This question has been crossing my mind for months and months now. When I was thinking of ways to make nids function properly on the table it always come back to synapse and IB. Because of course it does. Those 2 rules govern every aspect of Tyranid list building.

So I wanted to start a small discussion about IB.

Synapse provides a crazy buff at the moment in the form of fearless. Even if we don't assume that changes, look at the non synapse creatures. For the most part they have abysmal leadership. Anyone who gets into a fight with some hormagaunts is likely to deal some unsaved wounds. If they win that fight and those hormagaunts have to make a moral test. They will loose that test.

Do we really need IB to balance out Synapse? A lot of Nid units could really benefit from being able to make use of the Tyranocyte drop pod or their deep strike rules (rippers, raveners, trygons, mawlocs,) that sort of all fall apart because of their weak leadership and the unreliability of getting a sufficient synapse web in the back field. What if a Tyranid player wanted to keep units in synapse for the buff, but the units could remain functional without it? If 3 raveners lands in your back field and you shoot 1 they have to make a leadership test or fall back. Doesn't that in and of itself balance out? Synapse would no longer be both the pillar that holds up the army and the shackle that holds it back, Instead it could become just the support structure that made the army shine.

What if, and I am just spit balling here, IB just went away?

I personally think that IB has it's place justified in part because it shows how the Nids are reliant the synaptic creatures for guidance. But they also get to cost less points then a comparable model. IB was not made to be a buff but a weakness and I think it should stay. On the note of deep striking stuff suffering from it my best effort to fix that would be to make the tygon prime cost less and make tenocytes have some kind of synapse,

...absolutely nothing.

At least as it currently stands. Since the last homebrew Nids dex appeared here back in September I've been working on my own version and made Synapse dish out +1 WS and BS as well as Fearless (considering changing Fearless though) with units out of Synapse range rolling a D6 and only falling back on a 1. The problem from there is balancing out the stats of each unit because I don't think we really need BS4 Devilgaunts, but still want these models somewhat useable when out of Synapse range.

 mew28 wrote:
I personally think that IB has it's place justified in part because it shows how the Nids are reliant the synaptic creatures for guidance. But they also get to cost less points then a comparable model. IB was not made to be a buff but a weakness and I think it should stay. On the note of deep striking stuff suffering from it my best effort to fix that would be to make the tygon prime cost less and make tenocytes have some kind of synapse,

You don't think that non synapse nids incredibly low Ld already makes them reliant on Synapse?

I am not entirely sure Nids cost less for equivalent models. For one, it's incredibly difficult to gauge that considering what a mess most Tyranid units are rules wise. It's very rare to find any Nid unit that is actually costed appropriately in ANY capacity. I do understand that IB is not a buff but a weakness. What I am asking is sort of 2 questions. 1) does that weakness invalidate many of the options delivered to nids and pigeon hole them into a single tactic (something NOT in line with the fluff and incredibly damaging to miniature war games in general)? 2) Is that the nature of IB? Is there a version of IB we can come up with that doesn't have this effect?

Making a Trygon Prime cost less or Tyranocytes provide synapse would not remove the problem. Gargoyles and Raveners who have a fast move would be tethered to their slower moving synapse anchors. While other armys can use jump infantry and beasts as fast moving objective grabbers Nids need a second Synapse unit to make that objective grabber stay on point. IB turns synapse into a 12" functioning bubble. Without it the Nids literally fall apart. That doesn't seem particularly interesting from a game stand point.

I agree that synapse creatures should be a target. With their low LD and the high chance of running nids right off the board without Synapse around isn't that already pretty devastating? Doesn't the LD score by itself provide a good counter to Synapse?

Honestly just make warriors/strikes cost 5-10pts less each and add an option to take a ml1 psychic brood leader for 10-20pts. This would allow you to actually use the warrior based Synapse to support your army rather than relying on single zoanthropes and malanthropes.

Edit and add a 10 pts wing option to the prime ....and reduce his cost by 30pts or so lol.

IB is such a downfall that there needs to be more buffs from Synapse outside Fearless.

However I agree that it should stay.because it is super fluffy.

Or like back in 4th add a Synapse node option to all the griddle broods that gives ld 10.

Timeshadow wrote:
Honestly just make warriors/strikes cost 5-10pts less each and add an option to take a ml1 psychic brood leader for 10-20pts. This would allow you to actually use the warrior based Synapse to support your army rather than relying on single zoanthropes and malanthropes.

Edit and add a 10 pts wing option to the prime ....and reduce his cost by 30pts or so lol.

I am not actually trying to make this discussion about how to change the units to make up for IB. More about The nature of IB itself and whether its detrimental to the whole experience. Interesting negative effects can build really interesting game play. I am not so sure IB does that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timeshadow wrote:
Or like back in 4th add a Synapse node option to all the griddle broods that gives ld 10.

This is more interesting. How exactly did that work? Did it upgrade a single model or did the whole unit just boost to Ld 10?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like to point out that several units in the Nid lineup already just don't have IB because the rule would make them non functioning. Namely Harpys and Hive Crones. I have never once seen a complaint about those units being unfluffy because they are non synapse units that do not require synapse but other examples do exist. Spore Mines, Tyranocytes, Sporcysts...

I think IB is a good thing for 'Nids to have for the reasons Mew28 mentioned:

mew28 wrote:I personally think that IB has it's place justified in part because it shows how the Nids are reliant the synaptic creatures for guidance. But they also get to cost less points then a comparable model. IB was not made to be a buff but a weakness and I think it should stay.

They are there to provide a counter to just how powerful they could be in Synapse. However, I do not think it is doing the right job. Putting it under a dice roll should not be happening, for example.

Imateria wrote:At least as it currently stands. Since the last homebrew Nids dex appeared here back in September I've been working on my own version and made Synapse dish out +1 WS and BS as well as Fearless (considering changing Fearless though) with units out of Synapse range rolling a D6 and only falling back on a 1. The problem from there is balancing out the stats of each unit because I don't think we really need BS4 Devilgaunts, but still want these models somewhat useable when out of Synapse range.

They should be usable outside of Synapse, but I think that such a blanket rule should not be in the system. What we should be looking at is the types of Instinctive Behavior and providing certain minor buffs for following through with the type of Behavior.

For example, outside of Synapse: Lurkers gain a Ld bonus if they are in Cover, Feeders gain Stubborn in Close Combat, and Hunters gain Crusader or an appropriate Ld bonus for ranged units. Inside of Synapse, Lurkers gain Fearless and Stealth (Difficult Terrain), Feeders gain Fearless and Rage (or Rampage), and Hunters gain Fearless, Crusader, and Preferred Enemy (all).

This is just off the top of my head, but it provides minimal bonuses outside of Synapse which allow the units to be "normal" provided you fit it in to the paradigm of what their behavior is. Termagants will likely flee if you leave them out in the open and out of Synapse, but put them in to cover, and they can be as hard to dislodge with Shooting as Marines or Guard with a Commissar. Hormagaunts can then swarm in to a target out of Synapse, take casualties, but still not be running for the hills every combat. And so on. So, in short, base stats should be in the "negative" zone, but IB should provide compensation for limiting them to certain actions. Synapse would then make them mean as hell.

Alternatively, it can be taken the other way, base stats are more "average" for their type, but IB has a pure negative unless conditions are met outside of Synapse, i.e. Lurkers lose Ld when not in Difficult Terrain, Feeders have to take a Morale Check when Shot and its Ld reduced by the Wounds lost to Shooting that Phase, and Hunters are considered in Night Fighting (being predictable shooters) or lose range on their guns while not in Synapse. Things like that.

Either way, Keep It Simple, leave off the die roll, and make it clear what the "base desires" of such a unit are and reward the player for getting the unit in to its preferred conditions.

I managed to find a 4th ed Tyranid Codex pdf. Couldn't find any upgrade named or functioning like a "Synaptic Node" that was described.

Because IIRC that's 3rd edition, not 4th.

Tyran wrote:
Because IIRC that's 3rd edition, not 4th.

Yeah, I think that much like Chaos Marines, Tyranids are still paying for the sins of their codices from back then. The current Instinctive Behavior rules are just a reflection of that.

 Lance845 wrote:
I managed to find a 4th ed Tyranid Codex pdf. Couldn't find any upgrade named or functioning like a "Synaptic Node" that was described.

Sounds like one of the army-modifying rules available in the BRB from 3rd edition, but I'm not sure. I don't recall ever seeing it in any of my 'nid books, and I think I have every one of them dating back to 3rd edition.

Regarding BI and Synapse, the way I see it is this:

Synapse exists to give the impression of the hive mind controlling and guiding your army. It's a flavorful force multiplier. Instinctive behavior is meant to reflect 'nids falling into disarray when the synapse is gone. It shouldn't necessarily make your squads fall on each other (like it sometimes does now) or become totally useless, but it should feel like your army of cells-in-a-giant-monster just became a bunch of wild animals suddenly bereft of intelligent guidance. If tyranids were a boss fight, synapse is the weak point you're supposed to hit to weaken that boss. It's also worth mentioning that the hive mind doesn't cease to function entirely just because a gaunt gets 30 feet away from a warrior. There should still be some general (if unrefined) impulses being transmitted to a bug on a 'nid infested world.

So with that in mind, I think the goals of these rules should be...
* To make synapse a bonus rather than a straightjacket.
* To make instinctive behavior a way of reflecting an army lacking higher guidance.

I'd be tempted to get rid of the IB tables and even the leadership test associated with it. You're right about low leadership; it's a pretty crippling drawback for a unit that isn't actively fearless. Instead, my idea of the moment is to say that IB only kicks in when there are no synapse creatures on the table (not just outside of "synapse range") and that IB creates automatic restrictions rather than a lot of complicated rolling. For instance, when there are no synapse creatures left on the table...
Feeders have to move towards and charge the nearest target, running towards it if they're outside charge range.
Hunters have to move towards the nearest target in the movement phase if none of their guns are in range. They have to run in the shooting phase if none of their guns are in range. They have to shoot in the shooting phase if any of their guns are in range.
Lurkers must attempt to end their movement phase in terrain if at all possible but can behave normally in subsequent phases. So you can charge out of terrain. You're just compelled to hug that terrain for the first part of your turn.

And that's it for IB. No tables. No killing yourself. No awkwardly hoping for a weird buff if you happen to get the right result. No taking the time to roll leadership for a bunch of units.

As for synapse, I feel that you should be able to choose an army-wide buff each turn for all 'nids in synapse range. Think of it as the hive mind reaching out and filling the 'nids with powerful, primal commands or investing more focus into them to make them more skilled/clever. Called it the "Synaptic Impulses" rule. Sample impulses might include...

HUNT: Models within synapse can shoot or charge after running (but not both). Models arriving from deepstrike do not scatter if they arrive within synapse range.
LIVE: Models within synapse gain FNP and Eternal Warrior.
KILL: Models within synapse gain +1 WS and BS and ignore initiative penalties when charging through terrain.
HIDE: Models within synapse gain Stealth.


Slight tangent, but I also like the idea of giving the tyranids a list of pre-game options to choose from called "Adaptations." So the idea is that you have the adaptations that represent pre-game biomorphs the swarm uses to adapt for a given fight and the mid-game impulses that represent the hivemind actively controlling its forces. Some adaptation examples:

PERFECT PREDATORS: The tyranids have become camouflaged with and adept at navigating the local environs. Army-wide stealth and move through cover.
SWIFT SKITTERING: The tyranids have adapted to cover large swaths of ground quickly. All units in the army move an extra 3" in the movement phase and gain Fleet.
EVOLVED ARMOR: The tyranids have adapted their physiologies to counter the foe's weapons. When a tyranid from this detachment would have its armor ignored due to the AP of a weapon, it instead simply takes a -1 to that armor save. So a krak missile doesn't ignore a carnifex's armor, but it does reduce that armor save to a 4+. Models with 5+ or 6+ armor saves improve their saves by 1.

