Sort of. This is further down the same road. We started with the "no BMs" rule in the original list from antiquity. That went to a couple iterations of "auto-rally/remove all BMs" rule combos. The drop to a combination of rally bonus (for base 0+) and widespread Expendable was the second big nerf. This is a further reduction to 1+ base.

As you note, we can see if 1+ is sufficient, but I'm hesitant about both balance and flavor. I am afraid the net result is going to be a noticeable hit on assault formations due to increased BM retention when close to the enemy and increased chance to fail activation when assaulting.

Hey all,
We've got a new Tyranid player at my FLGS. I will have him use the special rules in this thread for playtesting purposes. Should I use this in conjunction with 9.2's points values, or would one of the other lists be advisable? Opponents for him would include Krieg(woot!), Steel Legion/Minervan (me), LATD (me), Eldar (see my batreps), and we can get Space Marines and Orks in on the action. If you all have any requests for what you would like us to test let me know (via reply or pm).

Jaldon can give a definitive answer on what he wants tested.

But ... right now the force org has taken back seat to ironing out the special rules (as it should). I'd say any of the force orgs is worth trying. The point costs are not different enough to make major differences.

Cool. Will probably stick to Hamman's World, but I may have him work with Onachus as well.

As far as I understand Jaldon wants any of the lists tested, but using these special rules.

Krieg any list will do and thank you for playtesting I appreciate it. Please keep a close watch on how the special rules work and feel, and if possible get feed back to me from all the players involved.

Gaunt has been changed to Expendable with an increase of the number of units with the ability.

Thanks All,
Jaldon

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

Jaldon: Could I get a response on my issues with resurrection-only spawning?

No

Sorry Zombocom in all the excitment I missed it, me bad

I do understand your viewpoint, because in effect that is what is occurring on the table. However, I have a problem with the following and the reasons I do;
(a) Introducing new units into the battle via spawning: This is first and foremost a play balance issue as the Nids would be putting units they had not payed for onto the table via a random number. Trying to put a points value on it would be dead impossible as it would be unfair to one side or the other depending on the dice Gods. While this would even out over the course of a number of battles it wouldn't be fair in a GT enviroment, what we are writing these rules for. It is the same reason I suggested that the Nid Planetary Assault rule be added as a otional non-tournament rules; it is very Nid the way it is written and would function on the table (And I happen to really like it), it is also way too depndant on the sway of the dice Gods to balance for a GT list.

(b) Allowing the Nids to fluctuate the beginning strength of formations during a battle: This is another play balance issue, even though the Nids are only re-deploying units that were originally bought for the army. Considering the Nids ARE going to be allowed to change the entire way in which an army is put together, for each list, some are going to offer discounts for certain combinations. The discount is going to allow more expensive formations to 'buy up' these cheap units as they are lost. This IMHO is going to knock the entire play balance issue right off any chance of being balanced. Once again the variations offered up by the dice Gods cannot be evened out during the course of a single battle, and if enough of these cheap units get picked up out the window goes the possible play balance.

(c) Allowing the Nids to quickly shift their point of attack via spawning: This isn't really a play balance issue, but it is something I have seen over, and over, and over again since the inception of the EA Nid lists, and it feels soooooo wrong. Further it takes the tactical/operational skill out of the game and places it in the hands 'how many bugs can I spawn over here to win the battle' instead of 'how do I get that many bugs over here so I can win the battle' a very different proposition then the former. I want tactical/operational skill to be used at the proper time to win battles NOT the ability to spawn the forces needed at the proper time to win the battle.

All of the above said I AM CONSIDERING allowing the Dominatrix and Tervigon to spawn troops from any formations dead pile into a new formation with their spawning points only. Any units transferred would become permanent members of that formation, but would be considered losses to the formations they were drawn from for tie breakers. This would allow the Nids some ability to transfer units to other formations, at a possible cost later, but in such a limited way that I think it would be possible to still play balance the list.

I hope this answers your question and again I am sorry I missed it.

Jaldon

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

I'm......not sure what you're trying to say?

Anyway, presumably a Carnifex will have a lot more fine control over it's limbs than a killer kan or dreadnought, especially how they're portrayed in any animated media.

Jaldon: Your response to Zombo seems to be heavily biased by the days when the Nids could drop a lot of spawned units wherever they liked.

1-2 d3 for each of several formations generates consistent, low-level, army-wide results. The law of averages removes the luck factor. There is not enough spawning in any single formation to "quickly shift their point of attack" or to count on as a game-winner mechanic.

I agree Neal, but I think we also need to explore how 'spawning' would work in the context of a modular army list as this will have some bearing on the discussion. Two alternatives that immediately spring to mind (though I am sure there will be others).

1. Modular Synapse modules:-
   Module "A" :- Small group of bugs + Synapse = 150pts; 2x Module "A" = 250pts; 3x "A" = 325pts
2. Singular Synapse modules:-
   Synapse group = 75pts; Module "B" :- Small group of bugs = 75 pts; 2x Module "B" = 125pts; 3x "B" = 175pts
   Total costs:- Small = 150pts; Medium = 200pts; Large = 250pts

So the questions are:-
a) Are we intending to allow variable numbers of synapses in any given swarm?
b) Are we intending to limit the number of 'modules' in a given swarm

Both are up to individual army lists.

And to Jaldon's balance issues in b) and c), couold these 'oddities' be managed differently, perhaps by limiting how spawned units are returned? So 'Fexes can only be spawned by an "AV" synapse group, while Gaunts cna only be spawned by an "INF" group etc? And I am sure there are other mechanisms.
(Note Zombo and Neal would also cite the restricted spawning values as a similar constraint)