BFG FAQ 2010 Fleet Specific Questions

[lastspartacus]

I suppose 'escorts' in general would be good, or just limit it to three drones.  But for 15 points each, its not so limiting for great escorts...

[dvang]

Do people really use the bio-plasma on the Escort drones?

Move 15cm, range 15cm, Forward *only*, and only 45 turns ... that just does not sound like a useful/effective combination. I really can only see the 30cm Pyro-acid batteries being useful on them, which ups their cost to 20. Ok, sure, it's still pretty cheap, but not as cheap. 

Personally, I think thematically it fits requiring Hive Ships to have at least 6 escort drones each. I do agree with Innocent, however, that it seems to make the Tyranid lists a bit more constrained and "standardized", especially combined with the loss of the customization of the evolutions.

Perhaps Tyranid Cruisers should get the option to purchase Ld 7 synaptic control, which would make them semi-useful in instances where purchasing an additional Hive Ship (now also requiring the purchase of +6 escort drones) is impractical.

[Innocent]

Bio-plasma drones are incredibly powerful, in no small part due to their cost: for 90 points you get 12 shield-ignoring lances, which is practically an instant cripple/kill to anything they touch.

Also remember that being escorts they can turn at any stage of their movement, meaning that they are still pretty maneuvrable. Basically anything in their front fire arc within 30cm will get crippled/hulked.

Also, they Lock-On automatically   (EDIT: if within 15cm at the start of their turn, got a bit carried away here...)

I have used them in 2 games now against In and Tau (still learning with Nids, and I've never used refits either) and in both games they were the killer blow. My opponents had a tendency to ignore them, being so small, slow and meaningless, but when they got into range in the later stages of the game they would instantly hulk a cruiser.

Note that one of the reason I always use them is because they are the cheapest option. I would love to try something else but if I am going to have to have 6 per hiveship than I have to keep them cheap or sacrifice some Krakens  (this is at 1000 points game, which is sort of the standard size we play).

I like your suggestion of making some cruisers synapse. Also give them the option to carry AC, and we are coming very close to making them playable and a meaningful alternative to Hiveships.

[lastspartacus]

Nid drones are stupid, STUPID good for their cost.  My only complaint is I feel their armor should be weaker.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Yes nid cruisers are supposed to be immature hives so why don't they have limited synapse I'd say leadership 6 or 7 tho and make 7 quite a bit more than 6 so its not like a no brainer. This would be perfect for cruiser clash or vanguard fleets.

[Mycen]

I know I'm quite late to this discussion, but I have to add my two cents.

Innocent: I don't think this is quite true. How many points did you previously spend on refits for your ships in your nid lists? If you were bulking out your Hive Ships the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts leaving you with a similar number of points to take vanguard and kraken.

This attitude is exactly what is wrong with the "must take six escort drones" rule, and why it is so frustrating.

Many of the changes made to the tyranids  in the 2010 FAQ don't seem like they were made by tyranid players who want to make the fleet more interesting, fun to play, and in line with the background of the race. On the contrary, they appear to have been made by tyranid opponents who play against powergaming 'nid fleets, and dislike it enough to get their complaints head all the way to the top. This ruling, considering that the wording in the original rules is unambiguously the opposite, makes me think it is an unfortunate case of the latter as well.



The problem with the attitude that you, Vaaish, and others who share your opinion, have, is that it's completely missing the point. Sure, escort drones are very good, and sure, I do like to take them in large numbers. But to take that and say it means there's not a problem forcing me to take them in every game is nonsensical. We don't have a rule that for every cruiser they take, chaos players must take a Murder class.  We don't have a rule that for every cruiser Orks take they must take three Brutes. That a ship is good is no justification for why you should have to take it.

