Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 12
  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

[Old!] Tyranids v9.0
Dave
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:57 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote: (Hena @ 02 Aug. 2008, 13:40 )

There in lays the bad sides of that at least from my point of view. Tyrants and others have harder time spawning AVs. Automatic loss of spawning from being broken. Both are quite bad from overall point of view.

I don't think they are bad.  Spawning back AVs should be difficult.  The likelyhood of them wondering around a battlefield would be very low. Why should spawning them back not reflect this?

On the no spawning when broken, I thought is was a good thing. If gives your opponent something to aim for.  Even if it does overly weaken the Tyranids I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd rather them give them a boost later than try to take them down a notch.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Quote: (Moscovian @ 02 Aug. 2008, 16:45 )

Basically the 2D3 gives a slightly better average then 1D6, just as 2D6 gives you a better average then a 1D6. 1D6 IS random, while 2D3 gives you higher odds of rolling '4' over any of the other possibilities, making balancing of the Spawning easier to carry out.


Well, y'all were discussing how certain parts of the list seem overly complicated and cumbersome.  This is one where my math brain is just kicking in here...

Roll 1d6, use that number.  Or...
Roll 2d6, halve each number, add those two numbers, then use the sum.

How is that easier? :oo: I know the math isn't difficult to do, but if the computation on the end of things is so dependant on a '4' then you might as well take the roll out of there and make it a fixed number.

I understand that a '4' will come up more often on 2D3, but not by that much.  Switching it to a single D6 saves time and I must point out makes the list feel less beardy. At the NEAT tournament I saw this and the first thing that went through my mind is  "The Tyranid champ doesn't want to see a '1' show up because its his pet project. :glare: " Now I know that's not the intention of Chroma or Jaldon, but that was the first thing my synapses fired off when I saw that function and I can guarantee others have thought (and will think) the same thing.

You can improve the perception of the list and the ease of the mechanic in one simple change.

- - - Or you could get D3 dice. Mine are coloured red and green to allow for naval games (port and starbord) :p (and extremely rare) (couldn't resist the comments :smile: )

On a more practical note, if you do not actually have any D3, you could always paint the relevant numbers on two spare dice, which speeds things up no end. However, I do agree that it can be easy to make a mistake when looking at 2D6 and working out what the total D3 scores are, especially if they then have to be halved if near the enemy, and this becomes very long-winded when doing it several times for the various swarms.

It is equally true that using 2D3 give a more predictable and slightly higher result than a single D6, both of which are highly desirable IMHO because I still think that spawning is slightly underpowered. On which note, the idea of using a single D6+2 would be even more preferable.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
On spawning in general, I have to agree with Hena here. The whole point is that many / most of the critters should be returned to play, and preventing spawning when broken seems unduly restrictive (without having tried it I may add). We are rightly concerned about both the inappropriate proportions of WE : uncommon : common, and the relative respawning capabilities.

I would respectfully suggest that the answers lie in several related areas
Army composition
This should be re-pointed slightly to redress the proportions of the different types, so the player has a more appropriate set of 'dead' to respawn in the first place. So, we need to make the bigger critters a bit more expensive to make them rarer, while the common bugs should be slightly cheaper, or perhaps in groups of 5 etc.

Synapse points
I think these also need redressing slightly to make the Tyranid Warriors (and possibly Hive Tyrant pairs) slightly cheaper with the Vituperaptors and Dominatrix slightly more expensive, and increase the spawning values of the biger synapse creatures accordingly. The aim being to create synapse creatures with different roles - the numerous (and 20cm speed) assault groups should provide the point from which assaults are carried out, but should not expect to spawn huge numbers. However the larger (and slower?) synapse creatures in the rear should be able to generate larger numbers of bugs (and also the AVs!) which can be fed forward through the elegant re-grouping mechanism. I would even suggest considering relating the control and regrouping mechanic to the DC values - so the control radius is 15cms or DCx5cms whichever is the greater (allowing a Dominatrix to control - and feed bugs up to 40 cms away)

Spawning
A radical thought here, but why do we have to throw dice at all?? Why not give all synapse creature the appropriate spawning value, which is reduced by a given factor for each enemy formation within 30 cms or if it is broken etc. Eg
    Spawning reduced by -2 for each enemy in 30cms
    spawning reduced by half remaining value if Broken
This kind of approach would speed up the game considerably while encouraging the "wall of bugs" to be generated at a more appropriate point in the battlefield.

