In isolation it's a little weak but we don't have a clear idea of the overall picture. The combination of penalties and bonuses is getting confusing.

So we know where this is going and the overall idea it would be useful Jaldon if you sketch out a list for the various states of tyranid formation (Synapse, Synapseless, Independent/Bio-Titan/Spacecraft) with the corresponding actions they can take and the required initiative roll. It would make it a lot easier to understand if the bonuses/penalties are added in and the actual rolls required are plainly stated. Simplification through penalties/bonuses can be done later.

Yup, this is what I did in leviathan for clarity. Synapse formations have 1+, formations that lose synapse have 4+, independants 2+.

Simples.

Jaldon, Personally I would really like the whole idea of merging to continue, not least because it 'feels' right to me (You would never have guessed that would you ) -
While I realise that this would include all aspects of passing bugs from the control of one swarm to another (however described) I disagree with the assertions that it would be difficult to write or play balance. However, it would certainly need some detailed consideration, and I thought that was the reason we were shelving the whole concept at the moment in the interests of simplicity in order to get traction on a unified set of Nid rules.

Hive Mind and 'uncontrolled' formations
I think we may be over-complicating the concept, and agree with Zombo and AK. What we are describing here is that the direction of the Hive mind is broadcast (or channelled) via the 'antenae' of particular bugs. Essentially a given group of creatures in each swarm (independant or otherwise) have the 'Hive mind' ability which gives an initiative bonus to activation and rallying; kill them off, and the swarm effectively becomes 'uncontrolled'.
This could equally be conferred as a character with the given ability (as Zombo has already done in Leviathan).

The extent of Hive mind control (or lack thereof) is determined by the base initiative and the 'Hive mind' bonus. The 'uncontrolled' swarm can thus be forced to use the restricted list of actions by making the combined factors for other activations 6+ (or higher) removing the need for any additional wording. (Specifying different base initiatives for 'Assault swarms' or 'Artillery swarms' would also help balance the list as a wole.)

Also IMHO this 'Hive mind' mechanic should apply to *all* swarms including those we think of as independant (thus making the rule simpler to write and manage); if you want a given swarm always to activate (like Lictors or independant WE), you merely confer the ability on all units of that type in the formation.

I strongly suggest that we should separate this 'Hive mind' ability from 'Synapse' because they actually do different things, and it will clear up the way the list works. Divorcing this particular ability from 'Synapse' would have several advantages, not least that we can shape the performance of given swarms more easily.

Furthermore, if we want to inhibit 'oddities' we could specify that the 'Hive mind' bug can only control bugs of a similar type (so 'Brood lord' can only control Gene stealers, 'Tyranid Warrior' only gaunts etc), or we could limit the degree of control by the re-spawning value, so a single Tyranid warrior can only control '1' point critters etc; bigger critters would thus only be available to groups of TWs and Hive Tyrants (though they can control smaller bugs), while the Dominatrix could control every kind of bug. This would then tie Hive mind control back to the modules used in the list for building swarms.

Once these concepts are agreed, we could then reconsider merging, and I would hope we would then be able to resolve the minutae more easily. And as a taster for the future, IMHO it could be worth considering the concept of merging etc as a special form of 'Commander'.

Aktually there are 3 types of Tyranid Creatures:

Synapses: Creatures directly under permanent control of the Hive Mind which also radiate an area of direct Hive Mind Control.

Independend: Creatures which either form their own Hive Mind (Genestealers' Brood Telepathy) or have a strong link to the Hive Mind (Bio-Titans, DC3+ War Engines).

Brood/Instinctive Creatures: All other Tyranid Creatures. They have a weak or very weak link to the Hive Mind. Without a Synapse around which would grant a direct link to the Hive Mind they are prone to succumb to their instinctive behaviour (Lurk or Feed).

The last one gives me an interesting idea:

A Swarm constisting of Lurker and Feeder Cratures loses all it's Synapses. Now it splits up in two separate swarms. All Lurkers would form one Swarm wich only can perform Sustain (only when enemies are in range) and Advance actions and all Feeders would form an other Swarm wich only can perform Engage (only if base-contact can be reached) and Double actions.

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

Naturally I am always right and everyone else is always wrong Just kidding.