As for saying that it fits the fluff of the tyranids, this is both inaccurate and irrelevant. As far as inaccuracy; whilst it is very common for Hive Ships to be surrounded by hordes of escort drones, the main descriptor of Tyranids is 'adaptability.' If they are running into a situation where their escorts keep getting obliterated for no gain, they are not going to keep using small escorts. While it might be relatively rare to see a fleet without many or any escort drones, it is by no means improbable or unlikely, no more so than a venerable battle barge, inquisition black ship, rogue trader commanding a Carnage class, etc. As far as irrelevance, how fluffy the fleet lists are terms of encouraging/forcing players to take lists that represent the typical sights of the 41st millineum has never been a priority. The original publication of the BFG rulebook talked about how there's no reason not to take whatever fleet list you want if it could happen. The current rules committee seems to, where tyranids aren't involved, adhere to these principles as well, as with the aforementioned examples.


My main issue, though, comes from the statement, "How many points did you previously spend on refits for your ships in your nid lists? If you were bulking out your Hive Ships the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts leaving you with a similar number of points to take vanguard and kraken." This statement assumes that all 'nid players do little other than take hulked-out hiveships and plod down the board spitting out ordnance.

But what if I wasn't bulking out my hiveships? After all, my answer to that question would be "zero." I've taken huge hiveships before, but I find I enjoy taking lists that have a few hiveships as a focal point and a lot of cruisers, vanguards, and kraken for envelopment. Now all of the lists I like to run are illegal without major tweaking - redesign, really. You might argue that 15 points a pop is cheap, and that's true, but when you have to take eighteen drones in a three-hiveship list... 270 points is a lot of points! But okay, let's say I'll likely be getting some escort drones anyway, so the normal 'penalty' might be more along the lines of 150 points or so. That's still four to five kraken, six vanguards, or a cruiser I could have had, the difference between making a 'flank and envelop' list viable or not. (Not to mention if I actually didn't want to take any escorts...)

Where the whole "the odds are your list will trade those refits for most of the required escorts," idea becomes patently ridiculous is when you remember that the 2010 FAQ also restricts when and where Tyranids players may use these upgrades in the first place. Now, according to the FAQ, Tyranid players aren't taking all of those refits anyway, so why force them to spend the points in, after a fashion, the same place? I thought the idea was to encourage tyranid players to do something else?
 


Saying something that boils down to 'it's a justified change because all 'nid players are the same powergaming cheeseball,' is pretty insulting. This being a hobby game, not just a board game, the composition rules are supposed to encourage people. Telling 'nid players to screw off because nobody liked playing against them is no way to encourage them to play, to engage them in the hobby. The same people who decided that 'nids have to take six drones per ship came up with venerable battle barges for space marines. This uncommon (and therefore unfluffy, according to some lines of reasoning) option was created in the name of allowing space marine lists to have more variety, so it absolutely stuns me that the commitee would then turn around and say, "Oh, but 'nid players should have their options restricted, shouldn't they?" What could possibly be the justification?

[Vaaish]

idea becomes patently ridiculous is when you remember that the 2010 FAQ also restricts when and where Tyranids players may use these upgrades in the first place. Now, according to the FAQ, Tyranid players aren't taking all of those refits anyway, so why force them to spend the points in, after a fashion, the same place? I thought the idea was to encourage tyranid players to do something else?

Mycen, as you said you are late to the discussion and you are missing the point entirely. The discussion was about the affect on lists in use before the the FAQ and how the changes in the FAQ would affect those fleets in the FUTURE. Yes, the FAQ restricts the use of refits which means that no one is spending points on them right now, that wasn't the case at the time the discussion was being held. The idea was to make nids stop using refits in one of games. I believe the drone requirement was a bit of a surprise when it showed up but the comparison to points spent on refits vs the required drones was valid at the time of the discussion.

. While it might be relatively rare to see a fleet without many or any escort drones, it is by no means improbable or unlikely,

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If something is relatively rare it is by nature unlikely to make an appearance.

The original publication of the BFG rulebook talked about how there's no reason not to take whatever fleet list you want if it could happen.

How has this changed any with the FAQ? If you want to take whatever you feel like you can still do it if your opponent approves just like it's always been.

This statement assumes that all 'nid players do little other than take hulked-out hiveships and plod down the board spitting out ordnance.

95% of the lists I've seen for nids personally and seen new players or tournament players post included refits prior to the FAQ so it's not an assumption that ALL did this but it is based on the evidence that a majority did.

"Oh, but 'nid players should have their options restricted, shouldn't they?" What could possibly be the justification?

