It could be done by being better organised and active instead of Darwinian and idle, I guess.
A laughable suggestion, of course.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not in favour of this *shrug*.
It would basically make all the work done to this point a waste of time.

It seems there are just a few loud voices hear that keep repeating their point of view. There is nothing new being added to this discussion anymore.

Forgive me for being blunt but really, if people want to play 40K, there is a solution...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

_________________

Looking at the truly pitiful amount of Approved lists in the compendium (and noting that AMTL has even been downgraded from Approved to In Development(!) I can't say as I greatly disagree.
A lot of idle AC's have wasted a lot of time. Years, in fact.


Irasaso- you actually missed the point of the king Canute story there. Canute knew exactly what he was doing - making his fawning supplicants look stupid.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Epic not reflecting 40k/lack of NetEA progress are completely different issues

IMO the overly simplistic and coloured by personal agenda comments on the netEA situation are not very helpful. If you're concerned about idle ACs/NetERC members bear in mind that could well have all been sorted by now had one or two people not been so wilfully obstructive over setting up a framework for development.

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

I think you misunderstand me - I'm saying I think it's unlikely that the NetEA process as-is could manage a modernisation process even if the community solidly wanted it. Getting even a few lists to Approved status has been a very rocky road.
It is indeed a separate issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think that would be bad for the game. You're basically splitting the Epic community again, this time with the explicit goal that lists should not play lists from the "other side".

I'm all for making new lists with new models, but make them compatible with the existing lists.

Since you ask, my reasons are these: they have been a distinct unit in 40k for several years or more; they have a separate enough role on the battlefield to call for representing; SGs may not have had the budget to stretch to making Assault Terminator models but a good proxy exists now; less and/or more costly Warhounds in the ‘modern’ SM list will likely slightly reduce the average amount of MWs in the army which can be counterbalanced by slightly increasing the MWs here (and Terminators killing things in combat is more fitting than relying on their allies to do so).

It's a close call and situational but out of the two I think regular Terminators are probably still slightly better overall, due to their greater flexibility in their uses and the fact they can shoot or FF skimmers, whereas Assault Terminators are powerless against them.


I’m suggesting Assault Terminators deserve to be included in the second ‘modern’ core SM list that is proposed to be developed as well, separately by those that choose to, not adding them to the Codex Astartes core list at all. The two lists could and should co-exist perfectly happily allowing both those who want modern units in a list and those who want the Codex Astartes left as is to be happy

All Epic lists should aim to be balanced to the same level of power, a ‘modern’ list might have more units than the original, but it still should be equally balanced as the old. 40k has power creep in newer lists to sell them more but that element shouldn’t be copied to the epic lists. Balancing ‘modern’ lists only against other ‘modern’ lists only seems unnecessarily limited, undesirable and impractical anyway with the amount of playtesting now.

_________________

Good, glad we cleared that up.

There was confusion in the past with Compendiums, ect but the situation with the rules is better now. The Net-EA rulebook and the one on the GW site are one and the same - it's just the original rules incorporating the errata into their text.

Incidentally, it's now looking 99.9% certain that the leaked release list I posted is genuine.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

To answer the original post,
No Epic as a gaming system is not lagging behind, in fact in my view it is far superior to 40K.

As for the inclusion of new units, lists an so forth, for me no.
It may not be that lists are developed as quick as some want or units are added as fast as some like but Epic is seen as a very balanced gaming system so units cannot just be added "willy nilly" to keep up with the Jones' at a risk of losing the way Epic is viewed by players as almost perfectly balanced system.
Take a look at the new lists and units in the compendium that have been developed for Epic since official development was stopped.
Lists like Krieg and their Gorgons, a lot of the experimental Marine lists have new units in them, Eldar (mymera I believe) have a list with new units in hopefully being tested for further development.

Epic may not be developing lists and units as quick as 40K is pumping them out but if we want to keep Epic as a good balanced system then development will have to be slow.

I for one don't want Epic Adult to become Epic 40Kid.

I think the thing this thread has taught us is that there are multiple views on what is "needed" from Epic, across the spectrum of representing stable unchanging lists for old models, through to mirroring the latest greatest super-mega-chrome-plated shiny thing from GW. These appear intractable.

It seems certain that some people want "new style" (or maybe more accurately "the current point in time") lists, including for core rulebook lists like SM. Whilst this is not something that interests everyone (myself included), it at least seems it needs to be tried to see what happens. IMO we really do not need to change much to accommodate this: people are free to create new lists, and if enough people want the same thing they will succeed. I do however have two suggestions for ground rules:

1. I am against further splitting the community. All lists should be balanced together.

2. Name all lists specifically. I think it's fine to have two Codex Astartes lists if that is what people want (as opposed to a made up chapter), but a sensible differentiation for name is clearly necessary. Attaching each new list to a specific conflict, as is the existing precedent for rulebook and supplements, seems perfectly serviceable. Preferably not a well known campaign, as GW is liable to change the fluff which would be confusing in future.

3. For every new list (or indeed every old list too maybe) decide explicitly what it should represent, and include a statement to this effect it in the list itself. This is separate from the fluff aspect (which changes over time), but in real life terms. For example, "a list representing Space Marines at the time of the release of Epic: Armageddon, using only units available for purchase from Games Workshop". This sets expectations straight away, focusses development and stops intractable discord amongst people who want different things from the list. Note however that even for "new" lists there is a difference between "new Necrons" and "2012 Necrons": what was once new will inevitably become old, so figure out whether the list is a constantly evolving list, or anchored against a specific codex. My feeling is that almost all lists should be static in nature, because interest in them wanes over time. Lists with a strong and predictable demand for constant updates (i.e. SM, Eldar) are likely to want both static and changing lists.

To me, this will create a state of affairs where, once a certain divergence accrues, enough people will want to play a more modern list that it will pick up traction.

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

Back when the list development process was all new and shiny it was decided that each race would get a month to be the 'prime' race and development would be concentrated on that race.

What happened? Well everyone just carried on working on the list they wanted to work on, regardless what race was the focus race that month. I see this happening now.

If people want to create stats to incorporate new models from GW crack on, and if the AC for the race would rather not add them to a current list, you'll have to create a new one. This was the model of list creation Jervis envisaged as far as I know.

Problem is the idle AC's, leading to no central consensus on stats in some armies, so even variant lists can't get made.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter