I can see the perceived issue with spawning WE, though I disagree somewhat on the basis that the whole idea is to represent bugs of all different sizes coming at you in droves - not big critters followed by hordes of others that generally reduce in size over time. The comparity rarity of WE sized bugs is handled by the differences in spawning costs.

Two other thoughts on spawning:-

1. When allocating bugs, they must be allocated in decreasing size from the rear. So any big bugs, WE etc that get recycled start by 'coming over the hill'.
2. Another even goofier idea is that once his army has been fielded, the player should not be restricted to spawning the dead bugs fielded in his army. Rather, he may spawn any unit he has available in his collection (as well as the dead units).
   In the tournament setting this would mean that he must start with the same bugs in each game (arguably in the same swarms). But he could then spawn bugs more suited to combat a particular race.
   It would also allow him potentially to grow his army over the initial 3000 point size - unless the opponent gets to grips with it and keeps killing things . . .

Ginger: The Leviathan list has a limited version of your second idea, you can spawn unlimited numbers, but only gaunts, raveners and gargoyles. Reaction so far hasn't been great, so I'm probably going to drop the idea.

In scenario play I would definitely use 2), to represent the swarm 'evolving'. However in a tournament setting, it just is too much of an umbalancing factor.

_________________
SG

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

Yup, that's been the main response, "cool idea, but not balancable for a tournament".

Would it be so 'unbalanced' if used it in conjunction with the other idea of spawning from the rear in decreasing sizes? The point being that this should also restrict the impact the big bugs have on the battlefield in a similar fashion to BMs on Aircraft, forcing the bug effectively to 'miss a go'.

Note that 'spawning from the rear' means from the Synapse furthest from the opponent. If the Marines have air-dropped into the rear of the Nids army, this may well mean spawning of formations in the middle of the battlefield.

"Furthest from the opponent" is almost impossible to define when you have multiple enemy formations all over the place. I don't want to have to break out a set square and compasses half way through a game!

Really, doesn't the nid list have enough overly complicated special rules already?

Tyranid costings more or less build in a cost for spawning. Tyranid WE and to a lesser extent AV's have a virtually negligible increase in cost due to the difficulty in spawning them which is why disallowing spawning of them doesn't have a huge impact.

Tyranid WE on the whole are pretty decent value compared to other races. For the points they cost they have high DC, armour saves and combat potential with a weakness to TK weapons and crossfire.

Free spawning of any Tyranid model you own isn't necessarily unbalancing if done right it's just fundamentally viewed as wrong by most players. I could see any list using it having a chance of being outlawed just because it is 'wrong' rather than for any rational reason. There's also the case of any game altering spawn of a non-starter stand being used as a stick to beat the list with despite the many other instances where spawning achieved nothing substantial.

I think more than anything we need a spawning rule that is acceptable to other players and that at least places a limit on spawning stands you've bought.

And 'spawning' is at the heart of the list. People have suggested problems with the existing approach, hence the proposal of alternative mechanisms.

I might add that if there is not a problem with identifying the 'closest' for other rules, there can hardly be a problem with identifying 'the furthest' - "set square and compasses" notwithstanding!!

I agree that it must be acceptable to others, so could you expand further on why others may perceive spawning *any* unit as "wrong".

I agree that there does not seem to be a problem in the spawning values - so that does not seem to be unbalancing in itself - but I am hearing that spawning anything but small critters is viewed as "wrong", and do not understand that perspective, not least because this seems to be putting unreasonable constraints on the initial composition of an army.

This is exactly the issue I've faced with the leviathan method, which allows a limited selected of units but unlimited numbers; people just say it's "wrong to be able to end up with more than you started with."

They may be right.


Personally, I think some kind of "spawning pool" is the best solution, where you can buy units cheaper to be spawned in later.

The suggestion was to allow spawning of any unit in a players collection, not just in their army. The player could theoretically take a list without 'Fexes, and spawn them in this situation. As to why larger creature spawning is considered unreasonable, the idea of a War Engine or, to some extent AV 'going to ground' and not being noticed is unrealistic. Similarly, any spore large enough to carry an AV or larger won't go unnoticed, and would need to be subject to AA.

How does this put 'unreasonable constraints on the initial composition of an army'? Is it because one would have to choose smaller bugs in order to have a spawning army? Necrons are constrained in the same way when a Lord character is placed in a Pariah stand; it's a tactical decision to use an AV/WE heavy force that has less ability to respawn, or a Gaunt/Ravener heavy force that is less durable, but can spawn in large numbers.

A spawning pool is a good idea, as long as you can convince people that it's not a daemon pool. The 'it feels like' argument would come into play.

_________________
SG

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

Currently "it feels like" necron-style resurrection, as nids only bring the dead back to life. That's not a "steadily growing menace". A spawning pool allows them to grow from their initial numbers, while still restricting what can come, and everything has to be paid for, albeit at a discount.

Feeling like a daemon pool isn't actually a problem, especially when you notice that the current rules do actually have such a spawning pool anyway, just without a discount so noone ever uses it.

I'm not saying I don't support the idea, just playing devil's advocate. It would create a steadily growing menace that stopped growing after the pool was exhausted, though.

_________________
SG

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

Sure, but dead guys would go into the pool, like currently, so there will probably be a continual supply, and at least it won't be just resurrection.

Basically, I'm proposing the same as now, with a discount for stuff held in reserve. It's not a huge leap and hopefully can be a compromise acceptable to most.