Absolutely not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either have synapse and suffer when you lose it.

Or don't have synapse and lose the benefits of having it.

I'm fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless...who become useless once I kill the big bugs.

I'm also fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts without fearless who can go wherever they want.

I am not fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless who suffer absolutely no ill effects upon losing it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

If you want space marine stats, then pay space marine points costs.

You don't want to pay space marine points costs?

Then accept the fact that your cheap little models have significant limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And may I add:

You do want to go the route of getting rid of synapse?

I'm fine with that.

Provided that you then go through the Daemons, etc. codices and find the points cost for comparable MCs in those codices and raise your MC prices appropriately.

 Traditio wrote:
Absolutely not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either have synapse and suffer when you lose it.

Or don't have synapse and lose the benefits of having it.

I'm fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless...who become useless once I kill the big bugs.

I'm also fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts without fearless who can go wherever they want.

I am not fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless who suffer absolutely no ill effects upon losing it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

If you want space marine stats, then pay space marine points costs.

You don't want to pay space marine points costs?

Then accept the fact that your cheap little models have significant limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And may I add:

You do want to go the route of getting rid of synapse?

I'm fine with that.

Provided that you then go through the Daemons, etc. codices and find the points cost for comparable MCs in those codices and raise your MC prices appropriately.

I think having a crummy leadership stat on a footslogging army when not in synapse range is suffering when you lose it. Which suggestion were you replying to though? Mine? The OP's?

Have you had bad experiences with little bugs recently? Most 'nid players seem to avoid them like the plague because they're just not very good these days. Have you had experiences with little bugs where you went, "Man, I'd really be in trouble right now if it weren't for instinctive behavior. I'm sure glad my opponent has to take the time to roll for this whenever he's outside of synapse. There's no way I could be t3 6+ save models otherwise."?

 Traditio wrote:
Absolutely not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either have synapse and suffer when you lose it.

Or don't have synapse and lose the benefits of having it.

I'm fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless...who become useless once I kill the big bugs.

I'm also fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts without fearless who can go wherever they want.

I am not fine with the existence of 4 ppm termagaunts with fearless who suffer absolutely no ill effects upon losing it.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

If you want space marine stats, then pay space marine points costs.

You don't want to pay space marine points costs?

Then accept the fact that your cheap little models have significant limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And may I add:

You do want to go the route of getting rid of synapse?

I'm fine with that.

Provided that you then go through the Daemons, etc. codices and find the points cost for comparable MCs in those codices and raise your MC prices appropriately.

The limitation should be its point cost. Units can have good rules with out a mechanical drawback and still be balanced by costing more points then a unit with out those good rules.

CrownAxe wrote:The limitation should be its point cost. Units can have good rules with out a mechanical drawback and still be balanced by costing more points then a unit with out those good rules.

That's what I'm getting at. I don't think that 4 ppm fearless termagaunts without a mechanical drawback would be proportionate to its points cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:I think having a crummy leadership stat on a footslogging army when not in synapse range is suffering when you lose it. Which suggestion were you replying to though? Mine? The OP's?

It was a direct reply to the OP.

And no, that's not "suffering when you lose it." Having a relatively low leadership is part and parcel of the total package of the unit.

Again, I repeat:

They cost 4 ppm.

I add:

You don't have to pay an extra 10 bloody points per unit for a mandatory sergeant upgrade.

Have you had bad experiences with little bugs recently? Most 'nid players seem to avoid them like the plague because they're just not very good these days. Have you had experiences with little bugs where you went, "Man, I'd really be in trouble right now if it weren't for instinctive behavior. I'm sure glad my opponent has to take the time to roll for this whenever he's outside of synapse. There's no way I could be t3 6+ save models otherwise."?

Tyranid players "seem to avoid them" because flyrants exist. If your only goal is to win, why take anything other than flyrants and sporemines?

But no, I don't have bad experiences with little bugs. I think that little bugs are just fine as is, and given the fact that they have fearless, they can be pretty effective against non-competitive armies (e.g., my army) in exactly three ways:

1. Mobile cover. If you have little bugs in between my devastator marines and your carnifex, and you have a venonthrope right behind said carnifex, enjoy that 3+ cover save. 2+ if NF is in effect.

2. Cheap bodies for grabbing objectives.

3. Tarpits.

Termagants have been known to chase down sternguard units and keep them locked up until a a carnifex or comparable MC can deal with them properly.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:The limitation should be its point cost. Units can have good rules with out a mechanical drawback and still be balanced by costing more points then a unit with out those good rules.

That's what I'm getting at. I don't think that 4 ppm fearless termagaunts without a mechanical drawback would be proportionate to its points cost.

Considering that termagants are basically that right now and still aren't a good unit (in fact they are a bad unit) it's pretty safe to say your thoughts on this specific matter are wrong.

CrownAxe wrote:Considering that termagants are basically that right now and still aren't a good unit (in fact they are a bad unit) it's pretty safe to say your thoughts on this specific matter are wrong.

Bad relative to what?

They're about as good or better than cultists w/o upgrades.

Synapse and Instinctual Behaviors are good, fluffy ideas but they were implemented in the most horrible way mechanically that it makes the army paraplegic.

Its a shame that Eldar wraiths have lost the wraithsight limitation, Ogryns have lost Stupid, Necrons have lost "We'll be Back..." and other such rules have been abandoned, but Tyranids are still saddled with being out of Synapse and self-devouring IB.

It should be possible for the Tyranid army to function at a basic level if it loses its synapse, but it should definitely act better if synapse is present. Sure, they shouldn't work at peak efficiency, but at the same time they shouldn't be crippled any worse than Imperial Guard without someone who can issue Orders.

Personally, I'd like to see base Tyranids have a Ld of 7, big bugs an 8 and Synapse creatures have Ld 10. Genestealers and Lictors, who are used to being out of Synapse might have an 8 or possibly a 9 (good choice for a Broodlord) Creatures in synapse get the Ld 10 and Stubborn, so they can still be driven off, but numeric losses in melee don't scare them off easily.

There should be an upgrade option to "evolve" a single 'nid in a squad for something like a Synapse node. They can't supply synapse to another unit, but the unit itself is considered to be in an inferior form synapse (maybe only +1 Ld instead of Ld 10, and perhaps Stubborn but not Fearless). This lets you employ units for flank and deep strike attacks while still giving a nod to the fluff.

I'd like to see IB go away, completely. If it's kept though, I would say it should prevent you from performing certain actions, or direct you to strive to do a certain action, such as:

FEED: Have to close with the enemy at maximum speed, charge opponent if in range
HUNT: Close with enemy, using coving as available, charge opponent if in range
LURK: Have to move to closest cover; Can only charge enemies who come into charge range of cover

Of course, Tyranids have lot more issues than Synapse and IB, and their junk units need an overhaul before amending these two issues will make any difference.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Considering that termagants are basically that right now and still aren't a good unit (in fact they are a bad unit) it's pretty safe to say your thoughts on this specific matter are wrong.

Bad relative to what?

They're about as good or better than cultists w/o upgrades.

You don't need a relative comparison. They literally don't work as a unit.

They are a slow, fragile walking melee unit. They literally do not work as a unit because they are easily wipse out before they can even get remotely close to a unit to do anything to it

Cultists aren't great but they at least have guns

CrownAxe wrote:You don't need a relative comparison. They literally don't work as a unit.

They are a slow, fragile walking melee unit. They literally do not work as a unit because they are easily wipse out before they can even get remotely close to a unit to do anything to it

Cultists aren't great but they at least have guns

If your claim is merely that they don't work, regardless of the opponent, then I have to disagree.

In fact, I have personally experienced termagants sitting on objectives, tarpitting my sternguard and providing cover saves to MCs.

So...no. You're just wrong.

They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

Sure, they also become fearless when in synapse range, but so do those conscripts when you throw in a cheap priest (zealot really, which is fearless + a close combat buff. Even better).

They lack the ability those IoM units have to get buffs by attaching independent characters. The only one they can get is the tyranid prime, which is a staggering 125 point + upgrades HQ unit, and doesn't actually do anything for the gaunts aside from provide synapse.
They also lack the ability to ride around in transports.
They also have that tendency to run off the table when left to their own devices.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You don't need a relative comparison. They literally don't work as a unit.

They are a slow, fragile walking melee unit. They literally do not work as a unit because they are easily wipse out before they can even get remotely close to a unit to do anything to it

Cultists aren't great but they at least have guns

If your claim is merely that they don't work, regardless of the opponent, then I have to disagree.

In fact, I have personally experienced termagants sitting on objectives, tarpitting my sternguard and providing cover saves to MCs.

So...no. You're just wrong.

As usual, all the things you describe rely on the fact that you are bad at the game and don't know how to deal with such mediocre tactics

Arson Fire wrote:
They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

Sure, they also become fearless when in synapse range, but so do those conscripts when you throw in a cheap priest (zealot really, which is fearless + a close combat buff. Even better).

Synapse units don't actually have to join the units that they're providing synapse.

One priest = 1 fearless unit.
One chaplain = 1 fearless unit.

1 swarmlord = as many units as you can fit within however many inches. Even more if you successfully cast prime.

They lack the ability those IoM units have to get buffs by attaching independent characters. The only one they can get is the tyranid prime, which is a staggering 125 point + upgrades HQ unit, and doesn't actually do anything for the gaunts aside from provide synapse.

"A staggering 125 points + upgrades"? Bullgak. Do tell me which HQ you have in mind, and I will explain to you, in detail, why 125 points + upgrades is not staggering in the least.

Seriously. Would you rather a chaplain? You take chaplains, and we'll take hive tyrants. Deal?

They also lack the ability to ride around in transports.

Yes. That's part and parcel of playing tyranids. Every army should have its benefits and drawbacks.

Unless you're playing Eldar, in which case, you still should, but you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:As usual, all the things you describe rely on the fact that you are bad at the game and don't know how to deal with such mediocre tactics

Gee. That's real constructive. Truly opinion changing.

Your base insult truly does wonders to convince me that I am in error.

#Sarcasm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

In other words: right at about 4 ppm.

Which is what they cost.

So stop complaining.

 Traditio wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:
They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

Sure, they also become fearless when in synapse range, but so do those conscripts when you throw in a cheap priest (zealot really, which is fearless + a close combat buff. Even better).

Synapse units don't actually have to join the units that they're providing synapse.

One priest = 1 fearless unit.
One chaplain = 1 fearless unit.

1 swarmlord = as many units as you can fit within however many inches. Even more if you successfully cast prime.

1 Librarian with the right psychic power also = as many unit you can fit in within so many inches. Plus they get Adamantium Will.

They lack the ability those IoM units have to get buffs by attaching independent characters. The only one they can get is the tyranid prime, which is a staggering 125 point + upgrades HQ unit, and doesn't actually do anything for the gaunts aside from provide synapse.

"A staggering 125 points + upgrades"? Bullgak. Do tell me which HQ you have in mind, and I will explain to you, in detail, why 125 points + upgrades is not staggering in the least.

Seriously. Would you rather a chaplain? You take chaplains, and we'll take hive tyrants. Deal?

He already said which HQ he's talking about: the Tyranid Prime.

You probably haven't heard of it because it is terrible. Its profile is pretty much that of a Tyranid Warrior.

They also lack the ability to ride around in transports.

Yes. That's part and parcel of playing tyranids. Every army should have its benefits and drawbacks.

Unless you're playing Eldar, in which case, you still should, but you don't.

So the tyranids need more drawbacks than your precious space marines?

Do tell me, what drawbacks do you get, besides not being able to have more than a single heavy/specialist weapons (things gants and gaunts don't have)?



It's also a bit rich to tell someone to stop complaining when most of your threads seem to be about complaints you have with minor aspects of the game (like not being able to kill a Hive Tyrant in one hit with a single Flak missile...)

