Agreed, hence the question. If the spawning value of a module is "4pts", and the swarm is 3x modules or more, obviously this raises the possibility of it having significant spawning capbilities even when reduced by enemy proximity, being broken etc

Note, I am only trying to establish the basic intentions here, I am sure we can come up with modifications to curb any excesses

I think for now we're going to have to bite the bullet and test Jaldon's resurrection-only idea, however much we dislike it.

This is why I've been pushing for a "Spawning Pool", where units could be bought at a discount and only brought into play by spawning. This way the units are being paid for, and it's a mechanism which has worked fine in tournaments for years in the form of the Daemon pool.



I think the actual ingame effect of this would be incredibly minor, easily within the bounds of statistical error. Given that spawning is at such a low level anyway it's not remotely as big a deal as you think.

It'd maybe cause a 5% fluctuation in points costs, and honestly, point costs aren't accurate to 5% of balance across all tournament lists anyway (I'd say it's in the 20% range in most cases).

Not a real issue for me; it's certainly leaving much less up to the dice gods than a pair of Deathstrikes for example...



As Neal mentioned, with spawning at it's current very low level, and with no way to share spawning points between formations this simply doesn't happen any more, especially if WE spawning is banned.



As far as I'm concerned, the only good reason for resurrection-only spawning is that it doesn't require changes to the BTS and Tie Breaker rules. If you're going to allow ANY kind of cross-swarm spawning, that goes out of the window and you might as well allow it for everything.


Basically, I understand your reasons, and I like that this solution doesn't need changes to BTS and Tie Breaker, but the overall feel is completely, completely wrong. It doesn't matter how clear and elegant a rule is if it just doesn't represent what it is supposed to represent. We'd be better off scrapping the rule entirely and making everything cheaper.



Sidebar: I still don't understand your reasoning for the long-ranged effect of Brood Mother. It's literal birth so should only effect the dominatrix/tervigon's own formation.

Let's just test it as Jaldon put out.

Until people post games we won't know for sure what overall effect the changes create.

So Jaldon is going to put up any army lists to test with?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Some thoughts and questions.

Rally Mod

The lack of any kind of rally mod is going to play havoc with point costs. If were to test these rules with the existing lists I think the nids are going to be taking a big hit via overcosting.

Expendable

I think this would be cleaner if you took the part about capturing and contesting objectives out and put it in instinctive rule. Plus it would be more generic this way and we can use it for the other armies in Xenos (that was my thinking anyway).

Also, any reason why you left out the parts for crossfire, being out of formation, and what happens when a formation is comprised of completely expendable units? My intent with the writing in Onachus was to make it the Grot Rule without the assault resolution business. To that end I wrote it to include all the FAQ info on the Grot Rule.

If you're giving it to Raveners then Gargoyles should probably be in there as well.

Spawning

We'll need Brood and Synapse special rules for this, even if they're little more than just labels.

Why the change from "enemy zone of control" to "within 15cm of an enemy unit"? The Necron rule and Summoning both use ZoC, I don't think it should break the trend.

Brood Mother

This rule just seems completely superfluous. I don't think it adds anything to the game than just a quirky little benefit that could be easily written into the spawning rule.

Instinctive

I would put the inability to contest/control objectives here. While under control of the Hive Mind brood creatures are an extension of their will. It's only when they're uncontrolled that they wouldn't know what to do with that radar station on top of the hill.

I'll note that the initiative penalty added with the action restriction seems overly harsh given the lack of absorbing.

Tunneler

This looks like what I used in Onachus, is it?

Absorbing/Merging

There's been a few posts over on the merging thread that I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I forget which thread it's in, but Jaldon said use any of the existing lists, just with these special rules.

The goal is testing the rules for utility and flavor. Balance can come later, so the specific list doesn't really matter.

With some pretty divergant unit stats floating about still... ?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That's being worked on.

With a 1+ Initiative they 'should' have little trouble making activation rolls and rallies. They are as good as SMs when it comes to initiative. Let us see hw it works on the table.



Sorry Dave call me stupid but I don't understand exactly what you mean.I think I do but I am not sure.



These all fall under the standard Epic-A rules now. Treat them as you would any standard formation. On the Gargoyles you are correct thank you.



Why? My feeling is too many players have become 'hooked' to these labels and anything that looks like the old way of doing things means we need them. I don't think we do. When units are spawned they now return to anywhere in the formation not within 15cms of an enemy unit, simple, clean, easy to carry out.



To prevent the sudden appearence of a meat shield during close quarter action, which I have seen in a ton of games, close quarter action that is. Also I want to create a possible situation where the Nids can becoms incapable of spawning do to enemy action. A surrounded swarm is going to have a hard time finding creatures to scoop up or places to land replacements.



