Fair point about EA launch stats, but my main point about the balancing difficulty is not unit costs per se, but around the interactions between units and between formations. A unit can quite legitimately have different costs in different formations IMO, and indeed in different lists. This interaction between formations means there are only so many builds that a unit can be balanced for, which is why we have core/support restrictions etc. To use another example, Steel Legion only lets you take russ formations in 10s, which acts as a limiter on the power of the list but results in cool armies with iconic formations of 10 tanks. With a free selection you have to first work out what all the optimal builds are, and then you tweak to make sure those builds are not overpowered. Those optimal builds are no longer "designed in", they simply emerge from whatever you originally set the points costs to. If that happens to be an army of nothing but formations of single russes, so be it (exaggerating obviously). You don't have a common basis any more to de-emphasise that build, only to make sure it isn't OP (because after all the list has no theme and who are you to say my "lone russ" list shouldn't be a good build?) In the meantime all the other builds are affected by your changes - including that original themey one, which probably became suboptimal.

In the end then, what have you achieved? A list that is balanced to a different set of optimal builds which are less thematic (e.g. spirit hosts and void spinners), but at least the list lets you build the poorly performing thematic ones too. I'm just not convinced it's a good trade, but maybe that's because I'm more focused on tournament style play and if there's one thing you can say about EA, it's that even the tournament armies are quite thematic. Witness space marines, which DO have a fairly flexible list structure, and much grumbling goes on about too many scouts and warhounds.

I realise I'm being cynical though and in the end I would like to see it because right now there are tons of units in EA which just don't get a run out due to the list structure (mostly because they're upgrades or in too large formations). So IMO it'd be great if a few proponents gave it a try so we can see if all those different play styles really are equally balanced? If nothing else we might get a reasonable feel for the inherent value of an activation.

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

I got into GW games just after release of AM/SM1- love those old White Dwarves but did n't get to play that much. I played a fair bit of SM2/TL and loved it at the time. But by the time Renegades came out I found it increasingly clunky, with so many similar yet slightly different special rules and stats. Even playing it weekly, it was tough to remember everything. But I loved the Army Card system of selcting units.

Initially liked Epic 40K because i could exactly replicate my W40k army precisely in 6mm scale. But once that appeal wore off, I disliked the level of abstration. And all my friends who had played SM2/TL regularly just stopped playing Epic- Epic40k killed the 6mm game at my then local club down in London.

I have long said that EA is my favourite version of Epic (and along with LOTR SBG quite possibly my favourite game ruleset). The rules mechanics have perfect balance between detail and abstarction for me. Virtually all old units were still useable, even if say like many Ork vehicles they just became Gunwagons etc.

i said in the other thread how disappointed I was with Swordwind. I could nt understand how GW and jervis were focussing on 2 variant lists in Siegemasters and Feral Orks before they had even done an initial list for Chaos and Nids. That made it far harder to get new people to give EA a chance. For example local Tyranid players in Leeds would only give EA a try if official GW list and models. In first 2 books GW should have started with at least basic lists for all 6 oif the Epic 40k core armies that you could previously play straight out of the Epic 40k rulebooks.

I probably go for a middle ground on the number of EA army lists. I don't think we should just stick to the 10 offical lists from GW (3 in rulebook, 3 in Swordwind, 2 in WD and 2 online). But it is nice to have some options and anything that encourages more theming is cool. Especially if adds character and flavour.

The question is how many lists can each army realistically support? For Eldar the big 5 Craftworlds have been long established and have clearly defined fluff and playstyles. Beyond that I can see merits in an Eldar Corsair list, an Eldar Titan list, and an Eldar Tank list. Now with the exception of Titan list, most of those could probably be approximated from the Swordwind BT list. You could make similar cases for various IG regiments, SM Chapters, Ork Clans/Warbands and CSM Legions.

I do sometimes get frustrated when we have 2-3 fairly similar lists. If the armies AC's were to compromise no doubt some of these duplicate lists could get folded into one list which would find it easier to get more widespread support and approval. We need to do more about having different stats for the same units in different lists. very confusing for a new player!!

Now we have Net EA Tournament Pack, I do think it is a bit clearer on the split between Approved and Developmental lists. We just need to continue questioning for any new EA list, what is the point? What could new list do that existing lists can't do? But I do hope that we continue to see new EA lists developed to avoid stagnation.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

My take on it is that there are too many army lists, too many variants, and far too much confusion in general, because of all the different groups promoting different lists and rules.

There should be, in an ideal world, one set of core rules and core army lists which everyone plays to, and an end to all these splits between Epic UK, Epic Fr, NetEA, and any others which I've forgotten. It would make rules development/army balancing much easier, and would make introducing new players to the game a lot easier.

It won't happen, of course, because there are too many vested interests, and the differences of opinion run too deep, and have gone on for too long. It costs nothing to dream though .

_________________

This I definitely agree with. This is one of the downsides of no GW official support.

Before you play a game you need to work out which of the 3 main rules groups to use.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

Kyrt, your Epic 40k armies were min-maxed because thats how you chose to make them!

