i think publishing the variant before and/or more prominently than the core list is going to cause confusion and uncertainty, and i think that must be what you're hoping will happen, that people will refuse to allow the core list into their tournaments or games, and thus bring the variant list to the fore. because why else would you make a variant of your own list? i dont see any other reason to release a variant whose only change is to have less of the same options than the core list

what purpose does the variant serve, aside from added restrictions to the core list? can it do anything that the core list cannot do should the person making the list want to? cause i dont think the single marauder is enough change to bother with or a scenario rule that you're talking about trailing to bring into the core list anyway. planning on doing the same to the marauder? at which point, its not variation at all, its just restriction.

so if you've got a restricted set of options, why not include the full list, with a note that says "for tournament play i recommend using the following additional restrictions" in the hopes it will encourage people to allow AMTL lists in tournaments that otherwise would not be the case?

really, if the core list can make any army available to the variant list, what exactly does the variant add, except perhaps a chance for you to spruik the restrictions that i seem to recall have been repeatedly boo-ed off stage by the community at large?

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Actually I think that 3.19 will continue to be banned in most tournaments, whilst a cut down list has a good chance at being accepted in more tournaments, including ones in my home nation of the UK (Which has the most active tournament scene).


I'd rather do it the other way around, including the most balanced list prominently, and a more fully featured list for friendly games (Or tournaments, should the organisers prefer to allow the less balanced list in their tournaments).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

thats stupid.

the directors cut (or to use a more apt metaphor, the trailer, since it has what you consider the best bits, but most of it is missing) goes in the back. its the thing that goes in the special features part of the DVD, its not the feature presentation, its the extras.

the titan list in the titan suppliment
should be THE titan list. not a few parts of the titan list with the rest tucked away in the back somewhere.

aside from the logistics of it (flicking to two or three different places in the book to find the rules for one army list sucks. since the variant has no new information, just a restricted army list after the core one should do fine) its disruptive and confusing to new players

i thought UKs epic scene was largely dominated by eUK events? certainly the 6 epic events i can think of off the top of my head that are being held over the year in australia have or will all allow the AMTL list (albiet generally without emperor titans or weird weapon heads) without any sort of titan domination. infact i seem to recall the titans having a relatively poor showing in general.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

What an excellent way to attempt to convince me I'm wrong.


Actually, being as new players will generally be coming from 40k, the cut down list will provide exactly what they expect to find.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

hmm, is there anyway of adding the extra rules/ units/ weapons at the back, similar in the way that Moscovian did Dark Eldar in Raiders?

Given that it's your supplement, your money and your time, I don't think any of us really have a huge degree or right to influence what you do. If there's a way that you can do what you want to do in the time frame you need to do it (which probably precludes testing and balancing any new rules for the War Gryphonnes list) and still allow people to play the War Gryphonnes if they choose, then go for it.

Certainly.

I can even stick the whole War Gryphonnes army list & reference sheet at the back, so people can use that if they prefer.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

sorry, but i dont understand why an alternative list is needed. creating certain tourney restrictions to make amtl lists more viable makes sense but making a whole new list doesnt to me. why not just add the restrictions to the back of the griffons list?

Because the community has repeatedly said that they want an unrestricted (Less balanced) list for the NetEA community list.

That's fine, but in my supplement, I'd rather put the highest quality list I can to the forefront, with the less balanced list in the background (Though still present).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If it's Approved, it should be good enough for a supplement. If it's not good enough for a supplement, it shouldn't be Approved.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Noone seems to have a problem with an "old stuff" and "new stuff" list split in the Tyranid army, so why all the problems with doing the same here?

Ultimately, I want to use a cut down list in the supplement because:

- It'll be more balanced.
- It won't have to cater to every single possible titan configuration thought up by GW over the last 23 years.


I'll also put in the War Gryphonnes list as an appendix list, if people want to use that list too, so I quite simply don't see the problem.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I say go for it. Your time, your money, your rules.

I'd hope that the Legio Destructor can get to approved status before being included, but if it does that I see no problem.

By relegating the War Gryphons list (the official NetEA titan list that is approved) to being an appendix, it is giving the impression that the war Gryphons list is less than what it is.


Let's focus our efforts on fine tuning the War Gryphons list so that the official list can be used in the first supplement to feature Titans.

I believe the Victory Points change as discussed in the New Special Rule Idea thread, is the solution to the AMTL playing for draws and the percieved advantages that may bring.

If this is so, then the War Gryphons list can be used and the supplement can cater for all the Epic players and not just the potential new players that may have played 40K in recent years.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Hi E&C

You've stated, and i haven't quoted you here but i think i'm accurate, that one of the reasons for removing weapon types from this list was to better reflect the current fluff.

I have a few discussion points:

1 - The concern i have here, is that there is no 'new' Titanicus Codex/Compendium which details amongst other things, the weapon options available now.
I'm aware that FW have released only specific weapons, and detailed a subset of weapon types in the IA books. But as far as i'm aware of it, these books are not presented as comprehensive guide to eveything relating to Titans - i.e. if its not listed it doesnt exist.
As such, its perfectly possible that the older weapons and fits are plausible.

2 - Considering that FW are going retro 30k style, leaving in older weapon types that are 'ancient' better fits the current direction that FW are taking. Its entirely possible that a few ancient weapons/load outs for Titans are released as part of some Horus Heresy IA book, with all the current 30K mini's - this potentially rendering one your reasons moot.

3 - Its been one of the oldest rules in the 6mm rule sets lifetime, that Titans are configurable. It was this way in AT / SM / TL, removed essentially during E40K days and quickly bought back in for EA.
People like having a wide choice of weapons for Titans - balance work should be done to encourage weapon fits, not to limit them, in my opinion.

I think continued 'balance' work on the current list is the way to go, rather than release another list, publish it in a supplement, then have needless confusion due to having 2 lists...

Tee
2 cents!

Games Workshop and Forgeworld have released a number of books in recent years, all with the same rules for Titan Configurations:

Forgeworld - Imperial Armour I (Warhound), 2003
Forgeworld - Imperial Armour III (Warhound), 2005
Games Workshop - Apocalypse (Warhound, Warlord), 2007
Forgeworld - Imperial Armour Apocalypse (Reaver), 2007
Forgeworld - Imperial Armour VI (Warhound, Reaver), 2007
Forgeworld - Imperial Armour VII (Warhound, Reaver), 2007
Forgeworld - Imperial Armour X (Warhound, Reaver), 2011

They've been carefully building up the rules on what weapons Titans are allowed to carry in what hardpoints over the last 8 and a half years, with everything being fully settled since 2007 (4 and a half years ago).

There have been no changes to the configuration rules since 2007, and there are unlikely to be any changes in the immediate future, so the status quo is pretty stable IMO.


Well, I did keep in the Corvus Assault Pod and the Carapace Multi-Lasers, as "retro" gear.


There is still a huge variety of weapons fits available to the Titans using this list, with hundreds, if not thousands, of possible configurations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter