Im with Frogbear on this, actually. Technically, Zombo's list was a fanlist.

If you think about it, using the "every list on this board is a fanlist" argument, then every army list ever created by any company is also a "fanlist".

Of course they are And we're all fans! But some are more official than others.

That is clearly what Frogbear is pulling towards, and I couldnt have seconded his sentiments any better than how he stated them.

The reason it is such a big deal to me? I work at a FLGS. Im the resident 6mm nut. Because of me, the store is now carrying 6mm terrain and models (well, if DRM ever shows - it was ordered 2 months ago!). And when I tell potential converts about Epic, I hear "I used that play that years ago, but GW stopped supporting it!" This is my cue to enter TacComm into the discussion.

As I start doing demos in the next few weeks, I'll be arriving with stacks of printed out "NetEA lists" to hand out, not only to spark interest, but also to show that this is where I come for my lists. And I happen to like the "NetEA" stamp at the top.

From the point of view of the newcomers I am attempting to dazzle at the game table, which would look more impressive:
1. The stamp of the site the game store employee has been telling everyone and their mother about
2. A list I could have written in Word?

No offense to anyone or any list, but if I can get an "Official" list to hand out, the answer will always be #1. Thats why I am so keen on having Zombo and LI work this out, so Zombo's list can join the "officialness", if you will.

Zombo, dont get defensive, but I think thats where FB is coming from, because its how I see it as well.

Let me see if I can clear up this whole "official" buisness, or at least, give my take on it.

When Epic was created, the curious decision to make development fan-driven was taken (presumably because GW didn't want to spend the resources on doing it in-house). At that time, initially the big three were developed - which were obviously official - and after that Swordwind, which as published, is also cast-iron official. After that, the "official" line was to work on the main armies that would be supported by SG. Chaos was next (although the whole support line boiled down to only one box) along with the LatD, which was a bit of an anomaly as no miniature support was ever planned (I think it coasted on the classic miniature range). Fantatic support died around the time the Chaos lists were finished, so they never saw a Swordwind-like supplement. At that time, the "official" playtest lists were the main armies - Tau, Tyranids, Necrons and so on. So at this time, despite the Grey Knight model range, Daemonhunters and the other ordos were not considered something that was to be supported, so it was always a fanlist.

Since the death of Fanatic and the inception of NetEA, the game has changed. We've seen an explosion of smaller fan-lists. Fanatic is no more, so there is no possibility of any lists gaining the "officialdom" that Swordwind or even Chaos enjoy. Now, all we have is the NetEA stamp. Of course, free from the requirement to gel with any kind of release schedule, NetEA can grant their approval on any list! In some regards, the NetEA is superior - they take everything a lot more seriously than Fanatic did in its waning days and really know what they're talking about - but it still lacks the "GW officialness" people often seem to think is important (I'm sure we all know examples of how "GW official" products can be imbalanced).

Nevertheless, as Moscovian has shown, actually putting into print your armylist is a terrific way of making it "official." The Raiders supplement was an awesome achievement and marked a finishing point for the lists contained within. If you're planning to bring army lists for demo games, if you don't already have it I certainly recommend you pick up Raiders as it is truly remarkable piece of work and looks 10 million times better than any stack of print-outs.

So yes, I agree that NetEA stamp of approval is a good thing to look for in a list. However, the game has changed somewhat - as before, certain lists were "official" and others "fanlists" (the Inquisition being the latter), now any list has the potential to become NetEA approved - but it has to earn that by being playtested and indeed played. Even better if a list can become part of a supplement and put into print.

As it stands therefore, Inquisition is not yet "NetEA approved" (or even NetEA experimental for that matter) but we're moving towards that. I'm not yet 100% happy with the lists - Daemonhunters is nearly done pushed by the awesome if fiddly forgeworld models, Alienhunters is also getting there although it tends to be more controversial as there's precious little background out there on large-scale Deathwatch operations given that they never received a codex. Witch Hunters has languished due to lack of playtesting.