As Markconz said, the detachments that performed the best were the ones that ended up looking like traditional formations, whether it be SM2/TL or EA. While YOU COULD create oddball detachments based on what you played in 40k, or what leftovers were in your bitz box, thats up to you. If you throw some random units together and they suck as a detachment, you can't blame the individual detachments, you blame the person who threw them together.

That being said, I am not saying I want to go back to that kind of flexibility, but I prefer one master list of smaller formation sizes with upgrades versus just tweaking the number of units in each race's different army lists. I don't need 6+ different Eldar Craftworld lists. I just want one which is flexible enought to allow me to be creative.

The absolute BIGGEST reason why I prefer smaller, and more flexible formations is that its cheaper to play, and gives players a chance to play with more miniatures in their collection. It also gives them a chance to do more things with them. Imperial Guard Leman Russ Formation? Oh I need 10? And they all have to stay within 5cm of each other? Oh and they all have to shoot at the same target even if some of the unit can't see it? And this makes them more balanced? And wait how much did 10 of those cost??? And that makes for a better game?

No it doesnt.

A lot goes into what makes a good game and quite honestly I think the freedom to be creative is the most powerful.

I dont have a problem with army lists, I do think its no different than just sitting around playing with points to create a formation from scratch. And are prob really great for providing guidelines for scenarios. But if a formation I make up plays poorly, then I go back and tinker with it. If I am a mindless robot, then sure, being told my Guardians are always going to come in a mass of 8 stands is fine, and if I want transport I can add 4 Wave Serpents. That's nice. Wait, how mch do Wave Serpents cost again these days? Personally I think any formation with 12 miniatures is too big for any Eldar formation, but that's just me.

I think many of you are immune to the costs to play, because you are hardcore fans. But there is an economy to a game. While 40k can charge obscene prices for a Land Raider, Epic is different. That was my biggest fear back when EpicA was being playtested. Can I get the most bang for my buck with this mini. AT/SM1, I got every cent worth. SM2/Tl, depends on the mini. Epic 40k it did get less due to the generic feel of detachments, but I still could play just about anything I wanted. Now I have to shuffle thru several lists for the same race to see if I have the minis to play it. And if I don't, good luck getting them on Ebay or elsewhere.



A guardian should be a guardian no matter which Craftwork he is fighting for, and the value of that individual stand is far more important in being sure that model is balanced than how many he comes with in a formation or who he becomes paired with. If he is out by himself in the open, not much of a threat. If he is standing next to a Phantom, well, he's suddenly more imposing. But he's still a Guardian, and jacking up his point value because he standing next to the Phantom isnt right either.



Some lists I am working on:

1) New Ork "Its all Gun Wagonz and isnt a Speed Freak list!".

Gun Wagonz Mob of 5 for 190, or Mob of 10 for 380. Note that I've made the basic mob size 5, just to spur an arguement from someone to whether 5 is more or less balanced than the normal 4. Then I sit back and smile.

2) I have another for Ghazghkull Thraka taking a dump.

Ghazghull - 100 points
Outhouse - Free
Grots to clean the outhouse - 25 points per stand

3) Ultramarines at the Daytona 500. All formations include a single Land Raider which must be painted with numbers, racing stripes, and little sponsor stickers.

Land Raider - 100 points. Don't care if others have these cheaper, this list charges 100 points each.

NO OTHER CHAPTERS ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS. ONLY ULTRAMARINES.

4) Eldar Night Out - All the craftwords get together and everyone gets to choose whatever formation they want from which every craftworld list.



Modern armies can get very specific not only on the number of men in a squad, unit, platoon, company, etc, but the number of weapons and the types defined by their role. The problem is, and why I like lists that allow you to be creative, is that once the shooting starts, very often what is supposed to be on paper isnt really followed in reality. Casualties, breakdowns, shortage of ammo, etc, all play a huge part in what is available at the start of the battle let alone once its started. Just ask the Germans at Kursk. Or the Russians on the bank of the Volga at Stalingrad. Or even the US in Iraq in 2003.

The main value I see in these set formation sizes is to allow a quick set up at game time, which is what I want, and upgrades to allow me some freedom to be creative.

We seem to be taking at crossed purposes, so I shall refrain from repeating myself. As I've said, I'd genuinely like to see what it is you think a list should look like and how it would be balanced for tournament play. I think that would be of far more value now than continuing a theoretical debate about what things "should be" like if the world was perfect.

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

It's not about whether people like the list, it's about saturation. How many variants of Space Marines, Orks, Eldar, Chaos or Imperial Guard (they're the armies with the most variants I believe) are actually needed? I don't see what is gained by having so many. The old SM2 era system of one army for each major faction worked well enough in my view, but each to his or her own.

I would be more accepting of all these different army lists if they were all kept under one umbrella, but the fact that we have at least three different bodies responsible for army list rules and design, on top of any changes to the core rules which they might make, just makes it so difficult to keep track of what's going on that it is, in my view, off putting to potential new players.

