Kyrt wrote:
Irisado, you misrepresent the "rules" issue IMO. Even if there is some divergence from the "model's eye view" principle, the rules say that the specifics of terrain are a topic for the 5 minute warm-up, i.e. they are undefined. Besides, there are countless other differences in how people play that are independent of the rules as written. For instance, in France, I gather that they simply prefer a style of game that emphasises shooting as opposed to engagements. It's nothing to do with the rules, and makes any difference of terrain between groups in NetEA seem pretty trivial.
The reality we have to face up to is that the idea of "balance" is pure fantasy. Different people play the game differently, get over it. It's nothing to do with NetEA vs FERC vs EpicUK, it's to do with the fact it's a GAME of toy soldiers, principally about having fun. The idea that everyone should be made to play terrain in a single way that is less fun for them is unrealistic, and if you're not actually proposing this then what exactly are you contributing with your comment? Are you simply saying "NetEA is pointless, let's not bother"?
I'm going on what I've read. To remind you, in case you didn't see it:
kyussinchains wrote:
I think cutting the number of games down to 4 would be better than reducing the number of groups, as we've seen from recent discussions, different groups round the world have very different metagames, Onyx and his group play terrain very differently from the way we play it, there's no right and wrong way, but if has a massive effect on list balance if we test out something and because terrain blocks more LoS in our games, we might say 'yeah that gun is fine' but the Perth crew might find it far too powerful with their more TLoS approach
That kind of difference over a core rules mechanic is a serious issue when trying to balance armies. You can't make a balanced set of rules if one group is using true line of sight, and another group is using a different rule for determining line of sight. It's a core aspect of the game, not just something minor.
Balance is hardly a fantasy. Perfect balance would be a fantasy or utopia, but since perfection doesn't exist anyway, that wasn't what I was referring to. My point was that to ensure that there is balance with the core NetEA lists, everyone should be using the same set of core rules. That seems reasonable to me, and I don't understand what the problem is with that approach, other than people don't seem to want to play to one set of rules, which undermines the whole concept of development completely in my opinion.
From my perspective, I'm more than happy with the core lists that have been around for years anyway. Armies like Eldar, Chaos, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Orks, and LatD don't need to be changed. The constant drive to make changes to core lists which work well irritates and frustrates me, so leave them alone is my stance and recommendation.
Where I do agree with you is on the need for core lists which were never updated by GW for EA to be approved. It's very unfair, for example, on Tyranid and Squat players if their lists (which used to be core) are never sorted out or approved, but the onus is, of course, on those players to work with the AC to play test to ensure that the lists can be approved.
_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.