Good group of posts here with many interesting ideas, let me thank you four up front.

I really like the idea of using just a set number for swarms that are synapeless, rather then tossing in a modifier to initiative. Very simple and clean. It only becomes a matter of deciding what that number should be.

Ok, I can see the tide for keeping the Merge Mechanic on the table, but I still dislike the rule for a number of game mechanic reasons. Most of them occurred during games I played while I was away and it was a constant bone of frustration trying to work them out.

(a) How are the two formations BMs transferred? Does the absorbing formation inherit the absorbed swarms BMs, are the BMs traded out one for one from the absorbed swarm. If the merge happens as part of the end phase does it occur before or after rallies or is it considered part of end turn rallying (As this pertains to BMs)?

(b) What is the accepted range for the Merge? Apart from the actual range itself (15cms, 20cms, 30cms, etc) does the synapse range have to cover the entire swarm to be absorbed, just part of it, only a single unit?

(c) When does the Merge occur? Are he Nids given a special 'Merge Action' they can use during the turn, or is the swarm just absorbed as part of another action? Or maybe the merge could occur in the end phase. Is it then before or after rallies, or is it used instead of rallies?

As one can quickly see the Merge Mechanic is anything but simple. The problem with complex rules is each 'problem/mechanic' creates a subtle change that effects the entire aspect of the mechanic, and therefore the play balance of the entire army.

Or the entire Merge idea can be replaced with "Synapless Swarms have an Initiative of 3+ and may only use Advance, Engage, and Hold Actions." I just love the simplicity of the fixed initiative idea Arkturus, thanks a ton.

During the games I played while I was away I began to notice a continued trend dealing directly with the Merge Mechanic. Basically by the time the Synapse Creatures had been taken down there really wasn't much left of that swarm to be absorbed by another swarm. The question then became was all this merge mechanic stuff really worth all this effort to try to play balance? So I tossed it out the window and tried various ideas for keeping the Synapeless Swarm on the table and fighting. Ignoring for the moment those different ideas, a trend here also began to appear. Basically the Synapeless Swarm was so shot up that at best it lasted into the next turn and most of the time it it didn't get through the turn in which it had lost its synapse.

So the next question became what were the net results being gained/lost using the two different kinds of mechanics at the business end of the pipe? Merging left the absorbed bugs on the table for a turn or two more, and the Nids lost an activation in the process. Instinctive left the synpaless swarm on the table for a turn or two more and the Nids didn't lose an activation in the process. So at the end of the pipe the Nids weren't gaining all that much over the two different mechanics, so the only major difference was the loss of an activation in merging. I determined that a restricted list of activations at a reduced activation value would more then compensate for the loss of an activation and playtested it.

To sum up Merging while a neat mechanic doesn't return any better results over Instictive, on the gaming table, and is far more complex a rule to try and flesh out and play balance then Instinctive. I would like to very much playtest Instinctive and table Merging because my opinion is that once players start to use it they will come to like it much better then Merging.

Cheers All,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

I believe merging was primarily to allow synapseless swarms to be 'rescued' before being removed. If you don't remove synapseless swarms a large part of the reason to keep merging is lost.

Secondary effects included
Spawning from the back and passing stands forward.
Providing further 'protection' for LV class warriors. Raveners became very popular for a reason. Poor formation construction/positioning or a strong opponent could result in surgically taking out the LV warriors leaving the majority of the formation intact. It's less of an issue without LV warriors and although AV/WE units are still vulnerable they tend to have the benefit of a reinforced save.

Merging simply isn't as needed as it is in 9.2.1. with the changes being made.

While I agree that merging presents a number of tactical questions, IMHO we should leave these tactical questions up to the player to consider in the context of the particular situation on the battlefield. It is a bit like the way the value of a pawn changes during a game of chess. As Napoleon is reputed to have said "it is rude to interrupt an opponent while he is making a mistake".

However I agree that there are a number of technical issues raised by merging that need consideration including; timing, ‘range’, coherency, BMs, ‘Victory conditions’ etc. This is why I thought we were going to sort out the more significant aspects (like basic initiative etc) first.

On the question of merging itself, IMHO much is resolved if we use a definition of 'taking control' instead, and leave that process to the rallying segment of the end-phase. So the composition of a swarm is determined at the start of a game, and in the 'spawning' section of the end-phase.

