Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

About lists in general
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14396		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  Erik M [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
What's exactly wrong with Imperial Guard? Nothing. On it's own.

What I am talking about is how to get more people into/back to Epic.
netERC is a beautiful piece of work. It's also one of the most cowered ways to duck responsibility to ones customers I've seen in a long time (not counting WH40k 5th or WHFB 7th then off course).
The crap about "you can do this to keep it alive and help our sales" I can live without.
Now then, that aside...

It's back to get Epic stability. Stability and creditability to make people dish out £200 for a new army. And then choose from the four that is (SM, Ork, IG and Eldar).
No, there's no other. Not only because no other are covered in EA or SW, but also because that's the ones that can be bought new.

Give me codex lists of about 1'000 (balanced) compulsory troops and I'll be more than happy to accept specialized forces too.
(Steel Legion, all mechanized, Saim-Hann, all Vipered, Black Templar, all close up n'personal like etc.)
But something to lean on when introducing new players, and esp when getting old players back.
Author:  Erik M [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Yes, I would then proceed to 1'000 balanced mandatory troops.
And for all the "obsolete" forces too, off course!

Mandatory SM could be "Assault, Devestator, 2x Tactical and Scout", as an example.

But that's details.
We need the bigger picture first.
Which is how to "persuade" people that netERC is a viable option.
Author:  Erik M [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
I now assume you're not being obnoxious, ok?

With a big mandatory part it's easier to balance the rest. It's also easier to separate specialized forces. It's also easier to point a new one to where to start, and an old where to continue.
And on top of that it give each army a certain flavour as it's base.
Author:  Malakai [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Quote: (Malakai @ 30 Dec. 2008, 13:19 )

All of this is a moot point anyway. There is no desire to make a core list for the armies other than what's already been done.

Says who? Says you? But that's a biased statement. Doh!

Easy cowgirl I'm on your side!  :tongue:

The reason I say this is because I have gone ten rounds with these guys already addressing nearly the exact same subject. Nobody wants to change the way things are now. I wish it weren't so but it is.

I'm so used to Epic disappointing me now that I hardly notice the pain.  :_(
Author:  CyberShadow [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Quote: (Erik M @ 30 Dec. 2008, 12:09 )

netERC is a beautiful piece of work. It's also one of the most cowered ways to duck responsibility to ones customers I've seen in a long time (not counting WH40k 5th or WHFB 7th then off course).
The crap about "you can do this to keep it alive and help our sales" I can live without.

Just a quick note, the NetERC and the Army Champion system are too different things, and I am not sure if they are being confused here. The AC system was the GW/SG system of appointing player lead deelopment. The NetERC is the fans taking control from GW/SG in the future development, essentially replacing SG with our own 'board'. NetERC is not sanctioned by SG and was born out of necessity.

With that out of the way, there are - as I see it - two viewpoints here:

1. The current system works, there are no 'default' forces and should not be lists for these.

2. I dont want to play a list that currently exists, I would rather build my own force from a 'standard template' and create my own background for it.

Personally, I can see both sides. My earlier question was whether this is an issue of only labelling.

The Ultramarines list works fine for Codex Marines (as that's exactly what they are!  :laugh:) but the Eldar as a whole are not represented very well by the Biel-Tan list.

What does not work for Craftworld Eldar when using the Biel Tan list?

It depends on your perspective. There is no such thing as a 'standard' Eldar force, but it is useful to have one to allow variants. So, why not use Biel Tan (or another Craftworld) as this standard? So, other variants of this 'standard Craftworld' have smaller Aspect formations and no Void Spinner... things.

Interestingly, later force lists do exactly this. The Tau list is a 'third phase expansion list' but is basically a 'standard force org', same with Tyranids, Necrons, etc. Even Chaos, while being a '13th Crusade force' behaves as a 'core Chaos force'. The only ones that dont do this (I believe) are Eldar and Imperial Guard.
Author:  vytzka [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Ugh, please no huge mandatory parts. Slice the lists into sections with maximum points if you want, like Marines with Titans and Navy aircraft, but having a supposedly very flexible and all-encompassing list that you have half-predetermined for you doesn't look very good for me.
Author:  Erik M [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Ugh, please no huge mandatory parts.
Is it better with cherry picking lists, really?

Slice the lists into sections with maximum points if you want
And what shall go into which section? Is the Vindicator assault support or artillery?

, like Marines with Titans and Navy aircraft,
Not really the same, as that's allied parts.

but having a supposedly very flexible and all-encompassing list
Who said it has to be either of these? Who says they are now?
And is flexible the (con)form to follow? In what army does a commander get to cherry pick? TOS is the name of the game.

that you have half-predetermined for you
Nit-picking would say a third is mandatory, and then for "codex" list.
Ie a non-flavoured force. A flavoured force would probably need to go at least 50% to not be a pure cherry picker in disguise.

doesn't look very good for me.
Today's cherry picking doesn't look good to me. So...?
Author:  Erik M [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
Interestingly, later force lists do exactly this. The Tau list is a 'third phase expansion list' but is basically a 'standard force org', same with Tyranids, Necrons, etc. Even Chaos, while being a '13th Crusade force' behaves as a 'core Chaos force'. The only ones that dont do this (I believe) are Eldar and Imperial Guard. Might be because netERC take the responsibility a fair bit more serious than SG/JJ/GW/IP? And also understand what works out in the real world...
(Dang, I have to let go of that anger and frustration thingy...!)

I'd say that the easiest way to have the mandatory parts is to do as Necron. The only base formation is the Necron Palanx, with Necron Warriors.
At the other end of the spectrum you got Space Marine, where you could do a Predator/Thunderhawk force. Or any other such strange (indeed!) combination.
(BTW, two assault squads is not a detachment! It's even stretching it to call it a platoon...)
Author:  Mephiston [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  About lists in general
To be honest I think the best way forward here is to post an example of what your suggesting.

I think the majority of people here have got used to lists as they are currently and need some help working out exactly what you are proposing.
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/