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.

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.