When I first joined this community back in 2008, I couldn't understand why it was that there was an Epic UK Eldar list, a NetEA Eldar list, and NetEA variant lists. Which lists am I supposed to use? Living in the UK means I could use either, but that's confusing, as different people play different rules and versions of the game depending on whether they support Epic UK or NetEA. This, for me, was bewildering. While I'm clearer about it now, I still don't find it very helpful, and I find it a disincentive to play EA to be honest. There's a lack of clarity, and more and more lists being added on the top of this problem doesn't, to my mind, help the situation.

_________________

Ok, lets start with some Space Marine units. Lets say... a Tactical formation:

Lets look at the history of Epic... in SM1, the standard detachment size were units of 8 (4 Tactical and 4 Support stands). Rhinos not included but their standard detachment size was 4. But even this being said, each had their own battle rating and you could make them however you wanted.

Later on, Rhinos came from a transport pool where for a fixed price, you would get as many Rhinos you needed to carry that detachment, which I hated, because it costed the same amount to transport a Tactical detachment as it did a Devastator, which have half the units. So for the same price, one detachment got 4 Rhinos, the other 2.

Rhinos don't sound like much, but they were pretty good back in SM1. Actually far better than in any later version as far as I am concerned. I am not a fan of freebies. Everything on the table has a value, and to give anything to a player for free, regardless of what it is, just isnt fair to me when that mini has a chance to take out an opponent's units which he paid full price for.

Anyway SM2/TL, Space Marines got more standard, all coming in detachments of 6 with their Rhinos, whether you wanted them or not. No individual units were given their own ratings. Now, creating an army to play took no time at all. The problem though, was these formations got old. I always had to have my Rhinos, and they all had to stay together, which sometimes I didnt want. It got boring. And Rhinos were not what they were in SM1.

Epic40k turns the whole world upside-down. Now, I could have a single detachment have up to 10 Space Marine squads, making up to 20 units, or even 10 Land Raiders with 10 Space Marine Squads. Really ridiculous. To have all those units spread out yet within 30cm of the HQ, meant these guys looked more like a mob. Rhinos were a seperate cost which was great, yet had zero firepower, yet could snapfire. Lots of problems to me. Just didnt make any sense like the previous editions did. And while the list is really flexible (talk about making armies you could spend all day doing this in this version), but too time-consuming to do before a game and have any time to play, but like SM1, everything has a specific value.

EpicA kind of goes back to SM2/TL, setting the detachment size back to 6 units, which feels fine, and then gives you some options to spice things up, which is great. I hate that the option for Transport is free, whether its drop pods or Rhinos because they do have their own value, and since Devastator formations are set to 4, that means Tactical units are getting one more Rhino than Devastators, but I have no idea what that is worth, because everything is clumped to 300 points for Tacticals. Suppose I want my Tactical Unit to be transported in my Land Raider detachment, does that mean I'm wasting points on the Rhinos or drop pods I didn't take? That stuff bothers me.

Nothing should be free. Ever.

So assuming everything is cool with the detachment size for the Tactical units, are Tactical units going to vary in size amongst the 1000s of Space Marine chapters? Do we need 1000s of army lists to show that? We're in agreement that adding a commander, chaplin, or librarian is cool (although I prefer their own stand cause I love characters but whatever).

Tactical Detachment (6 units) x points
+ 1 Commander x points
+ 1 Chaplin x points
+ 1 Librarian x points
+ 3 Rhinos x points or
+ 6 Drop Pods?? x points or
+ 1 Land Raider x points or
+ 1 Predator x points or
+ 1 Dreadnought x points or
+ 1 Vindicator x points or
+ 1 Support Weapon x points


I dont see how this unit, which is pretty basic yet still flexible, would need to be duplicated over and over again in multiple lists for various Space Marine Chapters. It also gives you a chance to customize it to your liking, even with a random bit from your bitbox. Want to add a skill or trait? + skill for x points.

Same applies for other armies. I know you think lists create flavor, but honestly leave the ingredients up to the one cooking.

And keep detachments small tactically inclined armies and medium sized for those that are not.

Irisado, who's that girl in your avatar?

Feel free to send me a PM, and I'll explain all .

_________________

I don’t like the list system. It’s a bunch of arbitrary limitations based on an individual’s interpretation of the fluff and, it often feels like, his miniatures collection.

A lot of us got into Epic late enough that eBay has been a major source of minis and forumware is dead. Getting those semi-random purchases to line up with the increasingly restrictive lists is frustrating. Gather a gargant here, a great gargant there, a bunch of stompas which are easy to find… and oh, wait, stompas no longer go into gargant lists (how arbitrary is that??). Time for another long search before a 3,000 point gargant army is possible.

On a similar note, someone’s decided that armies with one titan are okay, and armies with 3-6 battle titans are okay, but two? Oh no, can’t have that!

Then you’ve got the armies that require picking a few 500+ formations, each of which allow one or two <200 point formations. Getting the math to work out sometimes seems to mean everyone’s 3,000 point lists look the same. With some of the titan lists the formations were either really expensive or really inexpensive, with nothing in between, so it didn’t seem possible for me to fill out a 3-400 point gap after starting with what seemed to be a reasonable core. Or maybe I’m just really bad at math if that isn’t a common issue.