Other thoughts on merging:-

• 'Hive mind' bugs control a swarm by taking control of other bugs that must either be in coherency with it, or in coherency with other 'controlled' bugs forming a chain to the 'Hive mind' bug.
  
  Thus swarms without 'Hive mind' become uncontrolled and cannot do much - though if they have "Breeders" they could still spawn . . . see my suggestions in this thread
• Do swarms have to start the game with a 'Hive mind' bug in control??
  
  This in itself could lead to interesting army choices where there is a large but slow moving swarm lurking in the rear of the battlefield, which is spawning bugs that are being fed forwards . . .
• I presume that one 'Hive mind' bug cannot take over another one??
• BMs could be passed to the 'controlling' formation in proportion to the number of bugs being taken over (with fractions rounded up).
  
• For victory conditions, we could count the initial value of the swarm if it is destroyed, taken over by another swarm or if all 'Hive mind' bugs are dead.

My point is wouldn't it be simpiler just to dispense with merging and avoid all the technical issues.

Napoleon also said, "Do not give me good generals, give me lucky ones."

A wise man once said, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I wish to venture into the field without merging to see if the Nids can function better without it.

Like allowing the Nids to spawn at will anywhere they wish, merging has become intrenched in the players minds as 'needed', and I understand this. However, bith these game mechanics have been inthe Nid list for a very long time and the entire issue still has not been resolved to anyones real satisfaction. In this case I think it is time we upset the apple cart and see what spills out. If it doesn't solve the problem then merging will still be there, along with free spawning, for us to pick right back up again.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

I'm fine with going without merging, but I'd really like an answer to my issues about resurrection-only spawning.

All BMs are kept. A broken formation counts as 1BM/unit as normal.


Consensus was that normal formation coherency would be the simplest and require the least amount of measuring.


At the end of an action. This makes it take place during the turn so the enemy can, at least in theory, take it into account prior to end phase issues (victory conditions and such).

It also makes it more difficult to merge a broken swarm. Only the unbroken swarm can take an action.

Neither formation can activate again once the merge is completed. The reasons are obvious and this has precedent in the WE Transport rules as a simple way to handle it.


I agree that "What is the net result?" and "Is the net result worth it?" are the most important questions.


I think this depends on what you mean by "better results."

I thought from the beginning that the tactical assessment was more or less what you laid out - piddly little swarms with relatively ineffective activations, versus larger swarms with fewer and better activations - and the overall battlefield results would probably not be much different in terms of winning games. In that respect, there isn't any better result on the table.

But there is something to be said for giving a player the ability to play the force as they like, in this case, choosing between numerous small swarms and fewer larger swarms. And while I think that "on paper" feel is often overrated, it does exist. With respect to both of those, there is a better result in terms of the play experience.


There are a lot of potential methods. However, we theoryhammered on it and number of problems were quickly identified, eliminating most of the options. It's not that complex at this point. It's down to a pretty simple set that shouldn't be hard to test.

The ability to merge served as a counter-balance to the Achilles Heel that is synapse units. Merging was a way to protect your point investment in all those brood creatures if your synapse units happen to bite it.

Did you ever have a formation loose all of its synapse creatures early in the game? Without merging it's pretty harsh to hamstring an entire formation for the rest of the game based on the loss of a few units. Giving the player the choice between keeping an extra formation around or allowing them to make use of their point investment in another formation was a pretty fair shake.

Merging was one of the polls that had a pretty clear indicator. Going against it and dropping merging based on the reasons you gave doesn't sit well. Especially since all of those apprehensions were addressed in the merging mechanics thread. A rule for it wouldn't be terribly complex or wordy at all.



That addresses your three concerns as well as the "double activation" and tie-break problems that were brought up in the mechanics thread. Merging the two formations spawning pools can easily be left out too.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Also, merging lets you have Instinctive Behavior be quite useless without it being unbalancing.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I have been trying to work through the reasoning here for both sides of the argument on merging and (following on from Dave's comments) I think much of the 'feel' depends on play style.

