I would argue that the ATS is the "mandatory" part of the Coldstar's loadout; the second support system you choose will vary based on a lot of other factors. In this case, since he has no one else to tote the Drone Controller, that is the natural other choice- but lists with less reliance on drones could easily drop it for Shield Generator, Target Lock, or Counterfire.

Shield Drones are possible- can't really make out details from the photo- but not a given. Gun Drones serve the same purpose and tend to bring more utility when in large numbers, whereas the Shields are mostly only used in small units. It's plausible either way, though.

The Coldstar Commander is almost certainly running Drone Controller + Advanced Targeting System, presuming the player is doing it "right."

By the same token, look at Geoff Robinson- he got to the end of turn 5 or later on every single one of the games he played, even against slow opponents.

Some of the other changes (such as to the weapon platform) also go a long ways towards helping them as well, as do many of the more fundamental changes. But yeah, in terms of making them a competitive unit, Webway Strike is certainly the largest factor- it means they can get where they need to be in a single turn with no diciness and do their job (hopefully.)

For someone who doesn't want to get in a fight, you sure goddamn do wanna fight, Prometheus.

Well, I admit that I also have finished virtually all of my games to at least five turns, so there has never been any need to "fake" a score for later turns that didn't occur. I know that isn't the common experience, as a lot of people have had problems with slow speed of play, but it has not been an issue for me.

The issue with your recommended fix (awarding points for turns not played) is that it actually further incentivizes slow play- ITC currently _punishes_ slow players (unless they misrecord their scores, as you say.) A player who is ahead would have every reason to slow the game down in order to maintain their lead, which I think is not what you want to be doing.

But really, the problem you're describing is essentially just one of players not being quick enough. Players _should_ be finishing games, 8E is significantly faster than 7E; if they aren't doing so, it's because they simply aren't playing fast enough. Your experience has obviously been that awarding "fake" turns is extremely common; mine has not. It might be interesting to have a poll to see what other people's experiences are, but I don't think we can realistically draw a conclusion from two sources.

#1 isn't cheating at all. In fact, it is less generous to the winning player than the BRB rule for tabling someone- by the rulebook, you immediately earn maximum points, whereas ITC scores you less than maximum for the remaining turns of the game.

#2 is certainly an issue, but has nothing to do with ITC in particular. Lots of people still aren't used to playing quickly; if you feel your opponent isn't moving fast enough, you need to say something to them about it. If they still continue to dawdle, call a judge.

#3 I have no idea what you're talking about; I have never witnessed the kind of collusion you're describing in any circumstances, at any tournament. If you have seen it, I suggest you report it to a judge, as that is potentially grounds for ejection from the tournament.

The Champion missions do not award full points for turns not played; in the event of a tabling the player earns 4pts per remaining turn of the game (whereas they could be earning up to 5pts in a normal game turn) and do not earn any remaining points for secondary objectives (such as Recon, etc.) The issue of lethality in 8th edition is certainly one that deserves talking about, but it is one that is not tied to the ITC or to "cheating" (as most of the things you describe are not cheating at all.) It is easier to destroy models in 8E, and that's just how the game is now- if you find yourself being consistently tabled, that is a problem for your army, not for the mission; I know players who brought armies with 200+ models in them that finished six full games without going to time, so it can't be said to be an issue purely of the rules.

I hear that the UK is pretty heavy on Flyrants these days, yeah. I'm skeptical that the US will follow suit, though, Tyranids have not been doing particularly well on this side of the pond.

The highest-placing army with Tyranid models (a GSC army) used zero Flyrants at all and was ranked #31. (It mostly just used Tyranids for Hive Guard and Neurothropes.)

The highest-ranking Tyranid army did indeed run six Flyrants, but came in at #53. The next two highest-ranking Tyranid players ran three and zero Flyrants respectively.

I would say that Flyrants were a common inclusion overall, but not a particularly dominant one and were significantly less popular than the Neurothrope, Biovore, and Hive Guard in terms of overall inclusions.

A lot of players actually don't run all minimum-sized units on Reapers; you typically see 1-4 mimimum units and 1-3 larger units in lists, depending on exact points and whatnot. Mandatory 5man would obviously change things, but I don't think it would actually hurt them all that much in general terms- the Tempest Launcher is a great gun, but a lot of Eldar armies use the Reapers primarily for killing heavy targets, so having more Reaper Launchers per squad would still b perfectly fine.