Just my two penneth as they say. :smile:

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jaldon454
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
Ok

(((1D6+Spawn Value)/.333)-(GMT^10))*(.369/Zulu Time)))
  -----------------------------------------------------
                   ((.0001*1000)/(Temp+800)/97))

Now that would be simpiler :D

I don't think they are bad.  Spawning back AVs should be difficult.  The likelyhood of them wondering around a battlefield would be very low. Why should spawning them back not reflect this?


I agree, make them too easy to Spawn back has two negative effects.
(1) There PVs would have to go up to reflect the effect they would be around more.
(2) It would further take away from the commons which are supposed to be the heart and soul of the list, not the AVs

Further, keeping them difficult to spawn back will make Nid players more careful when they employ them as they are far less likely to be coming back. I have always seen the AVs as ancillary to the commons, sorta of an extra boost, support etc..., not main force troops.

One of the main points in spawning is the ability to return a flesh wall. What's the point if Tyrant then cannot do this? The main point however is that it allows Tyranid swarms to return into play and become enemy if you don't finish them off. With 3 turns removal of spawning when broken effectively prevents this (1 turn move, 2 turn broken -> no use for turn 3). So in all intents and purposes that doesn't do what I expect spawning to do. I can see toning down of spawning when broken, but not removal.

First they can spawn when broken, they cannot spawn when they are broken AND enemy units are within 30cms. This would encourage Nid players to think about their moves and attacks rather then just shoving their Swarms directly at the enemy, and spawning back the commons as they go. It would also force Nid players to actually withdraw their swarms rather then retreat them forward ad then spawn more Nids in the middle of the opponents army. Also it would encourage opponents to follow up successful attacks to try and finish off the swarm.

If Nid players are concerned then try using tactics to solve the problem, like using Nodes as Spawning pools for Swarms that have been thrown back.

I was referring to the 8.4m rules. And for us, they flow much easier.  Also, more importantly, they take a lot of thinking out of it. Out of curiosity did you ever look at the 8.4m rules for spawning?

In my hands are the rules I got off the forum when I got back from out over the blue, they are v8.4.1 is what it says at the top and was the one downloaded. Considering it was the one On the Forum link at the time what else should have been downloaded?

Look, this is supposed to be a Horde Army just chock full of little bugs that will not go away. NOT an army of AV bugs that will not go away. To create that effect requires that the AVs be less available and harder to maintain on the battlefield, otherwise the list fails on its major goal. If the present rules make AVs less pronounced and harder to spawn then they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

A lot of AVs that can be spawned back easily is no different then a few very powerful AVs that are harder top spawn back, and that was tried already. Neither works to create teh desired effect.

There should be some kind of downside to spawning or it will come to dominate the game as the Nids will truly be able to move and fight as they wish with no fear of reprisal. Well, don't cover your backside, get a broken swarm in a bad position, try to maintain it, and you will get spanked. If that is the effect created by the Broken and Within 30cm of the enemy then it is creating the proper effect. "Whoa look Spawning has a bad side effect if your not careful"

I've had Broken Formations in some of my armies stay broken for entire battles, should I claim that something is wrong with it. Maybe I should demand that the designer/Champion write a rule that all formations rally in the second turn of their broken status.

Should everything in the Nid Army be positive for the Nids with no problems they have to deal with or look out for?

For me that would be a real boring army to field, as I wouldn't have to think to use it. Just figure out the trick moves needed, forget tactics, and shove it across the table. I wouldn't want to play the army.

As JJ once said, and I fully agree with it, an Army list is defined as much by its weaknesses, as it is its strengths. In some cases more.

Well enough bloviating  I am off to play some games using the Nids with the proposed changes, and I am sure that if I get spanked when one of my swarms breaks and gets chased down I will look at it as my tactical mistake allowing it to occur rather then anything else.

Really................

