I agree that there are far too many lists around for E:A, with fan lists which will never see development, and lots of lists which are very similar to others and probably should be merged, but I don't see any problems with having a Krieg list which restricts you to the iconic and regiment-specific formations and equipment, plays in a grinding, siege-assault way, and still allows you some flexibility in list design and fine-tuning, and the ulani or minervan lists which represent a tank regiment, have very few options for infantry and focus on heavy armour and potent shooting, they're differenct facets of the imperial guard, and most lists allow you to add some elements of others if you desire, krieg can take artillery and a huge variety of tanks if they want, but the list will still focus around big infantry companies and their gorgons

having open community development is bound to lead to arguments and stagnation, as well as the proliferation of more and more new lists, but the alternative is a bunch of people who feel excluded from the development process and become completely disillusioned with epic (and there are plenty of those already!)

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I have to agree with kyussinchains here. The iconic Krieg army does not fit neither the Steel Legion nor Baran army lists. I can see no harm in creating an army list making it possible. I do, however, agree that every army list that is created is not really necessary (read Marine chapters or Guard regiments). It is not the creation of units/models that should drive army list creation, but creating new play styles not allowed by the "original" lists. Having a restricted sub-set standard instead of a take-what-you-want approach to army list creation also makes a fair external balance more possible.

/Fredmans

There are a lot of lists around but I'm not sure that has to be a big problem, as has been pointed out in another thread (i thought it was this one, but it isn't!) you always have the "standard" version of one races list first in the tournament pack. The fact that, in general, they all seem to be reasonably balanced is testament to the efforts of everyone on the board. It can easily go so horribly wrong - we're far closer to the balance of systems like Infinity than the mess that has become 40k. 40k seems to have thrown out the idea of competitive (or even just plain fair?) play and is now becoming more a beer and pizza system, which is fine. E:A (and Infinity) seem to be able to straddle both camps equally well - which is no mean feat.

I'm getting to thinking of the other lists like the Infinity Sectorial approach (Edit: this is probably the other way around in fact, E:A was first!!) - limited lists that offer alternatives at the expense of some choices and the more familiar I get with the system the more I like it. More than that, it sounds like it was always the specific mandate of the system to offer lists from a variety of historical points in 40k so I'm not at all surprised that having been left to our own devices there are a shed load of lists.

It is a slight shift in mindset to add an extra step into the army building process, normally it might be; choose race, choose units, whereas in E:A, it's more like choose race, choose list, choose units, but it does more effectively maintain balance and in my opinion increase enjoyment of the game (which is why we're all here right?!) by simply removing certain options .

one of the smartest engineers I've ever been fortunate enough to work with once told me that you don't design with your pencil, you design with your eraser.... when trying to improve a design you should always be thinking of what you can remove rather than add

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

A discussion here got significantly derailed by the same discussion, so I'll paste my argument from there here :



I realised that I deeply disliked the list philosophy of E:A some time ago and made a lengthy post about it at the time. I will find you a link about it if you're interested to know what I would think to be a good design, but I'm not playing anymore anyway, so this is a bit academic. Basically, I think there should only be one list per faction, maybe with things likre traits or doctrine you could select to give some more options.

Yes, that mean I think you should be able to build an thematic army of any SM chapter, or any eldar craftworld, tau sept, etc, from a single list. I don't even think it would be hard to make such a list. Throw everything in it, using the average point costs, go on from there.

Easy to design such a list, yes. Impossible to balance it and that's the problem I think. For example with dark angels, it's perfectly possible to represent dark angels in the codex list, it just is categorically "worse" as a result.

As such, I do find your examples curious. Marines are the one race where I think only the one list is actually needed. It has a very flexible structure with no core and support requirements, so you can do:
air assault
drop from orbit
ground pounders
fast attack heavy (white scars, ravenwing)
armoured force
assault themed
company themed (e.g. scout company, 1st company terminators)
defensive siege (omit thunderhawks, put some bunker terrain on the table)
offensive siege (pick vindicators)

The main reason to have variant army lists for marines seems to be because a few chapter-specific units are missing, most of which didn't even exist in 40K until, like, 4th edition. For the most part these are pretty insignificant at the Epic scale IMO. You can make a dark angel army by choosing to omit titans and air and picking more bikes and speeders. Even if we absolutely must include furioso dreadnoughts in the list, it could be done through a "perk" system, e.g. if you select blood angels you can pick baal predators, but assault marines get some negative special rule (death company) and you must pick at least 1. For me it's really no big deal that one particular build of marines (e.g. the dark angel build) is not as good as all the others, if you want to win a tournament just choose a different build.

