But that nerfs TWs even further...

This is army development by dart-board.

Also called 'brainstorming'... *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well you have to take *some* units... or you don't have an army!  *laugh*

And you don't "have" to take Raveners.  You could take lots of Guants, a couple Zoanthropes and a trio of Carnifex as a swarm... or extra Warriors, or a whole swarm of other options.

I believe I'll be dropping the price of the basic Tyranid Warrior Group to 100 points for three and tweak the Raveners a bit as well in the next version.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I appreciate your brainstorming, Chroma....

The problem is that it brainstorming, developing, and testing are best kept somewhat separate.

Which is, by the way, one reason not to _both_ lower the price of warriors _and_ remove their LV status in the same testing iteration  -- you would be right on  that point.

I wouldn't do both changes at once.  As Infantry, they're definitely worth 150 points for three Warriors.

I realize it *is* a concern, but I'm still not fully convinced that LV status is an unsurmountable problem.  There just hasn't been enough testing yet.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

BTW it seems that Predator Destructors are not THAT bad

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Predators are really good against nids. They always have some targets and range is not the issue as nids like to come close.

This game was nice, but it could have been much more close if our luck were more even. Hena just keep hitting and saving almost all the time much above average. Hey, but no bts gained this time

Overall still I feel nids are bit below bar in power level. And when I was making my list, I was a bit suprised by points costs of some units. Raveners are damn cheap and when warriors are lv they are most important unit in those swarms. Gaunts seemed a bit expensive and all WE:s don't pay much per DC. Still the best thing in newest few lists is that I like how spawning is made nowadays.

_________________
Rats Keep Running...

Dark Eldar Dracon

We have not had a huge problem with Warriors being LV. Mixed broods is the answer here (and, our player would argue, desirable wether they were LV or not). Warriors die more than the HIve Tyrants, but it means that at least *some* synapse die. In 5 games the Tyranids have never had BTS against them, but I did come close with my Marines.

Hypothesis testing, 101.

Note that the hypothesis that we are testing is 'is warrior = LV' is not 'a problem,' (whatever that means).  The problem with hypotheses, however, is that they can only be disproven -- my hypothesis that "it never rains on Sundays" will be disproven by one rainy Sunday, even if I've previously observed a year of Sundays with no rain.

This is one of the problems with our discussion -- the issue is not whether 'warrior = LV' did not appear a problem in one game, but rather whether we should consider Dave's tests, Hena's, and Jeridian's to fit the rubric of 'a problem.'  rather than -- in Microsoft-speak -- "working as intended."

I don't think LV Warriors have anything to do with it, most lists that include a Dominatrix tend to be set up that the enemy has to kill Her to get BTS...  which seems appropriately "fluffy" in my opinion.

For approximately the same cost, you could have three and a bit Warrior Groups for the cost of a Dominatrix; that's 11 Synapse Creatures... or you could have four Hive Tyrants and some Zoanthropes, for 7 Synapse Creatures, vs the "eight" Synapse the Dom counts for... more activations, no supreme, a foucs for the enemy or dispersed... seems like a lot of "hard" choices there, all equally valid tactically.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Actually, the "hypothesis" is "*Are* Warriors as LV an army breaking problem?"

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Not to be pedantic -- and nb, I chose my profession in order to avoid too much philosophy of science -- however, it is hard to resist pointing out....

Hypotheses are statements in answer to questions, not the questions themselves: it's tough to test a question. (arguably even tougher than 'proving' a hypothesis).

A subtle part of the "Warrior = LV" issue is the presumed need to provide a mixed brood compared with the revised spawning rules that make it harder to spawn LV, AV and WE.

Unfortunately, this whole question is not just about finding ways to build an effective army. It is also dependant on a number of strategic and tactical niceties that are being approached differently by different people:-
- what spawning strategies are in use
- where are the synapse creature positioned in the swarms
- what is the 'shape' of the opposition
- what are the 'Nids aims and objectives
- etc

I am still firmly of the opinion that this "Warrior = LV" approach is causing more problems than it is solving, but have no real means of proving or disproving this hypothesis because doing so depends to a large extent on how individual tactical battlefield situations affect the general strategic makeup of the army/race, and the tactical situation is often down to player style.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt