Yeah, that's pretty much what happened in that thread I linked to. I really hope this is able to get us somewhere, the 'nids need it.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

you sound surprised, this is 'nids after all.

As my mum says, "opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one"

My comments come from all the times I have enjoyed playing with my 'nid army but got all confused during army creation and remembering all those crazy extra special rules and restrictions!
In general I am in favour of the 9.2.1 list as it stands in terms of unit datafaxes and (think) that we have achieved parity across all 'nid lists with most units. However, I do have to agree that as a PLAYER (not a rules developer, or army champion, or official playtester) that I could really do with it being a simpler list as a whole!

I much prefer the idea of fixed initiative ratings for synapse, independent, and 'no longer' synapse swarms along with modifiers to engage and rally rolls.

The army should still suffer a -1 for being within 30cm come the end phase, getting shot at a lot makes spawning and making all those injured critters do what yr synapse creatures want them to do a just a LITTLE harder!

The 30cm synapse range rarely comes up in our games; i would drop it.

Army creation is still a big faff: all those points and other restictions?! Choose a synapse swarm, add some common and uncommon creatures to it and be done with it: Fixed formations (with spawning allowed from all dead creatures to arrive anywhere). All of my list builds revolve around a core of formations that I take and stick with anyway. i.e warriors with lots of gaunts, or tyrants and carnifexes.

I would put all war engines (dominatrix (?) and hierodules aside) into the standard 1/3rd box.

Indepenent swarms at 1/3rd is another bitch to keep track of; how about just linking it to the number of synapse swarms?

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

+1



If it was done correctly (formations being reworked), - maybe. Otherwise, a foot slogging 'meat market' HtH force is really going to struggle without some 'big meat' to soak and fire off a bit of damage.

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

The only issue as I see it with nids has been the lack of development. I really do not see it having a history of the lack of compromise and closed development some other lists have been a victim of.

Finally we may be heading in the right direction. Like most things, it is who brings stuff forwards for discussions rather than what the content is. Neal has the pull and respect, so maybe we should get him putting more things forward.

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

I had a quick look through the 9.2.1, Leviathan 2.0, Onachus 0.21 and Jormungandr 0.45 lists and put together a quick comparison of stats for the various creatures. It really isn't as bad as it could be and is well within a compromise range for some form of unification. (the file isn't great as it's a PDF export of an OpenOffice Spreadsheet but should be readable)

thanks Arkturas !

funny you should say that, as there were a few major examples (1/2 gaunt rule) where this was pushed through against the advice of some very knowledgeable players. Similar thing happened with Eldar and Spirit Stones - I think you can figure out the common denominator. I haven't been all that involved with 'nids, other than helping Dave playtest Onachus, but it's easy to see how list development can so easily split in such an environment.

Alright, after going these posts again I wanted to try and push some discussion points on the issues that I think are the most important. If we can get people to agree on these I think we'll be making progess. The other stuff (initiative ratings, stats, etc.) is all peanuts when it comes to army balance, but these things need to be addressed due to how they affect the fairness and balance of the tourney scenario.

BTS

Currently 9.2.1 is the only list that changes the victory conditions of the tourney scenario. I can't think of any list that does this currently (OGBM probably comes the closest with the Grot Riggers rule, but even that's a stretch) and I don't think the 'nid list should set a precedent here. The VC should be the VC, no exceptions. Additionally, by removing the VC "mirror" the list is going to be more difficult to balance. Once more, keeping the regular VC keeps things simple.

Zombo and I seem to agree in that regard, I'd like to hear other people's opinions and thoughts.

Fixed Formations

Before I go any further, by fixed formations I mean formations that are fixed at the start of the game.

If we're going to keep the standard BTS we're going to have to keep fixed formations. If we don't then we're giving a big advantage to the 'nids (they can just dump more brood into their BTS after it's taken a bunch of losses and make it that much harder to kill).

A benefit with this system is again, simplicity. Again, I agree with Zombo here that allowing formations to swap bugs between them is rather complicated with relatively little payoff. Fixed formations will also allow for simpler army construction.

Spawning Pool

The idea to limit a formation's spawning was Jaldon's idea. Initially, I was skeptical but after the playtests and understanding the reasoning behind it I now agree that this is needed.

If we allow spawned units to come from the army's losses we're giving an advantage to the 'nids in the form of allowing them to place units where they're needed the most. Anyone who played 9.2.1 or earlier is guilty of something like this, examples like:

"Oh, this formation will probably engage those Wild Boyz next turn, I'll spawn back only Termagants."