It allows the Nids to add reinforced spawning ability to any swarm in the Brood Mother's range. My 'feelings' on this is to abstract some of the armies spawning abilities outside the swarms to represent the Hive Mind sending more force into a certain area of the battle. Without that ability getting out of hand as it used to be. I am considering a modification to the Brood Mother Rule that does even more, but for now I want to see how this works. Again, I admit it is an abstraction, but it is simple and clean.



My only counter to this is that while under the control of the Hive mind they are given direction on where to go, beyond that the Hive mind lets the creatures instinctive behavior do the rest. Otherwise this would mean the Hive Mind is able to micro-manage each creature under its control, something I do not think it would be capable of doing, information overload. Beyond overrunning that radar installation on the hill it is entirely possible these brood creatures wouldn't have the faintist clue what it was or what to do with it. To them it would just be another collection of structures, more likely hollow rocks in their minds. More highly evolved Nid creatures would be capable of understanding more direct information about objectives and therefore would probably know that the structures on the hill are important and need to be destroyed along with the creatures in them.



It is.........."Good writers write, great writers steal." Shakespear



For now the points spread and unit stats are secondary to how the new special rules work, look, and feel. If we get the special rules down the balance and point spread issues can be more easily addresses. Try doing it the other way around and you will keep running into walls that have to be overcome, and never seem to go away.

I have heard all the viewpoints on merging and free army wide spawning my contention is that both of these rules will make play balancing the army more difficult. IF I can replace those rules with something that produces the same, or similar, results on the battlefield while retaining as many of the basic Epic-A rules as possible then I want to do it. If successful it will make play balancing the army a lot easier IMHO.

Trust me the decsions were not easy ones to make as many of these concepts date back to the earlist lists. A good AC makes the tough decisions so that the army list can progress toward completiona and be a fair and balanced list for all to use. The AC has to decide where weaknesses will be and where strengths will be in the army to give that army flavor and color, and to be a challange to both the players of the army, and the opponents of the army. Most of all the AC cannot be biased toward the army he is in charge of.

Doing it right is not an easy job, but I have all the confidence in this group whom have decided to help the Nid AC work on this list., that together we can pull it off in record time.

Cheers All and thank you,
Jaldon

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

You've obviously got a plan Jaldon, but where do you see the points costs going with the set of rules you've presented?

To me it's looking like it will be massively horde like but how cheap can you make a termagant? I get the feeling that the 9.2.1 stats with these rules (and losing the gaunt half casualty in combat rule?) could be edging towards 10pts each or lower.

Had a battle tonight Nids Onachus (Me) vs IG Steel Legion (Rich, it seems he took off his green skin for this one).

Myself I was pretty satisfied with the results. Being a playtest game of the special rules more attention was paid to what occurred then who won.

I fielded two big swarms of Raveners and Hormogaunts, an eight unit Carnifex Swarm, Genestealers, Lictors, Hireodule, and an Arty swarm of four Dactylis.

Rules Review.......................

Spawning: Pretty much went the way I figured it would. At first Rich spread his fire around and the Spawning pretty much kept pace with the losses. Then he concentrated on the two little bug swarms managing to hurt them, but not stop them, nor prevent them from being dangerous. Spawning again kept them as viable fighting formations, alibiet a little weaker then at the start. Turn three one little bug swarm went down to massive fire while the other swarm burst the IG center, but it was then thrown back by a counter-attack. We called the game on turn three, but first swarm would have been able to return to the fight still a threat. Rich pretty much ignored the Carnifexes, so no case study here.

Instictive: Second little bug swarm had been hit hard in turn three, losing all of its synapse creatures, but this rule was a non-issue in this case because. (A) The swarm had been reduced to three units; (B) No other swarm was near by that could have merged with it. (C) It was in no position to accomplish anything after it had been broken.

1+ Initiative: Ignoring my abysmal rolls for the Dactylis and Carnifexes, I pretty much had little trouble activating or rallying my formations. The Dactylis had been hit in turn one by the IG Arty and never could rid themselves of the ONE stinking BM they had on themselves, and the Carnifexes failed a critical activation roll due to BMs. In all other cases activations rolls were made.

Fixed Swarms and Losses: We had no trouble keeping track of which swarm lost what for spawning purposes. All present felt it was not a burden and did not slow down the game.