Jaldon :p

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:03 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote: (jaldon454 @ 02 Aug. 2008, 18:33 )

In my hands are the rules I got off the forum when I got back from out over the blue, they are v8.4.1 is what it says at the top and was the one downloaded. Considering it was the one On the Forum link at the time what else should have been downloaded?

There were three proposed special rule variants:

Chroma - 8.4.1

Markconz - http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 21;t=11031
(The last update of 8.4m is here, these are the rules that we found faster: http://www.box.net/shared/4kstaal0cg)

Hena - http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 21;t=11030




_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jaldon454
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
Thanks for the link Dave now, at least, I can try out what everybody keeps talking about.

Jaldon :p

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
scarik
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:16 pm
Posts: 422
Location: Boston, MA
Quote: (jaldon454 | Posted on 02 Aug. 2008 @ 23:33)

If Nid players are concerned then try using tactics to solve the problem,


QFT

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
ragnarok
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
Crazy idea for spawning.  What if a swarm spawns a fixed amount based on its synapse creatures.

If the swarm passes its rally test then it spawns, if it fails it rally test then it doesn’t spawn.

Spawning being:

Warriors: 2 common broods
Tyrants: 3 common broods or 1 non WE uncommon brood
Dominatrix: 6 common brood2, or 3 common broods and 1 non WE uncommon brood, or 2 non WE uncommon broods, or 1 WE uncommon brood
Harridan: 3 gargoyle broods
Vituperator: 5 gargoyle broods
Hive node: 2 dactylis/exocrines, or 1 dactylis/exocrine and 2 biovores or 4 biovores.

It might simplify the spawning, at least in my mind it does.  Since you can just look at your spawn and see what you will get:

A full assault group gets 6 common broods
A full Nexus group can get 7 common broods or 4 common broods and 1 non WE uncommon brood

_________________
Tyranid air marshal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jaldon454
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
Scarik: QFT


(1) Use tactics in playtesting to address the problem BEFORE off handedly just trashing it. Many of the early problems we encountered with the Ork/SM/IG lists were solved, not by crying about what JJ did but instead developing tactics to deal with it. It was one of JJ's criterion for playtesting that we do so, and if none could be found the problem would be addressed.

(2) Chroma, and I are the ACs, so defintly no.

(3) If you do not like #2 then I am sorry you may just have to learn to deal with it.

(4) Last, comments such as 'QFT' have no place in an intelligent debate, kiddie forums maybe, but not here. The  bloviating by me is to remind players just what the criterion for playtesting and army list creation are. Many of us, myself included, have forgotten this from time to time and need to be reminded. This isn't an insult it is a fact. When someone reminds me of this fact I don't cry about it, I go "Oh yea, thanks for reminding me" rather then becoming insulting.

Jaldon, these were reason why I didn't like the Marconz version of spawning. Not the current system

:oo: = Before the above post
:)  = After the above post

Now that we are on the same page (Yes I have finally seen Markconz List thanks to Dave, I can be so daft sometimes) the question then becomes "If we don't do this then how do we address the real problem of Nid Swarms using the Withdrawal as a 'free' move to close on the enemy objectives?"

It happened too much in last weekends games, and stopped it cold in this weekends games. It would be hard to argue that it doesn't stop the Nids from doing this.

That said I am not exactly glued to the idea either, that is why it was presented here as a 'possible' idea for the next modifications to the list. (Though purusing Markonz list did give me some ideas on other things)

No joke anybody got a better idea then mine, or the status quo, I am open to it.

About Spawninig

Ok, I have now read and used Markonz spawning and do find it interesting, but with two major problems in it.

(1) It creates too many numbers to have to deal with as that pertains to balancing the list. The smaller we can make the Spawning Values Overall the easier it will be to balance them within the body of the list.

(2) While the straight line math is the same, IE add up the scads of dice rolled  :O  it does eliminate the halving of anything.

That said it did give me an idea, and did show me what Dave was talking about, I think.

Two ideas to toss around that eliminate the halving of the dice rolls.

(1) Roll 1D3 for all the Swarms that are within 30cms of an enemy OR are Broken. That number becomes their Base Spawning Value. Then roll a second 1D3 adding its total to the first dice and using it for the Base Spawning Value for the rest of the Swarms in the army.

