Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: afterimagedan on May 03, 2011, 04:26:02 AM
-
BFG:R seems like it is getting close to complete and the Tyranids are the last fleet to be reworked. I would like to start up a discussion about what changes need to be made to them so we can get this show on the road.
-
This is what I posted in the flawed ships forum....
--------------------------------------
There are a couple changes to the Tyranid Fleet I would propose. I think this would make the Tyranid fleet more appealing, balance them out a little more, and keep them from being abused (super-hives for example). I believe that, when you look at the serious downsides to the Tyranid fleet, the benefits are just not good enough to make up for them at the points you are paying for Tyranid ships.
1. Hive Ship
A. The Hive Ship seems to be a little bit weaker than more Tyranids want them to be so they are always looking to upgrade them with evolutions (needing approval by their opponent). I think the Hive Ship should have some of the most commonly taken evolutions taken written into their rules so there is no question what can be taken with or without permission. That way, the evolutions as they are now will just be considered refits and players will feel like their Hive Ships (and Tyranid Fleet in general) are powerful enough to warrant using and not have to worry about their opponent saying no to evolutions. It could be an option written into their rules on the bottom of the Hive Ship page that says something like �Hive Ships may take 0-2 �Reinforced Carapace� and 0-1 �Extra Spore Cysts� at the cost listed in the �Evolutions of the Hive Mind� section� without an opponent�s permission.� Or, these upgrades could just be written into the profile of the hive ship and the points cost changed accordingly. This change to the Tyranid Fleet would allow Tyranid players to know that they could at least have a Hive Ship that is more like a Battleship, something very powerful like most other forces have without taking evolutions by permission.
2. Cruiser - I believe these Tyranid cruiser changes will make the Tyranid fleet as a whole much more appealing and less one-sided strategy-wise.
A. There should be an option, much like other fleets who can take Secondary Commanders, to allow Tyranid Cruisers to have a leadership which will allow them to have a smaller Synapse range. There would be something written in the Tyranid fleet page like this; �0-2 Hive Nodes. Up to two Tyranid Cruisers may purchase Hive Nodes which makes them into Synapse creatures at LD7 for +30pts each. The Tyranid Cruiser�s Synapse range is 15cm.� This would allow Tyranid players to perform well in smaller games (they are horrible under 1,000pts from the experience I have) and have the option to have smaller forces roaming the battlefield instead of always clumping together (like every other fleet can do without worrying about synapse).
B. At this point, Tyranid Cruisers are terrible for the cost. Compare the good and bad it has against the SM Strike Cruiser or an IN Dauntless. For the points, they are almost not worth taking. Their profile is worse than pretty much all other light cruisers, they need synapse, they have spores instead of turrets and shields, and still cost around the same points-wise.
C. Tyranid Cruisers should be given the option to be light carriers (this, among other changes, will help balance their attack craft swarm �nerf.� Plaxor proposed that there may be an option for a capacity 3 launch bay in the thorax position. I agree with this notion.
3. All is lost - This is very discouraging for Tyranid players. We are supposed to have one of the better �close combat� type fleets and we have a special rule that makes boarding much worse for us. If we close in and are going to heavily board an enemy ship, they can just self destruct when they know they are going to lose. Why couldn�t they do this with Khorne Berzerkers running through the ship as well? This rule hinders Tyranids and it seems unrealistic that this option is not available for other armies who are also heavy on the boarding side. This should be removed or balanced in some way.
4. Other Stuff
- Since the changes to make all fighers resilient, one of the benefits the Tyranid fleet has is reduced; the ability to have double fleet capacity. They already have really slow assault boats; this change hurts the Tyranid fleet and I think there should be some way to balance it with them. Fleets with much ordinance (IN, Tau, Tyranids) are going to suffer a bit from this, especially when the fleet�s focus is on attack craft and not torps; even worse when they are slower.
-Hive Mind Imperative seems completely useless, especially for the points. Maybe it can do something else?
------------------------
-
I approve of pretty much all of these changes.
Of which evolutions can be taken, I would expect the ones for additional hits and additional spores, pointed appropriately. (Cruisers up to 2 additional hits, 1 additional spore - hives up to 4 additional hits and 2 additional spores.)
Necrons have also had little love.
-
Necrons had quite a bit of love! They gained 3 capital ships! Doubling their previous amount, and their saves improved.
Honestly necrons will always be a very simple fleet. Sig and I actually talked about it extensively. He was very convinced that everything in necrons should cost in multiples of 25. Ended up with an interesting overall fleet.
Anyways, Dan,
I forgot to mention that I'm including cruiser-carriers as an option, and deleting all is lost. Also I think that their Ordnance should be as fast as other fleets.
-
Awesome. I think the faster ordinance will be a good change. Any thoughts on Cruiser stat changes and points?
-
Ive only played against the tyranids a handful of times and each one the Krakens raped my face with their tentacles and I had to disengage after killing the hive ship with NC spam in order to pull a draw. Those auto saves are a pain, but overall its a good list and I like the changes put up here. Maybe ill take a hobby knife to some of my 40k nids and make a small fleet... Nah.
-
That's what I did. I had so many extra Gaunts and Genestealer bits, I had to. Plus, I'm a Tyranid at heart... I'm not mad, I'm just hungry for biomass.
Anyways, I think the faq2010 adding Bio-Plasma to Kraken was a good addition too.
Any thoughts on what the "Hive Mind Imperative" should become? Should it just be gone?
Plaxor,
With those changes you listed and a little work on the evolutions and the cruiser, I think the list will be awesome. I want to thank you again for all the work you are putting into this and for heading it up.
-
I seem to be behind. What extra 3 capital ships for crons and better saves?
Also, since when are all fighters resilient?
