Originally, the Death Korps and Armoured Regiment lists were one and the same, but once split, I ensured that they used the same points system.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

quote from chroma
"What are you talking about, mnb?As I said, the "points structure change" was dicussed with the Minervan Army Sub-Champion (who is allowed to change things as he/she sees fit) and was given a tentative "thumbs up" for the draft review: so it could be discussed by the wider community."

so discussing it w/ 1 person makes it ok? that makes the job of army champ pretty easy then if you don't have to answer to anyone.
look, i'm not trying to be confrontational or anything, honestly. but no one complained about it before. it could cause some unnecessary confusion going from this version to raiders and for what? to use addition instead of subtraction?

Discussing it with the Army Champion, yeah, that makes it okay; that's the person who decides on what changes go in and don't go in to a list; I don't get why you can't understand this.  Again, it was a *tentative* change, to standardize the list against other lists; neither Champion this affects has any strong feelings against it now that it has been discussed, espcecially since a better suggestion has come up.  And did you miss that last part "discussed with the wider community"?

Each Champion can run their lists they way they see fit under the guidance of the NetERC.  THIS IS ONLY FOR NETEA STUFF, under which this list falls.  

If a Champ want to change things and ask people to test them, they can do that.  If they want to ask people for suggestions to implement, they can do that.  If they want to hold votes, they can do that.  It's up to them.  The NetERC, which heads the NetEA, recommends that Champions run things as openly as possible, but it is *not* a "democratic" process, unless that specific Champ wants to run their list that way.

Now the thing is, if people don't *like* those changes, they're going to speak up.  If they're *really* unhappy, they're going to make their *own* lists.  So, yeah, a Champion "answers to no one", but when no one is playing their list, they aren't Champion of much.

Why are you so strongly against making it an "additive" process of army building, *especially* if all the points wind up being the same?  It doesn't change the army you play one bit.  As I said before, the point values I put into the list were *tentative*, simply bookmarks in the draft to make the place to discuss things.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

quote
 And did you miss that last part "discussed with the wider community"?

i didn't miss you stating it, i missed you actually doing it. and the point values were not the same.
the reason i disagree with this so much is you have 3 books out there where it is stated one way. then we get new people in and they look at your version and we have the same questions all over again. "which list is the official list?" the point of this whole thing was to make it easier and changing point values and list structure are just plain stupid.

What do you think is happening, right here, right now? The decision was made that this was a reasonable alternative way to present that part of the list. So it was put into the draft proposal and presented to the community for discussion. What is the problem here?


3 books? I make it one: Raiders.

Neither E:A nor Swordwind has tank companies with variable composition. So they don't have it any way.


There is no official version of the Minervan list. The only official lists are those published by GW.

The NetERC-endorsed version of the list will be the one that appears in the final version of the list compendium. What version that is and how it is presented will be decided by the NetERC, in cooperation with the Army Champion, who will have put their list together with input from the community.

Conveniently, the lists in Raiders are under review at the moment anyway, so when a change-list is put together for that, it can be synced with the list here.

_________________
"Good ale, the true and proper drink of Englishmen. He is not deserving of the name of Englishman who speaketh against ale, that is good ale."
- George Borrow

Uh... this thread is specifically that discussion: "Minervan Review".  

So I'm not sure what *more* I was expected to do but wait for the Army Champion to start the discussion.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

quote
What do you think is happening, right here, right now? The decision was made that this was a reasonable alternative way to present that part of the list. So it was put into the draft proposal and presented to the community for discussion. What is the problem here?

um, it's not a discussion because it's already been done.
quote
Neither E:A nor Swordwind has tank companies with variable composition. So they don't have it any way.

they each have tank companies w/ the options to upgrade to vanquisher. therefor you would have to go w/ the price cost of "varies" and have the 2 options to maintain continuity.

I think MNB has just not been privy to some of the discussion behind the scenes which may explain the disconnect.

I'll break it down so this doesn't detract from the discussion.  After that, if anyone has problems with anyone else, discuss it off thread please.

The intention of the NetERC is to present ALL the army lists that are approved in one single tome.  Minervans obviously are being discussed for this list of armies.  The intention of the NetERC (not just Chroma; he is just speaking for them currently) is to have the tank section of the army list modified to be easier to read.  Now for some (myself included) I like it as it is.  Others will find the modified design easier to work with.  Ultimately, if the NetERC decides to modify the way the list looks I am totally okay with that and -at the end of the day- my opinion IS the only opinion that matters (for Minervans anyway).  

Nobody has stepped on my toes or hijacked the list.  They asked (off thread) first, then I posted it here.

With that said, I am not going to modify the updated Raiders version of the list for this minutia.  I will, however, add the NetERC modified version of the Minervan list to an errata sheet so that people can choose what works best for them.  Two ways to look at it and both will have the same point values.  If there is a discrepancy now, I am sure that the NetERC folk will modify it upon request.