(2) Roll 2D3 using the lower of the two dice rolled for the Base Spawning    Value of the Swarms within 30cms of the enemy OR that are broken. The total pips on the 2d3 is then used for all of the rest of the Swarms in the Army.

In both cases the halving of the roll is eliminated and it becomes the dice already sitting on the table. This is definitely less math then the present system, and less dice rolling and math then Markonz System (Where each roll set of D3s had to be added up for each swarm and the number of D3s had to be determined, both which involve the use of modifiers and math).

thanks All.....................

Jaldon :p

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jaldon454
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
Sorry Rag you posted just after I finished mine.

Crazy idea for spawning.  What if a swarm spawns a fixed amount based on its synapse creatures.


Boy that harkens one way back in Nid development. I can't remember (It's that being old thing) if it was v1.? or v2.? that we did that. Not that bringing it up was a bad idea as the list was far different then to what it is now and I may just want to study it from that point of view

Those upset with this present list should have been around to playtest that old one. You were limited to 1/4 of your points for Uncommons, Independents, and Synapse. The Synapse formations were all of pure types, no mixed Tyrant/Warrior, and Swarms were far more restricted in movement.JJ designed both and insisted we playtest it 'as is' before trying to punch holes in it :_(

Thanks Rag for bringing it up I may want to re-study those old lists and you reminded me they were there (Yea I still got em)

Jaldon :p

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
scarik
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:16 pm
Posts: 422
Location: Boston, MA
Quote: (jaldon454 | Posted on 03 Aug. 2008 @ 20:21)

(4) Last, comments such as 'QFT' have no place in an intelligent debate, kiddie forums maybe, but not here.


So, let me get this straight. If I agree with you, I can't simply say that because its not intelligent to do so?

I suspect you didn't like my agreement more because I quoted you being insulting than because of what you were actually getting at.

But my point stands, the solution to Tyranids is that there needs to be some tactical use for both the 'nids and their opponent's for each special rule. If the bugs can just keep throwing waves upon waves of the little critters at you and there's nothing that can be done about it there's no reason to even play them.

The current list seems to either constantly be at full strength, or it gets hammered and never recovers with precious little middle ground.

That's a problem, sure, but why does it happen? Is it because the rules are insufficient or because people aren't trying to maximize them?

---

That said, is the list is supposed to be about the little bugs then why even allow the AV bugs to be spawned? Its not hard to see that if the trouble is Nidzillas running free then just don't let them respawn, no?

EDIT: Rereading that I think my snark response was turned to 11. This bug conversation seems to be getting the better of me atm, I'm gonna bow out for a few until I can be less combative.




_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:44 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
Quote: (scarik @ 03 Aug. 2008, 16:50 )

Quote: (jaldon454 | Posted on 03 Aug. 2008 @ 20:21)

(4) Last, comments such as 'QFT' have no place in an intelligent debate, kiddie forums maybe, but not here.


So, let me get this straight. If I agree with you, I can't simply say that because its not intelligent to do so?

I think all that boiled down to was a misunderstanding of what the acronym stood for.

QFT: Quoted for Truth

@jaldon.

I'm going to turn your point back on you:

(1) It creates too many numbers to have to deal with as that pertains to balancing the list. The smaller we can make the Spawning Values Overall the easier it will be to balance them within the body of the list.


Wanting small numbers is fine, but you also want a bigger sampling.  Why? Because the results will average out more. One roll for spawning is more likely to have more of an effect on the game then one roll for each swarm. In my mind a more regularly occurring average is easier to balance.

"If we don't do this then how do we address the real problem of Nid Swarms using the Withdrawal as a 'free' move to close on the enemy objectives?"

See my suggestion on your new thread (first paragraph).




_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: [Old!] Tyranids v9.0
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Having played against Dave's Nids numerous times, spawning with v8.4 was faster than it is now with v9.0. Yes, there was more dice rolling, but there was also less math and the whole process was faster. Plus, as Dave  mentioned, more dice rolling does tend to normalize the results, reducing the luck factor, good or bad.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 12
  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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