I've done well with a mechanized Net-EA SM list with 7 Land Raiders and 2 Tactical formations. Both units are more viable in the Net-EA lists so that would probably be better for a new player like that to use rather than the Epic-UK lists.

Simply making my Epic UK Space Wolves Land Raiders 325 rather than 350 would give me a decision to make....

Vindicators at 225 rather than 250 too, thinking about it.

_________________
Big Gunz don't fly!

Both of those formations have been costed that way in Net-EA for many years and makes an armoured / mechanised SM army quite viable (though probably not quite as good as a SM air list).

I just meant that there appear to be more new players crossing our paths on Facebook than here on tac comms or in clubs. The suggestion made earlier to gently introduce new players by going easy on them in your first games should go without saying in a club but is not applicable on Facebook. So when we come across new players just looking for the latest rules to play with the models they already have, I am suggesting it maximises the chance of growing the community if the lists we direct them to let them have as good experience as possible with the lowest of barriers. If they have a good experience they are more likely to stick with Epic, buy a few more models etc.


Richard it is a good point that not all such players will use our lists anyway, but plenty do get directed here and the lists are likely to be the source of their first impression.

It needn't be sweeping changes, maybe just a couple here or there. It does need people to get on board with the principle of developing the list with new players in mind rather than ourselves though.

Also we are focusing on the relative power of units in army lists here, but there is more we could do. For example we could add a 'statement of theme' in every list and not just the new ones; we could add example builds (and paragraph explaining how it plays) on the NetEA website alongside the list itself. We could put the NetEA vs EUK vs netepic explanation we regularly talk about in a prominent place that we can pin on the Facebook groups; I did a diagram some years ago i recall.

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

Some excellent points Kyrt.

Added some Ork suggestions including Battlewagon reduction to the Armageddon bit if the forum.

_________________
Big Gunz don't fly!

I'm perhaps more tempted to add new lists than tweak with established balance lists.
e.g, why not make a Space Marine land raider heavy chapter? and give them reduced cost land raiders counterbalanced by no thunderhawks.
I have a mounted of (Khorne!!) things that I (Khorne!!) never get to use that still looks (Khorne!!!!) great.

you know we basically have the makings of the marine heavy armour list already, right? If only people would let go of their comfortable codex air assault and use something else occasionally it'd be approved by now. Yeah it needs some tweaks but it also needs the gentle, may I daresay even lover-like embrace of Dan as well


viewtopic.php?f=73&t=21814

wih some testing and changes we could have this more tank focused (and yeah ditch the regular tbricks) and approved in short order. Plus you know.. LR terminus ! pew pew

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Deathskull Orks!

Have a generic transport (use Rhinos/Chimeras/Battlewagons etc).

Also a generic tank (use Gunwagons/Leman Russ/Land Raiders/Predators).

Units of the plastic Ork infantry with heavy weapons.

Stompas that are not reliant on a Super-Stompa.

Commandos made a great choice.

Maybe something tweaked on strategy and activation rolls to take into account what they learn from dem 'oomans.

_________________
Big Gunz don't fly!

Deathskulls? Don't you mean Blood Axes? (coz dey DID trade wif da humie gitz, dose gitz)...

Basically all the plastic Ork stuff and a bunch of marine plastics thrown in. Would it play differently? I dunno, that's up to the balance brigade to determine. But it's fluffy, has a couple good units it and could have plenty tweaks to imperial stats to reflect Orky know-wots, but less Garganty/heavy/Mekspam stuff, because proper Orks don't really want anything to do with treacherous gitz like the Blood Axes.

How often do fluffy ideas AND potentially technically sound ideas happen at once? Ooh, it makes me tingle.

NetEA has not one, but two Blood Axe lists already (check the compendium). Outside of NetEA TP, I can see PFE and I using one in Mechanicum book which being a 'historical document' doesn't have the same restrictions on balance in the GT.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Just because it has two doesn't mean that either one worked well. Look at the White Scars kerfuffle.

Chroma's "Kolonel Rommel" list is probably closest to what I had in mind but could do with a spit and polish and a bit of tweaking before it's a suitable new player list. It has most of the elements in it to have that intangible Blood Axe FEEL though, so that's a vastly better start than the other list (which, sorry, just looks about as interesting as a can of spam).

