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.

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.