Page 2 of 3

[ 40 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

[Lists] Tyranid v6.0
Markconz	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:52 am
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Some quick comments: Special rules look good, well done. Not sure points splitup for tiebreaks is necessary, we have played with just straight 'total dead biomass points' and that works well. Regeneration - would prefer rolls equal to DC lost. Many of the unit stats seem way off (overpowered mainly), but I do understand that special rules were your first consideration for this version of the list. Armoured broods - confusing name considering what is in there, rename as 'Uncommon', call 'common and uncommon' class 'common'. Use Brood(x). Tyrant - why TK attacks (and so many?). Drop the guard as already noted. RA surely? Arty - looks like you know what to do. Lictors - +2 MW attacks?!  Basing conventions will need to be specified if these are Inf. What is happening with the Inf/LV debate in other lists? - important to keep this in mind. Haridan - I'd drop armour to 5+, and let it carry gargoyles only. Genestealers - 5+ Armour is more in line with the new codex and would make them more useful in game I think. _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

nealhunt

Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:17 pm

Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA

I like the Brood (x) for Spawn designation, would make it easier to assign values as needed by unit capabilities/availabilities then trying to cram them into a category. Getting these right IS going to take a bit of work. I think starting at somewhere around 1 per 20-25 points, rounded up, sounds about right.  1/20 would give the closest to the current ratio of spawning points v unit cost. There will still be an opportunity for min-maxing and I can already picture people figuring out the "waste" in various spawning options, but it should be less than a flat per-unit cost. _________________ Neal

Top

Lion in the Stars	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:37 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455	To rebutt a couple points on regeneration:  that's almost exactly the same rule word-for-word that's in the 'Nid dex.  Without having played it, I couldn't tell how powerful it is.  Potentially disgusting, yes.  How many 6's can you roll?  With my luck, none. _________________ "For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top

Tactica	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:23 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Jaldon, Boy - you got your hands full out of the gate on this one! I'll avoid comment until the next revision is out. So, do you expect a downloadable word/excel/pdf file format to around the corner once you have a 'base' level of a working list you want to go forward with? Just curious if the modus operandi will be to use 'forum based' lists for awhile or not. Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Markconz	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:00 pm
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 13 Jan. 2006 (16:37)) To rebutt a couple points on regeneration: ?that's almost exactly the same rule word-for-word that's in the 'Nid dex. ?Without having played it, I couldn't tell how powerful it is. ?Potentially disgusting, yes. ?How many 6's can you roll? ?With my luck, none. The 40k nid dex regeneration ability uses a number of rolls (requiring 6's) equal to DC lost. Plus it is on creatures with only 4-5 DC (wounds), and has a hefty points cost. It is random, but scary for opponents. Sometimes it will do nothing, sometimes what people think is a mortally wounded fex, springs back to action in a round or two. I think a number of rolls equal to DC is probably too powerful, especially if it were to be combined with regeneration on a 5 or 6. Therefore I think we should stick with a rule mechanic that has already been extensively tested in a similar paradigm (carnis roles in nid 40k armies have many similarities to the roles of  bio-titans role in ?epic nid armies.). _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

fuseboy	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:06 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:20 am Posts: 23	The "what's a formation" rules are clearer than I remember them, and I really like the idea of the immobile synapse creatures being able to slingshot out formations of broods.  My gut feel is that the concepts can be sharpened a bit. If 'swarm' just means 'formation', then can we use 'formation' in the rules and 'swarm' in flavour text?  That would eliminate some questions. With respect to coherency and synapse range: - Eliminate the use of 'voluntarily'.  The relevant volition is the player's (is a stationary brood creature being left behind 'voluntarily', or is the volition the synapse creature's?) and volition isn't observable.  (Are you allowed to accidentally move units out of coherency?  etc.) - Allow players to move their formations out of coherency, and apply standard rules for out-of-coherency units after the move (i.e. the player removes units as casualties until the formation is in cohesion). - Allow players to move brood units out of synapse range, and treat them the same way as units out of cohesion. The 'sliding' is a cool effect, but I think the rules should be very clear about exactly when the departing brood is considered a distinct formation.  For example, if the tyranid formation splits while doing an Engage action, is the synapse node supporting or participating?  Can the synapse node be hit by overwatch fire as the departing brood moves away? Do the splitting brood creatures have to move out of synapse range, or can they stay where they are?  Must the entire brood go, or can some brood creatures stay part of the synapse creature's formation? One way to clear it up would be to give stationary synapse creatures a new 'Divest' or 'Disgorge' action which has no other effect than creating a new formation of a nominated number of brood creatures.  Nothing moves, and the new, brood-only formation is considered to be unactivated.  (As a side effect, this gives the tyranid player an extra activation and leaves the possiblity of confusingly intermingled formations.  One way to fix this is to state that the new formation automatically activates immediately - no initiative roll and not counting as a retain.) Alternately, you could do it without any declaration, and state that it's all one formation until the end of the formation's activation.  If the action involves multiple moves, however, you'd need a special exemption for coherency (which takes into account the possiblity that some brood stay behind). I prefer the 'Disgorge', myself. _________________ Email me for Epic near Toronto!
Top

BlackLegion	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:09 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am Posts: 8711 Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe	Can a bio-titan still regenerate DC if its DC is reduced to 0 or below? _________________ We are returned! http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top

Markconz	Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:17 pm
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (BlackLegion @ 13 Jan. 2006 (21:09)) Can a bio-titan still regenerate DC if its DC is reduced to 0 or below? No it is dead in that situation. At least I hope that is the intention   _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

Jaldon

Post subject: [Lists] Tyranid v6.0 Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:20 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.