By contrast, many of the other races have lists with very different play styles that would be very difficult to construct and balance if they were combined. If guard could get both company and platoon sized formations of every unit available to them, it would be a nightmare. Was Epic 40K's "any unit you want" list construction really balanced for tournament play? Not really IMO. To wit, the major balancing feature of the Steel Legion list is that the core formations are necessary and expensive. More importantly, all of a sudden tournament lists would start to look really odd (like they do in 40K), and not at all in theme like they do at the moment. Biel Tan Epic tournament armies are characteristically Biel Tan - lots of aspects, and Ulthwe ones look like Ulthwe - guardians abound. But if I could pick aspect troupes in my Biel Tan army for a tournament I would - the fact that I can't is a balancer that stops the army from being overly powerful.

Lists in EA are more about what they stop you doing than what they let you. Is that a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Could the variant lists be presented differently (e.g. as one list with "paths")? Probably.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

why do you HAVE to have limitations ?

1) For Flavour !
1/3 limit for allies formation makes sense, but the other don't. I think constricting the lists into a single playstyle is indefensible. given the other constraints imposed by the rules (activations vs formation size), all the efficient armies built with a given list look like variations of the same. The next logical step would just be to just provide pre-built and balanced armies, the lists makes no sense.

It is actually quite interesting that you react saying that multiple lists are nice, because they can provide for different play-styles. I am precisely saying that a single list should provide for multiple play-style, actually all the play-style that are considered to make sense for that army. But the community is so used to making lists, that "one play-style = one list" is thought of like a self evident axiom. It is not !

2) For balance !
The argument doesn't stand. Why would an all gargant army be impossible to balance in the core ork list but not in a specific one ? What difference will it make if the two armies were built using different excel files from the point of view of the opponent ? All WE lists can be imbalanced, that much is true, specially given that most of them are fearless. I think we should just have made War engine unable to hold objectives (just as infantry is usually considered to be the only arm capable of holding one IRL), and be done with it.

Why making a guard list with larger tank formation would be more inherently balanced than allowing an upgrade to do the same with the core list ? Why making specific list for air assaulting marines, or tank formation, or termies heavy would make the lists more balanced ? Why should we prevent a tyranid player from mixing old models and new ? Why would a marine player making is own chapter should have to create a new list to use a combination of troops not represented in another one ? How exactly does it help balance ?

A single list would be easier to update, would gather all playtest, and most importantly would be much more fun to use and create with*. Currently the fun is in creating new lists, which is just plain poor design. It's designer pleasing themselves rather than making a good game. The possibility to stamp ones name at the bottom of an official document (for what it means) has a strong appeal for everyone, and I think things will continues as they are since fan community are very, very resistant to change, but well, I can still voice my opinion every few years


* The way things are done, the natural thing to do if you want to make your own chapter, or your own craftworld or regiment, would be to create a new list, if unofficial. You should be able to make something different with the core list and possibly a set of traits/doctrines/etc.

This is the usual answer But i don't see why it would evidently be so.


That is the issue. You should be able to represent it without being inferior balance wise.



You can build all these, but most of them won't be very efficient.
For example, the cost of the rhinos is included in the formations, and thunderhawks are priced accordingly. This is bad design, as it makes entrenched infantry poorer and thunderhawk better without any really good reason.

It is even a common argument in list threads that "this list is balanced toward THIS PLAYSTYLE, if you want to play differently, you should use list X". And just check the thread with people asking advices concerning their army build to see just how similar all the end products look.



I think the abstract vs detailed stat line is a different issue (i lean toward the abstracted one, I think we should be done with 3 dreadnoughts, 2 Land raider and 2 predators, but well). Anyway, I can't see how it would be hard to balance a hand-to-hand dreadnought or a baal predator in the core marine list.


I don't think so. It would just make the list longer. Do you really think that the availability of a Demolisher or a conqueror company would create an unmanageable synergy that would be impossible to balance ?

This is a common view that more units = harder to balance, but I don't think it hold water. Most units and unit sizes are really variants, and would be quite straightforward to balance.


I'm not advocating custom detachments, just an "all units in the core list" and as few limitations as possible.



