Tactical Command :: View topic - Should EUK 'nids be adopted?

You don't see me putting forward an alternative AMTL or Blood Angels list for adoption, I'm sure you wouldn't be all excited about that. So how do you think a post like this feels?

It's pretty hard to see how he could not take it personally as you're suggesting that he not only abandon a lot of work he's already put into 'nid development but also that he abrogates a huge chunk of his responsibility as the new 'nid champion.

I hope not. I'm really not a fan of EUK. I dislike closed development and quite often their lists are quite unimaginative and conservative. Take their marine list variants for instance there is very little difference between them except what colour to paint your miniatures.

I'd rather have community led development which sometimes screws up and occasionally leads to fairly heated debates which go some way to confirming Godwin's law, but finishes up with more original and differentiated lists.

Quote:

I'm asking if it's a good idea, not telling him he's an idiot if he doesn't do it.

If I'd said that, now that would be a personal insult.

But I haven't said that, or anything like it.

Regardless, it seems the community is happy to re-start development again, so it's academic.

Development isn't being restarted again

A more positive view would be to look at it as a fresh drive to finally finish the 'nid list by 2 very experienced and committed players.

But, per jstr, the EUK list is pretty conservative: something of a re-statted feral ork list. And you're right, spawning has been an ongoing challenge to incorporate in the nid lists, but it's also something that gives the list a particular feel.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
Should EUK's 'nids list be adopted as the NetEA "old units" list? I think it should be, at least as a base for the NetEA "old units" list to work from for further evolution, because: It's balanced. It has a clear "old units only" focus. It's finished. Discuss?

Author:	mattthemuppet [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
I'd suggest a few points: 1) EpicUK lists are all balanced with respect to each other, so although it may be balanced within the context of EpicUK lists, it may not be balanced compared to other NetEA lists 2) Given that there's a justified drive to unify stats for some of the common units, adopting the EpicUK 'nid list would either break that effort, or force the "new units" nid list to use the same stats, warranted or not. 3) As EpicUK list development is closed any future list issues or interactions with the NetEA universe would not be resolveable. With regards to new units and the like, this is clearly less of an issue as I'm guessing that's pretty much fixed, but for special rules shared between 'nid lists or even general rules, I think this would potentially cause problems down the line. I think it would be worth running with the new impetus that Dave and Zombocom have given NetEA 'nids first. If that doesn't work out (and I hope/ am confident that it will), then there's always the EpicUK list to fall back on. It's not like it's going away or anything

Author:	zombocom [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
It's not going to happen. Allow me to expand on that... The appointed NetEA Tyranids Champions has a particular interest in the "old models" style of list, and many of his own ideas. He's not going to just use the epicUK list, as it doesn't have some of the ideas he wants in the list, like spawning.

Author:	Jstr19 [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
I hope not. I'm really not a fan of EUK. I dislike closed development and quite often their lists are quite unimaginative and conservative. Take their marine list variants for instance there is very little difference between them except what colour to paint your miniatures. I'd rather have community led development which sometimes screws up and occasionally leads to fairly heated debates which go some way to confirming Godwin's law, but finishes up with more original and differentiated lists.

Author:	GlynG [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
I'd prefer not. If and when I play I'd use Leviathan, but I think developing Onachus and the the two Net-EA lists is better than adopting the Epic-UK list. Anyone who prefers the Epic-UK list can still use it anyway, but it's limited and it would be better for the stats of common Net-EA tyranids to match.

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Should EUK 'nids be adopted? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=21595	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Dave [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
While I'll not dispute that the EpicUK playtests their lists and puts out some good stuff that doesn't excluded an NetEA attempt from being balanced either. There isn't a single way to the end result of a balanced list here. As to it being finished, yes it is. But again that doesn't keep us from finishing the NetEA version either. I understand you like the EpicUk version, good. You said you've seen games played and liked how it went, great, so play it instead. I'm not going to be twisting your arm and making you play anything I'm working on, the choice is yours. Play what you want and have fun. Finally, are you intentionally trying to stir up bad blood between us? You don't see me putting forward an alternative AMTL or Blood Angels list for adoption, I'm sure you wouldn't be all excited about that. So how do you think a post like this feels? We've all seen where this kind of thing has taken you in the past with Mosc and, more recently, Honda. Why the bumping of heads? I understand that you have ideas on how you'd like the game to play, but we all do. What works for one group might not work for the other, but you can't say one way is inherently better than the other on something so open to various opinions and intreptations. At the end of the day Epic's a game that's meant to be fun and played by many people. I think you forget about the latter too often when advocating for your opinions.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
Quote: You don't see me putting forward an alternative AMTL or Blood Angels list for adoption, I'm sure you wouldn't be all excited about that. So how do you think a post like this feels? Don't take it personally. If you put forward an alternative AMTL list, I'd say "well, that's not at all finished, in fact it's just started". If you put forward EUK's Blood Angels list, I'd say "well, that list is simply inferior, it doesn't include iconic Blood Angels units like the Storm Raven, or their faster AV's" EUK's Tyranid old stuff list however is exactly what you hope to achieve: A 'nid list that uses the unit types from the 90's. In the mean time, you're essentially, once again, starting a NetEA tyranid list from scratch. I'm simply questioning whether this duplication of effort is required, since there's a completed list just sitting there ready to use, and I'm certainly not going to get into the same kind of ad-hominem personal attacks as you're making use of.