Hena: Then just remove the word "group" from synapse section of army list. And remove the Hive Nexus group. Comments? Yup, I really did like my first read of this Hena, nice work Consider it added to my files for the next version. Special rules look good, well done. Not sure points splitup for tiebreaks is necessary, we have played with just straight 'total dead biomass points' and that works well.

Actually my experience, from v1.0 on, has been the exact opposite with Nid players purposly playing for the Tie Breaker and then Spawning like mad in the last turn. We have been using the present x2, x1, x1 per two units, for some time now and it forces the Nid player to try and avoid going straight for the Tie Breaker out of the gate.

Many of the unit stats seem way off (overpowered mainly), but I do understand that special rules were your first consideration for this version of the list.


Yes they are overpowered, the new stats will be up as soon as I can firm them up. Consider the direction they will be headed in as downward almost across the board, as also will the points per unit.

Armoured broods - confusing name considering what is in there, rename as 'Uncommon', call 'common and uncommon' class 'common'. Use Brood(x).


Brood (x) will be in the next version, along with some other really excellant ideas all here have given.

Lictors - +2 MW attacks?!  Basing conventions will need to be specified if these are Inf. What is happening with the Inf/LV debate in other lists? - important to keep this in mind.


The Lictors will be getting a big overhaul by the appearence of the next version of the list. I consider them one of the key units in the Nid Army and it is going to be tough to get the 'feel' for them right.

Haridan - I'd drop armour to 5+, and let it carry gargoyles only.


The armor change is already in the cards, though I hadn't considered 'Gargoyles Only', and this is a very interesting idea.

Genestealers - 5+ Armour is more in line with the new codex and would make them more useful in game I think.

While I do agree, I also want to keep the Stealers points down at around 25pts, I am still working on a way to accomplish both.

I think starting at somewhere around 1 per 20-25 points, rounded up, sounds about right.  1/20 would give the closest to the current ratio of spawning points v unit cost.


My feelings are around 1 per 25pts with a growing scale, that being 10-25pts (1), 26-50(2), 51-100 (3), 101-150 (4).

So, do you expect a downloadable word/excel/pdf file format to around the corner once you have a 'base' level of a working list you want to go forward with?


Yes

Just curious if the modus operandi will be to use 'forum based' lists for awhile or not.


I had thought that working through the wording of the special rules would take longer then it is, but thanks to some really excellant suggestions (and a general acceptance of the direction they go in) it would seem I was incorrect. With some confidence I think I can say that v6.1 will be a speed bump between now and a nicer PDF list. Although I will be holding off on the background fluff for some time as playbalance is priority one.

Boy - you got your hands full out of the gate on this one!


And loving it too  

Can a bio-titan still regenerate DC if its DC is reduced to 0 or below?

To quote a famous outer space doctor "It's dead Jim." Dead is well dead, the rule allows living WEs to regain lost DCs, not dead WEs to spring back too life. It will be made clearer in the next list.

- Eliminate the use of 'voluntarily'.  The relevant volition is the player's (is a stationary brood creature being left behind 'voluntarily', or is the volition the synapse creature's?) and volition isn't observable.  (Are you allowed to accidentally move units out of coherency?  etc.)
- Allow players to move their formations out of coherency, and apply standard rules for out-of-coherency units after the move (i.e. the player removes units as casualties until the formation is in cohesion).
- Allow players to move brood units out of synapse range, and treat them the same way as units out of cohesion.


The rule I am thinking about instituting, if a player 'accidently' moves their own brood units out of Synapse Range is Gone To Ground bug. Now with it further stated that this only applies at the end of the formations action. This would allow players to throw brood units into an assault, and out of synapse range, and then pull them back in during the consolidation move.

I want to force Nid players to remain in coherancy, and Synapse Range, to reflect their fixed system for controlling their brood creatures. A weakness I would like to see reflected.

The 'sliding' is a cool effect, but I think the rules should be very clear about exactly when the departing brood is considered a distinct formation.

Sliding occurs at the start of the turn, as stated in the special rules, and is only used to define which brood creatures are in what swarm IF there are more then one synapse creature group within 15cms of the brood creature.

A Node sending it's brood creatures 'off into the blue' is what I think you are really adressing here. It doesn't state that there is any limit on how many brood creatures go off into the blue, so a player could send any number and retain some. It also states that there is no adverse effects on the abandoned synapse creature. However it requires the synapse creature to still give them the order to move out, so it would be treated as a single action and activation.

I do not want Nid players to gain a 'free activation', and the fluff already states that brood creatures are incapable of independent action, so no the Synapse Node must give the order.

While I do think the wording of all the special rules could use improvement, and I know I am not perfect, we also cannot go in the other direction and write an entire book of "If then" statements.

Thanks for all the input folks

Jaldon