Aye that's the one i prefer as well

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Just to put my 2c/p in... I've spent ages bemoaning this so will try to keep this brief, but monkeyboy is describing something i have seen many times now.

I've tried to introduce probably a dozen or so people into EA now. Of those 2/3 which have stuck at it (at least until the next shiny comes around) have generally been (surprisingly - at least to me) those with no experience of older epic editions or who chose to build new armies from scratch using onslaught/vanguard/forumwear/etc (tau, eldar and guard).

It is an old joke that show me a 30/40-something wargamer and he will show you some 1990s epic from their loft. People wanted to play this game again.

The older players generality liked the initial few games where i got my guard out, moderated my behavior a little with a fluffy list and every one got excited having their old toys on the table. Then we started playing objectives and I brought an assault focused army and things got tricky. I brought out my eldar and i really had to start making excuses.

I really like the air assault rules and what has been done with the very focused lists, but the first thing which confused the hell out of new players was being dumped with 2 sets of lists - NetEA and EpicUK (and don't remind me of the player who spent an entire week learning net Epic after googling rather than clicking on my email link) - each with 15 shades of marine and a smattering of other subtle variations (to a noob) on guard/ork/eldar etc.

"Where is THE marine/ork/eldar list?" Was the constant refrain. "There isn't really "one" is not a good answer, especially when people can see the other options are literally taking years to develop.

When you start telling people they need to leave all their iconic marine units in their case (LR, Dreadnoughts, whirlwinds, vindicators, etc) as they are "sub-par" it just kills people's enthusiasm. Similar when someone rocks up with an beautiful bunch of ork clans in battle wagons. People want their army to play something like it used to under SM2.

I know all the arguments for the tailored lists. Its great, but directing a new player to an obscure experimental list called "Apocrypha of Skaros - 1.1" (for example) on a forum where experienced players argue back and forth for years about whether it is balanced just doesn't seem appealing when starting a new game to most. Neither does going out and dropping money on a couple of thunderhawk proxies and a ton more terminators while leaving the rest of the toys in the box.

Likewise, old-gronards like baneblades. They like basilisks. The like battle wagons and howling banshees. And they especially like titans. Big ones.

You can say the answer is new lists - but even new players point out - how come eldar players can take (almost) everything they want and it is competitive? And if BT is balanced, surely so could a "fuller" marine/ork/guard list?

Imho, more internal-balance in the main lists is the answer, not more tailored lists. We have a ready-made player base, but many are put off the game by these imbalances. I also think many are put off seeing experienced players repeatedly picking very similar army lists year on year due to the lack of competitive options.

Keep the current lists for bench-marking, they won't be erased, but imho having a "main" list for the core armies with expanded options would attract a lot more people. And yes, some WACC tournament players will exploit them, but it's not like Krieg, tau, squats, etc were perfect first time.

To this end we have started tweaking units locally. Doubt it will have much traction on Taccoms, but i'm enjoying having my LR, dreadnaughts and baneblades out for some games. Will feed back when we have some tested proposals.

(I knew that wouldn't be brief.)

Truth be told this, and the WAAC objective-based gaming usually available to players of E:A (I can persuade just one person within 150 miles of me to play games for fun with "whatever we want", rather than objectives and with winning as the primary objective), is where all my attempts to get Epic alive again end up dying off.

Plenty of people don't want to engage in tournament-only games, but do want to play Epic. Some people might want to play Epic because of the story that they want to share WITH others, rather than play AGAINST others. However the community at large is oriented towards tournaments and keeps these people from getting engaged in the setting. Great if you like tournaments, or are ambivalent, but a death knell for sourcing new players outside of that often-competitive tournament circle which directs how lists are chosen and games are played. There are plenty of great, fun people that go to tournaments - I've met a bunch at the one tournament I went to, I'm not criticizing them or tournaments in general - but when all the lists are designed and tested with tournament "builds" in mind and very little thought to "is this actually fun to play against?", or when half the toys have to left in the box in favour of five units of X, Y and Z -every single time- because tournament battles are the only game in town? It doesn't have the tone of an epic game telling a story set in the 40K universe.

That's largely why I've returned to building my armies for lightly-modified SM2 games with the occasional scenario and vassal games with like-minded fluff-first gamers. The people playing that still tell stories and let me just play -with- them.