Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

14 flyrants in top 4 now.

Want to bet on the chances that the final is 7 flyrants vs 7 flyrants?

Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I agree with wings taking up a weapon slot and giving them a Scytal-like weapon profile.

If you have to choose between more weapon options or locking one of your weapons and mobility it becomes a real choice.

I'd hate to rip arms off my flyrants. Just a point cost increase to represent how god a heavy tank with 9" deploy from reserves is

Not wanting to have to change models to represent WYSIWYG, which is not a rule in the rule book, is a crap reason to fight against the better fix. Trading modularity for speed is a fair trade and arguably what Flyrants should have always been.

Arson Fire wrote:

Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids... as far as the eye can see...

Looks like everyone is recycling elements of their 7th edition list. Besides having the models available, I'm guessing the idea is to "null deploy" using the bombs as the on-table presence (since they never give up points) and rely on the ability to drop everything else in on the enemy as a means to mitigate the infamous alpha strike. List #4 is fairly interesting, with the Jormungandr Warriors being dropped via Raveners. Also neat to see a bit of GSC presence in some of the lists, albeit mostly in the form of Magi.

As an aside, I find it interesting to see such heavy use of Leviathan rather than Kraken. It makes sense given most of the army is comprised of synapse creatures, but given how popular Kraken is otherwise (and how useful it is for flying models) it is somewhat surprising to see it not make the cut.

Arson Fire wrote:
Just re-posting the link to the lists here for ease of access.
https://spikeybits.com/2018/03/40k-adepticon-championship-top-16-lists-revealed.html

Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids... as far as the eye can see...

Thanks! I'm glad to see the Bugs doing well. But too many Supreme commands full of Tyrants....though one list had a AM super heavy as Brood Brothers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strat_N8 wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids... as far as the eye can see...

Looks like everyone is recycling elements of their 7th edition list. Besides having the models available, I'm guessing the idea is to "null deploy" using the bombs as the on-table presence (since they never give up points) and rely on the ability to drop everything else in on the enemy as a means to mitigate the infamous alpha strike. List #4 is fairly interesting, with the Jormungandr Warriors being dropped via Raveners. Also neat to see a bit of GSC presence in some of the lists, albeit mostly in the form of Magi.

As an aside, I find it interesting to see such heavy use of Leviathan rather than Kraken. It makes sense given most of the army is comprised of synapse creatures, but given how popular Kraken is otherwise (and how useful it is for flying models) it is somewhat surprising to see it not make the cut.

Yeah, I'm guessing everybody wanted to go "counter-meta". Krakon has been doing so well, that folks are ready for it. Leviathan is the "go to" for Warriors, and Tyrants...I saw one dude ran a Malecepter...as his Warlord! More variation than you usually see in a big Tourney.

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

No they don't. They only show extreme exploitive power combos. They never show whats wrong with a unit that needs to be bought up.

In what capacity did any nid player in a tourney show what was wrong with the nid dex in 7th? If Tourny players were the go to for information Flyrants and mucolids would have just gotten nerfed.

Missions and terrain are a huge factor, as well.

In ITC first floor of buildings is BLOS, in Adepticon terrain is very limited.

ITC has missions that favor fast moving armies that hit hard. Book missions favor hard to shift hordes.

There's a reason why armies like Orkz do well in some tournament formats and abysmally in others.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

No they don't. They only show extreme exploitive power combos. They never show whats wrong with a unit that needs to be bought up.

In what capacity did any nid player in a tourney show what was wrong with the nid dex in 7th? If Tourny players were the go to for information Flyrants and mucolids would have just gotten nerfed.

"Extreme exploited" so....... the flaws?

I'd rather have a Tau Commander nerf than a heavy points or limiting options one (while fearing a combo)

I admit this is selfish as I own two and am happy there. I like varied builds anyway.

Im with you there. Id also like to see a limiter rather then a drastic overhaul as I own 2 Hive Tyrants as well.

Also I generally don't like spam lists.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

if GW is unable to make balanced rules/codex is not players fault, if they give you a ferrari to drive, why you should use a bycicle?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

No they don't. They only show extreme exploitive power combos. They never show whats wrong with a unit that needs to be bought up.

In what capacity did any nid player in a tourney show what was wrong with the nid dex in 7th? If Tourny players were the go to for information Flyrants and mucolids would have just gotten nerfed.

"Extreme exploited" so....... the flaws?

A flaw. Only one. Ever.

Will a tourney show whats wrong with lictors or deathleaper or the pheromone trail stratagem? How about Crisis suits? Rail guns on a hammerhead? Flayed Ones? No. Because none of those things will ever be in a tournament.

