spawning created randomly determined units, but I'm not sure if it's possible to write decent rules for that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
BlackLegion wrote:
Instinctive
[insert relevant fluffy text here]

A synpase-less brood formation has a -2 penalty to perform any action other than an Engage. It can only perform an Engage action if at least one unit can and will move within base contact of an enemy unit.


Why the extra negative. It is just adding 'filler' that is unnessesary. It's Epic. It just has to be representative.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I find the idea of only being able to spawn lost units back to the formation they were lost from as being unworkable.

Firstly, as Zombocom says, it's not "niddy", and secondly, the book-keeping nessesary is being to be far too much. I much prefer the Leviathan method of only being able to spawn a few unit types, but with unlimited spawning.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Firstly, as Zombocom says, it's not "niddy", and secondly, the book-keeping nessesary is being to be far too much. I much prefer the Leviathan method of only being able to spawn a few unit types, but with unlimited spawning.


Necrons prove that it works, unless you want to argue that the Necron army doesn't work. I do agree that it's not "niddy" and shouldn't be used.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:08 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Sure, it works very well for the Necrons, with their basic core formations that are all the same, and limited upgrade choices... I can't imagine it working for 'nids without book-keeping.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
frogbear wrote:
BlackLegion wrote:
Instinctive
[insert relevant fluffy text here]

A synpase-less brood formation has a -2 penalty to perform any action other than an Engage. It can only perform an Engage action if at least one unit can and will move within base contact of an enemy unit.


Why the extra negative. It is just adding 'filler' that is unnessesary. It's Epic. It just has to be representative.


I can see where Jaldon is going here; the principle is that 'leaderless' swarms just hang about in a menacing fashion - they do not disappear, nor do they stride around the battlefield. So he is agreeing with the original idea to limit initiative (ie -2 if Leaderless) and expanding this to only allow restricted activations should the swarm actually succeed in activating (which I quite like). And anyway if the Swarm spreads out, it can expand at 30cms per turn to cover objectives.

Another option might be to disallow the SC reroll for 'uncontrolled' formations.

My only concern with the wording mentioning 'Synapses' is whether causes a problem with 'independent' formations (as they do not have synapses)? I suspect we are confusing Synapses with Leaders on this point. Perhpas it would be better worded that formations without a Leader get an initiative penalty of -2.
(Note, defining Synapses as Leader means they are also better able to shrug off BMs)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Guys, this is still the 'merging' thread. Having different debates here is confusing because we are not keeping the relevant arguments together. It is hard enough to follow the discussions as they are without spreading them across many threads.

See my reply to these comments here


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
It was just an idea as regardless of what individuals like, there appeared (to me) to be a majority that have clearly stated they do not like the restricted moves.

Although I have that preference as well, happy to play with (test) whatever the 'umpire' decides in this case.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
Ok...me and Angor had us a 5k tyranid versus necron barny yesterday: I had to spend slightly over on independent formations and he DID have two (rather than the legal one) harvest engines but...hey, it was all good fun!.

Essentially though Merge Mechanics was the only thing that we playtested as I'm finding it really hard to keep track of all the suggestetions at the moment and things seemed to work fine. We "Kept It Simple Silly"ed and played it like this

-A synapseless non independent formation is at a -3 penalty to do anything.
-it still gets the bonus for attempting to engage (we were playing int:2 +2 to engage +2 to rally)
-if, before rallyining troops any of those formations units are now within unit coherency of a synapse led formation, it stays on the table: bringing over any blast markers it has (broken counts as number of units) with it.
-If the units are not in coherency range then they all "go to ground" and are removed from play (in this case into the spawning pool as they are all brood creatures)

We played 'standard' nid spawning whereby creatures can go to ground/die only to reappear in other units later on. Upon consideration if feel that there is little wrong with the current rule as it stands: it is simple enough and helps to add to the neverending horde feel that nids should have. It's frustrating enough to make your opponent really want to kill synapse creatures but not so overpowered that it feels that the army NEVER dies (as independent swarms are real easy to pop).

I also believe that the BTS based on Synapse creatures is more than OK: again, it's simple enough.

in this game the ONLY wierd thing that this merge mechanic bought up was when I ended up with about 10 stands of gaunts being uncontrolled: i had an option of going to pick them up with another formation, trying to activate them and move them TOWARDS a controlled formation. this didn't work and they had to stay put.
My opponent then shot them enough to break them.
I had an oppurtunity to move them towards said synapse formation
BUT
chose not to as I would have picked up the blast markers and was getting ready for a big push next turn and didn't want the negatives of BM's in an assualt.
SO
I chose to keep them where they were and let them go to ground in the end phase thus losing the BM's and allowing them to spawn elsewhere later in the game! I did some mathhammer and figured out that I had more then enough synapse formations to spawn most of those lost gaunts back.