Nids where the only fleet that could take whatever refit they felt like in a one of game without having to "earn" it in a campaign. What made nids so special to have that consideration?

You seem frustrated in particular that the drones are required, I'm guessing that's mostly because whatever list you run or were planning to run got hit because of the changes. My question would be, do the changes make nids under powered or incapable of variety in lists or that they just aren't the sandbox they were prior to the FAQ?

[AndrewChristlieb]

The only problem I see is that the nid players are restricted to escort drones for their minimum escorts now. As of Armada at least the rules stated you had to take 6-12 with every hiveship (pg 91 Armada; Each Hive ship allows the Tyranid player to purchase 6-12 escort ships and 0-2 capitol ships)... the faq just confirms that yes you HAVE to take 6-12... no big deal there as this is as its always been. The FAQ ruling should be replaced with must take a minimum of six escorts, of any type.

[Mycen]

Mycen, as you said you are late to the discussion and you are missing the point entirely. The discussion was about the affect on lists in use before the the FAQ and how the changes in the FAQ would affect those fleets in the FUTURE. Yes, the FAQ restricts the use of refits which means that no one is spending points on them right now, that wasn't the case at the time the discussion was being held. The idea was to make nids stop using refits in one of games. I believe the drone requirement was a bit of a surprise when it showed up but the comparison to points spent on refits vs the required drones was valid at the time of the discussion.

Fair enough. LIke you said, I'm late. (Like, two years late ) But now we're in 'the future', so what about now?

. While it might be relatively rare to see a fleet without many or any escort drones, it is by no means improbable or unlikely,

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If something is relatively rare it is by nature unlikely to make an appearance.

I don't think it's contradictory at all, I said relatively for a reason. If I see twenty Ferraris a week that's a lot of exotic sports cars, they are not uncommon. But relative to how many other cars I see they are rare. It is rare compared to the norm, not rare to encounter at all, i.e. while an individual ship or crew may never encounter a hive fleet without escort drones, the Imperial Navy as a whole would be familiar with such compositions. It's not like fielding the Seditio Opprimere, where there is only one of them in existence.

The original publication of the BFG rulebook talked about how there's no reason not to take whatever fleet list you want if it could happen.

How has this changed any with the FAQ? If you want to take whatever you feel like you can still do it if your opponent approves just like it's always been.

I merely brought that up as an example of mindset. But, to address your point, it has 'changed' with the FAQ because if I don't know my opponent and they don't know me, in my experience they won't be comfortable tossing the rules out of the window just because I don't like some of them. I normally play pick-up games, so I have to lay out all these arguments each time? I find the new ruling irritating, but not that much!

This statement assumes that all 'nid players do little other than take hulked-out hiveships and plod down the board spitting out ordnance.

95% of the lists I've seen for nids personally and seen new players or tournament players post included refits prior to the FAQ so it's not an assumption that ALL did this but it is based on the evidence that a majority did.

Fair enough, this may be true after all. The minority being left out is a unavoidable circumstance sometimes, it just always bothers me, as when it comes to my lists (in this and other games) I tend to be in that minority.

"Oh, but 'nid players should have their options restricted, shouldn't they?" What could possibly be the justification?

Nids where the only fleet that could take whatever refit they felt like in a one of game without having to "earn" it in a campaign. What made nids so special to have that consideration?

I wasn't referring to the refits thing at all, actually. The arguments for why 'nids should be allowed to do this have been repeated ad naseam, no need to rehash them here. Suffice it to say I am not against Tyranid refits being disallowed in normal games. I think that, while it tends to kill the usefulness of their cruisers, it's a perfectly fine rule. It encourages 'nid players to actually use tactics, rather than just ram their invincible battleships down the opponent's throat and expect to win. It also makes the refits actually have a point in campaigns. Previously it tended to go, "I get refits! Oh, I already took them all..."

The 'restriction' I was referring to is how a hivefleet now is required to spend a number of points in a certain way that is not always compatible with the build and tactics of the fleet, thereby limiting their effective builds and tactics.

You seem frustrated in particular that the drones are required, I'm guessing that's mostly because whatever list you run or were planning to run got hit because of the changes.

