Dave wrote:
Termagants
Yup, their current stats are fine.
Dave wrote:
On the 1/2 casualties note for them and Hormagaunts, they didn't have this in 9.1 or in any of the Onachus versions where the playtests I had were somewhere around the 50-50 split. When this was added in 9.2.1 I never lost a game.
We can do without it for now, reintroduce if playtests prove it neccessary.
Dave wrote:
Hormagaunts
Right now, in 9.2.1 and most other lists, hormagaunts are 2xCC5+. They still get taken less than termagants. If we drop them to 1xCC4+ I'd personally never see any point in taking them over terms or raveners. The reason they were moved to 2xCC5+ from 1xCC4+ in 9.2 was
because noone was taking them over termagants. It was well discussed and agreed at the time, and that situation hasn't changed at all.
As Dave mentions, when writing Onachus he thought Horms were 1xCC5+ and though he was
improving them to 4+. In fact he was accidentally decreasing their effectiveness.
Have we seen battle reports where Horms at their current stats are dominating? I haven't, so why the need for the downgrade?
Dave wrote:
Gargoyles
The AA attack was intended to give the 'nids some token AA. In the past an AA attack that hit removed the shooting unit but this has been dropped since 9.1. Thoughts on this?
No fixed opinion on this one really, I'm ambivalent.
Dave wrote:
Another thing to note is that Gargoyles were armed with Flamespurts in SM/TL and 40k2e, and that's actually what the models are armed with. These were effectively flamers and granted them the ability to ignore cover. Again, thoughts?
It's very important to me that they
don't get flamespurts and ignore cover FF. In the newer versions of the lists, they don't have access to that weapon, so if we want the units to be usable for both old and new style lists we can't go giving them weapons that don't work for one or the other.
Basically, if you give them flamespurts, then they need to be a different unit for the newer style list, and I don't think that's warranted.
Dave wrote:
Raveners
For their CC, 3 of them can pump out 12 attacks with the ability to reroll ones. That puts them somewhere between 5 assaults marines (10 attacks at S4 WS4) and 5 Bezerkers (15 attacks at S4 WS5). I think CC2+ is warranted here, not 2@CC4+ (5 nobz have 20 attacks at S4 WS4).
I'm in favour of 2xCC4+, for a simple reason; incremental change. In 9.2.1 they were 2xCC3+, and widely considered to be too good. Good list design tells us we should incrementally change things, and the next level down from 2xCC3+ is 2xCC4+. 1xCC2+ is the next level down after that, and I'm not convinced they need that much of a downgrade. Drop them one step at a time, and if playtesting shows they need more, then drop them again.
Bear in mind that we've cut their FF entirely, so that's already another downgrade on them. Let's drop their power slowly; it's the right way to find the right level.
Do we really need 2 lists? Can't both new and old minis be used for one list and let the player choose which minis he wants to utilise? I might be missing something here but what is the exact reason for two lists? I mean the vast majority of Nid players will be using old minis. Why not just have one list that everyone can use? Cuts confusion as everyone's on the same page. I recognise the obvious, in that all lists have variants, but is the Nid list that in need of 2 when Nids, by principle, are largely all the same "genus" even though they have slight differences in "species...?" 