Deciding to spawn everything also results in (weaker) mixed formations in some cases but I like to bolster my line as the battle draws to a close so as to do more damage to my opponent as they wade forward.

PS: in closing: The necrons won! I couldn't tear apart his war engines due to the fact that they float and/or have SKIMMER, I don't have any TK shots, he ignores all my MW shots and living metal means even when he does fight my titans in combat my lovely TKD3 becomes TK1...AND his portals can still be used when he breaks, AND most of the rest of the army are skimmers AND they're fearless, AND I've got mostly CC specialists, AND then they phase out only to re-deploy somewhere else next turn making having any form of a cohesive battleplan really very frustrating.
I hate those cubey buggers but I'll get them one day!!!
*Rant off!*

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
MoK, The style preferred by many is to keep the 'uncontrolled' swarms on the table. How would that have affected the game (ie leaving the Broken 'uncontrolled' swarm on the table)? So
- Would you have reconsidered your decision not to merge it somehow, leaving it 'uncontrolled'?
- How would having fewer units to spawn have affected the other swarms?
- Where was this swarm relative to the core of the battle?
- Could you have 'rallied' the swarm - alternatively could you have forced your opponent to destroy it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
Ah...well that's even simpler and irons out the only percieved problem I had!

To answer each of Gavins questions by point

-I would probably have just kept moving the swarm back away from the line of fire so to speak, waiting for it to rally and lose enough BM's to become a viable merge again. Indeed, this would also have kept my activations up.
-Less units to swarm wouldn't have affected that turn...
-(the swarm was on the front line)
-...BUT although I could have rallied it would have been quite tempting to force the opponent to destroy it (perhaps even a suicice assault) so as I could have beefed up my other swarms for next turn.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Thanks MoK, I suspected the 'uncontrolled' swarm was in the thick of things. I have a suspicion that under these circumstances it is likely to be preferable for the 'uncontrolled' swarm to attempt to engage if possible - even though it is likely to lose - than to try to escape :-
- The Nids are an attrition based army that will continue to attack to wear down their opponents (for all the reasons cited by others)
- Usually it is going to be quite difficult for the swarm to remove BMs (any 'leaders' are assumed to be dead).
- It is going to be very hard to get the swarm to do anything else (6+) as opposed to engage (4+)
These in turn are likely to make merging more detrimental to the Nids anyway (losing an activation and gaining BMs), even if merging were under consideration.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 1316
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Ginger wrote:
These in turn are likely to make merging more detrimental to the Nids anyway (losing an activation and gaining BMs), even if merging were under consideration.


Even more so since it is hard for synapse swarms to acquire blast markers in the first place. Getting 6-8 all of a sudden is quite a big deterrant. However, sacrificing brood creatures feels kind of Niddy to me. Synapse-less creatures engaging at all costs with only the purpose of taking down as many enemies as possible before dying. It might not be a bad thing.

/Fredmans


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
The Problems I have with Merging.......
(a) It really isn't an easy rule to write.
(b) It is difficult to play balance.
(c) Issues of BMs and Formation Status are too difficult to address, IE between the two formations.
(d) It also means we still have to write a rule for synapseless formations.

I am pursuing the 'Instinctive' rule as a replacement, and have floated many ideas in that direction thus far. At present I like the following.

A formation that has lost all of its synapse creatures isn't lost to the Nid army, because the creatures that make up the swarm are still deadly. However the formations ability to maintain itself on the battlefield is lost and it is no longer under the Hive Minds direct control so its ability to maneuver is limited.
The following rules apply to an Instinctive Swarm
(a) It has a -1 to its initiative roll.
(b) The formation may only use Engage, Normal Move and Hold actions.
(c) The formation itself may not spawn units.
(d) All other rules still apply to an Instinctive formation.

This will be tempered by the 'Brood Mother' rule where the Dominatrix and Tervigon can add their spawning points to any formation within 30cms of said creature.

Any Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jaldon

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Merge Mechanics
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
-1 is really not much of a penalty. There seems little point aiming to kill synapse with such a small penalty. Can we not go with what the community has been saying it wants for some time; a simple harsh initiative penalty and nothing else?

Can't we start simple and add more if neccesary later?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net