Moving along now...

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

moscovian, i just read your post that you might be able to add updates to a reprint of raiders. if this is done and both (of just the new "addition friendly" version) are used then i guess there is no problem. i still think it will be more confusing then necessary but oh well.

Suggested Stat changes to the Stormhammer...

STORMHAMMER (FLOGUSUS PATTERN)Type Speed   Armour   CC FF
War Engine   15cm    4+       6+         4+
Weapons  Range  Firepower       Notes
2 x Twin Snub Battlecannons Turret  30cm   AP3+/AT3+       -
4 x Heavy Bolter                       30cm   AP5+            -Defensive Boltgun Array               (15cm)  Small Arms  EA (+1)

Damage Capacity 3. Critical Hit: The Stormhammer’s magazine explodes.  The Stormhammer is destroyed, and any units within 5cm of the model suffer a hit on a D6 roll of 6+.Notes: Reinforced Armor, Thick Rear Armour


A slightly modified version of Galdred's version. Zombocom seemed to give it a tentative nod a few months back.  E&C liked it except for the 4+ FF.  I believe he wanted a 3+ FF without the Extra Attack.  Statistically they have roughly the same number of hits.  I personally like the larger distribution you can get with the +1 EA but I'm not married to it either.

I proposed this a while back and I havent' heard a major argument against them.  So...  Please -if you could- try these stats out for the Stormhammer and post any results.  You don't have to post a full batrep - just what happened with this unit.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

I think this has blown up largely out of miscommunications and differing perspectives, rather than anyone’s intent, and certainly more so than was warranted by such a small change. I wanted to walk away from the debate after my last post, by which the whole reason for the debate had become moot anyway, but unfortunately I appear to have aggrieved you in my posts Chroma, so I wanted to offer insight into my perspective, which I feel has been misinterpreted. I hope I’m not digging myself into an even deeper hole than I seem to have got myself in!
Where I have wrote ‘you’ or ‘your’ I have meant that in the plural sense of the Net-ERC with you representing them here, rather than aiming it personally at yourself. I also took for granted that the army champion had okayed the change, but understood that the change had been decided on by the ERC, as you yourself wrote: I think the way it was presented may have unintentionally caused people to take more issue with it than otherwise might have. Fredmans assessed it well when he wrote: The first I was aware of anyone having a problem with the tanks was when you posted the draft list up with it changed. I would have argued against a change to the one from your proposal whosoever had suggested it, for reasons stated previously. There was negative comments about the change and I asked twice in the thread what the justification for the change was, but no response was given there leaving me thinking you didn't want to discuss it. Only later did Mosc comment people had expressed problems with it – and having it in the draft at the ERCs request already made it seem like it was likely a foregone conclusion somehow. Your recent reply emphasises the Draft element of this list, and that it was then intended for discussion, but that wasn’t the way I was looking at it and I may have been wrong in that.  

You use some emotive terms and phrases to accuse me of things I never thought. It’s never been a case of [ironical over-exaggeration]‘Ohh noes! its the evil Net-ERC! We’re doomed - they’ve come to ruin our lists!'[/ironical over-exaggeration], you obviously care a huge amount about epic and doing the best for it, to an even greater extent than most of the rest of us epic fans. You/the Net-ERC made a minor change it felt for the better, I disliked the change, argued against the change, may have got irritated initially when I felt my concerns weren’t being responded to, and then think by trying to go over and explain only made things worse. It was never anything personal though and I never thought you had any underhand or inappropriate motivation for any of it, that would be absurd. It’s perfectly normal and reasonable for you to be in contact the Army Champions.

No offence was intended in all this, I apologise for any caused and am sad it has. I really appreciate all the time and good work you put in to this and hope this blows over quickly and is forgotten about

Yes, I think this is definately the sort of direction we should be looking with the stormhammer. The precise details may need weaking, but I think that without the lascannons it's a little less daunting.

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

1. The Stormhammer.
Whatever happens to this unit, I'm dead against 10cm movement.
I quite like the look of Mosc's stats.

2. The Destroyer.
I'm happy to see the TK become MW if it solves a problem.

3. Low activation count.
I think it's a good thing and think it should stay as is.

4. Tank points.
To be honest, I think it should stay the way it is in Raiders. If a new system was needed, that actually changed the points of tank companies, then there might be a need for change. I don't see the point for using a new system to get to the same points values. Just seems like change for change sake to me.

5. The amphibious special rule.
I don't believe that it's ever come up in any of our games so I can't really comment on it.

_________________
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.

Apology accepted, thanks for explaining your point of view.  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I still hold that opinion, and it's rooted in my belief that if a result is statistically similar then we should pick the option that rolls less dice, rather than the option that rolls more dice.

'Cos this is Epic, and in Epic, we roll as few dice as is practical, because the fun of the game isn't in seeing a dozen or more dice fly, it's in the story... IMHO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter