People also tend to lose against Necrons at first as well; it's "new army syndrome", plain and simple, especially against new armies that don't play like "normal" armies.

You shouldn't be "explaining in detail" the Tyranid rules as you're setting up, they're something an opponent should've read beforehand, just like any other new army. Springing *any* new army on an unprepared opponent is going to be tough for them to win against in the heat of battle.

"Tyranids are really good at engaging and regrouping, they move through scenery with ease, most have to stay near Synapse creatures, which are their Achilles' Heel, so you're going to want to kill those, they don't really care if lesser creatures die, and they tend to come back stronger if you leave them alone."

There, that's the "nutshell" version of the Tyranid special rules; you shouldn't be playing "competitively" with Tyranids against someone who hasn't read the rules for themselves. If you're having to do "in depth explanations", you should be doing it as part of a co-operative playtest, not a competitive game.

You want a rule of "You have to pick your swarm composition before you get to the game" included?

I don't think it's necessary; it's just strategically superiour to have some kind of idea as to what you're doing with your army before you play than thinking it up as you set up. The "flexibility" of tweaking things when you see what you're facing is part of the Tyranid "adaptation" concept; most people I've played with know what their swarms are before they know what they're facing and only make minor changes based on opponent, I've not seen it take any "extra time", more than any other decisions made when setting up one's army.

No, what takes the most extra time is the constant measuring to check everything is in synapse range, which of course no other army has to do but Tyranids have to do after each and every move... with an army that contains more units than other armies, typically.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I remember aposting/thread where someone proposed ditching the Synapse range thing.
I don't think that Synapse range is necesary if you already have tolook for formation coherency.

The presence or lack of a Synapse should affeckt the Initiative rating of the formation and perhabs the spawning rating.

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

I believe the F_ERC list and Leviathan 1.03 list (Plus my own hybridised very experimental list) both changed synapse to an Initiative based version losing the ingame swarm reorganisation by passing stands from one synapse bubble to another.

Technically Spawning could potentially be dropped/simplified with minor point changes as spawning appears to provide a relatively small number of additional stands (Particularly of AV's). Going slightly more radical it could become a unit ability of the Dominatrix (and Tervigon in a modern fleet list).

Yep, every other nid list has gone for an iniative penalty for losing synapse and no synapse range I think. They've all got rid of broods too.

That's definitely the direction I'd prefer to have the list go in.

feedback: This week we are organising some epic games with 'blind' forces. When asked a preference of what you do not want to come up against for the game, the only force both of the other players mentioned was Nids.

Fair enough, I did not ask the reasons why, yet this is a clear indictment that the list has to change.

It works the other way too. No one is willing to play as the nids as my opponent

This may be quite negative. Without the feedback however, we will never see the change

Zombo summarises it pretty well IMO

People often say the same thing about Necrons; without a reason given, it's meaningless.

It may mean they've had a bad experience, it may mean they don't want to learn a new army, it might mean they're sick of playing Tyranids.

How would you play your swarms differently if there wasn't the 15cm "synapse coherency", Hena?

What does having that 15cm "synapse coherency" rule bring to the game? How does it improve the gaming experience for both players? How does it make the army interesting?

Honestly, I don't have a 'positive' answer for any of those questions, it's merely a hindrance/annoyance rule. I'm still going to play my swarms with the Synapse surrounded by other creatures, just to protect them; the rule acts to force behaviour that people are already going to do, so, after examination, it seems unneeded.

Morgan and I have provided the opponents worse examples with Necrons and other forces. The opponents do not seem to mention these as 'no go' forrces.

Saying it is meaningless is closing your eyes to the feedback given. How many people need to say something before an AC will finally listen? Eventually we will all stop talking and you will neither get feedback or playtests.

Chroma

I really do want to support the NetEA project with the nids. If I cannot get opponents or players for the Nids under the rules you are supplying however, then I am going to be forced to either play the French list, or go with Hive Fleet Leviathan.

I am just trying to help because I care about the nids. It was the only army I played under the older Epic, and I want to make sure I get the most use out of the minis I have now under this edition (much like other people on these forums).

I am not asking for changes due to pet preferences. There are serious concerns with the list. Why not try some examples as provided; like stated earlier, those presented by Zombo.