While EpicUK by all accounts provides structure for a vibrant tournament scene in the UK (and probably elsewhere), I do not see inclusion of EUK lists in NetEA battle reports as necessary, or the restriction to core NetEA lists as even an issue that needs addressing.

1) EUK tournaments are EUK-only by definition, so no NetEA testing will be possible at these events anyway. So playtests with NetEA lists are necessarily private affairs. Why is it an issue for a playtester to ask his opponent to bring a tournament-ready (i.e. all-comers) NetEA list for testing? If the opponent is willing to face a developmental NetEA list, why is it problematic for him to write up a list from the available approved NetEA ones?

2) it seems to me that opening up EUK lists would have limited utility when we consider ones like Tyranids, AMTL, dark eldar, emperors children etc. Would playtests against these lists, which have very little commonality with their NetEA counterparts, really be very useful or informative? We then would have to limit the EUK lists acceptable for playtesting, which would needlessly complicate the issue.

3) I suspect balanced for competitive tournament play, and balanced for inclusion of as much variety as possible, are two different things. There are two different groups for a reason. This speaks to my point 2 above. An Imperial fist test against EUK Tyranids is not going to tell you the same story as a test against NetEA Tyranids.

4) if we really want to put playtesting into high gear, why not incorporate some NetEA play into an event that is typically EUK? Instead of EUK lists, one event could pit approved NetEA lists against one near-approved list to push it over the top to approval. Or, the EUK playtest team could apply its testing system (whatever that is) to help get a list tested/approved. Surely a community that has so much competitive play available to it wouldn't mind sacrificing a small portion for the sake of quality development?

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

I pretty much use EUK lists during all my friendly club-games too, it ensures a balanced playing field in general, none of my regular opponents would have an issue using NetEA of course and in my playtest games with the Imperial fists have used NetEA tau and NetEA black legion, not because of any inherent balance concerns but more to eliminate this very complaint from the community....



of course they would, I fail to see how games are somehow less valid, even against lists which have more than a few differences, the NetEA tyranid list is an engagement-focused, horde list with various rules which aid it against shooting and boost engagement ability.... so is the EUK nid list, I've yet to face the NetEA list, however my main tyranid opponent has looked at it and says it would play in a very similar fashion most likely.... probably because that's his personal playstyle whether he's using necrons, tyranids, LATD or orks...



while they're different I don't think they're THAT different..... but point taken, I'll only playtest the IF against NetEA nids from now on



I'm pretty sure that was the intention of the winter warmer in general, perhaps that event is too relaxed in that sense, but I'm pretty sure playtesting is one of the intentions

I'm happy to playtest against NetEA lists exclusively in future and would suggest that maybe this is added as a requirement if it avoids this sort of conflict, but I think invalidating testing that has already happened is unneccessary.....

the other option is we test it scientifically..... I'm happy to repeatedly playtest the IF against NetEA AND EUK nids to see if there is an appreciable difference if required.... rather than the endless speculation, let's actually put it to bed

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Well, playing against EpicUK tyranids wouldn't tell you much about the NetEA tyranids, but I don't see why it would give you less information then playing against NETEA orks and then NetEA Eldar, those lists have even less in common!

_________________
My shifting projects

What I meant was that a NetEA list needs to be balanced against approved NetEA lists. Playtesting a developmental NetEA list against an EUK one that has different unit stats, list structure, and formations than its NetEA counterpart wouldn't be very useful. For example, if I want to test the emperors children for balance, what good would playing the EUK Tyranids do if the list I really need to weigh balance against is the NetEA 'nids?

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

They are not that different. It's the same game with the same mechanics. I really disagree with this.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I think this is where the difference of opinion lies, are we balancing the lists against the others, or are we balancing them internally?

if we're saying 18 games is enough to ensure the former, I think we're deluding ourselves.... there are so many permutations of army selection, local meta, player style and player skill, that 18 games is hardly scratching the surface of being a representative sample

We all know how the general playtest process works so I won't repeat it here, but I would argue that if a list is internally balanced, then it is probably balanced against other lists, assuming a variety have been used during playtesting and haven't all lost... which again could be a player skill thing.... I could lose all my playtest games against dptdexys, Steve54 or MikeT but that's probably because they're much better players than I am, rather than the list being poor, in actual fact if I won half the games I'd be concerned something was overpowered

As I said before, if we genuinely wanted to balance a list against all other NetEA lists out there, nothing would ever get approved, we're already making concessions to list balance in favour of getting them approved in a timely (well....not geological time at least ) manner, so I don't see why using a different list is a problem....

