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

Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=22198		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  MiddleMeadow [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Hello.....this is my first post and I'm a completely new Epic player (and new to the Warhammer world as well!)

Basically my gaming buddies were into Epic and needed a fourth, after some quick descriptions of the various races I decided to play Squats 'cause the idea of space-dwarfs was appealing. I had no idea what I was letting myself in for though......models out of production, shopping around on Ebay, proxying, digging around for lists!!! But it's been great and I feel really attached to my little guys!!

Check out this thread for a call to proof read the DRAFT 2012 NetEA army lists:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22113&hilit=netea+draft

I haven't seen many Squat replies to it and I've noticed some funny things in the draft doc. Glaring ones are:
- Berzerkers don't have the +1 extra attack during assaults any more
- Mega-Cannon Goliaths are now DC6 and macro-weapon (!!!)
- Spartans lost the AP5+ ranged attack
- On the Thurgrimm list 3x Gyros are 325pts (up from 200pt!!)

I'm sure there are people on this forum that are infinitely more qualified to clarify these points and more....

Thanks for reading and thanks to the community for keeping the Squats alive, play-testing and generating lists so that newbies like me can pick them up and play.

PS. Please bring 4x Gyrocopter squadrons into the Thurgrimm list!! :)
Author:  Ironmonger [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
I'm sorry, but the thing is I don't feel as though the Thurgrim list is "ready for prime time" to be included in the Compendium. If you look at the comments thread just below this, you'll see that I'm not the only one; further, you'll see how much change is needed in the list for it to really be playable and/or characterful. I DO NOT relish the thought that it's going to be the "official" list for Squats just by default...
Author:  Dave [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Developement on the list will begin in earnest once it has an AC.

Also, just because it's in the compendium doesn't make it "official", "final" or anything like that. I'm fairly confident that anything labeled as Dev. or Exp. in the PDF will be out of date in a month or two, with the more recent versions up on this forum.
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
It's listed as "Experimental" so it would seem the NetERC agrees. It can't get the amount of playtesting or exposure needed to advance to "In Development" or "Approved" without inclusion in the Army Compendium.
Author:  Ironmonger [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
*gets set in his place* ;)

Excellent! It was the 'Stamping things approved' comment that really caught my eye; teach me to overlook the obvious. I'm playtesting away, so will have quite the workable list very soon.
Author:  Moscovian [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Middlemeadow, as above, there are quite a few people interested in getting the Squats not only past the experimental phase but approved. My plans are to include them in a fan built supplement by the end of the year. So if you are keen on the stunties, PM me and let me know what kind of interest you might have in helping out with the army, the supplement, or both.

Thanks!
Author:  MiddleMeadow [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Thanks for the comments guys.....I guess what I was trying to do was to get some feedback from the Squat players on the Draft doc. I've been playing for just over a year now and the two lists that my gaming group and I have settled on are the Thurgrimm and Demiurg (version 4 and 5 respectively I think from memory). These two just seem to be the more established ones but I tend to use the Demiurg list more. They both match up pretty evenly against my buddies (Space Marine Codex Astartes, Imperial Guard Steel Legion & Space Orks).....

As a new player I too would like to see an approved list (or lists) and that's what I thought the Draft Army Compendium document was about - especially since the ArmyForge website has just recently included the Squat force builder based on the Thurgrimm list.

How many Squat lists are there and what does it take to get them approved?

Thanks again.
Author:  Ironmonger [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
I personally only know about four lists: three Squat and the Demiurg. The Demiurg... again, these guys are not Squats, so that's a personal issue I have with any Squat/Demiurg relationship. The three Squat Lists are the Thurgrim list, Khazak list, and the Gharmull list... but they could really be one list, their cores are that similar. The Thurgrim is by far the more accurate of the three when it comes to how the Squats were represented on the table top in their heyday, but again, it has some deep fundamental flaws in it's rules and structure. The fact that there's an armybuilder out and about for the Thurgrim list I find... troubling sounds melodramatic, I guess, but can't think of another term. This list is not a mature list by any means, and giving it a patina of officiality by having an armybuilder built around it is the kind of stuff I was hoping we as a community could avoid until it was reworked into an acceptable, playable form.

I know I'm coming across like a bit of a creep, here, and I'm honestly not trying to. I don't want jaldon's ghost to haunt me (:P), but I'd really like to see a better, accepted representation of the list get approved.

What does it take to get the lists approved? PLAY TESTING to death, feedback, general consensus (including CONCESSIONS) on the part of the community here, over time, and then the stamp of approval by the up-in-the-air Squat AC.

A long road to hoe, but one that needs tending, me thinks...
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Quote:
these guys are not Squats

Something GW will be making quite clear with their upcoming new Tau Codex, if the rumours are to be believed.
Author:  Ironmonger [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
these guys are not Squats

Something GW will be making quite clear with their upcoming new Tau Codex, if the rumours are to be believed.


