Hi Geep,
Thanks for your comments. Ill try to address them.You have obviously had a good look at the list and I thank you for taking the time to do so. Ive been looking at the list for a few weeks now but have still managed to miss stuff. My editor-in-chief and OIC Homefront is away at the moment and she is normally my editor! ha!
Its also good to get an external view on the list as I know what I mean, but it can be challenging trying to write the rules succinctly and still convey the overall intent.
I'm confused by a few things in the list.
1) Is it intended that I can take many Supreme Commanders (not just multiple Dominatrix, but I can add the Symbiote as well- so I do have 2 active Supreme Commanders at one time.
Yes. The multiple domis and symbiote character grant the potential for multiple SC in the same list. I wanted to keep the flavour of the Hive mind link that you get with multiple domis plus grant the option to allow people to field stand alone SC in the form of a Hive Tyrant.
If it proves to be simply too ridiculous we can look at limiting it to read that if there is no Domis then a 0-1 symbiote can be purchased.
2) Tyrannocytes can't be carried by either space ship. I'm not sure if that's normal for drop pods, but it makes the space-to-ground transition rather hard.
Hahah indeed. I didnt even see that. I just took it as "common sense" but there are is no entry in the Space Craft section. I will amend their transport capacity to read: 'and enough Tyrannocytes to carry any other units on board.'
3) Why are Hormagaunts limited, but Termagants unlimited? This is also a factor in the EUK list, and I don't get it.
The Termagants are the most numerous sub species of the gaunt genus. They are responsible for guard duties and general mall cop functions aboard a hive ship and a broad range of combat functions as part of the tyranid invasion. They are typically considered the most common form of nid from which other subspecies are derived.
The hormogants are also numerous, but used either in support of termagants or as part of independent operations. They are driven by hunger and their rapid metabolism which means they have a shorter life span than the termie. They are also one of the few tyranid creatures that can lay their own eggs and reproduce.
So basically the lore states that termies are more numerous, hence the propensity for termies as the base and hormies as the upgrade.
From a purely game mechanics point of view - making hormies the base/unlimited would mean you could have up to 16 hormies and 2 Flyrants that could march first turn and conduct a double engage move on the second turn with 32 CC attacks + flyrants. This would be a devastating formation and would need to be priced accordingly. At the moment the points for hormies can be kept as is due to their lack of FF and the fact that they are often anchored by termies movement.
4) I get why you want to make Warriors be LV's, and with a 3+ save that's not so bad, but why are Raveners and Lictors still standard Infantry then?
So this was a tricky one that we debated over for a bit. Basically warriors are LVs to reduce the effectiveness of the swarms. Raveners and lictors do not confer similar benefits to aslt swarms like warriors do therefore can be treated a little differently. Raveners are a swarm of creatures that are smaller than tyranid warriors and slither around the place so could continue to be classed as infantry. However, and im just realising this now, they have synapse which is not in accordance with the fluff so I will remove that now.
Lictors however are on the cusp. they are usually single figures rather than swarms (like the raveners). Especially considering we have given them the -1 to hit already it may be worthwhile to make them LVs. I would like to see would like to playtest them as infantry first, but expect that if we keep the -1 to hit that we will need to make them LVs.
5) Lictor's have a -1 to be hit. Is that cumulative with cover, venomthropes, etc?
So we wanted to make the -1 to hit for lictors and venomthropes work slightly differently from each other. You will note that it is not counted as in cover, so weapons with ignore cover will not negate the -1 to hit, to represent not being able to acquire the target. I think that this may be a little too OP when it comes to it and the rule may just need to be written that the unit counts as in cover.
So the intent is that the Lictors always count as in cover (whilst negating weapons with IC) and is not cumulative, but the venomthrope -1 to hit is cumulative to the -1 to hit modifier for cover.
So a stealer in the open would get a -1 to hit.
A stealer in cover would get a -1 to hit.
A stealer in the open with a venomthrope within 15cm would get a -1 to hit.
A stealer in cover with a venomthrope with 15cm would get a -2 to hit.
I think an easier way to right the rule through would be - Lictors always count as in cover. Any unit within 15cm of a venomthrope counts as in cover.
6) How do Tervigons work? I can take 1-4 of them as their own unit. They can then spawn Termagants that must join their unit. Each Tervigon can only control 4 Termagants- but am I expected to remember which Tervigon spawned which Termagants, or are they free to shuffle? Can the Termagants be moved on at all if another swarm is close by? If not, that's some rather limited spawning (on a unit that can get damned expensive). What happens if a Tervigon dies and I have more Termagants than the remainder can handle? Do the excess die?
So you're right about how they work.
I didnt want to allow them to break off as that may become a bit too OP - with the ability to dish out 12 stands of termagants every turn to go charging into the fray. It would align with the nid theme but a bit hard to price.
The intent for the rule is that once you reach four termagants you cannot spawn any more. I didnt go too in-depth with the mechanics in the rules section, but I think I could write it a bit clearer in that each tervigon can spawn 1d3 termagants at the start of the turn, up to a maximum of 4 per tervigon. That would alleviate having to explain what to do upon the sudden death of your mother. Because it is no longer about "control" and just the spawning.
So therefore, if there are 4 tervigons that have spawned 16 termagants and 2 tervigons die, at the start of the next turn those two remaining tervigons may not spawn any other units.
This would also remove the need to account for who's who's in the kindergarten from hell that is a tervigon nursery. As again its about ability to spawn, rather than ability to "control".
I also think its pretty reasonably priced. For 500 points you get some pretty decent monsters. 4++ save, 4x4+CC and 4x4CC MW attacks or 4x5+FF attacks, plus the potential to deal out 16 5+FF attacks. Not to mention the fact that they have the ability to return to the fray after suffering shooting or combat casualties. 500 points makes them 150 points more expensive than a large aslt swarm - for that you get the same potential termagants, that can be self reinforcing plus 4x 4++ armoured units that arent as susceptible to MW attacks as the warriors.
7) Why is there 'Broodmother (X)', when only Tervigons can spawn, and they can only spawn Termagants?
So we were are considering introducing Broodmother (Gargoyles) for harpys or Harridans; or Broodmother (raveners) for trygons' or Broodmother (carnifex's) for the Dominatrix... (those last two were jokes).
Above (5th post) you mention Skimmer Gargoyles. No Gargoyles have Skimmer?
Gawd Damn it. Should be skimmer. Poor version control on my behalf.
9) Why does a Venomthrope have Synapse?
They shouldnt... I was supposed to remove that. You're not the first to pick that one out. hahaha.
10) Just to be clear- Assault Swarms can 'replace one or two Warriors with one Hive Tyrant- 50 pts'. I assume that means I can replace two Warriors with 2 Hive Tyrants? Not that I can choose to trade one or two Warriors for just one Hive Tyrant?
Should read "Replace any number or Tyranid Warriorswith Hive Tyrants-50 points."
Sorry to have so many little questions- I like what you're aiming for, I just think it needs some polish.
No need to apologise. thanks for seeking clarification. Its a good lesson for me on how to convert my intent into a tabulated form. And its great receiving your feedback to see how others have interpreted the list as presented. I'll be giving it a bit of spit tonight to make it nice and shiny for the playtesting weekend ahead.
Cheers,
Jim