"Oh, this formation will probably engage those Predators next turn, I'll spawn back only Hormagaunts."

It's instances like that where a player can pick and choose from the wider pool that seem really gamey and unfair to me, and why I'm in favor or spawning back formation losses only. Once more, it makes it much simpler when going to Tie Break if spawning is formation losses only.

Tie Break

Like BTS, I don't think Tyranids should be messing with the the Tie Break Victory conditions. Admittedly, with spawning they will be outside the norm here. However, we do have a list that has a similar mechanic: Necrons. While Necrons do get the advantage of being able to replace losses before calculating tie-break, they do have the built in disadvantage of being counted as completely destroyed if they are off-board.

This is what I tried to mimic with the Synapse Swarms rule in Onachus. The 'nids have the advance of being able to spawn, but if you kill a swarm's synapse it counts as being completely destroyed.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I agree with all those points Dave, though I've never been on the recieving end of the type of tergeted spawning you describe. The only 'nid player locally is way too laid back for that.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Dave. It seems to me that the only reason for the altered BTS condition and tie break rules in 9.2.1 is the lack of fixed formations, and if we lose that they are no longer neccesary. KISS.

On spawning I'm yet to be convinced in any direction, honestly. My leviathan idea was just to try a mechanic that didn't feel like necron-style resurrection, but is likely overpowered or at least unfair. Whatever system is picked should retain the ability of Dominatrixes and Tervigons to increase spawning.

Perhaps some kind of daemon-pool type system could be employed, where spawnable units could be bought at a heavy discount before the game and only brought onto the table by spawning?

Fair enough, I concur with most of the above points also and I have DETINTELY been guilty of gamey spawning! I've always been amazed at how all those dead bio tanks from that formation OVER THERE suddenly end up with my Dominatrix OVER HERE!!!!

But this does bring into question points cost (maybe?) for the dominatrix? She'll HAVE to buy brood creatures to come with here if she wants to make use of spawning at all...which ineitably (in my experience) means Trygons.

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

Personally I don't think anything bigger than a ravener should be spawnable, and definitely no war engines!

BTS

I don't see a problem in having an alternate BTS goal, I tied Jormungandr to the formation with the largest number of synapse stands (counting AV as 2 and WE as DC value). It fits tyranid philosophy and allows free formations construction as the Synapse aspect of a formation is fixed at list construction.
Fixed formations is the more restrictive solution that also works.

Fixed Formations

I agree with swapping of stands in game being unecessary and also allows removal of the synapse range.
I have no problem with forcing a player to write the formation composition down but the formation building in Leviathan is significantly more restrictive than what we are used to. Formations have to take full broods and shifting AV's to a Tyranid Tank Company equivalent is blocked. You're looking at a negative effect to most AV's and WE's, particularly things like Dactylii, Exocrines (points handicap having to buy gaunts they don't want) and the Dominatrix (breaking it through clipping assaults on gaunts). Certainly some points alterations would be needed.

Spawning Pool

Spawning anything, anywhere is perhaps a little too good. It's also important to tie in here what units recycle back into the spawning pool. I don't think there is a problem spawning to any formation if what can be re-spawned after death is limited (e.g Gaunts and Gargoyles). Other things can be spawned but are bought for the spawning pool (up to LV?). The danger with discounted spawning pool creatures is gaining a points advantage through spawning. Personally I think dice rolling specifically for spawning should go, base it on synapse creatures or blast marker removal or something similar.

Tie Break

Nothing really comes to mind to force the default method on anything that doesn't conform to the standard formation building method used in every other list.

In some ways it's more restricted, but in others it's a lot freer. Sure, each standard synapse formation has to take some infantry (probably reduced to 1 cluster minimum in the next version), but so what? Isn't that supposed to be what nids are? Mixed formations of big and little stuff swarming towards the enemy, not min-maxed AV formations and huge chaff formations of the infantry that you had to buy but have no use for?

The 1:1 common:uncommon ratio, multiple synapses per formation and no war engine limit makes it in many ways a lot more flexible than 9.2.1, as do the Symbiotic formations, which allow things like formations of biotitans or all-skimmer or burrowing formations without funky rules issues like 9.2.1 i.e. having some independant and some brood raveners etc, which is just horrible.



Dactylli and Exocrines aren't in my list, so it doesn't affect them, and the 1/2 gaunt rule protects from clipping, or the dominatrix could take the tougher raveners instead.