Yes, I was referring the the Compendium 2.0 published 2009. That is what is most widespread in my part of the world. Thanks Ulrik for chiping in. Now everything makes sense.

But its kind of confusing that the army lists cant be finalized once and for all. In my world it must be better to have good (even if not perfect) lists compared to ever-changing lists that are tweaked and forces players to constantly be aware of updates.

Yeah, there have been a few versions of the compendium, the 2008 & 09 versions were pretty much just kitchen-sink collections of every idea going, including ideas that were never tested before going into the compendium. It's much better now.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

This should all be on the website IMO. i.e., a "starter's guide" explaining the different versions of Epic, and the history.

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

They are always ever-changing if they're part of a game that is being played. Only games left in dusty shelves forever have lists that don't change. An individual match between 2 players or a tournament is the only instance when it is required to solidify what are official lists. And that's for only a single discrete amount of time. All other times, the lists are 'ever-changing'.

_________________

I dont agree. There are many, many wargames that are much more popular and played than EA and whose rules doesnt change constantly. Perhaps a revision every five years or so, but not these constant changes. I can take popular games such as World in Flames, Virgin Queen, Dean Essig's OCS series or Paths of Glory as exemples. Why should Epic be different? I think players wantto change the parameters in order to try different scenarios or do the extra tweak.

Well, you said "ever-changing" without specifying frequency. 5 years or so is still ever changing to me. What I said still stands. You find people to play with and you agree "we're using X and Y lists, is that okay?" and that's a solidification of the rules for a discrete period of time (that game). My club uses a mix of epic uk and netea lists. For instance, I like the netea eldar better than the epicuk eldar, but the opposite for tyranids. If a new netea eldar list comes out I will let everybody know I'm using that, etc. FWIW, some lists are not so frequently changed as others are - our printed books (Siege/Raiders) are examples of that.

_________________

This is why I get frustrated by the many changes that some people keep proposing to core lists when they don't need to be altered any further, so I empathise.

The solution would be, of course, to not change the core lists at all, unless there is a major rules or balance issue that needs to be sorted, and to create new optional lists for those who want to incorporate new units. This debate has gone on for years without a resolution though.

_________________

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Hallå Johan!

Which city are you in? I'm swedish too. As far as I know everyone I've come into contact with in sweden have played the netEA rules (the compendium ones). It's supposed to be updated every year like you've heard previously in this thread. But I dare say, like AoC pointed out, that all lists labeled as "Approved" are stable and very seldomly change from year to year. And if they do, then it's usually minor stuff. So I see the compendium as a rather stable rules set.

I've been to gothcon ones but that was two years ago so we then used the old 2.0 compendium. The people I play with (two different groups) have now instead moved over to use the 2012 compendium and I think that's your best bet. If you prefer to only use stable lists then I'd suggest only play approved lists.

Cheers

I live in Ystad. I recently moved here so I really dont know what rules they are using here. I previously lived in Malmö and the group I played with all used the Compendium from 2009.

The reason I think things got confusing for me was that the different versions are not named as if they are different versions of the same document. The Compendium from 2009 was named version 2.0. If the new version was named 3.0 it would be much clearer. Some kind of version history in the second page would also help.

If I recall correctly, the compendium which you're referring to, which I've also used, was not an official NetEA document. It was Markconz's work, with assistance from others. This is probably why there is no logical numerical progression along the lines which you're thinking.

_________________