I think the building a swarm can stay (Only the F_ERC list uses the fixed swarm with upgrades approach), it really isn't a problem in terms of time or complexity once you're familiar with the list. I think the general feeling is that lists are almost completely mapped out in advance with only slight shuffling on deployment. The initiative based synapse system is a minor change but would probably impact on point costs (upwards), it substitutes death of a synapse-less swarm with an initiative penalty. On synapse range, I think it could be removed but see my previous comments for knock on effects.

On the modern fleets there is the Leviathan list and I have an unreleased dual Jormungandr/Draconis list (Modern Fleet/Bio-Titan respectively) that contains the new 40k units but will probably be dependent on the final 9.2.1 list for core special rules (Which is why it's unreleased, it will have a near unified set of common units and rules with the 9.2.1 evolution that happens to still be evolving).

My ideal direction for the list would be to remove swarms and synapse range, replacing with fixed (though flexibly built) formations and an initiative based synapse system.

I'm ok with spawning staying I guess, though it has always felt a bit of a cop out; surely just having cheaper units is better?

I'd also like to see a branch of the list dealing with the more modern leviathan units once the special rules are finalised.

like zombocom said this is a good solution

I was thinking of starting a new thread to take stock of the current list's status, but this one seems appropriate.

First a question to Chroma : I've seen you mentioning a "next version" in several recent threads now. You've got me interested there, any idea as to the release date? I think it's getting more and more important to have that next version as there are now 4 or 5 variant lists, each going in different directions... It's getting confusing.

From what I've gathered, here's a summary of the "hot" topics:

SPECIAL RULES

General concern about the length, complexity and/or number of special rules.

Most of them are OK, I think. Tyranid Swarms and Tie-Breaker could do with some kind of simplification, though.

- Tyranid Swarms > Get rid of the rule altogether and replaced with fixed formations? Initiative-based system to represent synaptic control? Remove Synapse coherency? Remove Brood reorganisation?

I would remove the synapse coherency part. It really doesn't have much effect on the game other than slowing things down. As Chroma said, you'll want to keep your synapses in the middle of the swarm anyway... and if you don't and try to extend the swarm to control several objectives, you'll weaken the synapses.

Brood reorganisation could go too : it's nice, I've used it from time to time, but it doesn't add much. Spawning is already a form of brood reorganisation.

The initiative-based system is nice but I prefer the current one: broods go *pop* if you kill the synapses and can come back later via Spawning. Plus, it works fine.

As to fixed formations, well, I also like the current system better. It gives the Tyranid player more options and does not overly complexify/lengthen the game.

Relentless > Only +1 bonus to rally rolls?

I like the rule as it is. No need to change it in my opinion.

Expendable

I've seen no complaints on this one... and I don't have any either.

Mobility

Ditto.

Spawning > Remove the rule in favor of cheaper units? Change it?

I wouldn't remove or change this rule : it's taken a long time to balance it and it now feels OK. Plus, it's thematic and it works just fine. It does lengthen the game a bit, but not that much.

Tunneller

Nobody seems to complain about it, but is it really necessary? One possibility would be to simply give the Trygon and Raveners Teleport and boost the cost of the Subterranean Swarm formation accordingly.

Objectives

No problem here.

Break their Spirit

No problem here.

Tiebreaker

Again, one or more examples would be fine. More than fine actually, necessary. Maybe it's me, but it never fails to confuse me whenever I have to calculate the VP with Tyranids.

UNITS

Most units are balanced (always a good sign), with one exception: the Meiotic Spore Pack. As far as I can tell, it's almost never used. Considering how badly Tyranids need AA cover, this is telling. Suggestions vary on how to make it better:

- Reduce the cost of the formation to 125 points.
- Give them Scout.
- Extend their weapons range to 30 cm.

I will, of course, add my latest suggestion.



Yet another special rule, yes, but a incredibly simple one. It would allow the Spores to cover more ground (their biggest flaw at the moment) without making them too powerful (all they would do is laying down BM).

ARMY LIST

Fixed formations

This is one possible solution, but I love the current system because it's so flexible. You can pretty include whatever you want in your swarms. It seems complicated at first, but you get used to it rather quickly.

2-1 ratio for Common/Uncommon ratio

Not a huge problem, but it would be nice to have more diversity in army lists. I'll copy & paste my latest suggestions:

*** Make all Common Broods cost 100 points > 4 Gargoyles for 100, 6 Gaunts for 100, 3 Raveners for 100
*** Have a 1-1 ratio on common-uncommon broods

OR

*** Make all Common Broods cost 75 points > 3 Gargoyles for 75, 4 Gaunts for 75, 2 Raveners for 75
*** Keep the 2-1 ratio

Both solutions have the side effect of making Raveners a bit more expansive, but I guess that would be OK since you would also have an easier access to the bigger guys.

Raveners & Gargoyles as Brood AND Independant units

Again, not a huge problem but a potential source of confusion. Ex: do Raveners and Gargoyles from Independant Swarms go back into the pool for Spawning purposes? Is Brood reorganisation is kept, can they join other swarms in the end phase? More importantly, why can Raveners or Gargoyles act on their own in the Sub Swarm/Harrassment Swarm but, if part of a Brood Swarm, they disappear when they lose their Synapse?

-----
-----

I think this sums up most of the question. Have I forgotten anything?

Good points Hojyn. Agree with most.

Regarding common-uncommon, I'd like to see it tried simply 1:1 at current ratios I think. Even an armoured up tyranid force would still have to have more infantry/lv than total number of AV's doing that (because minimum size 4 for the gaunt type things, max size 1-3 for bigger units). Still lots of gaunts required, just not so excessively one dimensional in terms of army composition.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Give it a swing, even just to make up some possible lists!

I'm working on the "new version", while reviewing all the variants that are coming out. Currently, I'm focused on getting the NetEA Army Books updated, but Tyranids are running a close second.

More to come soon.

Yup will do, and thanks for all the work. Another game played a couple of weeks back about to be posted.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/