|
Post by blackrainbow on Sept 2, 2016 2:41:40 GMT
My guess, based off what we've seen? Expect a positive change. Don't expect it to be static. Some players hate the random charts. GW obviously does not. So hard to predict what direction they'd take it. But we are not a random style of army. Historically we were the adaptive type, but that is not random. I would say of the past (6th and 7th) editions we have some unit inter-play (synapse), with a little shiity IB table. But other than out of synapse and the possibility of going dumb and stupid, even looking back at the beginning of 7th, we were never a random style army. That isn't to say GeeDub will not push us that way, but I don't see that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 2:53:59 GMT
My guess, based off what we've seen? Expect a positive change. Don't expect it to be static. Some players hate the random charts. GW obviously does not. So hard to predict what direction they'd take it. But we are not a random style of army. Historically we were the adaptive type, but that is not random. I would say of the past (6th and 7th) editions we have some unit inter-play (synapse), with a little shiity IB table. But other than out of synapse and the possibility of going dumb and stupid, even looking back at the beginning of 7th, we were never a random style army. That isn't to say GeeDub will not push us that way, but I don't see that. I don't disagree. But I think most of the more random things came about fairly recently(6th+). And it's not like besides orks any army was terribly known for being "random". except like Legion of damned in fluff. I mean before warp storm there wasn't much. Now, psychic powers, warlord traits, warp storm, wulfen chart, nova charge. Most of these don't seem terribly off the wall. But we were what many feel was a "test" army for 7th(coming out right before). I'm not saying I expect random. I don't. Frankly I don't have an idea what direction they'll take. But I wouldn't be shocked if they went "random chart" with an army sooner or later based on some mechanics I've seen. Bugs seem like they could roll with that. Frankly my feel on the direction is largely of apathy as long as they can pull off something fluff-ish/decent. EDIT: also random could still be fairly adaptive/random. Ex. units with hunt( traditionally CC units) in synapse get a roll on D3 chart. 1- +1WS/I. 2- +2A. 3- +1Sv/T. I say that to emphasize the chart I spawned way earlier in the thread is not by any means the DEGREE of random needed.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 2, 2016 2:58:48 GMT
adaptive and random aren't really things that go together, or make coherent armies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 5:58:19 GMT
The bio major in me laughed at the first part then the gamer wept a little at the second part.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 2, 2016 6:50:25 GMT
The bio major in me laughed at the first part then the gamer wept a little at the second part. yuuuup.
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 2, 2016 15:46:36 GMT
My guess, based off what we've seen? Expect a positive change. Don't expect it to be static. Some players hate the random charts. GW obviously does not. So hard to predict what direction they'd take it. We were told that after the 5th edition codex. We got the 6th edition codex. I am expecting the same for the end of 7th edition codex or beginning of 8th edition codex.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 3, 2016 12:32:40 GMT
Wow, this thread is like the Star Wars Christmas Special; full of bad ideas.
Look, you cannot get rid of IB unless you are also willing to get rid of synapse. They are two sides of the same coin, one can't exist without the other. For proof let's assume that a unit gets a buff for being in synapse and we lose IB, in this case let's say gaunts get a 5+ FNP if in synapse (I think that was in an earlier post). At some point people are going to make the comparison between gaunts in synapse and a marine unit with an apothecary. Tyranid players are going to complain that it is too easy to deny FNP to the gaunts because it is too easy to pick off the synapse creatures, which you can't do to the apothecary. They will then say that the rule should be either native to gaunts or available as an upgrade. At this point you're arguing away that improved synapse everyone here has been so keen on.
And could you guy stop saying that we've already been punished by having Ld 5? Leadership is by far the most worthless stat on the stat line. The only time it comes into play is when you have to take a break test, and there are only two times that comes up.
The first is through losses in the shooting phase. That means that all of our singleton critters are unaffected, tyrgons, tervigons, carnifexes, etc... Gaunts are also unaffected as most shooting attacks will be able to remove the whole unit (or at least take it to the point of being combat ineffective). You'd have to be running large squads of gaunts to be worried about their low leadership. I suppose you could have a gaunt or two left over after a spawned unit gets shot at, but what are you going to do with them? If your battle plan hinges on two surviving gaunts holding an objective then you need a better battle plan.