Author:	mattthemuppet [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
It's pretty hard to see how he could not take it personally E&C as you're suggesting that he not only abandon a lot of work he's already put into 'nid development but also that he abrogates a huge chunk of his responsibility as the new 'nid champion. I think you've stated your opinion, others have stated theirs. Your opinion is unlikely to change NetEA 'nid development as there are many others aside from the 'nid AC and sub-AC that disagree with your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion wrong, clearly, it just means that it will stay an opinion. Let's keep this whole thing civil, it hasn't been long since the last patch of bad air cleared from these forums, let's not bring it back.

Author:	Steve54 [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
Jstr19 wrote: I hope not. I'm really not a fan of EUK. I dislike closed development and quite often their lists are quite unimaginative and conservative. Take their marine list variants for instance there is very little difference between them except what colour to paint your miniatures. I'd rather have community led development which sometimes screws up and occasionally leads to fairly heated debates which go some way to confirming Godwin's law, but finishes up with more original and differentiated lists. Fair enough to criticise the EUK development process or the design ethos that means no stormravens etc but its simply untrue to suggest all the EUK SM variants all play the same and are just different colours. Each plays markedly differently to suit their chapters style, this has been born out by nearly 3 years of use.

Author:	mattthemuppet [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
Evil and Chaos wrote: Quote: It's pretty hard to see how he could not take it personally as you're suggesting that he not only abandon a lot of work he's already put into 'nid development but also that he abrogates a huge chunk of his responsibility as the new 'nid champion. I'm asking if it's a good idea, not telling him he's an idiot if he doesn't do it. If I'd said that, now that would be a personal insult. But I haven't said that, or anything like it. Regardless, it seems the community is happy to re-start development again, so it's academic. it's really up to the insulted to decide if they're being insulted rather than the insultee your last comment doesn't really help though, does it? Development isn't being restarted again, even I as a non-'nid player not particularly interested in 'nids can see that (plus my eyesight is bad). Existing lists are being used to refine and unify stats, followed by work on special rules based on existing tested lists. A more positive view would be to look at it as a fresh drive to finally finish the 'nid list by 2 very experienced and committed players.

Author:	Carrington [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
It occurs to me to wonder if some of the forum heat has been generated by time-zone difference: some might be posting from a pub after work, while others are 'hard at work'... with a consequent differential in mood and attitude. As to the larger substantial point, there's something to be said for the EUK 'nid list: it's there, it's deemed balanced, and its fairly simple. So folks with 90s nids can get their bugz on. And, if you don't like spawning, it's definitely a list for you. But, per jstr, the EUK list is pretty conservative: something of a re-statted feral ork list. And you're right, spawning has been an ongoing challenge to incorporate in the nid lists, but it's also something that gives the list a particular feel.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
Quote: Development isn't being restarted again As a list that's been basically abandoned by the Champion(s) for 2+ years, now to receive a complete re-statting pass examining every unit stat and special rule and point cost, I'd say that yes, the list's development is being re-started. Quote: A more positive view would be to look at it as a fresh drive to finally finish the 'nid list by 2 very experienced and committed players. The above does not preclude this, either. I earnestly hope to see two NetEA 'nid lists with NetEA Approved staus by this time next year. Quote: But, per jstr, the EUK list is pretty conservative: something of a re-statted feral ork list. And you're right, spawning has been an ongoing challenge to incorporate in the nid lists, but it's also something that gives the list a particular feel. This is definitely one for the upcoming "special rules" thread. :-P

Author:	Jstr19 [ Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should EUK 'nids be adopted?
This is off topic but in what way are EUK's marine lists markedly different. As far as I'm aware they simply add some different formation sizes and some different unit types. They in no way encourage different play styles. They could have used minima or maxima, different force organization such as mainstay units or remove units from the list to properly differentiate them and force different play styles. I would use the NetEA Imperial Fists and Raven Guard lists as good examples of this. I frankly feel that standard codex list can be used to represent most marine chapters and the EUK lists did not go far enough.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/