Gaunts/Gants being cheap is not really an advantage when you have compatible (and even better) units for a similar cost that don't have such a massive drawback. Which as Arson Fire points out, have access to fearless via independent characters. As a Ork player I don't fear Hormagaunts, for 1 point more I'm basically superior in every way

Traditio, the HQ he mentions is the Tyranid Prime. Look it up.

But to everyone else, Traditios opinions like always, are to be ignored. He doesn't know what he is talking about and while I read every word of his posts I take his ideas with a grain of salt at this point.

Some good ideas bouncing around.

The idea I had for synapse for a long time now was similar to a suggestion above.

I figured Synapase should work like this.

Synapse Creature: A model with this special rule has a Synapse range of 12”. Friendly Tyranid models within synapse range, including the synapse creature, gain the special rules Driven By The Hive Mind and Feel No Pain (6+).

The Synapse creature itself should maybe gain EW or maybe a low Invulnerable save. Something else to toughen them up a bit.

Driven By The Hive Mind: A unit that contains a model with this special rule uses the unmodified leadership value of the nearest Synapse Creature for all rules purposes.

Basically Stubborn synapse creature leadership (10).

If we remove IB whole sale and keep the little monsters at Ld 6 so they just probably fail all their checks left and right, does this seem fair while keeping the tyranids able to function?

 Traditio wrote:

Gee. That's real constructive. Truly opinion changing.

Your base insult truly does wonders to convince me that I am in error.

#Sarcasm.

No need to waste my time trying to change your incorrect opinion about the fact that termagants are bad

The problem ISNT IB, but Synapse being so unreliable.

The opponents just kill synapse and watch everything die, there are times the other player literally can just ignore 20-30% the army to just focus down synapse and watch you struggle.

The problem is the Nids codex in general, with to weak synapse and over costed models + Upgrades AND slow movement with lack of survivability.

A good friend said it best,

"Nids are like a Huge Buss, it takes alot of wheel to turn and its very cumbersome"

Everyone dial it back a bit, too many people are toeing the rule 1 line

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The problem ISNT IB, but Synapse being so unreliable.

The opponents just kill synapse and watch everything die, there are times the other player literally can just ignore 20-30% the army to just focus down synapse and watch you struggle.

The problem is the Nids codex in general, with to weak synapse and over costed models + Upgrades AND slow movement with lack of survivability.

A good friend said it best,

"Nids are like a Huge Buss, it takes alot of wheel to turn and its very cumbersome"

Yes. Tyranids problems are many and numerous. Specifically in this thread I would like to talk about IB and how it turns Synapse into a shackle. How would nids function if IB was gone or drastically changed.

Synapse only causes the army to collapse in on itself because of IB. If IB goes away the nids can at least move, shoot, and grab objectives.

 Traditio wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:
They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

Sure, they also become fearless when in synapse range, but so do those conscripts when you throw in a cheap priest (zealot really, which is fearless + a close combat buff. Even better).

Synapse units don't actually have to join the units that they're providing synapse.

One priest = 1 fearless unit.
One chaplain = 1 fearless unit.

1 swarmlord = as many units as you can fit within however many inches. Even more if you successfully cast prime.

They lack the ability those IoM units have to get buffs by attaching independent characters. The only one they can get is the tyranid prime, which is a staggering 125 point + upgrades HQ unit, and doesn't actually do anything for the gaunts aside from provide synapse.

"A staggering 125 points + upgrades"? Bullgak. Do tell me which HQ you have in mind, and I will explain to you, in detail, why 125 points + upgrades is not staggering in the least.

Seriously. Would you rather a chaplain? You take chaplains, and we'll take hive tyrants. Deal?

They also lack the ability to ride around in transports.

Yes. That's part and parcel of playing tyranids. Every army should have its benefits and drawbacks.

Unless you're playing Eldar, in which case, you still should, but you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:As usual, all the things you describe rely on the fact that you are bad at the game and don't know how to deal with such mediocre tactics

Gee. That's real constructive. Truly opinion changing.

Your base insult truly does wonders to convince me that I am in error.

#Sarcasm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
They're between conscripts and guardsmen in point cost and ability.

In other words: right at about 4 ppm.

Which is what they cost.

So stop complaining.

Wow.. ok just wow.

1) Swarmlord has HUGE weakness its not even funny.
1a, Bad save for almost 300pints model
2a, to slow, it will never get to the target or your army there
3a, fearless doesnt save your weak models from S4-6 AP anything, or ignore cover ap anything
4a, the powers are so weak and close range it cant just sit in the middle of everything and be effective

2) 125pts for the prime is EXTREMELY over costed, literally should be 60-70pts base like ALL other codex's generic base HQ's are. It was ONLY increased in points only b.c 5th ed it was as good as the Hive Tyrant (not b.c it was good but b.c there was no MC rules and the Tyrant wasnt worth its points) a Prime with LW/BS in a Unit was deadly for cheap. Cruddance didnt like this so he jacked up the price. (I remember a Interview where he said this, but I cant find it so you can ignore it if you want). I can go on about how over costed it is, but if you cant see something so noticeable then no point.

Seriously. Would you rather a chaplain? You take chaplains, and we'll take hive tyrants. Deal?

Yes I would actually, Tyrants arnt end all be all. With multi detachment they are cheap and effective HQ's that can be fitted for "rolls".

3) 4 ppm..... These guys cant do anything, with SM/DA getting huge bolters/plasma/ even grav, with relentless TL rapid fire, stronger powers and even Moving in an out of Rhinos, Then you have Necrons... lol if I have to explain anything here then I'm done, Tau with Riptides and Storm Surges, Eldar with Spiders, Bikes, Knight, IG with Wyverns alone will take out any walking nids army. Admech with 30" multi shot guns..... Do you want me to continue? Even if they where 2 ppm you would still see players only taking the minum of "must take" but now you might see 60 on the table instead of 30, the different, more models will die.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The problem ISNT IB, but Synapse being so unreliable.

The opponents just kill synapse and watch everything die, there are times the other player literally can just ignore 20-30% the army to just focus down synapse and watch you struggle.

The problem is the Nids codex in general, with to weak synapse and over costed models + Upgrades AND slow movement with lack of survivability.

A good friend said it best,

"Nids are like a Huge Buss, it takes alot of wheel to turn and its very cumbersome"

Yes. Tyranids problems are many and numerous. Specifically in this thread I would like to talk about IB and how it turns Synapse into a shackle. How would nids function if IB was gone or drastically changed.

Synapse only causes the army to collapse in on itself because of IB. If IB goes away the nids can at least move, shoot, and grab objectives.

I understand that. Honestly I feel it should be extremely simple and only effect 1 thing.

Lurk = Move to cover
Feed = Move to nearest unit
Hunt = Shoot Nearest unit

I understand that IB could be reduced to simple effects. But the problem is the Tyranid force becomes utterly unusable when not in synapse. You cannot deepstrike things. Drop pods instantly loose value. Fast moving gargoyles cannot be used to break off and grab objectives without a second unit to provide some synapse to protect them.

Even if you simplify IB, it doesn't remove the shackle that it is from the army. Your forced to function in these blobs that require every unit to work in tandem or not work at all.

 Lance845 wrote:
I understand that IB could be reduced to simple effects. But the problem is the Tyranid force becomes utterly unusable when not in synapse. You cannot deepstrike things. Drop pods instantly loose value. Fast moving gargoyles cannot be used to break off and grab objectives without a second unit to provide some synapse to protect them.

Even if you simplify IB, it doesn't remove the shackle that it is from the army. Your forced to function in these blobs that require every unit to work in tandem or not work at all.

Well I think GW wants you to be force into thinking that way, yes I can DS but without Synapse Its very risky. Now the problem comes down to,"what power level does GW want nids to be."

If I were to write it may way. I would remove IB, Having LD 6 without fearless is already bad, why does it need to be punished more?

I like the idea that Synapse is a buff not a negative. make All Synapse models EW and Synapse gives FnP 6+. Now its fluffy and makes you feel like you need to be in synapse.

Edit for spelling/grammer, english is hard for me.

Lance:

How do you like this proposal?

No synapse. No IB. Re-adjust leadership stats and points cost accordingly.

Termagaunts lose IB, become LD 7 and otherwise remain the same.

How do you like them apples?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:No need to waste my time trying to change your incorrect opinion about the fact that termagants are bad

Ah, of course: I mean, if it's your opinion, then it certainly can't be false. Never mind facts and reasons, if Crown Axe declares it to be true, it must be true!

#Sarcasm.

 Traditio wrote:
Lance:

How do you like this proposal?

No synapse. No IB. Re-adjust leadership stats and points cost accordingly.

Termagaunts lose IB, become LD 7 and otherwise remain the same.

How do you like them apples?

I don't. I think Synapse provides an interesting mechanic. I don't think synapse should provide fearless, but I do think it should provide a benefit. I don't think the small horde bugs need a ld boost. I think their poor ld reflects properly their need to be in synapse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:No need to waste my time trying to change your incorrect opinion about the fact that termagants are bad

Ah, of course: I mean, if it's your opinion, then it certainly can't be false. Never mind facts and reasons, if Crown Axe declares it to be true, it must be true!

#Sarcasm.

You don't seem to have the critical thinking or understanding of the subject matter to understand why Termagants are bad. You don't understand why pyrovores are bad. or why raveners are bad. Or why trygon tunnels are bad. Or why all the things we listed in the other thread about tyranids are bad. You ignore the points people make about why these things are bad and insist that despite 3 editions of tyranids getting worse and worse that their army is doing pretty good these days. IF you want to call it opinion then it's such a wide spread popular opinion WITH data to support it that you simply have no leg to stand on. You don't have facts or reasons to support your side.

Lance845 wrote:I don't. I think Synapse provides an interesting mechanic. I don't think synapse should provide fearless, but I do think it should provide a benefit. I don't think the small horde bugs need a ld boost. I think their poor ld reflects properly their need to be in synapse.

IoW:

"I want a benefit that isn't reflected in the points cost that I'm paying, but with absolutely none of the drawbacks that are required to balance out that benefit."

4 ppm gets you a cultist. Termagants should be as good as cultists. No better. No worse.

If you don't like IB, then what would make termagaunts as good as cultists is making them LD 7, getting rid of synapse and getting rid of IB.

Termagants don't get 2 attacks, but they do get a better pistol.

You don't seem to have the critical thinking or understanding of the subject matter to understand why Termagants are bad. You don't understand why pyrovores are bad. or why raveners are bad. Or why trygon tunnels are bad. Or why all the things we listed in the other thread about tyranids are bad. You ignore the points people make about why these things are bad and insist that despite 3 editions of tyranids getting worse and worse that their army is doing pretty good these days. IF you want to call it opinion then it's such a wide spread popular opinion WITH data to support it that you simply have no leg to stand on. You don't have facts or reasons to support your side.

Lance, I never claimed that the tyranids codex is "doing pretty good these days." If you think I have, then quote me. I didn't say that.

What I have said is that the cause for tyranids sucking is, by and large, not within their codex. You have, of course, argued against this by appealing to vague rules writing, poor internal balance, etc. Fine. But none of those things necessarily translates to "Therefore Tyranids must suck."

I gave an argument for this in the other thread, and you simply ignored it, presumably because you have no counter-argument. If only ogryn exist, then the game is balanced, and ogryn don't suck. Do ogryn suck? Sure. But they wouldn't suck if they were the only unit in the game.

If you want to convince me (or anyone else) of anything, then more facts, less personal insults and emotive outbursts. Kthnxbye.

Saying "X is bad" flat out is not exactly a mark of critical thinking either, since any critically thinking person knows that goodness or badness is contextual, even in a game of toy soldiers that people have for some inexplicable reason wrapped their ego up in to the point that they insult each other over it like little babies.

 Traditio wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I don't. I think Synapse provides an interesting mechanic. I don't think synapse should provide fearless, but I do think it should provide a benefit. I don't think the small horde bugs need a ld boost. I think their poor ld reflects properly their need to be in synapse.

IoW:

"I want a benefit that isn't reflected in the points cost that I'm paying, but with absolutely none of the drawbacks that are required to balance out that benefit."