Yes, and hit hard! Why else would I care, right? Prior to this FAQ, if I didn't use refits for my hive ships, a reasonable rule of thumb was one hiveship per 500 points. This is no longer the case, as the required drones will eat up most the remaining points. So now I can either take few enough hiveships to have an effective number of fast elements, or take a greater number of hiveships but not very many fast ships. This leaves me either without sufficient synapse coverage or without a list that can do much more than 'castle'.

My question would be, do the changes make nids under powered or incapable of variety in lists or that they just aren't the sandbox they were prior to the FAQ?

In my opinion the changes do not make the Tyranids underpowered, but they do make them incapable of variety in lists.

Before the FAQ there were several options for tyranid fleets, from one hiveship and many escorts to all hiveships and no escorts. One could take a few hiveships with many escort drones, creating a durable and powerful but slow formation, or one could take a few hiveships with many vanguards and kraken, creating a loose formation that can cover a large area of the board and encircle the enemy fleet.

Now the one hiveship option and the no escort options have been deep-sixed. Taking a few hiveships with lots of fast escorts is still allowed, but much harder to do effectively, as you are saddled with a number of ships that are too slow to contribute to the envelopment. So what we are left with is a situation where every tyranid list will look more or less the same, a number of hive ships surrounded by escorts, with cruisers and kraken/vanguards relegated to a support role due to lack of numbers.

There is still room for variation thanks to the flexible options each captial ship has, but in terms of broader list types I do think a lot of the variety has been eliminated. While I think that the 'sandbox' level of flexibility they had really fit the 'nid theme and background, it did have game-breaking potential that was too great to ignore. But I think that swinging too far in the opposite direction is just as bad.


As has been said numerous times, if the goal was to eliminate overuse of refits, that is easily accomplished by simply disallowing them. I just don't see how the new escort requirement contributes anything to making the fleet more enjoyable to play, whether as or against.

[Vaaish]

Fair enough. LIke you said, I'm late. (Like, two years late ) But now we're in 'the future', so what about now?

To be honest, outside of a couple of lists posted and some questions about if refits were allowed, I haven't seen or heard much from the nid players on how their lists are doing post FAQ. Your post seems to be one of the first strong reactions I can remember. Personally, while the limit does seem a bit crazy if you are used to complete freedom in fleet composition I think they end up promoting more variety in fleets since the extra escorts tacked onto the hiveship makes the cruisers more interesting.

The 'restriction' I was referring to is how a hivefleet now is required to spend a number of points in a certain way that is not always compatible with the build and tactics of the fleet, thereby limiting their effective builds and tactics.

I think you are correct in terms of the traditional Nid fleets, but prior to the FAQ how often did you see a Nid cruiser get considered or taken? Or how often were escort drones used over the other types? My point here is that the old builds and tactics might need to change but in the end more builds might be useful despite the restrictions.

[Mycen]

Fair enough. LIke you said, I'm late. (Like, two years late ) But now we're in 'the future', so what about now?

To be honest, outside of a couple of lists posted and some questions about if refits were allowed, I haven't seen or heard much from the nid players on how their lists are doing post FAQ. Your post seems to be one of the first strong reactions I can remember. Personally, while the limit does seem a bit crazy if you are used to complete freedom in fleet composition I think they end up promoting more variety in fleets since the extra escorts tacked onto the hiveship makes the cruisers more interesting.

The 'restriction' I was referring to is how a hivefleet now is required to spend a number of points in a certain way that is not always compatible with the build and tactics of the fleet, thereby limiting their effective builds and tactics.

I think you are correct in terms of the traditional Nid fleets, but prior to the FAQ how often did you see a Nid cruiser get considered or taken? Or how often were escort drones used over the other types? My point here is that the old builds and tactics might need to change but in the end more builds might be useful despite the restrictions.

*shrug* I can't speak for the whole 'nid community, but I know I loved fielding cruisers pre-FAQ, I typically had at least two. (I have a beautiful little ten hit, +5cm speed, claw/claw/bio-plasmaX2 baby that I built, it hits the table almost every game. ) With the new FAQ I would say they are about the same in terms of attractiveness as they were before.