So the trick to making a list "official" is to playtest the crap out of it and get it looking professional with fluff and pictures and - if possible - bound and published. Inquisition has never enjoyed the degree of playtesting that the Black Legion or other "main" lists have, most of it has been based on my own playtest experiences with occasional flurries of input from isolated other players.

Kealios: The thing is, as Lord I says, there is no such thing as official. There's netEA Approved, but then a grand total of one list has that stamp so far. This list is currently netEA experimental or development, which means very little. Any list can apply for such a status, which just means that the list is now under the netEA umbrella and I will with my ministorum list once the stats are matched with the witchhunters.

Frogbear was saying that since this is a fanlist, it should have crazy units in it, and have a separate, official list. I'm trying to explain that this is the "official" list, so shouldn't have crazy units. The world "fanlist" is just confusing things, people are misunderstanding what it means.

Inquisitors - I agree with the general sentiment of simplifying the retinues considerably. I know they have great variety in 40k, but they can be averaged out for the purposes of Epic and reduced to a smaller variety of units and formation composition options.

Strategy Rating - Personally, I think the variable SR is unnecessary. Each Ordo has its own list so they can be varied if necessary. I'd say that in general an Inquisitor is going to requisition high-performing IG troops and they will be ... motivated, shall we say, so maintaining a strong SR when combined with Sisters or Astartes shouldn't be all that outrageous. If you want a pure SM list that is not weighed down with non-Astartes then I'd say just write a separate list (you're doing 3 already).

Black Fortress - I think if you're going with "Obsidian" on the other you should probably adjust the name to "onyx" or some other stone to match instead of just "black." Past that, I'm still a bit concerned about the idea of dropping or garrisoning something so large. I think that it needs a strong power-gaming test.

War Engines, general - with the Fortresses and Basilica available out of the normal formation list, you're looking at the equivalent of a Titan Legion as a legal build. Right now Ordo Hereticus could have a Fortress, Basilica, 3 Warhounds, a formation of Tbolts and enough points left over for 2-3 ground formations with decent durability. If you want to allow an extreme build like that, that's fine. Just make sure you test it heavily.

Equally, there's no reason an "official" list need be a catch-all "vanilla" list, nor is there any reason new units cannot be considered. The "basic" guard list is based on the steel legion of armageddon. The "basic" eldar list is based on the Biel Tan craftworld. Hence my Inquisition lists have always been based on an Inquisitorial Task Force from the Scarus sector. I'm hesitant about going as far as the Helican sub, as that leaves me less room for new fluff. One of the other subs like Angelus or Antimar might also be a possibility for a setting. In general I like the idea of focussing the background substantially as it gives me more leeway towards certain units, etc.


Noted. I shall think about how the number of options can be cut down.


Hmm. The idea was always that the list could cater for a pure-GK list, as this is something that appeals to some people. Is it really preferable to produce another whole list just to avoid the SR rule? Otherwise GKs with SR3 or 4 seems odd. The rule could be simplifed to simply SR3 with SR5 for pure-Grey Knight forces. In the long term perhaps a pure-Grey Knight list could be made in the same fashion as zombocom's sisters list, but I am loathe to start a new project (particularly since I've already branched off relictors and cadian/grey knights as future projects) that just won't get completed.


Noted. I've not had a lot of success garrisoning the drop fortress in playtests, but perhaps I haven't figured out how to use it right. Not being able to move it makes it very vulnerable despite its power. I'm aware of the potential for a "titan" list - in the example given I'll make the Basilica the OH equivalent of the fortress (so you can only get one giant fortress) but that's still stackable with actual titans. It certainly could do with more stress testing - but I haven't found a way to abuse it successfully.

Im getting another game in today and will likely be using the Sisters again. Problem is, it'll probably be the same list Ive taken the other 2 times since its the models I have and what I think is working for me

As for Raiders, I am waiting till 2.0 comes out! Ive already made my request to Moscovian!