Merging
I suspect a lot of the arguments for and against (based on the perceived need for the mechanic) depend upon the formation sizes and play style; larger formations are inherently more robust and thus do not need to merge to preserve the 'strategic impetus', while smaller more brittle formations need both spawning and merging to retain their battle effectiveness.

However, the number of activations also represents an army’s ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously and its ability to meet changing situations on the battlefield. The 'Napoleonic system' of smaller, more dynamic formations was highly successfull initially against opponents that divided similar numbers of troops up into fewer formations, because they could attack a single point from several directions simultaneously while their opponents could only defend against a single threat. Where the number of formations is roughly equal, the resilience of the larger formations becomes the significant factor and the larger army tends to use a strategy of attrition (ie WWII Russians).

I think Jaldon is coming from the 'larger formation' perspective, where the formations are inherently more robust but the army is deliberately designed to be less capable; so ‘merging’ is deemed to be less relevant (and thus not worth the effort to include).

However, IMHO we should permit players to make these choices themselves; the choice of the initial army composition and tactical decisions of this nature are not things that we should limit in this way. Consequently, I believe we need to keep 'merging'.
(Note, we really need to refer to this as "taking control" or "commanding" irrespective of when we deem it to have occured)..

That said, I agree with others that there are other more important bits that need fixing first - but please lets keep the intention to include this in a month or two.


Spawning
The proposed Spawning mechanic has some flaws that really need to be addressed if we are to use it in conjunction with the proposed ‘modular’ or Ork style of list.

• The implication behind the proposed mechanic is that all formations are considered to be a uniform size, which is contrary to the proposed ‘modular’ or Ork style of list (where spawning capability ought to vary).
• Artificially restricting which bugs can be spawned in a given formation also runs contrary to the notion that the composition of each swarm is not completely known.
• Restricting spawning to ‘resurrecting’ those bugs killed in a formation gives totally the wrong feel, quite apart from other issues over the way the rule was intended to work (at least in my view). Indeed it questions whether we should use spawning at all (getting rid of the list’s most iconic and necessary element)!

Spawning is related to the merging debate, but from a subtly different perspective. It was originally included to allow a much larger army to be represented by fewer figures in the table. The problem is that the current spawning mechanism does not really support this perspective, it merely represents the way that the opponent's knowledge about a given formation increases as it approaches them (by reducing the number of additional bugs that 'arrive' within vision). Thus the mechanism

• Makes no distinction between the 'actual' size (and composition) of different Nid formations as opposed to their 'perceived' size present on the table,
• Makes no allowance for the potentially different sizes of swarm that the proposed lists could produce.

Taken to an extreme, the Nids could be fielded as a single, humungous formation stretching from one side of the table to the other that ought to have the same spawning capability as a lot of much smaller formations - the current mechanism obviously does not do this.

Finally, the restriction that spawning should only return dead bugs to the same formation means that we lose the original intention behind the list (representing more figures with less). Distant, undamaged formations will not be allowed to grow, while damaged ones close to the enemy will also be unable to grow – we might as well bin the rule (which I do not think is the intention).

I thought one of the alternate lists (Leviathan?) that had Synapse X (and Brood Y) solved this problem fairly well. You have a big fomration with tonnes of Synapse, you get to add all your Synapse points together, and spawn based on that rather than be restricted to a single 2d3+M. You have lots of little formations, you don't get 2d3+M per formation, you get a bug or two. Having a 6 activation 3K army be able to be well outspawned by a 12 activation 3K army (with otherwise identical compositions of Synapse and Brood) lacks coherency of design, IMO.

If the static nature (I know I get 12 Spawning Points for that formation) is a problem, you could instead change the Synapse value to Xd3, and change either the Synapse values, or the Brood values, to compensate.

Morgan Vening

To me it looks like dumping the Merging mechanic is well justified, as Spawning can represent picking up loose bugs just as well, or maybe even better. Merging two formations feels a bit more orderly and disciplined than gathering up stragglers with spawning.

Spawning should be the iconic Nid mechanic. The challenge is to make a coherent rule that represents so many different things (gathering stragglers, creatures regenerating and the unknown real size of the nid horde), but I think a good Nid army could get away with "only" Spawning, Synapse and Mobility.

I hope it's possible to make a Spawning rule that's more different from the Necron rule than the current incarnation...