For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I agree a points bump for MRC would probably fix it. Maybe a points bump on wings, but the problem with wings has more to do with how bad a walkrant is. A better approach to wings would be to fix the walkrant (Tough 8 or 4 extra wounds or 2+ BS or something). Making a flyrant as points inefficient as a walkrant isn't the answer.

Also, my favorite list in the top 16 was Juice's. I generally find the tone of the long war podcast and batreps to be a little annoying, but the list is less spammy than the others, and the sort of list I would feel proud running. Here is a batrep featuring it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWgBVnMCdMo

Tag’s got the right idea. Adepticon wasn’t about how bonkers broken Flyrant spam is (although it is good) - it was more about the missions. Tyranids weren’t bringing flyrants to not bring Genestealers because they wanted to bring the opposite of what players expected. They did it because the missions dictated that mass obsec would be a great list, so Tyranids said “hey lets bring un-Alpha-able anti-infantry weapons!”

And making the Flyrant as unviable as the walkrant is also not the answer. The real issue for the walkrant is he just isn’t durable enough for his points and he isn’t going anywhere. Mobility is king. Deep striking helps a lot with that too.

Tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAQ features nothing about flyrants. They haven’t been dominating the European scene for that long and it’s not like GW Is looking at Adepticon and saying “ok any last minute tweaks before we send this thing to the presses?”

Walkrants are not unviable. They have all the same durability as a flyrant but with no deepstrike and a lower movement. Yes, alpha strikes can be a problem, but they can bring tyrant guard to support them in a way flyrants can't (because they will outpace them).

Tyrants of all varieties (including Swarmlord) could use a few extra wounds at best.

Swarmlord needs a price drop and a real passive aura buff.

 Lance845 wrote:
Walkrants are not unviable. They have all the same durability as a flyrant but with no deepstrike and a lower movement. Yes, alpha strikes can be a problem, but they can bring tyrant guard to support them in a way flyrants can't (because they will outpace them).

Tyrants of all varieties (including Swarmlord) could use a few extra wounds at best.

Swarmlord needs a price drop and a real passive aura buff.

Surviability and alpha strike IS the problem. Beeing on the table turn 1 drops tyrants survivability significant.
What is an backfield Tyrant doing for you a Neurothrope, Malanthrope or Tyranid Prime cant do?
With guard beeing at +111 points, making it a lot more expensive too. If tyrant guard would work like Tau shield drones, eating much more fire it would be worth it, but actually my opponents just focus the guards first and then the Tyrant because of the lower toughness and no invuln (3x lascan/rockets can be enough to kil them), or ignore him at all.
The cc threat of a tyrant + guards is okish, but for around 300 points I would use other units, like genestealers, warriors, more shooty guys or flyrants [edit]

 DaBraken wrote:

What is an backfield Tyrant doing for you a Neurothrope, Malanthrope or Tyranid Prime cant do?

The Tyrant can bring a credible long(ish) ranged firepower to the artillery party. Neither of the 'thropes can really contribute offensively while sitting in the backfield and the Prime caps out at 3 S5 shots for shooting. The Tyrant can throw a few S9 shots or a mixture of S7 shots from 24-36'' away, which meshes perfectly with Exocrines and Hive Guard range-bands.

So far I haven't actually lost a walking Tyrant as part of an artillery battery. Their 4++ has made them a rather unappealing first target when all of the surrounding creatures have no such defense (tend to run him with a battery of Exocrines and HVC 'fexes).

 Strat_N8 wrote:
The Tyrant can bring a credible long(ish) ranged firepower to the artillery party. Neither of the 'thropes can really contribute offensively while sitting in the backfield and the Prime caps out at 3 S5 shots for shooting. The Tyrant can throw a few S9 shots or a mixture of S7 shots from 24-36'' away, which meshes perfectly with Exocrines and Hive Guard range-bands.

I prefer more Hiveguard and one Neurothrope over the tyrant on foot. 214 Points for untargetable synapse and 6 s8 shots ap-2 d3 damage vs 180-190 points shooting d3 s9 shots ap-2 3 damage. If you kit the tyrant shooty, then he sucks in close combat, and you should stay out of it. If you give him a cc weapon, his shooting is mediocre.

So far I haven't actually lost a walking Tyrant as part of an artillery battery. Their 4++ has made them a rather unappealing first target when all of the surrounding creatures have no such defense (tend to run him with a battery of Exocrines and HVC 'fexes).

