Synapse has been getting a fair bit of discussion lately and this my take on it. Firstly so we are all on the right page this is the 9.2.1 rule in full.

Tyranid Swarms: Tyranid swarms (formations) are divided into two basic types: Independent Swarms and Synapse Swarms. Independent Swarms have some measure of autonomy, often
ranging far ahead of the main swarms to hunt for prey. Independent swarms are organised into fixed formations, just like non-Tyranid formations. Instead of fixed formations, Brood and Synapse creatures are combined to form a “fluid” Synapse Swarm that is controlled by a Synapse Group. Both the Synapse Group and the Brood creatures associated with it are treated as a single formation.

At the start of the game, the Tyranid player assigns Brood creatures to Synapse Groups, creating swarms. These swarms must be set up in legal formation using the instructions for the scenario. Additionally, Brood units must be placed within control range (15cm) of a Synapse creature from the swarm's Synapse Group. Brood units may also be held in reserve. During the Action Phase, a Synapse Swarm is treated like a normal formation.

In the End Phase, after rallying and spawning (see below), Synapse Swarms are reorganized. Unless part of an Independent Swarm, Brood creatures out of control range are removed and any that are within control range of one Synapse Group become part of its Synapse Swarm. If any Brood creatures are within control range of two or more Synapse Groups the Tyranid player may choose which one they join. Note that Blast markers and broken status stay with Synapse Groups, not with any Brood creatures that change swarms; a swarm that has Blast markers equal to, or more than, units after reorganization immediately breaks.

1) First paragraph and start of second paragraph (Highlighted blue) covers the formation composition by assigning brood creatures to any Synapse group. I don't think there are any problems with that.

2) The control range section I feel is essentially unnecessary (Bright yellow highlight). It limits the maximum size of swarms but I think that the activation system already does this sufficiently well. I think a check that a Synapse creature is in the swarm would be enough.

3) There is a strong downside (Red highlight), that is if you don't have any Synapse the swarm is removed. This is where alternative downsides could be placed such as an initiative penalty instead of outright removal.

4) Finally we have the saving Synapseless swarms and stand jumping section (Highlight in pink). I think this is needed only because of the death downside (point 3) and is directly related to the inclusion of the 15cm Synapse range (point 2). If there is no death of a swarm outright then you don't need to save synapseless swarms. The simplest (and shortest) solution is the initiative penalty substitution for swarm death and removing stand jumping altogether. If you remove the synapse control range but retain swarm death or a Synapse moth to the flame style rule then a rewrite of the saving synapseless swarms would also be required.

Essentially I feel the combination of rules within the Tyranid Swarms rule contributes to the confusion and difficulty of understanding for players not used to Tyranids. It works but it appears that it was designed and then had extra bits added to make it work as intended and not be too harsh (via swarm death).

I agree that 4) is necessary for moving stands between formations (I referred to it as stand jumping) and you've used it to great effect. I just get the feeling that it isn't an essential rule that players take full advantage of and is something new players may miss entirely. I think you could retain it with removal of the control range by altering the joining condition to be within stand coherency (5/10cm) of the new formation rather than Synapse control range, that is assuming it is still wanted.

1) While characterful I think is an unneccesary complication which makes balancing army design very hard. Flexibility like the Orks or IG is sufficient- whilst Tyranids have enough 'Special Rules' not to need even more.

2) Agreed.

3) Agreed, I made the +1 Engage/Rally a Synapse (and Independent) only ability, and Synapse-less formations are 3+ Init instead of 2+.

4) Agreed, the Epic Armageddon rules for formations are sufficient. Arguments can be made for all armies reassigning 'straggler squads' to other formations mid-battle. It is just unnecessary complication.


I tend to agree that the way Tyranid armies are written and organised before and during a game is the most confusing, and unnecessarily complex, parts of the 9.X lists.
A Tyranid army designed and organised like every other army in the game would go a long way to making it feel like an Epic Armageddon army list.

+1 to pretty much everything Jeridian said, though I'd probably make the initiative penalty for being synapseless a bit nastier.

I agree with everything Zombo said.

Morgan Vening

How often are swarms left Synapseless, in your experience?

In two games versus Angron, the situation never came even close to happening. Synapse are Fearless, so they don't get hackdowns or BM casualties when broken. They should be kept to the rear of the formation, and will need alot of AT to bring down in shooting. A largeish Swarm took a Tank Company and a Mech Inf Company's entire AT output one turn, IIRC, and was not denuded of Synapse. Swarmless Synapses were common, but not the inverse.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

How often do you fight Eldar? With their speed, your "rear" rapidly becomes your "front".

How often do you fight Orks? With their aircraft and rapid attack units, your "rear" rapidly becomes your "front".

How often do you face teleporting troops? With the ability to appear anywhere and always having a higher Strategy Rating, your "rear" is often your "front".

In my games, against people who have faced Tyranids a *lot*, Synapse creatures tend to be in the "middle" of swarms, edges, even "rear", are far too risky.


SG, could you post an example or two of a "typical" Tyranid army you'd field?

Additionally, with all these Tyranid games being played, why is there such a lack of playtest reports?

Well, first off, I was playing against them. I'm not working from tons of games either, I'll be clear on that. The two games against Angron both went in a very similar manner, with my Eldar and IG, though. Like I said in the other thread, once we get more games under our belt, perhaps our opinions will change, but we'll see.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I will whole-heartedly agree that initial games against the Nids are tough. It's often a whole new way of playing as previous tactics and approaches are sub-optimal against Bugs, but exprerience begins to reveal the tricks needed to defeat them; it's, to me humourously, very much like how the war against the Tyranids seems to be going on within the 40k universe!

I highly recommend reviewing any Tyranid battle reports or playtests that have been posted, just to get a feel for how other people are doing things.

But they weren't. That isn't the point. I knew generally what to do, and was able to keep the pressure up, winning the second game by a fair VP margin, though it was 0-0 or 1-1 win conditions.

I just feel that there are rules that do not neccessarily need to be there. Again, perhaps that opinion will change, but the games weren't "tough"; the first was lost due to poor positioning on my part, and the second I won.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.