They become much less effective, as, aside from torp/torp cruisers, without refits they are too fragile and cumbersome to take advantage of their most effective weapons. Tentacles and claws don't work at all after a few hits, and fpr16 batteries or S4 lances aren't all that attractive on a slow light cruiser. But since it's harder to use the points left over after purchasing hiveships and escort drones now, they become more attractive as points fillers, since they aren't impacted by the escort limits. So I go from taking them because they're good to taking them because I don't really have anything else I want to spend the points on.

As far as escort drones, I used those all the time - a normal fleet (when I wasn't trying for fast envelopment tactics) would have around 14 or so. As people have already mentioned, they're deceptively awesome.

It just seems to me that rather than more builds being useful, it's just that different builds are useful. Nothing a 'nid player couldn't have done before, but now they don't have a choice, as the old builds are illegal. That certainly accomplishes the goal of changing up the metagame, but in a rather artificial and temporary way. (Now the 'nid players will all do something else, but you'll still see 95% of them doing the same thing.) It just doesn't seem like it adds anything to the fleet to me.

[Innocent]

Well if you need more feedback from Nids player, I can say that I totally feel like Mycen. I was going to write a response but he ended up saying the exact same thing I wrote!

First I don't and never have used refits.

Secondly it may not look like much but those 6 extra drones really change the way you have to play. They are extremely slow and short range, meaning that if you want to make them count your entire fleet has to slow down to their pace. Who takes an army option that is not going to be used in a game?

Also, to compensate for the slow drones I have to max on launch bays. Not a lot of people like dealing with that much ordnance. But I see no other alternative if I don't want to be blasted by long range fire.

Before I could have a slow core with a carrier hiveship and 6 drones, and the other hiveship could be kitted out with weapons batteries or anything else and be more independent than the core. Now it's one big block of 2 hiveships and 12 drones. The other option is to take just one hiveship but you are taking a huge risk (if you loose it it's game over) and then you have to take cruisers that are near useless.

Cruisers, seriously what can you use these for? They are too slow and unmaneuvrable (20cm / 45°)  to be decent light cruisers or close combat ships. They only have 6hp and a 5+ armor so cannot be ships of the line or ramships. No long range weapons or launch bay options. The only marginally useful configuration is the dual torps one, and then you will have to keep them far behind so that they don't get crippled by the first Lunar sneezing. I just find them too weak, too slow and unmaneuvrable to be of any use. It's a shame they don't have access to refits. With the refits I could see myself creating ramships, assault ships etc...

I know that I don't have to use the FAQ, but it is pretty much regarded by everyone in our gaming circle as the rules. As 99% of it is great and very helpful I have no problems with this, but I have to live with slowing down my list. I see the drones thing as a stop gap measure until the community can come up with a fleet that is balanced but yet retains it's character. I don't have enough games under my belt to contribute much myself yet, but I'm starting to pick up a few things. If I come up with clever ideas I'll make sure to share them.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Secondly it may not look like much but those 6 extra drones really change the way you have to play. They are extremely slow and short range, meaning that if you want to make them count your entire fleet has to slow down to their pace. Who takes an army option that is not going to be used in a game?

This is exactly why the escort drone rule should be removed and the standard 6-12 of ANY escorts should be the option.

The fleet was also intended to include ships with refits, the problem is a few people taking advantage of that. The cruisers are not bad at all when you makes a 165pt 8 hit 25cm speed line cruiser with 8 torpedoes and 8 p/s batteries or a 175 pt 8 hit 25cm speed "battle"cruiser with 4 torps, 8 l/f/r batteries and 8 p/s batteries.

[Vaaish]

So what kind of fleet lists are you running or planning to run with the FAQ nids then? I'm curious to see how things run with the changes. I see the point abut it being any type of escort rather than just escort drones but how much would that change your play style or list if the restriction wasn't there?

[AndrewChristlieb]

I dont play nids my self, but my buddy plays a heavy cruiser/ kracken list and its fast he has no need to put the bloat on the hive ship because of the speed. The two cruisers listed are some of his and they hurt  .