Get the special rules and stats right - then we can make whatever lists strikes our fancy after that, and still get a use out of all the models.

A list doesn't have to, and shouldn't, use all existing models. It can be defined just as much by what it lacks as by what it has. Look at the Eldar lists - lots of common models, but the various craftworlds are defined by lacking a couple of key models (void spinner), a craftworld specific unit (seer council, pathfinders) and special formations of standard units (Biel-Tan aspect host, Alaitoc ranger hosts). Makes plenty of variety for me at least.

So if we nail the stats and special rules, you make an oldskool list with slug tanks but no shrikes or weapon 'fexes, and reverse with the new kids nids.

In a concise form the old/new split is effectively a function of the list and the choice of which units to include. Unit that appear in older and newer style lists should be broadly similar.

If you're starting with the stats then it would be worth giving relevant units placeholder rules (such as spawnable or enhances spawning) and then if they don't make it into the special rules it would give you easy to spot units to make alterations to (upstat, down point etc)

I think it may be worth defining some of the WE a little bit better. Will there be 3 sizes (9.2.1 has them as the Hierodule (40k termagant), Hierophant (old metal Hierodule) and Hydraphant (old metal Hierophant)) or is one getting dropped?

Also keep in mind a future Bio-Titan list (I included the unnamed reaver sized Trygon from the 40k codex (modelled by a 40k Ravener) and it would be a place for the vituperator if it is kept)

I also think the two Primes (Warriors and Trygon) can be safely dropped in favour of a synapse node character upgrade (maybe Broodlord as well).

Equally, my supplement isn't going to include bio-tanks etc, and is very much rooted in the new-style of nids.

Basically the idea is to end up with two fairly similar lists, with subtle differences.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Does anybody have a problem if units common to old lists (gaunts, warriors, tyrants) have the same stats in both?

Dave and I have discussed this in detail, and we believe almost all the core units should have the same stats. One or two will vary, such as zoanthropes (which are effectively different units in each list, the old walking type and the new, flying synapse type), but on the whole the stats will be the same.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Sounds like a good direction to go.

There are fluff reasons for not naming the Old List Behemoth. Pointedly, there are no Hive Fleets that are attributable to the consumption of the Squats. And since that storyline is really driving the old school list, it's apropo for it to be an (until recently) unnamed fleet; thus Onachus was born.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

My dislike of the ‘new tyranids’ with variant ‘fexes / ‘old tyranids’ with variant slugs split is that it’s an artificial segregation we’ve invented for epic; ring fencing the old SM/TL Hive Fleet epic tyranids mostly as they were and then creating another list matching current 40k. That ‘old’ list isn’t representative of how the early hive fleets are in the recent codexes.

Tyranids evolve, obviously, but new models released with the newer tyranid codexes are not necessarily new in the 40k timeline – we’re seeing them for the first time, but they’ve been retroactively added to the early hive fleets too. The 4th and 5th tyranid codex show that the first hivefleet Behemoth was not as limited as some suppose and included all the following units: Biovores, shooty Carnifex with Venom Cannon, Tyrant Guard, floating-style Zoathrope, Hive Guard, Brood Lord, Ravenor and Pyrovore.

I’d prefer to see one core tyranid list including most new and old models and then possible variant lists from that for different styles of army like heavily-planetfalling ‘nids, endless waves of little critters, WE-heavy, etc (each of which could inherently be neutral as regards new or old models, rather than there perhaps being two sets of variant list for each style). It appears I’m in a minority on this though and obviously the decisions are not up to me. I’ll leave it be and get back to stuff I should really be doing. Regardless of my different ideas on it I am looking forward to both supplements and wish good progress to all involved!

When the rules and stats are done, nothing's stopping you guys from making a Behemoth list, with the units you feel fit in there.

If it'll cut down on confusion - one thing I think is more important than anything- then I really don't see the need for separate stats for creatures even though they look different.

a/ Few people have the late version minis in Epic. Plus if people want to mix and match they can....
b/ What's it matter if Zoanthrope A walks and B flies...? They still do the same thing. Why not save yourselves the time and effort of proposing separate stats and then the endless circular discussion that could ensue?

The Oldskool list Dave develops will be Onachus as Behemoth didn't eat the Squats and he's making it for that supplement. Glyn said he thought the split as nonsensical as several of the newer models have been retconned into being used by Behemoth. Well, then Glyn can make a Behemoth list containing the units he feels belongs in Behemoth.

And there is no such thing as a core list, only core rules and core stats. Lists can and should be specific, not all-inclusive.