Yep, heard the same. We'll see.

Still not going to keep me from getting a Demiurg force for BFG... :shifty:
Author:  adam77 [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Ironmonger wrote:
...giving it a patina of officiality by having an armybuilder built around it is the kind of stuff I was hoping we as a community could avoid until it was reworked into an acceptable, playable form.


In Armyforge, unfinished lists are clearly marked 'UNDER DEVELOPMENT'*. Also, the current NetEA section has 'Draft' in the title. In the near future there will be 2 NetEA sections: 'NetEA Approved Lists' (approved in the 2012 book) and 'NetEA Draft/Test Lists' (everything else).

Having unfinished lists on Armyforge is a good way to get exposure for lists and will lead to more playtesting. So long as they're clearly marked as such I don't think it's a problem.


* I just noticed the NetEA squats are not marked correctly, will fix in next version.
Author:  Ironmonger [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
adam77 wrote:
Ironmonger wrote:
...giving it a patina of officiality by having an armybuilder built around it is the kind of stuff I was hoping we as a community could avoid until it was reworked into an acceptable, playable form.


In Armyforge, unfinished lists are clearly marked 'UNDER DEVELOPMENT'*. Also, the current NetEA section has 'Draft' in the title. In the near future there will be 2 NetEA sections: 'NetEA Approved Lists' (approved in the 2012 book) and 'NetEA Draft/Test Lists' (everything else).

Having unfinished lists on Armyforge is a good way to get exposure for lists and will lead to more playtesting. So long as they're clearly marked as such I don't think it's a problem.


* I just noticed the NetEA squats are not marked correctly, will fix in next version.


Fair enough. I don't use armybuilder programs personally, but I know many who do to great effect.
Author:  Borka [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
adam77 wrote:
Ironmonger wrote:
...giving it a patina of officiality by having an armybuilder built around it is the kind of stuff I was hoping we as a community could avoid until it was reworked into an acceptable, playable form.


In Armyforge, unfinished lists are clearly marked 'UNDER DEVELOPMENT'*. Also, the current NetEA section has 'Draft' in the title. In the near future there will be 2 NetEA sections: 'NetEA Approved Lists' (approved in the 2012 book) and 'NetEA Draft/Test Lists' (everything else).

Having unfinished lists on Armyforge is a good way to get exposure for lists and will lead to more playtesting. So long as they're clearly marked as such I don't think it's a problem.


* I just noticed the NetEA squats are not marked correctly, will fix in next version.


It was I who made the list for armyforge, I wanted to contribute to the squat cause :)
When I did it, I based it on the 2010 army book draft in which the thurgrim list was marked as netEA approved so I thought it had a legitimate place on the forge.

I was a bit surprised when I saw that in the 2012 draft that it's now marked as experimental (but at the same time understandable). Please mark it as such Adam, but I think keep it for the reasons you stated.

cheers
Author:  Ironmonger [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
Well... I can see every side of the Thurgrim discussion (is it Thurgrim or Thurgrimm??) as it were, including the place for even an experimental list to have an armybuilder. It does get the list out there to be playtested and have solid feedback garnered.
Author:  Borka [ Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Comments for DRAFT NetEA Army Compendium 2012 Draft
MiddleMeadow wrote:
Hello.....this is my first post and I'm a completely new Epic player (and new to the Warhammer world as well!)

Basically my gaming buddies were into Epic and needed a fourth, after some quick descriptions of the various races I decided to play Squats 'cause the idea of space-dwarfs was appealing. I had no idea what I was letting myself in for though......models out of production, shopping around on Ebay, proxying, digging around for lists!!! But it's been great and I feel really attached to my little guys!!

Check out this thread for a call to proof read the DRAFT 2012 NetEA army lists:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=22113&hilit=netea+draft

I haven't seen many Squat replies to it and I've noticed some funny things in the draft doc. Glaring ones are:
- Berzerkers don't have the +1 extra attack during assaults any more
- Mega-Cannon Goliaths are now DC6 and macro-weapon (!!!)
- Spartans lost the AP5+ ranged attack
- On the Thurgrimm list 3x Gyros are 325pts (up from 200pt!!)

I'm sure there are people on this forum that are infinitely more qualified to clarify these points and more....

Thanks for reading and thanks to the community for keeping the Squats alive, play-testing and generating lists so that newbies like me can pick them up and play.

PS. Please bring 4x Gyrocopter squadrons into the Thurgrimm list!! :)


I couldn't see these typos reported in the draft 2012 thread so I took the liberty of reporting them plus a few more I spotted. Cheers for bringing them up.

And I totally agree that the gyrocopters should be 4 for 200 like they're priced in the demiurg list. Will hopefully be addressed by the new AC.

Cheers!

Edit: Btw welcome into epic community!
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/