On the SR - My thought was it would be easier and give more focus to have a separate list that was maybe 1/3 of a page (e.g. GK, air, titans) instead of having to pull pieces out of a larger list but maybe it's not necessary.

With the sisters, it's clear from the discussions about Zombo's list that there's enough meat to the list that they can be stand-alone so I think that can probably be cut even if GK and Deathwatch are not.


I suppose it's sort of a design call, so what's the overall plan? You could do it with a small group of docs with one hybrid and the appropriate pure list, e.g. Ordo Malleus and Grey Knights in a single doc. Or it would also make sense with all the overlap to do a single doc that included all the unit data sheets for Inq, GK, Deathwatch, Sisters and Ecclesiastics and then a ton of army lists that mix-n-match the groups with appropriate combos - Malleus (GK/Inq), pure GK, Hereticus (Sisters/Inq), pure Sisters, etc..

I know you started out sort of with the latter and received criticism but I think that was more about having all the Ordos in a single army list. Separating out the army lists to simplify construction would probably take care of that just fine.

I think that would be better served by having a seperate Grey Knights army list, which would include the full range of equipment available to them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not a problem - indeed, it's a good idea to play multiple times with the same list to make sure you're using it to its full potential and get a range of formation interactions.


It's also noteworthy that the GKs and DW are both intricately tied with their Ordos and rarely if ever operate alone. The sisters, on the other hand, serve two masters and operate quite normally as the military arm of the Ecclesiarchy. Mind you, it never sat well with me or many people that they should be both the Ministorum fighting arm and the chamber militant of the Ordo Hereticus - how can they effectively serve two masters, even if one "outranks" the other? It was a weak retcon.

Anyway, the point is that the sisters certainly deserve a unique list with the other Ecclesiarchical rabble, but that doesn't necessarily mean the DW or GKs do. It's rumoured that in 40K the next edition of the Inquisition codex will not contain sisters and they'll get their own codex at some point, which seems like a reversal. It's not clear at this point if that'll happen (it seems likely if the three ordos are getting a single codex) and whether there'll be any change to the background or alliance rules.


This is really a matter of if and when the different lists are put into supplements for presentation. Currently Ordo Xenos is slated to be part of the Xenos supplement to combat those alien scum, but nothing else is on the cards apart from a vague possibility of Ordo Malleus in some form with Black Crusade.

There are already 6 Inquisition lists that have been created - the three full Ordos, zombo's sisters list, and I've made (but entirely untested) combined Radical Inquisitor + Space Marines in a Relictors list and Ordo Malleus + Guard in what I hope will be one of the Cadian lists.

My point is that using the Ordo Malleus list you can perfectly well make a pure-GK by only selecting appropriate units. Making a whole new army list with just those units seems like unnecessary faff, and a new list with expanded options stretches playtesting - the relictors, for example, haven't had any playtesting and it is unlikely that they ever will.


What units would be included beyond the ones in the Ordo Malleus list to fill out a pure GK list?

Grey Knight units that you don't want in your Inquisition list, such as the Psycannon-armed Razorback, Stormraven, and whatever else gets added in their upcoming Codex.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, that's a distinct possibility. Let's pencil in a potential pure-Grey Knight list for after the new codex is released. It's not a bad idea - things like the stormraven would clutter up the Ordo Malleus list further with little gain but might work in a pure list.

Still think they shouldn't have razorbacks, but we'll see what the new codex brings and then think about the structure of this list. On the other hand, Thunderhawk Transporters might be more viable.

This is my vote. Make it like the Space Marine or Eldar lists (all unit data up front, specific army lists following) and I'll be quite content

This is what I proposed. Perhaps I did not make it so clear however...

Seconded!

It has the potential to be the most played our of all the ordos IMO and the simplest to get balanced and ready for play.

That form of document is simply the standardized layout of the NetEA Army Docs, no army/faction designer is forced to follow that.