Things have changed because GW have changed. In the past, the 40K background drove the development of the various games. With only the 40K game 'existing' for GW, their development shifts so that 40K drives the background.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Iain- I wouldn't say my statement is incorrect. EUK have taken a good number of NetEA lists as a starting point for their own, and there has also been some "bleed back" in the other direction but the only list that is identical is one where an EUK committee member was also the netea AC. It seems unlikely that we'll see identical lists in future unless EUK are in charge of future convergent lists too.

CS Edit - We really don't need to go off on this yet again.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sorry, you are correct. What I meant was that, yes the lists are identicle because an EpicUK rep also ACs here, but that they would most likely be very similar even if this was not true, and having this situation closes the gap and attempts to reduce confusion in list versions.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Could something like modules work for army building?
For example you have a basic Space Marine army list. Then yous select a module for a specific style you want to play.
The Basic Space Marine list could be the Codex list then you select for example the Siege Module and get access to Land Raider Achilles, Thunderfire Cannons, etc but Thunderhawks with transport capacity and other things aren't no more accessible.
Or you select the Salamanders Chapter Module and get access to certain Salamanders specific upgrades but are restricted in other areas.
This could work for all basically Codex lists.
Only lists with a radical different layout would need a separate list. Staying with Space Marines as example the Space Wolves would be such a candidate.

With this layout new units could be includes as Module Upgrades or Formations. For example allowing to use a Spartan Assault Tank Upgrade you would loose the Land Raider Upgrade. If you select a Storm Talon Squadron then you can't use Imperial Navy Suqadrons, etc.

Ths would prevent the "all and the kitchen sink" army list and retains the flavour of the different armies play style.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

This sounds like a really interesting idea, and I imagine it would work quite well across the different races as well - different guard regiments, eldar craft worlds, orks etc.

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

CS Edit - Removing off topic discussion.

Cybershadow, about 2 years back there was chatter on one of my supplement threads and through PMs about having multiple mini-supplements published in one book. I am still all for it. I can go back and look through those threads to see who the foolish mortals were who dared volunteer and encourage them to "re-up". That would certainly be something that could be morphed into a giant supplement. Of course, project heads still need to keep their people motivated.

My own supplement, while stalled due to work (old excuse but accurate; no work = no money = no computer = no supplement EVER) is still on the table and very much alive. I need to prod myself into getting that moving again. People are waiting on my Squat list update.

Blacklegion, I just don't like Chaos. It sounds odd but they freak me out. Some of my buddies make fun of me because evil Eldar torturing people and using them as slaves until they suck out their life essence DOESN'T freak me out. But it's just a personal thing. To answer your question, I don't want to work on supplements with Chaos. That does not mean I won't publish one. Somebody else has to do the legwork of completing the pdf file however.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I didn't ask this

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Isn't the modular approach essentially what we have at the moment? It certainly seems that way with the marines and eldar at least..... All the variant lists could be condensed down somewhat.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

It is, though Eldar are essentially leaderless IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't really like the idea of modules. While a very interesting concept, I fear it will be alll too easy to fall into a trap where you hunt for the best combinations of modules for building good lists.

It might be useful as a list designing tool, but I think it's better to use it to get some sense for what elements a given list uses and then "freeze" them as a named list. This also allows small tweaks to be made to make it more cohesive.

One thing modules might be very good for would be "chapter" modules. I think the current setup (Codex, Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc) steers a player towards painting his force to match the list and then only use that list. If chapters were instead represented by modules, you could take one of several "generic" Space Marine list (Astartes Armageddon, Siege list, Scouting list, a list with modern units etc) and apply the chapter module to it to create a Dark Angels scouting list or a Blood Angels siege list. The Dark Angel module would probably have good syngergy with a Scouting list (Ravenwing!) while the Blood Angels siege list might be a bit weak.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is the Necron Raiders list not a "traditional" Necron list (as in, based on the old Codex)?

CS -
I don't think discussion of why an 80% complete supplement got cancelled is off topic.
It's a big part of what's gone wrong with the NetEA process, IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

In the sense that it has zero model support and was not one of the original lists embarked on, I would assume that it isn't (along with Tau and Tyranids). To my mind, the original EA lists were not based on a codex but on the background. Later lists - both additional forces such as the Necrons and variants of existing lists - took specific codex iterations as their basis, and this is the current issue. If SG had kept with EA (and still existed!) I am not sure that the move to basing lists off a codex would have happened (I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing). Whether the first lists based off a codex are any different to the current call for lists including more recent codex additions is a moot point really, in my mind.



Which is a fair statement. But the conversation was going over well-troden ground and showing personal bias which - I think - would have derailed the current productive thread and not ended well. Mistakes were made, this much is very clear, and there was a lack of clarity and focus in the original situation which myself and the NetERC will need to address and are discussing, and - yes - was (is?) an issue.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

If you consider putting one of the two people in the community to have taken a full supplement to completion off of further work under the ERC umbrella due to lack of trust in the status quo, then it's still an issue.

If my contributions to the community will not be missed, then it's not an issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I see your point, but I'm not sure if your correct in that the original lists weren't based of the current Codex at the time they were made. I've seen a design note that the distribution of heavy weapons for Marines and Guard is based on how units were fielded in 40k at the time - Tacticals were usually fielded 5 man strong with one heavy weapon, Devastators were usually a full unit of 10 (with 4 heavy weapons, giving 2 per base) and guardsmen had to have 10 to get a weapon crew, which led to the Guard Autocannon rule. (Hmm, would a Modern Marine list need to adopt the Guard Autocannon rule for Tacticals? They currently have to field a full 10 Marines to get a heavy weapon, don't they? )

I also think that NetEA would benefit if we worked towards getting new lists to be fully equal to the original lists published by GW, so that an Approved list is an Approved list no matter where it was first published. My personal feeling is that the Necron Raiders list is an excellent list that captured the feeling of what was up until a year ago or so the only vision of the Necrons. "Locking" it in it's current states (except for balance tweaks like walker for C'tans) together with Biel-Tan, Codex Astartes, Steel Legion and Ghazgul's Warhorde seems like a good idea to me.