4 ppm gets you a cultist. Termagants should be as good as cultists. No better. No worse.

If you don't like IB, then what would make termagaunts as good as cultists is making them LD 7, getting rid of synapse and getting rid of IB.

Termagants don't get 2 attacks, but they do get a better pistol.

The price cost of the benefit is reflected in the price cost of Synapse creatures. Termagants should not be paying PPM for a benefit they do not have on their own. Termagants have no pistol. Every single gun nids have is assault.

You don't seem to have the critical thinking or understanding of the subject matter to understand why Termagants are bad. You don't understand why pyrovores are bad. or why raveners are bad. Or why trygon tunnels are bad. Or why all the things we listed in the other thread about tyranids are bad. You ignore the points people make about why these things are bad and insist that despite 3 editions of tyranids getting worse and worse that their army is doing pretty good these days. IF you want to call it opinion then it's such a wide spread popular opinion WITH data to support it that you simply have no leg to stand on. You don't have facts or reasons to support your side.

Lance, I never claimed that the tyranids codex is "doing pretty good these days." If you think I have, then quote me. I didn't say that.

What I have said is that the cause for tyranids sucking is, by and large, not within their codex. You have, of course, argued against this by appealing to vague rules writing, poor internal balance, etc. Fine. But none of those things necessarily translates to "Therefore Tyranids must suck."

I gave an argument for this in the other thread, and you simply ignored it, presumably because you have no counter-argument. If only ogryn exist, then the game is balanced, and ogryn don't suck. Do ogryn suck? Sure. But they wouldn't suck if they were the only unit in the game.

If you want to convince me (or anyone else) of anything, then more facts, less personal insults and emotive outbursts. Kthnxbye.

Believe it or not I have not been giving you personal insults. I have been providing you with constructive criticism. Your idea that a game composed entirely of units that are terrible at their intended jobs is a balanced and fair game is false. A game made entirely of units that sucks is a game that sucks full of suck units. I gave you those arguments in the other thread. I explained that if you buffed all saves to 2+ it would not be the same as nerfing all saves to 6+. That in a world where everything is equalized in either direction the game is not fixed and also becomes a much worse place. You didn't respond to that.

presumably because you have no counter-argument.

I recommend some light reading.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1783831480/ref=pe_11480_171445740_emwa_email_title_1

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Game-Design-Lenses-Second/dp/1466598646/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478165008&sr=1-1&keywords=game+design

https://www.amazon.com/Game-Design-Create-Tabletop-Finish/dp/0786469528/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478165050&sr=1-15&keywords=game+design

Since I read about 4 or 5 books like these over the course of my 4 year bachelors degree I say with experience that the content is often very enlightening and the objective view it can help you take to mechanics a powerful tool when using critical analysis to understand where a games/army/units problems come from and how you might fix it.

Termagants do not exist in a vacuum. The units price per model is part of how it functions as a part of the army as a whole and not just one unit vs another unit. And especially, a player should not be paying for synapse twice, both on the model that provides it and on a model that may or may not be receiving it. But you have yet to write a single sentence that expressed that you understand that concept.

Read up buddy.

 Traditio wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I don't. I think Synapse provides an interesting mechanic. I don't think synapse should provide fearless, but I do think it should provide a benefit. I don't think the small horde bugs need a ld boost. I think their poor ld reflects properly their need to be in synapse.

IoW:

"I want a benefit that isn't reflected in the points cost that I'm paying, but with absolutely none of the drawbacks that are required to balance out that benefit."

4 ppm gets you a cultist. Termagants should be as good as cultists. No better. No worse.

If you don't like IB, then what would make termagaunts as good as cultists is making them LD 7, getting rid of synapse and getting rid of IB.

Termagants don't get 2 attacks, but they do get a better pistol.

1) Culist are better b.c a few thing,
a, No IB
b, Pistols, Pistols gives +1 to CCW they can also get auto guns if you wanted shooty
c, better upgrades, Can have marks, Better flamer and Heavy Stubber
d, Better LD (when nids out of Synapse)
e, has a champion (nids CANT get Sargents at all)
f, taken in KDK they give Blood Points
g, can be put in rhinos

2) Termagants Don't have Pistols and can't get them.

If you want to compare them thats fine, but I'd rather have cultist, as a person that play KDK, I do take them every game, as a Nids player, I Never take Gants anymore.

There are two options, either IB is removed to give Tyranid units more freedom, or Synapse is buffed so they remain shackled to it, but they get some serious benefits from doing so (this one would be more fluffy IMHO). Doing both would be to much.

I think we can basically all agree that:

termagants without IB or Synapse are roughly on par with cultists, if not worse due to poor Ld

Synapse currently provides a boost

IB is currently a huge penalty

Even Traditio's position isn't far from that.

I am a fan of the idea of leaving Ld where it is for the little critters (5), having Synapse provide less of a boost, and having IB provide more of a nudge toward the correct behavior.

It's not fun to feel like your army is outside your control. I'm in favor of the following (just repeating other's ideas):

If synapse let you use the Ld of the Synapse bug, gave the Synapse bug EW, and gave 6+ FNP, I think that would be more fair than Fearless. Then the little bugs will be Ld 5 outside Synapse, which means they tend to fall back easily. IB can give them +1 Ld if they meet certain requirements (lurkers in cover and not in CC, hunters in weapons range and not in CC, feeders in CC). Now you have options as a player and with a little luck your bugs won't run away immediately.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:You don't need a relative comparison. They literally don't work as a unit.

They are a slow, fragile walking melee unit. They literally do not work as a unit because they are easily wipse out before they can even get remotely close to a unit to do anything to it

Cultists aren't great but they at least have guns

If your claim is merely that they don't work, regardless of the opponent, then I have to disagree.

In fact, I have personally experienced termagants sitting on objectives, tarpitting my sternguard and providing cover saves to MCs.

So...no. You're just wrong.

That's because you make bad decisions and let that situation happen, on top of making bad lists.

If Sternguard of all things got caught in melee with Gaunts, that's nobody's fault but your own.

Minor note on the Tyranid Prime versus Chaplain thing-Chaplain is much cheaper and gives a better buff. Admittedly, the Prime is deadlier... By a little bit.

Now, more on topic, Instinctive Behavior is a cool idea! It's fluffy, it's interesting, and god-DAMN is it poorly implemented!

So, here's an idea-I admit, I have not done much thinking on it yet, but it seems interesting. While out of Synapse, Fearless. This represents that Tyranids, by and large, don't come with a survival instinct. They just plow ahead, heedless of danger. (Probably also have a rule where they roll a die-on a 1, they suffer some Instinctive Behavior penalties.) But while within Synapse, they have And They Shall Know No Fear-representing the greater tactical acumen of the Hive Mind. (Or perhaps they can simply choose to pass or fail any morale test, or maybe both.)

That would obviously be a buff, so it'd come with a minor points hike for the little gribblies.

The big issue I see with it is it makes morale shenanigans even less useful, when they're already not that useful... But hey, it's an idea.

Absolutely NOTHING!

Say it again now

Huh! Hah! Good god man!

Instinctual behavior what is it good for, absolutely nothing!

I'd say get rid of the table itself, and we simply choose the result that fits best, without being the best result or the worst result; ya know, the middle ground.

How would that be for starters? That way you can sorta plan for the worst but Synapse is still important?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd say get rid of the table itself, and we simply choose the result that fits best, without being the best result or the worst result; ya know, the middle ground.

How would that be for starters? That way you can sorta plan for the worst but Synapse is still important?

Considering that, if you pick your result, you can always get a bonus... I'd say no.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I think we can basically all agree that:

termagants without IB or Synapse are roughly on par with cultists, if not worse due to poor Ld

Synapse currently provides a boost

IB is currently a huge penalty

Even Traditio's position isn't far from that.

I am a fan of the idea of leaving Ld where it is for the little critters (5), having Synapse provide less of a boost, and having IB provide more of a nudge toward the correct behavior.

It's not fun to feel like your army is outside your control. I'm in favor of the following (just repeating other's ideas):

If synapse let you use the Ld of the Synapse bug, gave the Synapse bug EW, and gave 6+ FNP, I think that would be more fair than Fearless. Then the little bugs will be Ld 5 outside Synapse, which means they tend to fall back easily. IB can give them +1 Ld if they meet certain requirements (lurkers in cover and not in CC, hunters in weapons range and not in CC, feeders in CC). Now you have options as a player and with a little luck your bugs won't run away immediately.

I like this idea. IB doesn't provide anything but a bonus to leadership when in the places they want to be in. You can still take your bugs and use them how you want, but they are less likely to break and run when you use them how they would be used. I feel like that is a very elegant way to remove the shackle. You still want everything in Synapse. The stubborn 10 leadership and 6+ FNP are great benefits. But you can also leave some guys behind or break them off to go grab an objective if you want without a total army wide meltdown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd say get rid of the table itself, and we simply choose the result that fits best, without being the best result or the worst result; ya know, the middle ground.

How would that be for starters? That way you can sorta plan for the worst but Synapse is still important?

The point is that every result on that table forces your units to move and act in certain ways. You cannot use Gargoyles (jump infantry) to go grab an objective. If next game turn you don't have a SECOND unit over there to keep them in synapse they start to just run off on their own. Picking your own result might give you benefits in that worst case scenario, but it doesn't change the fact that nids are all shackled to their synapse overlords.

You should WANT to be in synapse. The benefits should matter. The LD of the smaller bugs is so bad that it already does as is. Why do you need a SECOND punishment.

 Lance845 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd say get rid of the table itself, and we simply choose the result that fits best, without being the best result or the worst result; ya know, the middle ground.

How would that be for starters? That way you can sorta plan for the worst but Synapse is still important?

The point is that every result on that table forces your units to move and act in certain ways. You cannot use Gargoyles (jump infantry) to go grab an objective. If next game turn you don't have a SECOND unit over there to keep them in synapse they start to just run off on their own. Picking your own result might give you benefits in that worst case scenario, but it doesn't change the fact that nids are all shackled to their synapse overlords.

You should WANT to be in synapse. The benefits should matter. The LD of the smaller bugs is so bad that it already does as is. Why do you need a SECOND punishment.

Agreed. That was one reason why I was suggesting it as rewarding certain behavior rather than forcing certain behavior.

Lurkers want to be in cover, so they would have better discipline (Ld) for being in cover. Feeders want to run in and be in combat, so they would be rewarded for being in Combat. Hunters I had a hard time with since I cannot think of a way of giving them a proper Leadership benefit for just shooting without getting ridiculous.

 Lance845 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I think we can basically all agree that:

termagants without IB or Synapse are roughly on par with cultists, if not worse due to poor Ld

Synapse currently provides a boost

IB is currently a huge penalty

Even Traditio's position isn't far from that.

I am a fan of the idea of leaving Ld where it is for the little critters (5), having Synapse provide less of a boost, and having IB provide more of a nudge toward the correct behavior.

It's not fun to feel like your army is outside your control. I'm in favor of the following (just repeating other's ideas):

If synapse let you use the Ld of the Synapse bug, gave the Synapse bug EW, and gave 6+ FNP, I think that would be more fair than Fearless. Then the little bugs will be Ld 5 outside Synapse, which means they tend to fall back easily. IB can give them +1 Ld if they meet certain requirements (lurkers in cover and not in CC, hunters in weapons range and not in CC, feeders in CC). Now you have options as a player and with a little luck your bugs won't run away immediately.

I like this idea. IB doesn't provide anything but a bonus to leadership when in the places they want to be in. You can still take your bugs and use them how you want, but they are less likely to break and run when you use them how they would be used. I feel like that is a very elegant way to remove the shackle. You still want everything in Synapse. The stubborn 10 leadership and 6+ FNP are great benefits. But you can also leave some guys behind or break them off to go grab an objective if you want without a total army wide meltdown.

I think some version of that idea would work, but going from Leadership 5 to 6 when you follow your instinctive behavior guidelines isn't going to make much of a difference. You'll still fail leadership tests more often than not. Maybe if they were leadership 7 or 8 or something while following instinctive behavior? Also, I feel like synapse really should make 'nids Fearless or ATSKNF. If the hivemind wants to send a bunch of gaunts to their deaths tarpitting a dreadnaught for a couple turns, I feel like they shouldn't be running away when the dreadnaught wins combat by a bunch and makes them fall back.

I'm of the opinion that synapse is good as is and could possibly stand to be even better (Eternal Warrior, to those in synapse or one of the "impulses" I listed earlier). Instinctive behavior is random, annoying, requires lots of rolling, is usually a harsh nerf, is sometimes a counter-intuitive benefit, and is just generally redundant with 'nids' low Leadership.

How would tyranids look if you removed instinctive behavior and made no other changes? You'd be leaving your little bugs very vulnerable to morale tests if you let them slip out of synapse range, but you'd also be able to have them behave normally until they were forced to make a leadership test. There would be no instinctive behavior leadership tests, no rolling on random tables, and no fiddly behavior restrictions to worry about. You'd just also be very susceptible to running away. Thoughts?

Wyldhunt wrote:


I think some version of that idea would work, but going from Leadership 5 to 6 when you follow your instinctive behavior guidelines isn't going to make much of a difference. You'll still fail leadership tests more often than not. Maybe if they were leadership 7 or 8 or something while following instinctive behavior? Also, I feel like synapse really should make 'nids Fearless or ATSKNF. If the hivemind wants to send a bunch of gaunts to their deaths tarpitting a dreadnaught for a couple turns, I feel like they shouldn't be running away when the dreadnaught wins combat by a bunch and makes them fall back.

Well my version of that was that it was Stuborn synapse creatures leadership. So it didn't matter how many wounds the dreadnaught did the Nids would always make their leadership rolls on ld 10 when in synapse. Second, I think the 5 was a misconception of the other guy. Most non synapse nids have a ld 6. 7 is by far the most probable result on a 2d6 roll. (the most combinations of results on each die = 7.) Since 7 is the point when a unit has a statistically positive chance for success a nid having a 6 ld normally but a 7 when following instinctive behavior is a pretty solid way to still give them a crap leadership while giving them a good reason to do their instinctive job/better reason to get into synapse.

I'm of the opinion that synapse is good as is and could possibly stand to be even better (Eternal Warrior, to those in synapse or one of the "impulses" I listed earlier). Instinctive behavior is random, annoying, requires lots of rolling, is usually a harsh nerf, is sometimes a counter-intuitive benefit, and is just generally redundant with 'nids' low Leadership.

I think the widespread fearless or might-as-well-be-fearless in the game is pretty crap. I would be happy as a nid to take the first step in toning that down.

How would tyranids look if you removed instinctive behavior and made no other changes? You'd be leaving your little bugs very vulnerable to morale tests if you let them slip out of synapse range, but you'd also be able to have them behave normally until they were forced to make a leadership test. There would be no instinctive behavior leadership tests, no rolling on random tables, and no fiddly behavior restrictions to worry about. You'd just also be very susceptible to running away. Thoughts?

That is basically the question I asked to start the thread. I agree with the implications. Even if you do not touch synapse at all. What if you JUST removed IB whole sale? Well... I think it opens up a lot of options for a nid player without unbalancing anything.

@Lance 845: Good catches and points regarding the first quote there. I still don't feel that you should be able to scare off a bunch of gaunts while the hive mind is actively telling them to go martyr themselves against a dreadnaught, but you have a good point there all the same. Being Ld 7 or 8 while out of synapse seems reasonable to me. You'd be comparable to guardsmen. Instead of giving orders and bringing commissars, you'd follow IB restrictions or simply try to get back into synapse.

I totally agree that widespread Fearless and pseudo-fearless is a problem. I just also feel that tyranids arguably have more reason than most not to run away. They're not individuals with self-preservation instincts so much as they're individual cells in a much larger organism that doesn't mind losing a little skin to get a job done.

As an aside: I think one of the big problems with leadership in 40k is that so many of the factions can be argued very reasonably to *not* be prone to running away at all. It's arguably out of character for Sisters, Dark Eldar, Marines, etc. to run away because they're scared. Making tactical retreates, sure, but being scared off by mundane means is a bit odd. That's another discussion all together though.

I think simply removing IB and making no other changes might be a sound way to go. It lets you spread out a bit more, gives you a reason to take big blobs of little bugs, slaves you to synapse spam less, and simplifies being out of synapse considerably.

To play daemon's advocate, however, I will point out that "tyranids lose cohesion when out of synapse" is a very flavorful part of the army that probably deserves to be represented in some fashion. I think the key is to find a way to make "losing cohesion" fun for the tyranid player while also not making it an outright buff.

Lance845 wrote:The price cost of the benefit is reflected in the price cost of Synapse creatures. Termagants should not be paying PPM for a benefit they do not have on their own.

Whoever pays the points cost, the simple fact remains that synapse, as it stands, basically means: "Everyone within x number of inches gets fearless. More inches if you cast prime" Now, you want to change that effect, sure. But the fact remains that "synapse" would still mean "Everyone within x inches gets x, y and/or z."

That has a points value. That's a net bonus. And it's one that's currently balanced out by IB.

I don't know how much a hive tyrant or a swarmlord costs. But if termagants didn't have IB, I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't cost enough.

Even basic warriors would be a fething steal in that case. 30 ppm, 3 wounds, and confer fearless (or whatever effect you want to replace that with) on everything within x number of inches?

No. Either points costs need to go up, or else, things need to remain exactly as they are. Synapse provides a substantial bonus that is balanced out by a substantial drawback. If you don't want the drawback, then give up the bonus. Readjust points cost and leadership values and call it a day.

But of course, of course, you'll want to keep the bonuses, get rid of the drawbacks, and then assign a higher points cost to the synapse creatures, not to everyone else.

Why? That way you can get a discount and get a higher "value" for your points cost. Because who wants a fair game?

If you wanted a fair game, then you'd just get rid of synapse and IB and just re-adjust leadership values. Because that's the actually fair alternative. But again: who wants to play fair?

Termagants have no pistol. Every single gun nids have is assault.

I'm aware of this. I was using "pistol" in a loose sense. It's a short range, 1 shot weapon that you can assault after using. As I said, the cultists actually have pistols, and so they get an extra attack. But it's S3, AP -. Termagants come with a better gun, but lose the extra attack. They also don't have to pay the ridiculous 10 points cost for the mandatory sergeant upgrade.

Believe it or not I have not been giving you personal insults.

"You don't seem to have the critical thinking or understanding of the subject matter to understand why Termagants are bad."

Nope. Definitely not a insult.

I have been providing you with constructive criticism.

Of course, of course. "Get better critical thinking" is constructive criticism. (In fact, my critical thinking skills are likely far more trained than yours are if we base ourselves on educational fields and educational extent alone.)

Stick to the facts. If you think I'm wrong, present reasons which don't have to do with my personal capacities or lack thereof.

Your idea that a game composed entirely of units that are terrible at their intended jobs is a balanced and fair game is false. A game made entirely of units that sucks is a game that sucks full of suck units. I gave you those arguments in the other thread. I explained that if you buffed all saves to 2+ it would not be the same as nerfing all saves to 6+. That in a world where everything is equalized in either direction the game is not fixed and also becomes a much worse place. You didn't respond to that.

Your sole claim was that there would be a difference. It was also a point that didn't answer what I was getting at.

I don't feel that I need to respond to "all saves being buffed to 2+ is not the same as nerfing all saves to 6+." That's not only obvious, but it has literally nothing to do with the point that I was making.

My point ultimately was that if you buff everything to ridiculous levels (space marine power armor confering a 2+, 2++, 2+++ rerollable save, or scatter bikes firing 6 shots per model) or if you nerf everything to be roughly on par (give everyone power armor and bolters), you ultimately get the same net effect.

My point presupposed in-game balance in either direction. If the game is balanced, then it's balanced. If that means OP durability and OP killing capacity (for a "high power" solution) or everyone having power armor and boltguns (the "low power" solution), the net result is essentially the same.

My point was that if you buff everything so that my tactical marines have enough durability to withstand the ridiculous firepower of a scatter bike, then you might as well have just nerfed the scatterbike. The same result follows.

Termagants do not exist in a vacuum. The units price per model is part of how it functions as a part of the army as a whole and not just one unit vs another unit. And especially, a player should not be paying for synapse twice, both on the model that provides it and on a model that may or may not be receiving it. But you have yet to write a single sentence that expressed that you understand that concept.

In a game like 40k, "the army as a whole" does not exist. Unless you make a space marine captain a mandatory unit selection, you can't assume I'll be taking one. Unless you make drop pods a mandatory transport, you can't assume that my tacticals are going to use them. Unless you make grav a mandatory upgrade, you can't assume that I'm going to use grav.

How do you do it? Seems like so much effort for what amounts to the same roundabouts.

 Traditio wrote:
I don't know how much a hive tyrant or a swarmlord costs.

So you don't know how much a synapse unit costs, but you're very sure that the synapse unit doesn't pay for the AoE fearless buff? This seems to be a recurring theme with you, making nerf posts based on knowledge of the relevant units that is severely lacking.

Peregrine wrote:So you don't know how much a synapse unit costs, but you're very sure that the synapse unit doesn't pay for the AoE fearless buff? This seems to be a recurring theme with you, making nerf posts based on knowledge of the relevant units that is severely lacking.

I'm making the reasonable assumption that the author of the Tyrranids codex gave synapse a points valuation on the assumption that IB would counter-balance it.

I don't really have to know how much a hive tyrant costs to say this. Whatever it costs, I'm assuming that the author factored IB into the cost of the synapse rule.

What countermeasure was put in to offset Eldars weaponry and Blade storm? They are a dying race, something about that would fit the fluff... Nothing.

What counterbalances ATSKNF Chapter Tactics and uber formations unlocking hundreds of free points. Something about failing to kill the Warlord as Marines are usually deployed to take the head off the snake... Nothing.

It's bad game design when the bad guys rules need to be tempered by drawbacks cuz reasons.

 Eldarain wrote:
What countermeasure was put in to offset Eldars weaponry and Blade storm?

Dire avengers cost 13 ppm, don't have ATSKNF, and their gun has shorter range than boltguns. They are only T3 with a 4+ armor save.

Are you really going to complain about dire avengers having blade storm?

As I said before again and again:

If you want "good" termagants, then be willing to pay the points for "good" termagants.

If you like 4 ppm termagants, then stop complaining.

What counterbalances ATSKNF Chapter Tactics

14 ppm base.

That's what counterbalances ATSKNF and chapter tactics.

and uber ormations unlocking hundreds of free points.

There's no defense for this. Formations need some serious nerfs.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm making the reasonable assumption that the author of the Tyrranids codex gave synapse a points valuation on the assumption that IB would counter-balance it.

I don't really have to know how much a hive tyrant costs to say this. Whatever it costs, I'm assuming that the author factored IB into the cost of the synapse rule.

So, rather than look at the rules you're arguing about so you know what they actually say you'd rather assume that GW made all of their point costs by the method you think they should have used? This is why nobody takes your balance arguments seriously.

Peregrine wrote:So, rather than look at the rules you're arguing about so you know what they actually say you'd rather assume that GW made all of their point costs by the method you think they should have used? This is why nobody takes your balance arguments seriously.

Do you think that GW factored IB into the points costs of tyrranids units? If they did, do you think they counted it as a benefit or a drawback?

 Traditio wrote:
Do you think that GW factored IB into the points costs of tyrranids units? If they did, do you think they counted it as a benefit or a drawback?

I don't care because it doesn't matter. GW's reasoning behind point costs is irrelevant given how wrong they frequently are, all that matters is what the final number printed in the book is. And if you don't even know the point costs of the units you're arguing about balancing then you are not qualified to be presenting an opinion that anyone should be persuaded by.