I have lost some indeed. But only if my synapse coverage could get disturbed by doing this, giving me targeting issues. Else my opponents dont care about him most of the time, killing everything what threats the mission goals, like objectives or serious damage to key units. If he looks like beeing a problem, he is dealt with fast.
My local meta is very adaptive and tactical failures with synaptic coverage or poor placement are punished hard immediately.

 luke1705 wrote:
Tag’s got the right idea. Adepticon wasn’t about how bonkers broken Flyrant spam is (although it is good) - it was more about the missions. Tyranids weren’t bringing flyrants to not bring Genestealers because they wanted to bring the opposite of what players expected. They did it because the missions dictated that mass obsec would be a great list, so Tyranids said “hey lets bring un-Alpha-able anti-infantry weapons!”

And making the Flyrant as unviable as the walkrant is also not the answer. The real issue for the walkrant is he just isn’t durable enough for his points and he isn’t going anywhere. Mobility is king. Deep striking helps a lot with that too.

Tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAQ features nothing about flyrants. They haven’t been dominating the European scene for that long and it’s not like GW Is looking at Adepticon and saying “ok any last minute tweaks before we send this thing to the presses?”

Are you sure? they won one of the UK's largest events back in Jan, literally the same list as what has just won Adepticon,done pretty well at some events before that and at the last few events after that they have done quite well as well, coming second in Englands ETC event last weekend.

Someone raised - here or in the Chaos thread? - that horde armies do well in tourneys by camping on Objectives for three turns? That strikes me as a really good point - armies that depend on firing a really big gun for five turns lose nearly half their firepower when a horde clogs up the sequence of play

tag8833 wrote:
For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I did not keep up with news and missed most of the adepticon coverage and build up. What in particular in the mission pack favored flyrants and mucolids, aside from the obvious trash deploy with mucolids/deep strike flyrants strategy?

I don't think we are going to see a major change to Flyrants, unless there is a 40k wide Tau style HQ limit. I think a cost increase for MCR is reasonable, but would be somewhat surprised if GW was willing to make adjustments based on a single strong showing.

Change of subject.

I ran my Behemoth/Kronos list a local last weekend, took first, which was nice. Had about 10 players, something like half of them brought solid armies. Format was ITC, with decent terrain on about half the tables.

My list: (Behemoth) Swarmlord, Neurothrope, pod, 2x Trygon w/AG, 19x 'stealers, 30x devilgaunts, 17x normal 'gaunts. (Kronos) 2x Neurothrope, 3x Ripper x 3, 4x Impaler Hive Guard , 4x Impaler Hive Guard.

First game was against Blood Angels. He had a fairly standard list, with a big Sang. Guard unit and a big Death Company unit, plus some scouts and Interceptors, and the normal pile of characters. No vehicles. It looked like an even game, with us trading dropping in alpha strike units for a few turns, then he failed the drop charge with the Death Company. This meant that my devilgaunts got to nuke the Death Company without them doing anything meaningful, ended with me tabling him on turn 4.

Second game was against a skilled elder player who decided to bring a messing around list. It was a pile of DE/Eldar/Ynnair special characters supporting the Yncarne, with a handful of DE infantry to screen. He didn't have the durability to deal with devilgaunts, much less the rest of the list, for an easy win.

Third game was against a IG gunline (infantry squads, artillery tanks, Pask, so forth) supported by three Custodes bike Captains. Traded my drop units for the Captains + most of the screen, managed to tag some tanks with the handful of remaining 'stealers to shut them down for a few turns, ended up winning a narrow victory.



I have been playing this list for the last few months and feel like I have a solid handle on it. I need to swap small screening 'gaunt unit into the Kronos detachment and stick one of the ripper units in the Behemoth, but I'm being lazy about repainting the rippers.

I normally drop in two waves, with the devilgaunts coming in alone and clearing chaff to enable the charges, or coming in after my opponent has made his drops. Against Eldar and Chaos soup I often drop everything at once. I normally use Onslaught on Hive Guard to counter Dark Reapers, which has worked about 50/50 for me.

The Trygons tend to either win games for me or do nothing, depending on if they make their first charge (8" rerollable is solid but not locked in) and on how well the Swarmlord makes saves. If Swarmy can absorb an entire turn of fire, leaving the Trygon's untouched, they get to make a charge and eat something for me the turn after they drop.

I find that aggressive use of my Neurothropes can swing games. With the current smite rules I get 2-3 D3 mortals (3 tries at smite and one shriek) out of them, which is enough to seriously dent something, IF I play them forward enough to have targets for them.

The big thing I have problems with right now is superheavies and IG tanks. I beat Shadowsword lists by killing everything that isn't the Shadowsword and keeping my Hive Guard out of line of sight to avoid being tabled. IG/soup armor goes similarly, except I'm relying on the artillery tanks that don't care about of line of sight to roll badly enough not to kill the Hive Guard.