Despite calling the game on turn three the issue was not really over just yet. The Nids had reduced an Infantry Company to one stand, destroyed six out of ten Leman Russ Tanks, chewed up a Mech Company, wiped out some Rough Riders and Sentinel Walkers. Only my Lictors and Second Swarm were out of action I had control of one Take and Hold, and Rich was contesting one of my Take and Holds. In the end I feel the IG would have won, the Mech Company was in a real good position and I was in no position to push them off in turn four and this was the deciding factor. In short Rich pulled off a good move on turn three, and backed it up by demolishing second swarm, and it was this move and not the special rules that decided this battle.

Those present did like the fact that the special rules being used allowed the Nid army to function more within the basic Epic-A rules rather then outside of them, as to formations, being broken, rallying, initiative, objectives, etc.



Arkturas, yes I DO have a plan, simplify the Nid special rules, and bring the army closer to the Epic-A standard for armies without losing the feel/flavor of the list. The Special Rules that have been in use in the Nid Army before I took over the first time, under my control the first time, and before I took over again, were turning the entire basic game system on its head making play balance almost impossible. Basically too many subtle issues to contend with. This sub-set of rules I have posted turn the list back toward the Epic-A norm without, hopefully, going too far. Tonights playtest game convinces me that we are on the right track as everything went as I felt it would.

The assault I launched on the IG Infantry Company was first Swarm all by itself (12xHormogaunts, 7xRaveners, 4xTyranid Warriors) vs that Company supported by the Leman Russ Company, a Rough Rider Platoon, and a Sentinel Walker Platoon. It wasn't even close without the half-gaunt rule, the Infantry Company was reduced to one stand, broken, and I still had a very strong swarm in the heart of Rich's army. Now I threw the attack in knowing it would get thrown back when Rich counter-attacked, but I wanted to see IF the swarm could pull it off without the 1/2 Gaunt rule, and it did.

As for point costs I do see a possible small reduction in the cost of some of the armies brood creatures (Termies, Hormogaunts, Raveners) to possible 15pts each, or maybe a small increase in their stats, but that is all I see right now.

Rememer I had mentioned I had been messing with these ideas I presented before I got back from out over the blue for work, tonight was the first night I had gamed this new concept with my regular gaming friends. For the most part they really liked the changes for the reasons I had already stated.

This is most definitely not a group that is more interested in winning over making a good army list, and yes I am lucky to have them as gaming friends, so their input pulls a lot of weight with me because of this. Sadly the bunch of them do puruse the boards here on Tac Command, but almost never post anything.

To sum up I feel right now the best possible thing we need to do is get the special rules pounded out, and then IMHO the unit stats and play balance will be dead easy to get done.

Thanks All and Cheers,
Jaldon

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

Thanks for this Jaldon

So in summary, you were using 7x swams only three of which could spawn, the remainder being 'special' formations of one kind or another. As a result, many of the questions being fielded on the boards become less relevant; they refer to situations that become abnormal or rare (certainly at the 3K level):

So, is this the style of Nid army that you would normally field, or would you use different structures and numbers of formations?
Also, how many swarms are you anticipating the Nids to field on average in a 3K army, and what are the minimum and maximum numbers of spawing swarms you anticipate both in 3K and 5K armies?

So Onachus+your changes would be a reasonable playtest list? Need a steer to test with.

_________________

Good initial report, Jaldon. Just a few thoughts.

Spawning: I have no big issues with the current Spawning proposition. Spawning should:

a) reduce turn 1 losses due to ranged shooting while advancing
b) keep swarms in game without overpowering them

This in order to balance one of the inherent flaws of the army: no transports, limited garrison and shooting.

Spawning needed less restraint when synapse swarms disappeared. It had much more of an impact. With the instinctive rule, spawning can be more restricted.

1/2 gaunt: As I have said myself, he 1/2 gaunt was too much of a crutch when you initiate assaults. However, the question remains, are Tyranids too vulnerable to being engaged without it? Again, this also depends on points costs. A reduced cost could see more Termagaunts (increasing a swarms' FF defense and outnumbering results instead. Also, the loss of the rule favours new builds, especially larger swarms which might be good for the Tyranid "feel".

Initiative 1+: The question is not about failing more or less. With initiative 2+, there was a lot more failing going on (despite the modifiers), since there are only that many engagements. The 1+ creates a much more reliable army overall. 1+ helps moving swarms about and increases the capabilities of ranged shooting. My problem with 1+ has nothing to do with failing. The problem is that Tyranids are all about engagements. Tyranid swarms often lack options and therefore failing engagements cripple Tyranids more than others. At the end of the day, 1+ enforces the "feeling" of Hive control. 2+ with modifiers enforces a more chaotic, instinctive "feel".

/Fredmans