-
In BFG:R, after any interaction with enemy AC a fighter squadron may roll a D6 to remain in play on a 4,5 or 6. This is improved to 3,4,5 or 6 for resilient fighters. Ordnance interactions are also fought in rounds until one side or other is defeated.
The idea was to bulk up AC interactions with some dice rolling and to make fighters actually useful as escorts to both bombers and ABs.
Not in this edition, but in future editions of BFG:R, the way bombers interact with ships may be revised, in which case turret suppression would also be dropped.
-
I dislike these fighter rules. :)
-
Really? we got the idea from your reference to 'wing commander'.
-
I've played a few games with the resilient fighter rules and I must say, I like them but im not totally sure they are necessary. I will try them out a few more times.
-
Really? we got the idea from your reference to 'wing commander'.
Yeah, where fighters can attack capital ships and destroy them.
lol. heh heh.
Good to be an inspiration.
-
Keep testing them out. I'm certain this fighter mechanic is better than turret suppression for giving fighters an offensive use.
-
So, are bombers back to the days where they could almost never do damage to a turret 5 battleship? I hope I'm missing something.
-
No, the bomber rules have remained the same; combined with turret suppression bombers can still hurt battleships. If we were to change the rules, it would be to make bombers more effective against battleships.
-
Are the Turret Suppression rules not in the PDF yet? Having trouble finding them.
-
I find the fighter (sorry for hijack) rules somewhat floggy. They are resilient in a way yet outnumbering does not play a role.
-
Anyone up for working on these revisions with me?
-
I've thought about this a lot when playing with the nids. I'll post some ideas when I find time. Shouldn't this be in experimental rules really?
Quickfire ideas:
Vanguard getting the vanguard leadership rule when outside of synapse range.
kraken not moving towards planets as instinctive behavior (doesn't make sense for them) but moving towards nearest enemy in front/side arc instead.
Upping firepower on vanguard pyro acid
making tentacles on escorts free.
Tightening up of the synapse rules to be more clear and limiting exploitation (such as coming to new heading and going straight on anyway, or burning retros to avoid asteroid and going in cos its safer anyway.
No mixed escort squadrons ( to avoid ordnance reloading exploits)
Maybe making speed upgrades take up a l/r weapon slot.
And because thats all give and no take..
Drop kraken pyro acid to fp 5
Pay an additional 5 pts for each stacked biomorph upgrade.
-
Since many others have their threads on adding to the BFG rules here, I wasn't really bothered by posting this.
-
1. I was thinking about the vanguard pyro acid firepower and I think you are right.
2. I think we could simplify the rules of being outside or failing synapse to be like this...
-If you are outside synapse, the ship/squadron must do it's best to turn towards the nearest synapse ship and end it's movement as close as possible it it.
-If you are going to run into any dangerous scenery, you may use CTNH or BR.
-If you did not have to use CTNH or BR, you may reload ordinance on LD7. You must still attempt to get as close as possible to the nearest synapse creature.
-No weapons can be used on ships that failed their synapse check.
This is really simple and easy to remember. It hurts the tyranids a little bit because no ships can attack anymore but, with the addition of cruisers being small synapse creatures, I believe this will balance out.
3. I also think the hive ship having to test for synapse over itself is a bit silly. I should have to test to do special orders but self synapse control? That's not right. Anyone notice this?
-
Any thoughts on what Hive Mind Imperative should become? I think what it is right now, I doubt anyone is using it.
-
Its alright, but should be less points than the re-roll, not more.
Or keep it at same points (or a bit more) but allows unit to do two special orders (a bit extreme, .. but could be fun)
-
How about 20pts?
-
How's this coming along? :) We need a decent Nid list bad, a sort of MMS equivalent I'd say.
Some suggestions:
- Limit Hiveships to one per 1000 points. Remove all restrictions on cruisers and escorts.
I have found it difficult to make a decent 1000 point list with just a single hiveship with the current restrictions. 18 escorts (including 6 drones) is not enough, and kitting out cruisers to the max makes no sense as they are too weak at the moment to be relied on.
- Cruisers: add Thorax str 2 launch bay and Port/Starboard Str1 launch Bay options. This means up to str4 launch bays on a cruiser.
- Cruisers: synapse options on cruisers (discussed before so I won't repeat).
This has been discussed many times: we need synapse and launch bays options on cruisers to minimise the reliance on Hiveships. Coupled with the 1 Hiveship per 1000 points limit and the 6 drones per hiveship restriction(FAQ2010) this gives us good flexibility and balance.
- Cruisers: options to add up to 2 Hit points on cruisers and maybe a Spore.
This is primarily geared towards the Carrier Cruiser, as with only 6 hit points and the fact Nids cannot launch ordnance at all when crippled he would have to be beefed up slightly. It might make him too strong so I'm open to debate on that one.
- A restriction on Carrier-Cruisers similar to the IN Battlecruiser restriction, to avoid cheap carrier spam: one Carrier per 2 normal Cruisers. we could also put the Carrier in a "Grand Cruiser" or "Battlecruiser" category with the +2Hp and +1spore included in profile, to avoid giving regular cruisers access to the buffs.
If playing with only one hiveship, re-rolls and Imperatives make sense. They become obsolete when bringing in a second hiveship. So i don't have any comments on Re-rolls or Imperatives.
If people like these changes we can have a chat about costing them appropriately.
-
- A restriction on Carrier-Cruisers similar to the IN Battlecruiser restriction
Actually, scratch that that would force us to take too many cruisers. maybe a limit of 2 per 1000 points or something?
-
Keep their hits/spores the same, add synapse, add launch, add requirement for cruisers to have an escort similar to the hiveship rule. The cheap carrier spam is offset by the ability to easily disable them, and your getting a fleet restriction that's already a part of the fleets character.