A word of warning : this is a long text, in the realm of 24K characters, so I ad to split it, and have tried to put titles and some formatting in.
Here is a very short summary if you don't have time to read it but would still like to know what it speaks about :
TLDR :
Quote:
- We need some more consensus, or to state the consensus more clearly, about the design principles of lists.
- There are some inherent problems in the way our lists are made.
- It would possible develop lists in a very different way.
- We could even go for a reboot of the way to do things.
Some arguments, some silly examples, some suggestions, some bits of answers to obvious objections in between.
OK, so here we go : I think we need a discussion on list design.
There are some people saying that play testing has slowed down and that some army development are lacking clear leadership (tyranids come to mind), and that the result is huge delays in the long awaited army compendium. And that it is all bad for the game.
I think there are other issues pertaining to the lists, the process their development follow, and the overall philosophy behind list design. I am starting this thread so that we may discuss these items in a dedicated thread (the discussion derailing toward these perceived issues in the "activation limit proposal" thread).
First, I think there are multiple reasons why there is less involvement from the community* in list development and play-test :
1) The lists do actually work. Many people are actually mostly satisfied with them, as they are. Internal balance might not be perfect, their pet unit might not be included, but they can live with it.
2) Tournaments organizing people are often using a set of list that is maintained by closed ruling committee that you may actually only try to influence by inputting something on the boards. And the lists are all designed as tournament lists.
3) Variants are variants are variants. People will only get interested in play-testing a specific list if they actually plan to build an army with it or might want to at one point, and feel strongly enough about fluff evolution and this or that pet unit to be arsed to argue and not simply use the core list, possibly with count-as.
4) If you feel strongly about a specific point, and there are some recurring ones like "it doesn't work that way in 40K"/"We don't care about 40K" or "this lack flavour/this lack abstraction", and the AC or the majority is not agreeing with you, the easiest solution is to make your own list, rather than play-testing one you don't like.
I'm personally unsure if we shouldn't consider the slow down a good thing. In some case (tyranids again), it's obviously bad since there is a striking lack of consensus, but in many other cases it might be a sign that we got stuff that is good enough that people don't feel so strong a need to get personally involved.
------------------------------------------------
Some measure of consensus is needed on list design principles
------------------------------------------------Continuing on what point 4 in my short listing above suggested, I think we need both :
1) A set of list design principle, guidelines, that are actually listed somewhere.
2) A set of design principle at core lists level.
Silly Example for guideline principles
Quote:
A free example of a set of list design principle could be :
- Statlines in E:A should reflect stats in current Wh40K rule-set.
- Lists are conceived and presented as campaign specific.
- Lists are designed to work with the tournament scenario as is.
- Core lists may not define more than 13 army wide special rules, or more than 42 unit/weapon specific special rules.
- No variant lists are allowed to define any army wide special rules, and no variant lists are allowed to define more than 27 unit/weapon specific special rules.
- No variant lists should define more than 89 list specific units.
- Lists may only use units commercially available from GW.
A free example of a set of design principle at core list level could be, say for tyranids :
- All tyranid lists should use only models commercially available from GW in Albania between 08/1994 and 11/1999
- No spawning of WE ever with the "without number rule" (defined elsewhere)
- No list specific unit special rules at all.
- must provide count-as suggestion to be used with marine models.
Obviously I don't agree with all of that

But these are of course only silly examples.
Debating and then fixing such guidelines would help a lot by itself I think. Notably, to get back to the recurring debates I mentioned earlier, "it doesn't work that way in 40K"/"We don't care about 40K" or "this lack flavour/this lack abstraction", I think a debate to state clearly the general stance would be useful.
I for one think that some of the abstraction that is working nicely for orks could and should be applied, to a lesser degree, to other lists. For example, abstracting land raider variants into 3 or 4 types :
A standard one, an assault one (crusaders and other large capacity LRs), a fire support one (abstracting Helios, Ares...) and possibly a siege one for stuff that would be close range fire support. The same could be said of Leman russes or SM dreadnought variants for example. Actually, this is only what I would
prefer, but I can live with the full detail; My point is that the main issue when discussing such things is that there are no clear design principle to refer to after years of fan development.
On the way to treat cannon and 40K stats, we must acknowledge that :
- cannon change over time
- statlines too
- there are some precedents in Epic itself as well as 40K
And thus even adherence to 40K is something hard to define. For example, the association of dark angel with plasma is well accepted by most, but it is only due to the fact that 2 editions of 40K back, they were the only marine chapter able to field plasma cannons in tactical squad. One squad affected for one weapon, in a rule 10 years old, which disappeared since then from all successive editions.
On the other hand, many units, still acknowledged in the 40K rules or not, originated in Epic and might be felt as belonging, even if they date from a long departed past, such as the slug-tanks of the tyranids.
So there are conflicts between being true to epic as it was, being true with 40K as it was, and being true with 40K as it is, and which bits of which is still to be discussed (should Apocalypse guide formation compositions in E:A ?).
And of course, any pair of epic players could debate a long time about the relevance of 40K scale stats and mechanism when discussing epic rules.
The point, once again, is that there is once again no clear stance on that. I think we need the consensus to be stated if there is one, and a consensus to be established if there is none.
------------------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the realm of list design
------------------------------------------------And lastly, I have gripes with the whole way the lists are made. Not the army champions, which are actually doing a remarkable amount of work, and if some of them sometime lack the commitment at times as their lives have other priorities, that looks like a normal process to me, and even as a healthy one. I tend to think that most A/C don't deserve the bashing they get, but that they should be replaced quicker when they cannot input as much as list progress may warrant.