The second is losing close combat. This is similar to the first case in that our singleton units don't have enough wounds to lose combat. If they lose combat they've generally lost enough wounds to die outright. Other units on the other hand, will almost always lose enough models to ensure a failed moral test. Look at our gaunts. If I assault (or am assaulted by) a full strength enemy unit I can expect to lose 6-10 gaunts. Against anyone outside of guard I can expect to do 2-3 wounds back. With that result I'd lose combat and have around a 3-7 penalty on my Ld. What Ld value would give me a good chance of passing that test? Only Ld 10, and that's if I got off easy.
The Ld stat is a joke. That is why there are special rules like ATSKNF and fearless to get around it.
Now, instead of just complaining that IB hoses us and needs to go, why don't we take a step back and look at it from a design perspective? Does it do what it is supposed to do? How could the rule be adjusted to fit the army better?
The tyranid army is supposed to play like an army of slaves. Every unit in the army has a different idea of what it should be doing and usually it is not what you want them to do. This is what IB is supposed to represent. To counter the inherent tendency for the army to do whatever it wants we have been given a tool to take the free will from our units and make them do what we want with unerring accuracy. This is what synapse is supposed to be. With this in mind let's look at the current rules for IB an synapse.
Does IB make the army operate on its own, without your input? The answer I think is "meh". Yes, the unit will act on its own, but it ways that don't make sense. I think we can blame the GW chart philosophy here. There philosophy that on every random chart a roll of 1 is the ultimate hose and a roll of 6 is an unexpected boost really doesn't fit in here. Let's look at termagants. Termagants feel like they are about self preservation. A unit like this I feel should move to cover when you aren't directly controlling them, or, failing that go to ground. What do the IB rules say? Half the time they fall back like they were broken, which is okay I guess. The other half of the time they move like normal (better than normal in fact). This is not what I'd expect from a unit acting of its own free will.
Because I know it's coming, let's look at hormagaunts as well. Hormagaunts feel like a pack hunting predator, like a wolf. They don't really feel like an apex predator because you need so many of them to be successful. What do the IB rules say? Half the time they eat themselves (seriously), and the other half they move like normal (for the most part). WTF!? What kind of pack hunter fights among themselves like that? It makes no sense. If the rule was they assaulted the closest unit, friend or foe, it would hose us just as bad; but at least it would make sense. Even moving normally doesn't make sense for them. The part where they have to assault makes sense, but I could just move them so they are out of assault range. Even worse is the fact that if I wanted to get closer to the enemy I can't run to do it. How much better would this IB result been if it just said the unit had to move is maximum move towards the closest enemy?
In the end I think the problem with IB is that it just doesn't have the consistency or the inherent logic to do what it was designed to do. If the results were consistent and the outcomes made sense then I could incorporate them into my army list and deploy them with IB in mind. It would still be a drawback, but one that I could mitigate by planning and foresight.
Synapse on the other hand does a pretty good job at what it is designed to do. When a unit is in synapse I have control of it with an iron fist. There are some rules you could include that would be fluffy, like synapse granting EW. Given the amount of instant death weapons out there I think it's something GW should look at. But that's not for me to decide.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Sept 3, 2016 12:53:41 GMT
And could you guy stop saying that we've already been punished by having Ld 5? It's less ld 6 (6, not 5 /pedant), as much as low ld on squishies. As you say: And that's what synapse is for us. A way of ignoring the ld stat, and ld tests. Not having some way to get around that would be plenty punishing - I don't think there's any army that doesn't, or isn't high ld (or both). ...No? It's 25%, so for a min squad, that's a whopping 3 gaunts. Anything you'd be able to do with 10, you should be able to do with 7. If they weren't fearless, they'd be more likely to run than stick around. If you're reduced to 1-2 models, if you're fearless (or pass the ld test), you're still potentially going to be effective. 1 gaunt on an objective at end game is as much of a deal as 20. It also means that you aren't giving up the kp if your mission uses it. I've just been playing in a tournament, and my acolytes have scored objectives just fine with 1-3 models remaining - because they were fearless, I didn't need to worry about them. *Waggles hand* You're still looking at this more from a fluff perspective I think. This is a game, so ideally your army should be fun to play - not being able to control your own units does not (usually) a good game make. (Note: this doesn't mean I think that IB has to go, just that...something, I'm tired and I've lost my train of thought). This, I'll agree with 100%.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 3, 2016 13:11:51 GMT
No, I'm not looking at this from a fluff perspective, I'm looking at it from a game design perspective. All armies need something to be different in order for them to be separate from one another. Ours is how synapse and IB interact with our army (among other things). If the rules don't reflect this then something needs to be examined and fixed.