Peregrine wrote:I don't care because it doesn't matter. GW's reasoning behind point costs is irrelevant given how wrong they frequently are, all that matters is what the final number printed in the book is. And if you don't even know the point costs of the units you're arguing about balancing then you are not qualified to be presenting an opinion that anyone should be persuaded by.

Except, it does matter, and the actual points costs are irrelevant for this consideration. Let me explain:

Let's suppose I look at a hive tyrant and find that it's roughly proportionate, in terms of points, to a daemon prince, even if we don't take synapse into account.

Would that mean that a hive tyrant is too cheap?

No. They could have factored synapse into the base cost of the units that benefit from synapse, doing this on the assumption that tyrranids players are going to use synapse creatures.

At the end of the day, I don't know GW's reasoning, but I do think that this stands as irrefutably true:

For a 4 ppm model, termagants are about where they should be.

@ Traditio, there is now too much for me to respond point for point. Let me say a few things.

I state that you are ignorant. Not stupid (which is a insult) but ignorant (which is a state of being that can be rectified with learning). You don't know what your talking about and you generally do not exercise the critical thinking needed to do the research to inform yourself. If you did you would know point 2

2) The author of the last 2 editions of the Tyranid Codex was Robin Cruddace. A basically universally reviled rules writer that works for GW who, personally, plays imperial guard as a all armored army and really really loves vehicles and tanks. So, of course, he was the perfect choice to write the tyranid rules. A army with no vehicles or tanks. Look him up. The guy is atrocious at rules writing. To assume that anything in the Nid dex had it's point value evaluated with anything taken into consideration is like assuming that pots of gold sit at the end of rainbows. If only it were true...

My recomendation is you get your facts strait before you start to make educated guesses at what facts we do not have. What you are doing instead is making assumptions based on wishful thinking with no facts at all to support it.

You.
Are.
Wrong.

The entire forum tells you you are wrong. They point to all the evidence that you are wrong. And you continue to assert that your arguments have value based on the assumptions you started your arguments from despite evidence to the contrary. You are wrong.

Educate yourself.

Study some game design principles, then study the sources of contention, THEN contribute to the conversation.

 Lance845 wrote:
@ Traditio, there is now too much for me to respond point for point. Let me say a few things.

I state that you are ignorant. Not stupid (which is a insult) but ignorant (which is a state of being that can be rectified with learning).

If you think I'm ignorant, then there is no need to assert that I'm ignorant. Simply point out the correct state of affairs and, if necessary, give the appropriate sources for it.

"You're ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about and you do not exercise critical thinking" is simply not conducive to rational, dispassionate discussion.

2) The author of the last 2 editions of the Tyranid Codex was Robert Cruddace. A basically universally reviled rules writer that works for GW who, personally, plays imperial guard as a all armored army and really really loves vehicles and tanks. So, of course, he was the perfect choice to write the tyranid rules. A army with no vehicles or tanks. Look him up. The guy is atrocious at rules writing. To assume that anything in the Nid dex had it's point value evaluated with anything taken into consideration is like assuming that pots of gold sit at the end of rainbows. If only it were true...

This is a patent ad hominem. "Robert cruddace wrote it; therefore, these rules are BY DEFINITION unfair."

That's not a legitimate argument.

The simple fact is:

You HAVE no argument. The simple fact is that you want tyrranids, as a codex, to be as grossly OP as eldar.

If you didn't want unfair advantages, and you legitimately thought that IB was a horribly written and unfair drawback, then you would be perfectly willing to drop synapse, drop IB and re-adjust LD and points accordingly.

That would be perfectly fair, and even you would have to admit that.

You wouldn't like it, of course, because you'd lose out on the advantages. But it would be fair.

 Traditio wrote:
"You're ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about and you do not exercise critical thinking" is simply not conducive to rational, dispassionate discussion.

But that's all there is to say about it. If you don't know the rules for the units you're talking about then you aren't qualified to offer a useful opinion. When you learn the relevant information maybe you can come back and we'll talk about the rest.

This is a patent ad hominem. "Robert cruddace wrote it; therefore, these rules are BY DEFINITION unfair."

And that is a patent straw man. The actual argument was that Cruddace sucks at writing rules therefore any argument that depends on his careful and accurate balancing of something should not be considered, not that his rules are automatically unfair. It is entirely possible that he got lucky and wrote balanced rules in some cases, despite his method being bad.

If you didn't want unfair advantages, and you legitimately thought that IB was a horribly written and unfair drawback, then you would be perfectly willing to drop synapse, drop IB and re-adjust LD and points accordingly.

There you go again with your "if you don't accept my proposed rule then you're a WAAC TFG who wants unfair advantages" argument. Your position is based on the premise that all of the units involved are fairly priced, therefore any buff to something must be balanced by a nerf (including an increase in point costs). And you can not make this argument because you don't even know what the point costs of the units are!

Peregrine:

Do you think that cultists are fairly priced in terms of points?

What Peregrine has said. Exalted!

You ignored the point of what Cruddace is, what his history tells us, and what we can extrapolate reasonably from those facts. And instead assert your position that is based on an idea that the tyranid point values MUST have been given with careful consideration. A Tyranid unit MUST be appropriately costed.

Let me ask you Traditio, What is the point value of a unit with a minimum size of 10 at 6 ld vs a unit at 7 ld vs a unit at 8 ld.

Keep in mind that a unit with a ld 6 has a statistically negative chance for success a 7 has the highest probability of being rolled and is thus the lowest positive chance for success and a 8 is just gravy.

+1 ld is not always equivalent in value. In the same way that +1 BS is not always equivalent in value.

What value is that in points per model to a unit?

 Traditio wrote:
Peregrine:

Do you think that cultists are fairly priced in terms of points?

Not really because they're garbage. They're taken as a tax of 100 points to unlock the "good" CSM units, if you can really go that far to say that about the codex.

 Traditio wrote:
Peregrine:

Do you think that cultists are fairly priced in terms of points?

Why does that matter? The two units have entirely different roles.

And I notice you have no response for anything else I've said, and would prefer to divert the conversation to another of your balance arguments.

 Traditio wrote:

2) The author of the last 2 editions of the Tyranid Codex was Robert Cruddace. A basically universally reviled rules writer that works for GW who, personally, plays imperial guard as a all armored army and really really loves vehicles and tanks. So, of course, he was the perfect choice to write the tyranid rules. A army with no vehicles or tanks. Look him up. The guy is atrocious at rules writing. To assume that anything in the Nid dex had it's point value evaluated with anything taken into consideration is like assuming that pots of gold sit at the end of rainbows. If only it were true...

This is a patent ad hominem. "Robert cruddace wrote it; therefore, these rules are BY DEFINITION unfair."

That's not a legitimate argument.

This is not what I said. What I said was that we have evidence that Robin is a crap writer and that it is a fair assumption that the rules that were written were not particularly well thought out. In addition we have evidence that this is true (all those units I listed to you in the other thread). Based on the facts that support the fair assumption it is very reasonable that the point values assigned to various Tyranid units do not accurately reflect their usefulness or value on the table.

The simple fact is:

You HAVE no argument. The simple fact is that you want tyrranids, as a codex, to be as grossly OP as eldar.

This is a patent ad hominem.

"You want to change Tyranids for the better; therefore, YOU WANT TO OOZE CHEESE ALL OVER THE GAME AND POWER GAME!"

That's not a legitimate argument.

You HAVE no arguement.

If you didn't want unfair advantages, and you legitimately thought that IB was a horribly written and unfair drawback, then you would be perfectly willing to drop synapse, drop IB and re-adjust LD and points accordingly.

That would be perfectly fair, and even you would have to admit that.

You wouldn't like it, of course, because you'd lose out on the advantages. But it would be fair.

This would be what is called a false equivalency. IB is not equivalent to Synapse. And asking the question of "Is a poor leadership a big enough drawback on it's own?" does not mean the only way to balance the removal of IB is to gut the one army wide rule that gives the army a unique flavor. You continue to be ignorant of the subject matter.

Ok I'll give the wheel a spin. It has been a while since my bugs have hit the table, but I know them quite well.

A simple thought pattern on how IB is described to be. There are a few archetypes of tyranid psyche. The Feeders, Hunters, and Lurkers. Feeders, when not directly controlled by the hivemind via Synapse, tend to function like what we today see in pack based predatory mammals. So using strength/speed to bring down prey. Hunters are more akin to early humans. Ambushing prey using the tools at hand (In hand? Around hand? hmm..) but staying out of reach because they arent as tough, or their ranged attack tools are better than their teeth/claws. Lurkers are the extremist ambush predators, like mantids or stonefish. Staying hidden until prey is right under their feeder tendrils. So how to translate these things mechanically? Well, not with a die roll with a 50% chance of the unit committing suicide. Literally no other army loses control of their units actions just because. The only close one is Orks, who got their idiotic mob rule table, but that only comes into effect when called to take morale/pinning tests.

A few things to consider, before busting out the ol' sharpie and changing things. Units with IB have an average leadership of 6. And for those of you out of the know, there is ~ 41% chance of rolling a 6 or less on 2d6. Synapse creatures all have Ld10. Those not effected are either 10 (Genestealers) or 8 (Spore Pod.. er... Tyrranocyte). So we go from there.

FEED: This one is simple. Make it akin to how WE function post-istvaan in HH. Move toward the closest thing they can hurt in CC. Charge if possible. If impossible, then must run closer.

HUNT: A bit tricky, but not impossible. Fire at the closest unit that can be harmed by their most numerous range weapon, strongest if tied. If nothing is in range, Unit moves toward closest cover.

LURK: Trickier yet, but still not impossible. Move toward closest cover, and must remain. If an enemy unit ends its movement within 3", and can be harmed the the Lurking unit, At the end of the "declare charge" step of the opponent's assault phase, the lurking unit must charge that unit.

---

First darts thrown at board. Nothing absolutely hamstringing. No Hormagaunts committing seppuku mid battle because the are 12.1" away from the warrior unit. No Gargoyles jamming their heads in the sand. No Termagants running off the board because they thought they saw a cookie. So having looked at IB, we next gaze at synapse. This is meant to be the collective conscious of an intergalactic superpredator. We have no analogue to really use on M3 Terra, so we go with Imagination! So this next part WILL have personal bias.


Synapse should provide a benefit. A clear benefit. I'm going to draw a bit of inspiration from Chaos Daemons for this. Reasoning for this is that the two armies are very similar in overall style. Both are, as a whole, horde based foot-slogging infantry supported by powerful Monstrous Creatures and Heralds, whom provide benefits for them, Daemons with their powerful psychic phase and Loci, and Tyranids with their New Synapse 5000.

So, as a general rule, Synapse gains the same buffs that Daemonic Instability grants; immunity to morale, pinning, and fear to any unit with Instictive Behavior that has at least 1 model within Synapse. Heres where we get funky. To encourage you to not just keep them at the end of the leash, but to have them close in, When a unit wtih IB is entirely within a synapse creature's range, it gains MORE STUFF! YEAH IT'S LIKE GLADIUS!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!! Oh wait, nids have no DT...soo... plan B?

Option A: A blanket rule. Boring, but less book-keeping. 6+ FNP and 4e style Catalyst seems effective. For the newer folks, the power Catalyst used to, IIRC, allow the recipient of the blessing, to make its close combat attacks even if it had been slain at a higher initiative step.
Option B: Make Synapse Great Again! All the rules, but too many calories. Each synapse creature gives its own special flavor of "fully Synapsed". Bonuses such as +1 WS or BS, charge after running, Hit & Run, Adamantium Will.

---

Now for the malcontent.