You can still paint your eldar black and play them with the biel tan list...

Put everything in the same list. If you want mass of aspects, you will have something playing like a biel tan army, and if you really like this, you could theme your army accordingly (ie : paint it green and white). If you'd rather use mostly guardians, you'll end with something playing like an ulthwe force. Moto-jet = saim hann, wraithlord + wraithguard = Iyanden, etc, I fail to see any meaningful difference. It just means that the player has the choice of the theme rather than the list designer. Once again, this could even be made stronger by using traits, that would encourage themes, rather than multiply lists. Added benefit : If you want to have your own theme, for example your craftworld that uses a combinations of tactics from two other themes (moto-jets and aspects, titans and guardians), you can do so. I think the player should be able to come and bring his own theme If he wants to.


The lists are made to allow for a single playstyle. The creativity is in the hand of the list maker rather than the player. This is bad design.

I think in many cases we are so used to the one list = one style that we exaggerate the strength of such synergy in our mind. I thought the same for years. Give me a patently broken list using formation from all eldar lists, for example, and then we'll see.

There are probably a few broken cases, but I don't think there is anything that couldn't be fixed easily. there are a few synergy, but actually most of the strength are pretty flat.

For example, if in a marine list, any formation could be "enbiggen" by adding half the size again (like the possibility of adding two devastator stands and a rhino), in most case it would balance itself because most upgrade arn't interesting anyway, as the game encourage a large number of activations.
But it would allow for large bike formations if you want an army looking like ravenwing or white scars, or grand company sized detachment if you want space wolves.

The only real problem is with all war engines lists; as I said, I think just making war engines unable to hold objectives would fix it nicely. This is basically the reason why an all aircraft list wouldn't work, even without restrictions, in the current setting.

And as for making it easier to balance, it took 10 years to get a tyranid list, because depending on opinions, we felt like we should be able to take only units with old models, or with new ones, or with the current 40K ones, or disallow a "big bug" WE-centred list (while planning to make another, specific one for it !). At the end of the day, we'll still have to wait for a few more list, with their specific squabbles and development path, to be able to play something different. And probably make your own house list if you want to use your old models beside new ones. I fail to see the interest. One list for all would actually gather all the playtest and manpower, and i think despite having a longer unit list and more detachments, It would probably develop as fast or faster than the current ones.

My biggest gripe with the variety of lists starts with what it robbed from us in the early days of EA...

We started with the recycled and limited setting of Armageddon, which only involved Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Orks.

And what do we get in Round 2? Baran Seige Masters who are basically another Imperial Guard army, Feral Orks, another Ork army, and a specific Eldar craftworld army.

Next up? Speed Freaks and White Scars???

Yes, an observer would note, "oh excellent I have 8 army lists to choose from!" But thats only really from 4 factions (I refuse to seperate Baran and Imperial Guard).

To make matters worse, the miniture development for these, took up precious resources from Specialist Games that no doubt helped bring its downfall. I highly doubt everyone was rushing out to buy list specific units, like the Steam Gargant. I love the look of the Steam Gargant, but I will never play a Feral Ork army list.

Epic 40k would have had these units listed in a master list, and if I wanted to play either a Mega Gargant, Great Gargant, or Steam Gargant, that is my choice. But at that time in EA, I had three different lists for Orks, which is dumb. Even worse, many of us wanted Chaos, Tyranids, etc, but were kept waiting while new lists were created using the same minis.

I don't understand comments directed about abusing Epic 40k's lists. While I thought detachments could be way too big, if someone wanted to put all their eggs in one basket, whatever. If they wanted a motley crew of random minis making up a detachment that wasnt good at any particular thing, thats their deal. My only issue was the time it took to come up with an army at game time. I dont agree that list was broken. I dont think any formation is broken. I think units can be over-valued or under-valued, or too complicated to use, and thats where most of the problems lie.

When I got into AT/SM1, there were standard detachment sizes, but in the Space Marine rulebook, Jervis even said make up your own detachments if you wish, just dont mix infantry and vehicles. What did we do? We mixed infantry and vehicles! lol But in defense of Jervis, the rules for morale (as terrible as they were), were really only for infantry, and I think he was just trying to avoid confusion.