And I realize 3 gaunts force a moral check in units 12 and under. However, how many times have you lost just 3 gaunts to enemy shooting? Most armies I know can make you take off 10 gaunts at a time without batting an eyelash. Any army that can effortlessly remove more than 7 gaunts in a shooting phase will render your Ld value moot.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Sept 3, 2016 13:25:39 GMT
However, how many times have you lost just 3 gaunts to enemy shooting? Frequently. With a 2+/3+ (or even just 4+) cover, losing only 3 gaunts (or acolytes) wasn't/isn't unusual. Now, if I only took gaunts, then I'd lose more (and I do sometimes lose more if they're not well in cover and/or my opponent doesn't have anything else worth shooting at, or they've got ranged ignores cover). But it's a thing that happens to me, hence why I bought it up - losing enough to force a check isn't at all uncommon, and having a small number sticking around and being useful (even if that use is 'forcing the opponent to shoot them again') is again, not uncommon. Depends how it does it - if it requires, say 2 units to kill of a squad, if gaunts didn't have some way of reliably passing a ld test, they could instead force 2 gaunt squads to run, rendering them useless for your next turn at worst, removing from the game entirely at best, and at the very least knocking them of an objective.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 3, 2016 14:17:51 GMT
Yeah, um, could loose IB completely and nit just keep, but buff synapse, and it wouldn't make anyone loose a lick of sleep or suddenly unbalance nids.
|
|
|
Post by biomassbob on Sept 3, 2016 14:50:30 GMT
With synapse = total control over nids Without synapse = chance critters don't do what you want (eg. nothing)
This has a penalty for no or loss of synapse - unit does nothing if ld test is failed so IB is not needed to show the importance of synapse and for nids to play differently
With IB added so that without synapse a failure on a check results in something happening beyond just not being able to use the unit, I agree with yori's point about logic and consistency (his hormie example). However, if IB results are added that have some effect (eg unit runs away, attack nearest unit...whatever beyond the player just not being able to do anything with the unit) then IMO there should be buffs of some type for being in synapse and this could be different for different types of units (perhaps feed units can run and charge for example while a feed unit out of synapse that passes its ld check would not get this bonus).
So if done right I'm fine with IB if there are also synapse boosts, but if GW doesn't want to take the time to make nids function with some consistency and logic then I would rather IB goes away.
|
|
|
Post by yoritomo on Sept 3, 2016 15:14:50 GMT
Yeah, um, could loose IB completely and nit just keep, but buff synapse, and it wouldn't make anyone loose a lick of sleep or suddenly unbalance nids. You could do that. Heck, you could do a lot of things. But my point is that if we get rid of our unique rules then we'll start playing like other armies. A tyranid army without flyrants and Synapse/IB would play just like an ork army (but with less attacks). The answer here isn't to simply get rid of rules because we don't like them. What needs to happen is to look at the rules and figure out how to make them work like they should. What if IB was simply unit moves towards the nearest cover, or unit falls back to nearest synapse creature, or unit advances and assaults closest enemy unit, or unit does not count as a scoring unit. All of those are negative, but they are things I can plan around because they are consistent. And if synapse provided a good enough boost then the risk vs. reward starts to look good. Ultimately that is where we need to be, mot without IB, but in a place were we are willing to accept IB because we feel like synapse is good enough to justify taking the risk. A better question is how do we get there. Unfortunately that is for GW to decide. Sure, I have ideas, but I'm not going to wishlist them here.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Sept 3, 2016 15:41:04 GMT
Being a special snowflake at the expense of being on an even foot w/ the rest of the kids can eat a sack of dicks.
|
|
|
Post by slithernaut on Sept 3, 2016 16:24:16 GMT
^^40k is all about special snow flakes in power armor^^
|
|