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

EPIC COMPENDIUM
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=15716		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Hojyn [ Sat May 30, 2009 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Hi,

so here's the extended version of the Epic Compendium, including no less than 24 army lists for 11 races ! :))

Here's the link to the EPIC COMPENDIUM 2.0.

You'll find everything you need (special rules, datasheets and army lists) to play the following armies:

SPACE MARINES
- Codex Astartes
- White Scars
- Scions of Iron

IMPERIAL GUARD
- Steel Legion
- Baran Siegemasters
- Minervan Legion

ADEPTUS MECHANICUS
- Ad Mech Gryphonne IV
- War Gryphons Titan Legion
- House Hyperion Knightworld

ORKS
- Ghazgkhull's Warhorde
- Burning Death Speed Freeks
- Feral Orks

ELDARS
- Biel-Tan
- Ulthwé
- Iyanden
- Alaitoc
- Saim-Hann

CHAOS
- Black Legion
- The Lost and the Damned

TYRANIDS
- Phase IV Hive Fleet

NECRONS
- Necrons

TAU
- Third Phase Expansion

DARK ELDARS
- Kabal of Pain's Way

SQUATS
- Kharhadrim's Stronghold (previously "Codex Squats", designed by the epic_fr community with myself acting as "army champ" for the list)


I've selected lists which are think are, if not "finished", at least quite balanced and playable. For each list, I've used the latest version and, when possible or necessary, to include the latest and less controversial changes suggested by the army champ.

Some lists I've rejected only because they were conflicting with each other on some profiles/costs (Blood Angels and Salamanders, for example). This was done purely for reasons of coherency, not because I thought said lists were "worse" than the ones I've selected. I will add them as soon as these minor problems are solved.

Please feel free to tell me whether or not you think a particular list should be removed or added to the Compendium. I will do my best to update each list as soon as a new version is available.

And, well... hopefully there aren't too many typos, but I'm counting on you all here.  :;):

EDIT: While I realize this may come as a ripoff of Markconz's Handbook, such was not the intent. I only wanted to pick up his fantastic work where he had left it with the Handbook 2008. If Markconz (or anybody else) wants to use my work here as a basis for something better, I'll gladly send them the original file.  :grin:
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat May 30, 2009 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Fairy snuff conflict on profiles, but a points conflict shouldn't be a problem?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sat May 30, 2009 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Yes the stats should be the same in different lists but the points cost is irrelevant.
Author:  Markconz [ Sun May 31, 2009 7:02 am ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Wow this looks great Hojyn! As I said for the first part, I'm glad someone else is producing this sort of thing!  :agree:

Also, yes seems kind of pointless to duplicate activity with Handbook if this is more up to date. Will have a closer look when I have more time.
Author:  Erik M [ Sun May 31, 2009 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Thanks Hojyn and France.
Is this maybe worth using, as we don't know when ERC will get approved.
Author:  Chroma [ Sun May 31, 2009 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Quote: (Erik M @ 31 May 2009, 21:18 )

as we don't know when ERC will get approved.

Who would the ERC be waiting on getting this approval from?

The NetERC has posted our miminal recommendations, but that's not what the update at GW contains; the files sent to Jervis put the 2008 Errata and correction into the same format/layout as the original EPIC:A rulebook .pdfs.  

There's nothing NetERC in there at all.
Author:  Erik M [ Sun May 31, 2009 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Which is approximately what I said.

I've been trying to follow what's actually happening around here now for a year or so. I'm still not sure anything is happening.
But first Markconz, then Moscovian and now Hojyn/France make things actually happen. They've in various ways compiled what's been said and done and made usable documents of it.

IMO the document sent of to GW is a moot point. And if netERC only result in one fan based variant and one non-official GW official errata with no actual value, why then at all?

No, don't get ticked of. I'm serious as hell. I want (what I've talked about for ages) dependable rules. And these French ones could well be.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun May 31, 2009 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
The ERC largely deals in variant army lists, they don't do changes to the core rules.
Author:  Erik M [ Sun May 31, 2009 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
What's this then?  :oops:

But never mind me, I'm very happy this Compendium 2.0 is here. And with "done" army lists too!  :agree:
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun May 31, 2009 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Quote: (Erik M @ 31 May 2009, 22:04 )

What's this then?  :oops:

But never mind me, I'm very happy this Compendium 2.0 is here. And with "done" army lists too!  :agree:

Guidance for army list developers, and clarification of how the core rules work.
Author:  Chroma [ Sun May 31, 2009 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Quote: (Erik M @ 31 May 2009, 22:04 )

What's this then?  :oops:

Hey Erik, are you trying to be adversarial here?

The primary focus of the NetERC is facilitating army development though the Army Champion system, but EPIC is completely open for anyone to do anything they want to with.  As Neal posted in your like above, rule changes/additions are being looked at, but it hasn't been a focus.

We've been trying to get updated rules on the GW site and didn't look to muddy the waters with "Yet Another Handbook" or anything.

As time progresses, a NetERC rulebook will probably come out; I believe Hena has actually "updated the update" with our recommended changes.

Quote: 

But never mind me, I'm very happy this Compendium 2.0 is here. And with "done" army lists too!  :agree


Well, you are aware that most of the armies in there are the NetERC developed ones?  So that's what we've been up to.

And those lists aren't "done", I've already found some problems in them that have been corrected in later versions.  And the recent discovery of a significant typo/misundertanding in one of the Necron special rules means this version of the compendium is already obsolete.

This is why I think it's imperative to have two seperate "rulebooks", one with the game's core rules, which are generally well agreed upon and another with the armies, many of which are still in development/testing.
Author:  Chroma [ Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Quote: (Hojyn @ 30 May 2009, 12:13 )

ELDARS
- Biel-Tan
- Ulthwé
- Iyanden
- Alaitoc
- Saim-Hann

Eldar Corrections

"Shields of Vaul Troupe" should be removed and replaced with "Nightspinner Troupe" that consists of 3 Nightspinner units, with no upgrades/swaps, for 175 points.

Allowing free Firestorms in this formations was found to be too good.

As a "focus" limitation, Biel-Tan wasn't given "Swords of Vaul Troupes", but had seperate Falcon (5 for 250) and Fire Prism (3 for 250) Troupes.  Allowing Biel-Tan to have the flexibility of the Swords of Vaul Troupe was debated and thought to be "too much" for Biel-Tan.  As Eldar Armies Champion, I disagreed, but followed the will of the majority in not allowing the Swords of Vaul for Biel-Tan.  (Please feel free to discuss this in the Eldar Forum.)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun May 31, 2009 10:48 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
I think it would best to have the Army Lists Compendium dated/versioned.

That way if using it you'd always know you were using the latest version.
Author:  Erik M [ Sun May 31, 2009 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  EPIC COMPENDIUM
Sorry Chroma, I'm not here to belittle the work of this community.
I just so want it be what is. Not this limbo between fan and official.

If I've understood things correctly then there's only errata and FAQ being done, rule wise, right?
Which mean that there's no new rules to be added (no heavy infantry, no stubborn, no support craft etc). Or any rules changed. Or points changed.
And that's fine by me.
But the DWWFY sentiment flies like a brick, to me. If we want to pick games up, then we need a common base.

I want rules that stick around. Rules I can show people and get them interested by. This French endeavour seem to fit that bill. The file sent of to GW, for approval and whatever, isn't really adding anything for us. Sorry. If it was wanted they could've done it themselves.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/