I’d like to float an idea regarding something that I see as a continuing and irritating problem for us Epic players: the continuous and seemingly random introduction of new units in Warhammer: 40,000.

In an ideal world, when a new unit becomes available for 40k, it would also be released at 6mm scale, along with rules for its use in E:A. Obviously we don’t live in an ideal world.

Because this situation won’t be changing anytime soon, the Epic community is faced with two options. Reasonable people might suggest that we, as a group, decide to simply ignore those new 40k units that are not available at Epic scale. Unreasonable people will shout louder and longer, however, and so it seems to me that we need to come up with a way to quickly and fairly include these new units into existing EA army lists.

Up until now, these new 40k units have been handled [by the Net EA group] by including them in new variant lists. In some cases, where the background indicates the units are limited to specific armies or locations, this is appropriate. However, this solution seems dissatisfying (at least to me) when it is clear that certain units are meant to be available to an entire race, not just to one specialty force. This approach also suffers from the fact that, as more army lists are added to the roster, the available playtest capacity gets more and more diluted.

As an alternative to the ‘new army list’ approach, I suggest that, where appropriate for the given background, that new units be allowed into the existing lists.

But wait! How can we hope to gauge the effect that inclusion of all these new units might have on the existing lists in terms of balance and play style? How can we expect to get enough playtesting done to examine all the new combinations that would result from such an approach? Well, the answer to both questions in “we can’t.â€Â

I used to be on the side of adding new units to existing army lists, but these days I'm on the side of leaving lists largely as they are, and using new units in variant army lists.

---

I make an exception however for Titans, as I think it was a failing of the original lists to provide variant weapon options (doubtless, for financial rather than game balance reasons), and I'd like to see variant weapon options available to more lists, including existing ones.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

What version of Siege are we on?  

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

--

I think being uniform in our decisions will be problematic at best.  Quite honestly I think Epic seems to do its best overall when each list can be taken on a case-by-case basis.  While I see the benefit of such a system, Semaj, I just don't see it being realistic.  What I do like though is the write-up of stats for as many units as possible.  There will be some that make it into a list while others that do not.  But even the ones that don't certainly have a place in the game.  Including them in another supplement or just a one-off page of cool things to play with strike me as fine.  

Like the Ork Bommers from FW.  Those things would probably never make it into the current Ork list (nor should they), but a collection of optional units, formations, and special rules strike me as a great thing to have.  I suggested this to Chroma for the Total War book but he was set on having everything in the book be able to apply to any list (i.e. nothing army specific).  I still think it would be fun to include.

Zombocom had an idea to change Living Metal on the Necrons to being able to regenerate.  I have ideas on how to include combat drugs into the Dark Eldar list.  The FW models should all have stats written up, as well as the Capitol Imperialis and other items.  Including those all together and then giving people a chance to play some fun games with them expands the game without disturbing the tournament lists.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.

I used to be on the side of adding new units to the core lists (like Steel Legion, Codex Marines, etc) and now I'm on the side of only using variant units in variant lists (like the DKoK getting Gorgons, instead of giving them to the Steel Legion).

Your jest makes no sense.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It was just a joke.  Like ending any sentence with, "And so the rabbit says..."

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

After my recent grapplings with army design, I actually have a few thoughts here.
Why not leave them out of lists that are currently in development, there's no reason why stats can't be worked up for them and a wider range of units made available outside of army lists that were/are/should be designed for the tournament scenario. They can then be introduced easily as swap outs for existing units in friendly games if desired (for example, it might be that my opponent lets me swap my Defilers for Soul Grinders if I'm similarly flexible about letting him swap his Land Raiders for Land Raider Crusaders, in an atmosphere of a fun and friendly game), whilst keeping the army lists clean and in less of a state of turmoil for the purposes of on going development and balance. I'm pretty much agreeing with Moscovian here

There could even be a fanzine (online of course) featuring stats and conversion guides, it could be great.... I think I need a lie down now....

Some of these units might then make their way into new army lists.

I like that idea, also. I don't want to see tinkering with lists that are already accepted as being balanced, but I have no problem with everything having stats, even if it's simply for a "collector's section."

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I don't have a problem with having an "odds and Ends"-type appendix in Total War, I just don't want generic scenario that say, "And Orks can use Bommerz"... if it's an historical re-fight, no problem!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

As the lists are designed for competitive play, leave them be. And that's where us lot come in, doing 'fan lists'. I feel as a fan list gets more variants, develops a character and is balanced it becomes a distinct list and can migrate to being fixed for eternity.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

'Appendix' makes it sound so short and unimportant, like, well, like an appendix.

TRC and E&C bring up the other half of the equation, of course.  These units have found homes in the variant lists so offering them 'officially' in an existing army list somehow dilutes the effect of having them in the variant.  Whereas an 'unofficial' list of units and such could find themselves playtested many times before they ever get to a variant list.  That would make the building of said lists that much easier.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

And that was part of what I wanted to get at. One of the biggest problems I have towards contributing to playtesting is the fact that on the limited occasions I get to play, I have to make a choice between playing a straight-up tourney scenario, which I know will be fun and not have much hassle or confusion, or playing a game where someone plays one of the many playtest lists, where the fun could be ruined by unbalanced units, misunderstood rules, or the general unpreparedness that comes when facing a new list.

It's kind of like when I go to a favorite restaurant. I can either choose the dish I always get, because I know it is good and I will leave happy, or I order a new dish and risk leaving with a bad taste in my mouth. Wouldn’t it be great if I could get a sample of the new dish as a sort of appetizer to the regular choice?

If, in general, everyone were more open to the idea of including a very limited selection of experimental units into an otherwise official game, the risk of ruining the game would be minor, and everyone could gradually get a better feel for how the new units work (or don’t work). On the other side of the issue, if people wanting to playtest lists were more willing to limit the scope of their testing of a new list to mostly settled units and only a set limit of experimental units, I think things could potentially progress faster.

I believe that some limited inclusion of experiment units/formations, a la 0-1, or <10% of total points, or some such can be done and still have a game that is balanced within reason. Balanced enough that it could even be encouraged at semi-official tourneys where some experimental lists are allowed anyway.

The more I think about this the better it sounds, a document containing 'unofficial' (probably a friendly term than 'experimental') units that can be used to add a bit of flavour to an evening's game of epic, or to inform the development of a new fan list.

this is a great idea. and not just stats but where they could fit in the army list (like the rhino listed above).
i hate to point a finger at someone since it would cause a lot of work, but black legion always seems to bust out stats for new units the second GW puts them into print (i hope that doesn't come off sounding mean). so BL could probably bang this out in 10 minutes.

This is the idea I've liked most in this thread

A quarterly epic fanzine would be great, much like several of the other specialist games have. There's more than enough talent here to do it!

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

LOL  

Well my philosophy is: If a unit exists in Wh40k so it deserves stats in Epic too.
Same is true for BFG spaceships (but i like ground units more).
No suprise i like this collected list of experimental units with appropiate stats, perhabs points cost and suggestions in which army they would fit best.

We also could do the same with formations. I did this some time ago with some Apocalypse datasheets even tried to translate their special rules to Epic where it seems workable/sensible.

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