I am considering some list changes:
(A) Do nothing.
(B) Run the Behemoth as a Spearhead, dropping the Neurothrope and changing the Hive Guard to a single 6 man unit in order to get a third Trygon.
(C) Switch to Jorgm. by turning the Trygon's into Raveners, use the spare points to add in a unit of Shock Guard.

Thoughts?

Tyran wrote:
IIRC there was a rumor that Hive Tyrants (and all those other expensive HQ of other factions) will get a 1 per detachment restriction like Tau Commanders. I see that as very probable.

I am fine with this. In fact, it should be a "Universal Rule" across all armies. That, and or going back to the old WHFB 8th no more than 25% of an army can be Heroes and Lords (i.e: Characters and/or HQ choices)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strat_N8 wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids... as far as the eye can see...

Looks like everyone is recycling elements of their 7th edition list. Besides having the models available, I'm guessing the idea is to "null deploy" using the bombs as the on-table presence (since they never give up points) and rely on the ability to drop everything else in on the enemy as a means to mitigate the infamous alpha strike. List #4 is fairly interesting, with the Jormungandr Warriors being dropped via Raveners. Also neat to see a bit of GSC presence in some of the lists, albeit mostly in the form of Magi.

As an aside, I find it interesting to see such heavy use of Leviathan rather than Kraken. It makes sense given most of the army is comprised of synapse creatures, but given how popular Kraken is otherwise (and how useful it is for flying models) it is somewhat surprising to see it not make the cut.

Yup. I knew Leviathan was viable. Kraken is good if you are going GS or hormies, other than that better off with Leviathan for 16% increase survivability. The Jorm Null deployment to mitigate Alpha strike is smart. I started tracking my Win/Loss record on going first versus 2nd, and it their is a clear disparity that favors whoever goes first as most people know.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
Why do tournament players have to ruin everything....

They dont, they are the ones that shows the flaws and imbalances of the rules.

No they don't. They only show extreme exploitive power combos. They never show whats wrong with a unit that needs to be bought up.

In what capacity did any nid player in a tourney show what was wrong with the nid dex in 7th? If Tourny players were the go to for information Flyrants and mucolids would have just gotten nerfed.

"Extreme exploited" so....... the flaws?

A flaw. Only one. Ever.

Will a tourney show whats wrong with lictors or deathleaper or the pheromone trail stratagem? How about Crisis suits? Rail guns on a hammerhead? Flayed Ones? No. Because none of those things will ever be in a tournament.

Taking it out of context eh?

Im saying, tournament players dont exploit the rules, the play by them, if the rules say you can take 20 of the most powerful units and NOTHING ELSE.. how is that an exploit? Thats a flaw of the "core" rules (I never said anything about showing flaws in units).

The rules say play what you want..... players playing units that will make them win in a game that is designed to have a winner and loser, especially in a competitive environment isnt "ruining the game"... they chose to play in that environment, you can choose to not play with those players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dynas wrote:

Tyran wrote:
IIRC there was a rumor that Hive Tyrants (and all those other expensive HQ of other factions) will get a 1 per detachment restriction like Tau Commanders. I see that as very probable.

I am fine with this. In fact, it should be a "Universal Rule" across all armies. That, and or going back to the old WHFB 8th no more than 25% of an army can be Heroes and Lords (i.e: Characters and/or HQ choices)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strat_N8 wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

Flyrants, Mawlocs, and Mucolids... as far as the eye can see...

Looks like everyone is recycling elements of their 7th edition list. Besides having the models available, I'm guessing the idea is to "null deploy" using the bombs as the on-table presence (since they never give up points) and rely on the ability to drop everything else in on the enemy as a means to mitigate the infamous alpha strike. List #4 is fairly interesting, with the Jormungandr Warriors being dropped via Raveners. Also neat to see a bit of GSC presence in some of the lists, albeit mostly in the form of Magi.

As an aside, I find it interesting to see such heavy use of Leviathan rather than Kraken. It makes sense given most of the army is comprised of synapse creatures, but given how popular Kraken is otherwise (and how useful it is for flying models) it is somewhat surprising to see it not make the cut.

Yup. I knew Leviathan was viable. Kraken is good if you are going GS or hormies, other than that better off with Leviathan for 16% increase survivability. The Jorm Null deployment to mitigate Alpha strike is smart. I started tracking my Win/Loss record on going first versus 2nd, and it their is a clear disparity that favors whoever goes first as most people know.

I was too surprised by it, i still like Kraken my self and will still play it, just my style, the always 6+++ is very nice, especially on MC's with multi wounds, saving 1 could mean the difference of being at full strength or not, or forcing them to shoot the same target more. 16% over many units over many turns can help.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

A flaw. Only one. Ever.

