Well you have to take the bad with the good. The bad is that yes, there are tons of rules floating about, the good is that it's probably better playtested than anything GW does.

Let's not forget that if GW still had Epic A then no-one would be working on it and the only armies available would be Marines, Orks, Guard, and Eldar.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

Strictly speaking development of all the lists was carried out by the community - even the SM, Ig, Orks from the rulebook. If Gw had continued its initial support IIRC we would now already have Nids+tau+several other variant lists and be eagerly awaiting the necron release.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

What I meant to say Steve was that if GW pulled the plug on it and EA had been developed entirely in-house then it's doubtful we would have the fan supported lists as they are today.

_________________
-Malakai

"You'll never understand how much watching other people's pain gets me off, hearing their screams and knowing that I have the power of a god." -Velvet Acid Christ

Sorry, I'm still pretty confused here. If I'm reading right, this thread is about some people calling for stronger restrictions on what can be taken in the army lists? Mostly the marine list it seems?

Is this actually a problem? Sure, you can build silly lists with the marines, but has anyone actually ever done it? Has it really been a problem for anyone?

I don't understand at all how further restricting lists is supposed to magically get new players interested. That makes no sense to me.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

No, that's not the issue here.

But to make basic "codex" lists for all forces is.

JJ's starting thought to have several "DBA style" lists fell hard when GW went busting Epic.
Now it's time to put some stability in Epic and give Epic credibility.

Lists presented here are typically a-typical. It's not "your typical Eldar craftworld", it's Biel-Hann. I't not your basic drafted Imperial Guard TO&E force, it's "311th Haldian Fourte Regiment XII of the 89th Founding" (which just happened to only include one-eyed chefs below 5' and left-handed female field-medics of 50+ in age).

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Sorry, but how is that a problem? Almost all lists already have such a "codex" list (Codex marines, Red Corsairs, Steel legion etc), and several other races don't have a standard structure around which to form such a list.

The campaign specific lists system is integral to the design of EA, and works perfectly well. From what I can see, you're mostly complaining that lists allow things which aren't possible in 40k. So what?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

No, I actually prefer the specific lists system. It allows far more flavour to be built into different army styles rather than a single, boring generic list that caters for everything badly.

Jervis was right to make that choice.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Isn't a limited "Codex" list the exact *opposite* of a "wide horizon"?

I'm not sure what's driving your quest for "credibility" here, Erik M...  currently, the only real way to get people into EPIC: Armageddon is word of mouth... and people accidentally hitting the wrong link on the GW website!  *laugh*  

It might be nice to put together 2000 point "starter lists" for beginners to try to collect, well-rounded armies for each race, and then allow the new player to explore their options with another 1000 points.

But I *really* don't see the appeal, or even purpose, of "limited" lists in getting new people into the game.

Has anyone experienced someone saying, "I was going to get into EPIC:A, but the Marines can take an all Land Raider army, so I didn't even give it the time."?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Exactly. The idea is frankly proposterous.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

"...full circle..."

You know why you can't move a wharf?
'Cause when you've move a lap you're back where you started.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Ok, As I said before, I think I can see where EM is going, and the idea has some merit, but it is on a different tack to where we are at present. In summary E:A has reasonably 'generic' lists that allow players to build virtually any army (within certain restrictions). Variant lists exist to allow people to build different flavoured armies within a given race which basically vary some of the restrictions.

EM is looking for a slightly more prescriptive approach that encourages players to build armies that more closely reflect the "fluff" or history, so possibly including a few core formations and then a very limited number of 'support formation' slots per core eg

Marines Core
0-n Tacticals formation (with description, content etc)
0-n Predators formation (with description etc)

Marines support (1-2 per core formation)
Devastators
Assault marines
Scouts
Land Raiders

Marine Auxiliary (1 per 3 core formation)
Thunderhawk
Thunderbolts

Imperial support (etc)

This approach works well for historical wargames set in particular time periods, for example the peninsular wars in the Napoleonic period.

A suggestion here is that this approach would be an ideal addition to some scenario, campaign, book or other "fluff". So you read the book, and then can refight the campaign to see if you can do any better. Additional material might include the army organisation as a whole, that for any given battle, maps and terrain guides; possibly some simplistic campaign system to allow battlefield for the given world to be created etc. Then you can truely imerse yourself with the thing.

So EM, a challenge would be to provide the appropriate 'fluff' as a background to a set of list of this type for the races involved (and I am sure that this would be welcomed with open arms by Moscovian among others as a welcome addition to the scenario supplement).


========================================  

I hope I have captured your thinking EM, and I am sure that others would agree that there is some merit in it, if only because it recognises and tries to correct the inherent contradictions in the GW universe that have crept in over time. However, IMO the current list design mechanisms actually work towards somewhat different objective that are looser precisely because they are not subject to a particualr part of the history or 'fluff' - in effect they can be used to create the book / scenario etc for others to enjoy, and in that sense are much more liberated.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Thank you Ginger. A level approach. And a good one.
I would maybe advocate that the current lists are the ones locked into specific campaigns, especially the Siegemaster, true?

The Swordwind lists are for that area of Emporium space, the Armageddon lists for that specific area (planet!) and time. In short they reflect how a typical campaign may alter the standard TO&E of a force. Just as every (a-typical!) Eldar list is presented with it's why and how fluff.
In the case of Black Legion's 13th Crusade it's also outspoken that this is ONE way to represent, and severely limited at that, a chaos marine force. The LotD list is more looking "generic" in that aspect.

Why do I think this is important?
Because I think that the base of all this type of TTG is competitive. And in the competitive society we may find the few that can play less hard and harsh, but still swell our ranks with players.

I'm no messiah, but am I that far out?
Why do YOU play...?

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

The problem with this format, is unless you either remove the Codex Astartes list, or seriously boost the freebies/options available for this, no one would play it.

If you remove the Codex Astartes list, you essentially annoy any 'generic marine' players, and you also force a re-evaluation of all variant lists (because their baseline comparison just got significantly changed). Not a good solution for most people, who see nothing wrong with the current list. Personally, I feel the ability of Marines to completely pick and choose what they want to fall within the role of Marines. Specialized units that do NOT have the restrictions most armies would have for their TO&E's. And most of the other armies that the 'baseline' group feel need to be done already have a fairly significant set of restrictions (IG have support formations tied to companies, and Ork have specialised units restricted to size of mobs). Eldar comes across as the only 'printed' list that isn't already fairly generalized.

If you seriously boost the freebies/options available, you then run risks of a variety of balance issues, because if the cost/benefit is better/worse, people will shift to it, or away from it. And tinkering would be necessary to find an equilibrium that few of the vocal locals seem to feel is unnecessary.

Morgan Vening