But that being said, we only had so many units or each type, and developed our detachments with how we thought would be best. WE TRUSTED THAT THE POINT VALUES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WERE GOOD, and to us thats all that mattered. Now there are things like supression and better morale rules but to me, I can't see how you can look at any army list and say its broken, no more than you can look at our AT/SM1 groups or Epic 40k lists and say they are broken because they have too many of one thing or not enough of another.

BTW, I understand the excitement of creating a list. I do it all the time for my armies. But I work off one master list of available units. I just dont like (1) deciding on a list and (2) building a list of units from that list. It really is just an extra layer I dont need.

Yes agreed, mishmash formations were possible but impractical in E40k. While you could choose whatever you wanted, over time the best performing formations tended to end up looking more like a typical Epic Armageddon detachment. And this was achieved simply by having a core list for each race. If there was skewing it tended to come more from unbalanced individual units points costing (e..g. AT weapons before the Firepower errata 1 made them +5 points each, and underpowered war engines before that same errata). I'm not so convinced that an approach of "make an army of whatever you want" would be as terrible as people imagine in EA either... provided there was the suitable surcharge for each individual formation to prevent the spamming of popcorn lists.

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

I'm sorry I just don't buy it. Epic 40K was horribly unbalanced, it just didn't matter all that much to me because I was about 15 at the time. My armies were totally min-maxed and they looked weird. Surely you remember the piles and piles of land raiders? Those unit costs you refer to were way out of whack when certain units were combined, and it's no surprise. It's naive to think you can just give a unit a cost in EA and automatically get balance. Units do not work in isolation from each other. A guardian unit is rubbish. A wave serpent isn't all that good either. Guardians in wave serpents are awesome.

The fact that I can't take aspect hosts, aspect troupes, black guardians and spirit hosts in the same list means that the list balancing is at least tractable. Iyanden's a great list, and very different from a Swordwind list. What's its weakness? Expensive core formations needed to unlock other formations. What happens if we throw in some cheap guardian formations? Oops, it's overpowered. What do we do about that? Increase the points values of wraithguard, say. Now what has happened to my thematic iyanden list of wraithguard without guardians? Ooops, it's underpowered. You can't have it all, and all things be balanced at the same time.

I also struggle to imagine how, if you think it has taken too long to get a Tyranid list (and is has, no mistake!), that it will somehow be quicker by adding more units and relaxing the constraints. Witness all the disagreements about which edition of 40K a zoanthrope should be taken from, which is what made the development take so long in the first place. You absolutely need a common ground for everyone to work from, otherwise people will disagree until the end of the world. Whether that's "old nids" or "tank regiment" or "dark angels", it's all about focusing the development towards a single goal. That the goal has not been focused *enough* is IMO a problem.

Maybe it's just that EA is more sensitive to balance, but mostly I think the bar for balance is just set higher in EA. I get that it feels restrictive to have to pick a certain list for a certain playstyle, and as I already said I think there are too many lists, most of which are unnecessary. It's just that I don't think the alternative is workable and it's not worth throwing away a system that actually works. It's all very well saying "the dark angel build in the core marine list should be made to be a good build", but that's ten steps away from making it so.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Yes hence why I mentioned the Epic40k errata, which increased points cost of Epic40k super units like Landraiders. Though an ironic thing about this example is that EA managed to be horribly unbalanced in exactly the opposite direction with Landraiders... remember the piles of them sitting in the unused box, until years later when EA Landraiders finally got a significant points reduction (roughly proportional to the Epic40k points change, just in the opposite direction!).

Or to pick a few other EA examples of bad balance just using the letter "B" from the first published lists, we see problems wtih Bikes (Attack), with Baneblades, with Basilisk companies, with Bombers (Marauder), with more Bikes (Jetbikes), with Banshees, with Bombers again (Phoenix), with Boyz (e.g. Boarboyz and Wildboyz). Good thing we fixed all those (...wait what did we do with Banshees again?). EA is more balanced now, but I'd hope so after a decade of intensive playtesting! However I'm just not sure that a multitude of lists (many in scattered stages of design/testing), have been as helpful as simply getting the basic unit stats and points right in many cases...

Personally I have a lot of sympathy for Atmospherics position and would have been happy with some generic lists minus all the micro-fiddling, e.g. witness arguments about what should or shouldn't be included in lists recently. Seems like a waste of time to me - just make a list that includes it all and let people choose their own theme. Works for other great games like HOTT where there are almost no restrictions on army design, but each unit has a counter paper/scissors/rock style like in EA. But hey as L4 says "do what works for you"!

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