Will a tourney show whats wrong with lictors or deathleaper or the pheromone trail stratagem? How about Crisis suits? Rail guns on a hammerhead? Flayed Ones? No. Because none of those things will ever be in a tournament.

Taking it out of context eh?

Im saying, tournament players dont exploit the rules, the play by them, if the rules say you can take 20 of the most powerful units and NOTHING ELSE.. how is that an exploit? Thats a flaw of the "core" rules (I never said anything about showing flaws in units).

The rules say play what you want..... players playing units that will make them win in a game that is designed to have a winner and loser, especially in a competitive environment isnt "ruining the game"... they chose to play in that environment, you can choose to not play with those players.

I never said tourney players were ruining the game. I said they were a bad place to gather data for testing and balancing.

My point stands. Tournys will only ever show the one flaw. How this combo or this unit is brokenly powerful. It doesn't address why the other options are not taken. It never shines a light on what needs to be bought up. And the things that need to be bought down are shown in a disproportionate light. Looking at adepticon as a test bed hive tyrants need a massive nerf. Which just isn't true. But thats what that "play test" says.

 gigasnail wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I did not keep up with news and missed most of the adepticon coverage and build up. What in particular in the mission pack favored flyrants and mucolids, aside from the obvious trash deploy with mucolids/deep strike flyrants strategy?

1) Kill points (the points value of units completely destroyed) were huge in the missions. It was a Kill Point differential. Mucolids don't give up KP, so a Tyrant drop list with mucolids has less KP to give, and can drop in and harvest some then play keep-away.

2) The missions had progressive components so mobility was huge.

3) In ITC champs missions Flyrants hemorrhage points. They give up KP, they give up head hunter points, they give up kingslayer points, they give up big game hunter points. Meanwhile lots of Eldar lists give up practically no points. So in the standard meta that I (and probably most of us) are used to, there are huge downsides to spamming flryants. The adepticon missions essentially removed all of the downsides, and at the same time incentivized a meta with lots of light infantry where flyrants can shine the most.

tag8833 wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I did not keep up with news and missed most of the adepticon coverage and build up. What in particular in the mission pack favored flyrants and mucolids, aside from the obvious trash deploy with mucolids/deep strike flyrants strategy?

1) Kill points (the points value of units completely destroyed) were huge in the missions. It was a Kill Point differential. Mucolids don't give up KP, so a Tyrant drop list with mucolids has less KP to give, and can drop in and harvest some then play keep-away.

2) The missions had progressive components so mobility was huge.

3) In ITC champs missions Flyrants hemorrhage points. They give up KP, they give up head hunter points, they give up kingslayer points, they give up big game hunter points. Meanwhile lots of Eldar lists give up practically no points. So in the standard meta that I (and probably most of us) are used to, there are huge downsides to spamming flryants. The adepticon missions essentially removed all of the downsides, and at the same time incentivized a meta with lots of light infantry where flyrants can shine the most.

True, in ITC flyrants are kept in check, but ITC is not 40K.

GW balancing is done for 40K, so expect something nasty.

tag8833 wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
For what it is worth, the Adepticon missions favored Flyrants a bit more than other mission packs, and they favored mucolids a great deal more.

I did not keep up with news and missed most of the adepticon coverage and build up. What in particular in the mission pack favored flyrants and mucolids, aside from the obvious trash deploy with mucolids/deep strike flyrants strategy?

1) Kill points (the points value of units completely destroyed) were huge in the missions. It was a Kill Point differential. Mucolids don't give up KP, so a Tyrant drop list with mucolids has less KP to give, and can drop in and harvest some then play keep-away.

2) The missions had progressive components so mobility was huge.

3) In ITC champs missions Flyrants hemorrhage points. They give up KP, they give up head hunter points, they give up kingslayer points, they give up big game hunter points. Meanwhile lots of Eldar lists give up practically no points. So in the standard meta that I (and probably most of us) are used to, there are huge downsides to spamming flryants. The adepticon missions essentially removed all of the downsides, and at the same time incentivized a meta with lots of light infantry where flyrants can shine the most.

I wasn’t aware of 3. I find that my flyrants are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to the secondary objectives you mentioned in ITC, but they are a great unit so it weighs up.

Is ITC format not followed at Adepticon? I've only ever played ITC missions in 8th, and I do notice that Nids can give up KP like crazy with all our MC.

How hard would it be for a TO to just say, you cannot take more than 2 of the same HQ datacard. So at most you would have 2 Flyrants and a Swarmlord in a single list. Problem solved.