"Do you think that GW factored IB into the points costs of tyrranids units? If they did, do you think they counted it as a benefit or a drawback?" No. GW has stated multiple times that it assigns point values based on the "how cool the model looks". No joke. It's how they did things for a long time. Example:

Tyranid Termagant (a major sticking point from what I've seen, a terror to behold). Costs 4 points per model. Minimum squad size 10, max 30. statline of 33331416 6+. Has a single weapon, Fleshborer, (12" range, S4 Ap5). Has two special rules, Move Through Cover, which helps it keep a higher pace through terrain(In the BRB) and Instinctive Behavior - Lurk which is entirely a huge detriment if outside of synapse in all outcomes.(Tyranids Codex pg. 33) Has access to 4 other weapons. 2 being free, but trade stopping power for accuracy or range. Once costing as much as the model itself, but tripling its rate of fire, and the 4th being a joke of a weapon that no-one has ever used. ever. seriously this thing wounds grots on 4's. AND COST 5 POINTS WHAT IN THE WORLD I DONT EVEN

Space Marine Tactical Marine. Costs 14 points per mode. min size 5, max size 10. statline of 44441418 3+. Has 4 weapons, Boltgun, (24" S4 AP5 rapid fire) Bolt Pistol (12" S4 ap5 pistol) Frag Grenade (8" s3 AP - assault 1 small blast, in shooting, in assault the model ignores initiative penalty for charging through cover), Krak Grenades (8" S6 ap4 shooting, or s6 ap4 single attack in melee). Has at least 3 Special Rules, ATSKNF, which is largely reguarded as the single most powerful USR in the game, and is exclusive to Imperial Astartes(BRB), Combat squads, another fantastic rule which lets them effectively double their objective capturing ability, and between 2 and 4 additional rules depending on which chapter tactic is chosen, most of which are extrememly powerful. A single model has access to 4 different 'Special Weapons' each which allows the bearer to fill a new combat role, and all are extremely potent in their given field. A single model may instead take one of 6 heavy weapons, which add even more powerful ranged options to the unit, and, once again, most are extremely powerful or offer great tactical flexibility to the bearer. If the unit has 10 models, two different models may select a heavy and a special respectively. Unit also comes with a Character Leader, who has access to numerous powerful ranged, melee, and force multiplier options, and may even be upgraded to have even higher stats.

So, the space marine has a total stat improvement of 7 (9 If a Veteran Sergeant), 3 more base weapons, 21 more weapon options (sergeant options included in this number) and ONLY costs 10 more points?!? SERIOUSLY?!? WHO WROTE THIS GAME!?!

I appreciate Starhunter25

Excellent post Starhunter, particularly in comparing the Termagant and Tactical Marine.

Your suggested IB change is clearly a huge improvement over the crap we currently have, but I'm still not sure I like it. Though the army no longer falls to bits outside of Synapse, you still loose complete control over it with all actions pre-prescribed by IB. I've had several games in the past where I've lost all of my Synapse early on, in those case sthe rest of the amry just crumbled quickly but with this new IB I would still not really be playing the army as no thought would be involved in any of the actions, with all models either moving towards and trying to shoot/charge the nearest enemy unit or moving towards the nearest cover. There is no fun to be had in that.

I agree that IB should make units less effective when outside of Synapse but loosing all control of those units is not a good idea IMO.

While that post is overall true, people really need to stop talking about Combat Squads as though it were a real bonus. It is quite frankly a useless rule due to how Tactical Marines operate.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While that post is overall true, people really need to stop talking about Combat Squads as though it were a real bonus. It is quite frankly a useless rule due to how Tactical Marines operate.

The huge part of the bonus is Vehicles, now you can have two units in 1 vehicle. Drop pods already being strong makes this even more so. Look at Skyhammer formation for a example 2 Drops pods 4 units coming out, 2 units with bolters to shoot at light armors and Plasma/Melta to shoot at something more threatening.

 Imateria wrote:
I agree that IB should make units less effective when outside of Synapse but loosing all control of those units is not a good idea IMO.

Agreed. If the design space is to get the player to use models in a certain way outside of the "Assuming Total Control" of Synapse, there should be a "reward" of some kind for doing so. This can be an active deficit such as "Lurkers in open Terrain are considered to have 5/6 Ld" or an active benefit such as "Lurkers in Difficult Terrain have +3/+4 Ld". The deficit/benefit doesn't have to be specifically that, but that is the general idea.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While that post is overall true, people really need to stop talking about Combat Squads as though it were a real bonus. It is quite frankly a useless rule due to how Tactical Marines operate.

The huge part of the bonus is Vehicles, now you can have two units in 1 vehicle. Drop pods already being strong makes this even more so. Look at Skyhammer formation for a example 2 Drops pods 4 units coming out, 2 units with bolters to shoot at light armors and Plasma/Melta to shoot at something more threatening.

It is a gimmicky rule that I see get two uses:
1. the already absurdly strong Skyhammer, where people sometimes do the minimum anyway so it doesn't matter if there's access or not to the rule.
2. Carcharodon Tactical Marines where half have a Bolter switched for the melee weapon and Melta and Combi-Melta, and the other half is Bolters and Grav Cannon.

The rule could disappear and almost nobody would notice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While that post is overall true, people really need to stop talking about Combat Squads as though it were a real bonus. It is quite frankly a useless rule due to how Tactical Marines operate.

The huge part of the bonus is Vehicles, now you can have two units in 1 vehicle. Drop pods already being strong makes this even more so. Look at Skyhammer formation for a example 2 Drops pods 4 units coming out, 2 units with bolters to shoot at light armors and Plasma/Melta to shoot at something more threatening.

It is a gimmicky rule that I see get two uses:
1. the already absurdly strong Skyhammer, where people sometimes do the minimum anyway so it doesn't matter if there's access or not to the rule.
2. Carcharodon Tactical Marines where half have a Bolter switched for the melee weapon and Melta and Combi-Melta, and the other half is Bolters and Grav Cannon.

The rule could disappear and almost nobody would notice.

For basic marines maybe, but DA/BA still uses it, and I know many players that still uses it in SM's too, b.c some players wont miss it doesnt mean all wont. Could there is a better way to make rules for SM to fit more fluffy? sure but just o take it away is pointless, it has its good uses currently.

So just to bring this back to topic and to make sure we have the general consensus correct.

We generally agree that synapse should provide a bonus to encourage being in it. 6+ FNP is really minor but helps and maybe EW for synapse units themselves or some other benefit.

Either fearless as some want or stubborn ld 10 (using the synapse creatures leadership) for all units within synapse.


Meanwhile, Instinctive Behaviour needs to stop removing control of the army from the player. Instead, small effects that encourage IB are better. A generally low LD (6 on all the horde units maybe a 7 on the bigger bugs) with a +1 to Ld when acting according to IB or something with similar effect.

Yeah? This makes tyranids functional, opens up tactics and options on the table, and doesn't make them crazy powerful?

Having synapse around for your units is not a problem at all though. The real problem is units that don't have synapse tend to suck a little.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Having synapse around for your units is not a problem at all though. The real problem is units that don't have synapse tend to suck a little.

I don't agree with that. I don't mind the general power level for the points of gaunts and gants. In hordes they get jobs done. They could use some tweaks. Mostly in terms of how certain weapon options work and what weapon options are available. But generally speaking the horde does it's thing while they maintain numbers.

The real problem is they are non functioning without Synapse. So you cannot take jump infantry and run them off to grab an objective. You cannot deep strike the deep strike units. Drop pods are only functional for synapse units because you loose control of the other units the turn after they deep strike.

Having synapse around for your units is only not a problem when you double/tripple up on synapse and move your entire army as one large blob. It bottle necks your tactics and forces you into a single question: Do you have synapse? Yes. Stay in Synapse. No? Get in synapse. Can't get in synapse? Die. There is no point in giving nids options like drop pods, deep strike, faster moving beast/jump units if they are tethered to another synapse unit to function.

Well, kind of following up on before, if the bugs ever got a book the likes of a Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines, it wouldn't look to different from a fan dex at a certain trolly site. I know suggesting anything from 1d4 is normally a serious discredit, but cut out some of the bloat and this could be a solid army.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Codex_-_Tyranids:_/tg/_edition

Ive looked over their stuff. It's ok. Not great. Has some ideas i just don't agree with or i think are overly complicated ways to deal with the problems of the dex. There are more elegant solutions.

I don't agree with that. I don't mind the general power level for the points of gaunts and gants. In hordes they get jobs done. They could use some tweaks. Mostly in terms of how certain weapon options work and what weapon options are available. But generally speaking the horde does it's thing while they maintain numbers.

The real problem is they are non functioning without Synapse. So you cannot take jump infantry and run them off to grab an objective. You cannot deep strike the deep strike units. Drop pods are only functional for synapse units because you loose control of the other units the turn after they deep strike.

Having synapse around for your units is only not a problem when you double/tripple up on synapse and move your entire army as one large blob. It bottle necks your tactics and forces you into a single question: Do you have synapse? Yes. Stay in Synapse. No? Get in synapse. Can't get in synapse? Die. There is no point in giving nids options like drop pods, deep strike, faster moving beast/jump units if they are tethered to another synapse unit to function.

QFT 100%. Well said.

 Ratius wrote:

I don't agree with that. I don't mind the general power level for the points of gaunts and gants. In hordes they get jobs done. They could use some tweaks. Mostly in terms of how certain weapon options work and what weapon options are available. But generally speaking the horde does it's thing while they maintain numbers.

The real problem is they are non functioning without Synapse. So you cannot take jump infantry and run them off to grab an objective. You cannot deep strike the deep strike units. Drop pods are only functional for synapse units because you loose control of the other units the turn after they deep strike.

Having synapse around for your units is only not a problem when you double/tripple up on synapse and move your entire army as one large blob. It bottle necks your tactics and forces you into a single question: Do you have synapse? Yes. Stay in Synapse. No? Get in synapse. Can't get in synapse? Die. There is no point in giving nids options like drop pods, deep strike, faster moving beast/jump units if they are tethered to another synapse unit to function.

QFT 100%. Well said.

If it isn't too off-topic, how would everyone feel about making warriors a sergeant/commissar equivalent for some units? Termagants and warriors sort of make sense together. You could make a "faster" warrior as an upgrade for hormagaunt squads. A shrike could lead a wing of gargoyles. That sort of thing. It seems fluffy to me for the hive mind to spread warriors out among the little bugs where they're harder to single out and can expand its net of synapse. Mechanically, I don't feel this would make little bug squads OP. Heck, I could even see it being really fun to snipe warriors out of over-extended gribbly squads, making them go from fearless to leadership 5(?) as you turn the tide of battle.

So 'nids can take a wider variety of units without having to spam dedicated synapse units, and their opponents can actually feel like they're targeting synapse creatures in ways that matter with barrage/snipers/challenges.

Ive been reading through previous editions of tyranids over the last couple days. 3rd Ed had a rule that allowed Termagants and Hormagaunts to pay 10 points to upgrade 1 model (which had to be modeled to show it) to have a ld 10. It was called Hive Node.

I don't dislike the idea of mixing in warriors except that it kind of mixes them in with everyone and means there would be little to no reason to ever take a unit of them on their own.

Hive Node on the other hand gives them a chance to bolster their ld.

I don't really want more options to spread the synapse web. We have lots of those already. I want ways to function without it.

 Lance845 wrote:
Ive been reading through previous editions of tyranids over the last couple days. 3rd Ed had a rule that allowed Termagants and Hormagaunts to pay 10 points to upgrade 1 model (which had to be modeled to show it) to have a ld 10. It was called Hive Node.

I don't dislike the idea of mixing in warriors except that it kind of mixes them in with everyone and means there would be little to no reason to ever take a unit of them on their own.

Hive Node on the other hand gives them a chance to bolster their ld.

I don't really want more options to spread the synapse web. We have lots of those already. I want ways to function without it.

You do, you can either use genestealers or nothing but synapse stuff. If you remove the need to have a synapse web you ruin not only a fluffy rule but make most units that were there to spread the web redundant.

 mew28 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Ive been reading through previous editions of tyranids over the last couple days. 3rd Ed had a rule that allowed Termagants and Hormagaunts to pay 10 points to upgrade 1 model (which had to be modeled to show it) to have a ld 10. It was called Hive Node.