I'm sure that some netEA lists get missed when playtesting, not many people have dark eldar armies for example, so how can the 'balanced against NetEA lists' argument be used when the list may not even have been tested against them all....

As I said before, happy to playtest against NetEA lists from now on if it keeps everyone happy, but personally don't see the need

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Just make a list. This does not need to be black and white and massively diversionary.

NetEA just publish a list of UK lists you think look balanced or close enough to NetEA to use in testing. EUK marine lists I assume you'd be fine with, for example? But if you want to opt out of allowing official tests vs AMTL because it is too different and relatively new then that seems perfectly valid.

I can see reasons not to want official testing against some specific lists, but to deny testing from an entire set of generally balanced lists seems unnecessary. Don't like UK nids? fine, but why does that mean you invalidate testing against UK Tank Regiment?

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Actually for several years now Man of Kent's Winter Warmer tournament has allowed players to choose either Epic-UK or Net-EA lists and that's worked fine and they've been popular and well attended.

Epic-UK lists aren't only played at Epic-UK tournaments either. A number of players in the UK scene only use Epic-UK lists whenever they play, for a variety of reasons. Others (like myself and Markconz in New Zealand) use Net-EA lists the majority of the time, but in some cases use a Epic-UK versions instead, where we view it as better balanced or like the newer 40k units Epic-UK have added in. There have been a number of battle reports posted up of Epic-UK armies versus Net-EA armies over the years and there would be more again if it were to count for playtesting.


Yes, absolutely!

Epic-UK lists may be different (in most cases only slightly so) but they have been well balanced and tested against other EpicA lists. You don't personally need to be familiar with Epic-UK lists or to play them if you don't want to, but those of us who do - and the majority of the community - want those battle reports to count for playtesting here.

I have no problem with netEA list testing against for example epic-UK orks, marines, IG and eldar they are very close to the netEA lists. I want to know if there's any glaring/obvious balance errors (which is probably all we can avoid with our limited, hobby/free time-driven, play testing). A 5+ or a 4+ of this or that unit stat, or whatever small differences there are, will likely make zero difference with that goal in mind.

But I have to agree with CaptPiet certain epic-UK lists are rather different than the netEA counterparts. Tyranids and Dark Eldar comes to mind. Sure they probably play close to the netEA counterparts, but the are some big difference. I want netEA lists to be as balanced as we can achieve between each other. I don't think those games should count.

Rather than saying this list may count but this may not though, I think it's just easier to say none of the epic-uk lists may count. As an army/list champion I'd rather have games against fellow netEA list, but at the same time (perhaps contradicting my self right away ) I would just be happy that anyone played my list and see what useful feedback I could get from the game even if it wasn't against netEA).

A small disclaimer: I've never played with an epic-UK list and only ones against one, they're not used much in Sweden. I have no interest in them and am rather indifferent to them. I'm not trying to trash epic-UK.

Ha, you say "potato", I say "Pomme de Terre". . . . .

If a list is deemed 'balanced' under the NetEA or E-UK process, in principle it should be representative of the 'balance' of that group. The weight of other lists should determine how 'balanced' a given list is. To this end, in theory *any* list that has passed through the process can be deemed as usefull as others.

However I still feel like Borka that 'extreme' lists should be excluded from the validation process, precisely because they are extreme in some way - these include AMTL, Tyranid, Necrons etc. The point is that the interpretation of tests will be made that much harder by the extreme nature of the opposing force. This is true irrespective of the 'group' doing the testing.

Personally I still feel that all 'testing' should be done purely against the original 'core' lists as they represent the best and most consistent yardstick. However if necessary, it would be very appropriate for the ERC and representatives from the other groups around the world (E-UK, Epic-Fr etc) to agree on a limited number of additional 'core' lists for testing purposes. Indeed, all testing should use the same process as well, irrespective of the 'group' doing the testing.

This approach has two significant benefits
1. It will ensure greater consistency across all lists and within the various groups
2. It will promote greater global unity, hopefully simplifying the process of arranging events etc

I agree with CaptPiett as well. From what I've seen, there are enough differences between NetEA lists and their EpicUk counterparts possibly to make playtesting inconclusive. It would be like playtesting a list against another developmental list.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

There definitely are differences between some of the NetEA and E-UK lists. Which lists are sufficiently similar that they could be used for testing purposes by either group?

What Rug said!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Yes, Rug! Good statement!