Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next

Is Epic lagging behind?

 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
Simulated Knave wrote:

What I would do is create experimental formations that are independent of a particular list (print them at the end of the compendium). Experimental formations would never be tournament legal, but should be suitable for friendly games. So if we stat up the Spartan, we should also create a more-or-less standard Spartan formation, note that it is an experimental formation for use in friendly games in lists that don't have access to it, then forget about it until someone uses it in a list. Avoids too much meddling with fairly stable lists, and still lets people take new shiny toys with established lists.
.


Plus it means these formations get some kind of playtesting before thier inclusion into a list

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Er...Assault Terminators and Scout Bikes both existed when the current list was created.

There was however little budget to get new sculpts done by SG, and a much more pressing need to update the ancient Space Marine vehicles.

Quote:
Plus it means these formations get some kind of playtesting before thier inclusion into a list

Testing removed from the rest of a list's context might not be all that useful.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Manchester, UK
I dunno you know.

I think it would work for variant lists - where it's more about changing the focus of the list rather than starting again from the ground up. At least this approach gives them agreed on stats - points and availability can be tweaked in variant lists by testing the list I would have thought.
It's also maybe about going beyond Tournament scenario lists and providing a pool of units that people can use in more friendly games, the side of Epic I tend to enjoy more and one that seems neglected.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:05 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: Leicester UK
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
Plus it means these formations get some kind of playtesting before thier inclusion into a list

Testing removed from the rest of a list's context might not be all that useful.


How is it removed from the rest of a list's context? surely a list of experimental space marine units with a recommendation to only use 1-2 in a game would be fine?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
How is it removed from the rest of a list's context?

Context matters. For example, an infantry unit with 2x CC2+ attacks added to the Codex Space Marine list would be worth a lot, because you could Thunderhawk it straight into CC.

The same unit added to a variant list without air transports would be worth less, because it would rarely make it into CC.

Context is one of the most important considerations in Epic list development, and it's why a plug-on modular approach won't be all that useful.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Context is one of the most important considerations in Epic list development, and it's why a plug-on modular approach won't be all that useful.


I disagree. Sure context is very important but surely one of the best ways of going about getting that context for new units is playtesting it in a variety of circumstances? Modular formations would provide contextualised feedback on the unit in a far wider set of circumstances than provided by thier inclusion in one niche list.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
*shrug*

I have a fair bit of experience getting lists balanced and finished ; I don't think "modular" development will be all that useful in generating balanced army lists. From my experience, I can only say that such an approach would have slowed down the developments I've been involved in, not increased the pace.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:47 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: Leicester UK
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
How is it removed from the rest of a list's context?

Context matters. For example, an infantry unit with 2x CC2+ attacks added to the Codex Space Marine list would be worth a lot, because you could Thunderhawk it straight into CC.

The same unit added to a variant list without air transports would be worth less, because it would rarely make it into CC.

Context is one of the most important considerations in Epic list development, and it's why a plug-on modular approach won't be all that useful.


While I see the point you're trying to make, space marines already have terminator units with 2x CC3+ which get thunderhawked around the place, plus those units have quite effective firepower and can firefight decently too.... I don't think assault terminators in the standard codex list would be crazily overpowered, plus those kinds of combinations are pretty obvious, and it would make sense to err on the side of caution when assigning points values surely?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
Evil and Chaos wrote:
*shrug*

I have a fair bit of experience getting lists balanced and finished ; I don't think "modular" development will be all that useful in generating balanced army lists. From my experience, I can only say that such an approach would have slowed down the developments I've been involved in, not increased the pace.


Ah this is where we are differing - I was proposing these modular formations be brought about for themselves, not necessarily as part of a coherent list.
I still think having these formations out there, being played, and reported back on in friendly matches has to provide a good starting point for the more focused playtesting needing for their inclusion in a list.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Manchester, UK
Also, it only seems like a fairly recent thing that GW are adding so much into existing lists at such a pace.

If Epic wants to keep up maybe it needs to adapt it's strategy a little, while it's worked in the past it's taken it's sweet time....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
The great limiter of volunteer work... Time.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
Onyx wrote:
Steve54 wrote:
Endlessly vomiting out lists just dilutes development
As does calling for the addittion of every new unit GW dreams up to lists that are already finished.


+1

I don't feel I can comment much more never having been involved or wishing to be so in list and unit development.

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 1978
Location: Thompson, MB, Canada
With the whole "formations" thing, I wouldn't expect it to produce much playtest information. It's just a way to fit the vast swathe of new units that are appearing without requiring a lot of new lists. Units that prove exciting or popular will likely end up in lists, units that are less so are still there for use.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Manchester, UK
Shame the game is tied to the 40k IP in some ways, given that lately GW seem to be doing their utmost to retconn the background and introduce ever more units.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
hello_dave wrote:
Shame the game is tied to the 40k IP in some ways, given that lately GW seem to be doing their utmost to retconn the background and introduce ever more units.

That's something they've been busy doing for 25 years now.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net