No, I have gripes with the specificity of lists, and this was one of the basic design choices of the game from the beginning, and as such is permeating the whole game to some extent or another.
Seat tight, I'm going to say something enormous : I think the 40K game designers have made a very good move lastly.
Yes, I actually typed that. I don't like the 40 ruleset, and I don't like many of the decision in the general orientation of GW game development these years, but I think they had a good idea in lifting many requirement in list building, making them much more open and flexible.
------------------------------------------------
A proposition for a solution
------------------------------------------------I'll try to share what I would like to see by the sanctioned method of wishful dreaming aloud, here and now. You may then proceed to pick it all apart as you feel required, of course.
Let there be a Space Marines core list for Epic Armageddon.
Like now, it has several specific army wide rules. For example, "They Shall Know No Fear".
Unlike now, It lists almost all the units available to any marines chapter that are deemed relevant to E:A, for example :
Land raider, Land Raider Crusader, Land raider Prometheus, Land raider Helios, Land raider Redeemer, Land Raider Terminus Ultra, Land Raider Achiles
or maybe only : Land Raider, Land Raider(Assault), Land raider(Support)
Depending on some design choices I talked about earlier. But still, all that might be available to more than one chapter.
Formations would have no transport, and you would buy them if you want, and the additional value of making faster units would be factored in the transport options, not in the infantry. You would get transports as upgrades or independent WE. It is more sensible, easier to balance (specifically against various other transports options and the garrison ability), and does not require a special rule.
It then provide you with the core list itself; the list contains building guidelines (core/support/upgrades for IG, free formation choice with upgrades for marines, free formation choice with discount for large and huge versions, maybe forced package of several detachments at once, whatever), then list detachments, upgrades, etc, with point costs as usual.
It is quite longer than the current list, because you can upgrade bikes and Land speeder detachments with more bikes/land-speeders, buff-out tank formations, all vehicle variants are available, like Storm ravens and Caestus and whatever.
And, but for a possible addition I'll talk about later down this wall of text, this is it.
------------------------------------------------
Consequences of said solution; obvious objections
------------------------------------------------As a consequence it is then up to the player to build his army alongside the theme or strategy of his choice.
If he want white scars, he can take larger bikes formations, and put his assault marines jump-pack less in rhino, paint his minis white and be done with it. If he is an iron hand player, he might want a quick black slap of paint, dreadnought formations, large tank dets, and be set.
I know, I know. This would make abuse control harder, because you could possibly take the game breaking jumppack-less assault marines and dreadnought detachment combo ! This is of course only a random example once again. Additionally, some inherently synergistic mechanism (like activation count) would be hard to balance with too free a list chart.
Well, there are, I think, several points to be made in that regard :
1) As long as the synergistic effects are not too out of whack, they would not affect the overall list that much. The main, and possibly only true item here is the "activation count" priority I think. As it currently is, players already feel the need for some more low cost detachments to compensate for activations if they took large ones too (like balancing a marine or guard army after opting for a Reaver priced or even more expansive detachment, like warlord, Leman Russes company, etc).
So I don't think it would be significantly harder to balance for example a large tank formation than it currently is.
2) The combos of death (synergy between two detachments, or kind of units), if they manage to get in, could be in some case just clever tactics (which are good), addressed by pricing if they are manifest imbalances regarding a particular ability that is otherwise rare in the list or perhaps more interestingly by having sets of restriction and allowance on certain combinations. More on that later.
3) A lot of different units makes for a harder to balance list. Yes of course. But note that we have a pretty good start in the form of the present lists at least for both stats and prices, and so long as there are not too much synergistic imbalances (which I wrote a few thoughts about a moment ago), which can be addressed by pricing the right unit (factoring the value of air assault on the optional transport rather than the possibly foot-slogging buggers), balancing a detachment or an upgrade would not be inherently longer than in another list.
------------------------------------------------
outlining some benefits
------------------------------------------------Now, what would be the benefits ? Well basically, the same basic list could cater for a lot of needs. Possibly, you could not build a BA list that would feel as adequate as E&C one, because it would lack the added flavour of its army wide rules ("Death Company", "The Red Thirst"), but you could obtain something that would be still quite themed as Blood Angels. By selecting Large infantry dets of mixed tactical marines and scout in Land raider crusader or Land raider (Assault), you could build an interesting "dark templar themed" army.
Admittedly, you could build a force of large landspeeder and bike formations, quite alike ravenwing, but add Rhino transported assault marines and Dreadnoughts formations, and you would get something that looks a bit like ravenwing but ends as something probably no one will recognise. Well, there are a thousand chapters out there, it is to be expected that some of them don't aren't already defined by GW. So long as it doesn't break balance, I can't see why this should be an issue.
Given rules like TSKNF, commissars, Hit and run, Strategy rating/initiative and of course statlines, I'm not afraid of seeing a marine tank force play like an IG tank force, nor like an eldar tank force. Which is excellent news.
------------------------------------------------
Variant lists
------------------------------------------------Variant lists could still be made to better represent a given chapter; they would probably be very short, restricted to one or two special rules thought as necessary (say "Death Company", "The Red Thirst" for BA), one or two altered statlines (faster rhinos ?), a few specific formations (death company ?) maybe and a guideline of thematic restrictions. BTW, variant lists were supposed to be just that : a few units/detachments at most, very few specific rules.
*being loosely defined as "people here on taccom", since it is largely the main nexus of development for the game