I don't dislike the idea of mixing in warriors except that it kind of mixes them in with everyone and means there would be little to no reason to ever take a unit of them on their own.

Hive Node on the other hand gives them a chance to bolster their ld.

I don't really want more options to spread the synapse web. We have lots of those already. I want ways to function without it.

You do, you can either use genestealers or nothing but synapse stuff. If you remove the need to have a synapse web you ruin not only a fluffy rule but make most units that were there to spread the web redundant.

To be fair, genestealers from the Tyranid codex are pretty crummy due to their high cost and low survivability. But I agree that going completely without synapse isn't really the direction I want to see 'nids go. Synapse is a big part of their identity. Some options to be punished less for leaving synapse (like the synapse node or old one eye) would be cool, but going completely without synapse seems like it should be the purview of specific units or builds.

To be clear, I don't want to be able to go completely without synapse. Having everything with a Ld6 is why you cannot go completely without synapse. An army made entirely of units with Ld 6 will be run off the board by turn 3 no matter what you do.

What I meant by "I want ways to function without it" is I want to be able to take a unit and put it on an objective and not have to pass a ld 6 test or risk that unit eating itself.

 Lance845 wrote:
To be clear, I don't want to be able to go completely without synapse. Having everything with a Ld6 is why you cannot go completely without synapse. An army made entirely of units with Ld 6 will be run off the board by turn 3 no matter what you do.

What I meant by "I want ways to function without it" is I want to be able to take a unit and put it on an objective and not have to pass a ld 6 test or risk that unit eating itself.

Do you think using IB as a "reward" mechanic for behavior, and not a requirement of behavior, would assist in that concept?

The two biggest problems I have with IB is you have to do a Ld test for every unit outside of Synapse. That was the 5th Edition addition. Then the current one added a second roll to it, often with less effective results in most cases. If all a Tyranid's players Synapse has been destroyed by a well-placed opponent leaving a whole bunch of IB units on the field, it slows the game down. Now, that is not a 100% guarantee to happen all the time, but the capacity of having such a slow down should be marked as a deficit. It also tends to tweak my anti-"Keep it Complicated Cusser" senses when I see something like this. If it was a one-off, it would be manageable, but not when it can be the whole army that falls under this mess.

This may be better on the other Tyranid post, but what if in the Tyranid system, the majority of Synapse units tended to be otherwise lack luster in combat performance rather than the gods of the battlefield? But that is mostly directed at the Flyrant and Trygon Prime, and to a lesser degree Warriors/Shrikes. The average Synapse Creature should be closer to Zoanthropes and Tervigons and leave the really heavy lifting to the IB units. This would go back to something else you mentioned elsewhere, Lance, keeping unit concept cohesive and consistent. Sure, there would be one-offs like Swarmlord (or a new Unique Flyrant), but such a unit should not be the default go-to for this concept.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
To be clear, I don't want to be able to go completely without synapse. Having everything with a Ld6 is why you cannot go completely without synapse. An army made entirely of units with Ld 6 will be run off the board by turn 3 no matter what you do.

What I meant by "I want ways to function without it" is I want to be able to take a unit and put it on an objective and not have to pass a ld 6 test or risk that unit eating itself.

Do you think using IB as a "reward" mechanic for behavior, and not a requirement of behavior, would assist in that concept?

The two biggest problems I have with IB is you have to do a Ld test for every unit outside of Synapse. That was the 5th Edition addition. Then the current one added a second roll to it, often with less effective results in most cases. If all a Tyranid's players Synapse has been destroyed by a well-placed opponent leaving a whole bunch of IB units on the field, it slows the game down. Now, that is not a 100% guarantee to happen all the time, but the capacity of having such a slow down should be marked as a deficit. It also tends to tweak my anti-"Keep it Complicated Cusser" senses when I see something like this. If it was a one-off, it would be manageable, but not when it can be the whole army that falls under this mess.

This may be better on the other Tyranid post, but what if in the Tyranid system, the majority of Synapse units tended to be otherwise lack luster in combat performance rather than the gods of the battlefield? But that is mostly directed at the Flyrant and Trygon Prime, and to a lesser degree Warriors/Shrikes. The average Synapse Creature should be closer to Zoanthropes and Tervigons and leave the really heavy lifting to the IB units. This would go back to something else you mentioned elsewhere, Lance, keeping unit concept cohesive and consistent. Sure, there would be one-offs like Swarmlord (or a new Unique Flyrant), but such a unit should not be the default go-to for this concept.

I think that IB should not be a punishment. I don't particularly care if it rewards or is removed. But I do want it to stop being a shackle. Synapse is a reward mechanic. It shouldn't be a necessary one, just one you WANT to maintain. Not one you NEED to maintain to function at all.

I disagree with your second assessment. No other army needs to field half their army as none effective in combat units. It's a game about combat and every unit should fill a combat role.

After going through some of the post here, I feel like this could be a possible solution.

When in synapse range, IB units MUST use the synapse creatures leadership, but also gain stubborn.

IB leadership is capped at 6-7, and most synapse creatures get a slight direct combat nerf. IB roll chart itself is removed.

However when in range of a synapse creature, IB units gain special rules depending on the type of synapse creature.
Synapse creatures don't bestow rules upon other synapse creatures, and an IB unit may only have one special rule active (player's choice).

For example:

Zoanthrope-Psychic Reserves: For every IB unit within synapse of a unit of zoanthropes, an additional warp charge is generated.

Warriors-Instinctive resilience: all IB units within synapse gain a 6+ FNP. If a Warrior Alpha is taken it is automatically upgraded to a 5+

Swarmlord- Synaptic Fury, all IB units within synapse gain +1 attack. The swarmlord also gets +1 attack for each of the IB units within synapse.

Hive Tyrants (and possibly other HQ's as well) would get to choose from a few different options (for free) to be tailored towards the army's strength

 Lance845 wrote:
I think that IB should not be a punishment. I don't particularly care if it rewards or is removed. But I do want it to stop being a shackle. Synapse is a reward mechanic. It shouldn't be a necessary one, just one you WANT to maintain. Not one you NEED to maintain to function at all.

Yeah, I can see that. That's why I am not a fan of the requirement system, personally. The game should not be on automatic for a portion of your army. We got rid of it for Khorne Berzerkers and Black Templars years ago, it should no longer be maintained for Tyranids as well.

Now, for those who may think otherwise, rewarding certain behaviors is NOT putting it on automatic like some of the current IB system has or what has been presented as "must Run or Charge" or "must shoot" is. Reward systems allow for the player to choose and take risks when not following the reward. The risk may pan out, or it may not, but you still can take the risk.

 Lance845 wrote:
I disagree with your second assessment. No other army needs to field half their army as none effective in combat units. It's a game about combat and every unit should fill a combat role.

It doesn't have to be a literal 50% of an army. But when I see people talk about their army build being all about what the Flyrant can do, and everything else in the army is either to support that Flyrant by giving the enemy something to shoot or only because it looks cool.

But also, from a design stand point, I am more addressing the fact that non-Synapse Creatures need to be doing more for the army over all. This goes back to what you said about having more cohesive and consistent unit design. No one single unit should be a "do everything" in any army, and much less so in Tyranids. In Tyranids, the Broods should be ultra-focused on things. Synapse creatures should be the only hybrids we see in the game. In terms of combat representation, they should not be your first pick to kill things, but that doesn't mean they have to be Grots, either.

In other words, if you want a heavy shooter, a Tyrant should not be first choice, but a Tyrannofex, Biovore, or Termagant Brood should be chosen first (depending on the desired type of shooting). If you want a beat-stick, Carnifex, Haruspex, or Hormagaunt Broods would be the first go to instead of a Trygon Prime or a Flyrant, again, depending on the type of beating you are looking to have happen.

But a lot of that is more focused on the book as a whole, and not specific to the IB/Synapse paradigm we are discussing here, save that each of these hyper-focused units should be able to properly function in their IB modes.

I actually like the concept of certain units having to move in a certain direction. Carcharodons have to after wiping out a unit in melee and I don't care.

That's mostly just me though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually like the concept of certain units having to move in a certain direction. Carcharodons have to after wiping out a unit in melee and I don't care.

That's mostly just me though.

Having to do that for consolidation is one thing and perfectly fine, but having that in all 3 phases is terrible.

I wanted to give my own thoughts on Synapse and IB as a long time, twelve year, player of Tyranids and having seen them fall so far.

I like the idea of moving away from Fearless and into something a little more fluffy, I like the idea of a ATSKNF type ability that allows smaller bugs to throw themselves away while at the same time allowing them to be used in more strategic ways. I want to see something where synapse is a very real and very powerful buff that makes killing synapse creatures is a MAJOR priority rather than just an easy way to cripple the army. That is how I feel like this entire conversation to be framed, is synapse currently something that is so scary that it demands your opponents attention or is it just fundamentally what your army needs to even function?

My idea is that synapse becomes a table wide ability that is modified by the number of synapse units you have on the board, a lot like psychic powers. So keep your bugs at lower leadership but for every synapse creature you give them +1 leadership to a max of 10. This means that a typical army would need 4 synapse creatures to bring gaunts up to LD 10 and I don't think this is unreasonable. On top of that, while a synapse creature is alive give them a new rule called something like, "Will of the Hivemind" that gives them stubborn, lets them fallback from combat, or lets them ignore LD in melee (AKA throwing themselves into the grinder.)

I also think it is a great idea that each synapse creature gives its own special buff depending on distance, functioning much the same as current synapse does. Let a Prime give a bonus to WS/BS of all units in range of it, let Tyrants give you hatred or preferred enemy, let Tervigons give FNP, etc. Tie it to a range so that you have to still move as a swarm to get these bonuses. Let me preemptively suggest to people who think this is OP, consider how currently psykers and many other ICs are able to do these same things. I just think that Tyranids should work by layering multiple buffs to make them truly dangerous considering how fragile they are I think the goal should be to make them powerful at full strength but rapidly lose that power as they lose their synapse web.

Also, lest we forget the other Tyranid special rule...Shadow in the Warp. My idea is obviously overpowered as hell but it is the direction I think the army should move towards. Subtract a power dice for each Synapse creature alive. I know that it would be insanely powerful and that I freely admit, it is a flawed concept but it is a direction to take this. I feel like Synapse and Shadow in the Warp should be tied as global effects based on how many synapse units you have on the table.

Lastly, IB. I think that IB would be fine if it was just a flat sort of programing for your bugs rather than a random table. I think most of us are on the same page with having feeders running forward, lurkers taking cover, and hunters shooting at things. All very simple restrictions that remove the tactical element of Tyranids as a representation of their, well, tactics being removed.

I don't mind the idea that different models provide different benefits as a concept. But when i think about how it would play out on the table things get very complicated very quickly.

Primarily, different synapse creatures will inevitably have better or worse effects for different units. Some Synapse effects will be better for melee. Some would be better for shooting. etc etc.

Which means it helps pigeon whole your list building. To get your best bang for your buck you need these synapse creatures with these troops. Generalized lists will move farther and farther away. Something that is already happening with formations and decurions but now doubled up by the way this synapse functions.

If the preferable synapse benefit is also restricted to certain FoC slots you now also have a problem of certain slots becoming even more "overcrowded" then they are now. For instance, Elites have zoanthropes and venomthropes, and Malanthropes, and many other units all jammed into 3 slots. If the Zoanthropes benefit is "best" then you will want to spread that synapse web far and wide. Which means all 3 elite slots would be consumed by zoanthropes and the other units will have to take a back seat, including the already very usfull venomthrope.

My worry is both the complication that it adds and the inherent damaging effect it could have on unit selection. I think it's easier and more beneficial in the big picture to have 1 pretty good effect for synapse.

There are ways around such concerns as well, of course, such as borrowing the "Dedicated Transport" mechanic for certain support Broods, as suggested in my "Crazy Bug Idea" thread a while back.