I believe the plan is to first work on balancing approved lists for our current tournament scene. No developmental lists, it's either in or out. Then try and and add a new list once or twice a year depending. But it'll be most of the approved lists with some tweaks to start with




Epicau already had the recording database set up (Though only recently)
The idea is to get some standard tournament rules in place. Abolish the "5 min warmup" and have hard rules for all of it.
The database will track Tournament games separate from "testing" lists etc. But will be able to record all games submitted including pts win, what objectives achieved etc.



That I think would require us to come down to an equal ruling on terrain rules.
We've been down rocky slope before, remember the argument in the squat thread?
As for scoring, it would be good but sometimes a different scoring method can shake up the meta as well for different tournaments. Castle Assault currently uses a scoring system that rewards more tournament points for a larger difference in objective grabbing (Which favors high mobile aggressive plays) yet Heavy Bolter this year will have the scoring of full points for a win, less for win by victory point, draw etc. (Suddenly slower "hold the line" armies get back in the mix)

I do like the idea of forcing players to take a different army each year, but this may not help us grow our scene as it's only really applicable for people with many armies. I know we have a bunch of guys in Aus who enjoy Epic, but only have 1 army/race to play with.

I'm not one making the decisions for epicau in Aus (That'll be our TO's and a few other learned individuals to help guide us there), but I do support the way we are going by developing our own scene for tournament play.

We'll still be active here, we'll still help test lists (could you ever see PFIFE stopping ), but I think we need to go our own way for tournament play much like the UK.

it's less 'forcing' and more 'encouraging' players to take different armies

if you were unaware, over the year, people score championship points for placing in a tournament, 10 for a win, 8 for second etc etc. Each time they use a different list, they get bonus points: 1 for using a variant (say Dark Angels, then Codex Marines) or 4 for taking a completely new race (eg. Eldar followed by Feral Orks) I think it gives a nice incentive for players to not just take the same lists out as over the season if you take a different list to each tournament you can potentially rack up 30+ championship points

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

And there is a reasonably significant use of proxies, allowing a player with Biel Tan to field them as other Eldar races, Marines arrive as the various codexes or Chaos, or even Guard as Squats etc. As long as the figures are distinctly different from each other and consistent, then it is fine - and this also allows the use of (shock horror)
non-GW figures
(Please don't tell them . . . )

This approach means that a player can field a different army or race through the addition of a limited number of figures. As time progresses (and obviously we have a head start there) people end up collecting a variety of armies, often painted to a very high standard, which adds to the pleasure of facing them (though losing still hurts )

Thank to you everyone, who has added something...I have enjoyed the discussion in the thread.......



+1 Mic well said and I'm in the same boat, but unlike you won't have a problem painting or buying Napoleonics......yeah I'm old fart.. :-)

I believe in the long run the Australian community needs to do this...for many reasons, Yes there will be few hiccups, along the way, but I think the Aussie community has got the depth to handle that....... Sounds good coming from a ERC Chair member..but hey it's called changed and the world won't end, if it happens.....

Thanks for reading....

_________________
Regards
Greg

*************************************************

Not against change, so long as it done fairly and no one is left behind....

I'm human and not a !@#$%^# Robot..

In terms of suggestions for how to set it up, I'd only say give the structure some actual thought rather than copy how it's done for NetEA or EUK. It's really easy to fall into the trap of wanting to please everyone and make it a democracy, but with everyone sticking their oar in you end up being very kneejerk (see problems when there are none) and of course the most vocal end up being the most influential whether right or not. On the other hand having a cabal of individuals run things can be great if those people are experienced, reflective etc but being too insular could alienate people. EUK is finely balanced in that respect but it could so easily not be the case elsewhere. Certainly I would like to see EUK open up a bit more about the inner workings - at least just more info online. I'd post more suggestions but there's nowhere to post it

It does seem like it is inevitable to fork the lists but it's a bit disappointing you aim to do that at the start, as my impression is that it would be beneficial to wait until some of the kneejerk reactions have been thoughtfully evaluated in the cold light of day, and players have had time to explore counters. You may end up going too far in 'fixing' things, find the tournament scene in a constant pendulum and expending energy playing whack a mole. Something that can help is waiting a few years to review lists (ie on a schedule rather than straight after the first person wins a tournament with a list).

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

This isn't a kneejerk re-action for us Kyrt, this isn't off one tournament at Cancon, but from the last three years of us having this issue with the Eldar lists.

Other lists will be adjusted in time when we get to them and if problems occur - but this is one of our major problems

I'm saying it's a shame you don't start with collecting the evidence rather than designing the solution. Maybe I misunderstood the extent to which counters have been tried like the ones mentioned in this thread.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Evolution
If I understand the reason for NetEA existence, it is to evolve the game of Epic Armageddon to be “better” and to update the game to include more of the GW universe. From my perspective it has done a great job as we have moved from ~7 lists to a multitude of lists which currently encompass armies from all races and many sub factions. In addition, and in my eyes more importantly, NetEA has tweaked the army lists to optimise a competitive balance between the various army lists.

What has also been interesting is my evolution as a player of NetEA. When I first started to play, I though ground based Codex Marines were the best army with their 1+ initiative and TSKNO. I evolved to appreciate Steel Legion Imperial Guard and there resilience and ability to kill stuff. From there I evolved to Eldar, activation count and winning via clever objectives grabbing and surgical strikes. I have to say that throughout this process, at each stage I thought I had discovered the “best” strategy/list. I have since come to appreciate the various strengths and weaknesses as well as various different ways to “win” a game of NetEA. The point is, that throughout this evolution as a player, when I lost a game I realized that I still had more to learn and that good players leveraging an armies’ strengths are always challenging. If you take the learnings and feedback from your games you can evolve your own game.

What I am getting at is that we all enjoy the game of NetEA but we are all evolving/learning at different rates. Although quantity does not necessarily equal quality, there is some validity to the scientific method, ie large quantities of consistent results should equal more valid results. Therefore, I am very interested in seeing the historic reporting that goes on in the UK because they play a large amount of reported games over a long period of time. The amount of reported games is orders of magnitude greater then the amount of games that are played locally (Toronto, Canada). I often have had to temper my own reaction to a game where I lost based off the information found on the EpicUK website. The EpicUK site has also guided some of my army selection choices and has helped me evolve my game by trying new units/formations/strategies.

So what I want to say in response to this message string is to:
- Take a deep breath
- Realize that we all do things differently and can learn from those differences
- Try new things
- Measure your results
- Report your results with as much details as possible
- Make specific suggestions

I for one will be sad to see a further fragmentation of NetEA, I hope that this does not happen.

I feel that Eldar have a free pick on all the toy shelves, and it could be time to limit the selection.

I don't think eldar are game breaking. However, they have a lot of very strong special rules, and, as has been mentioned, top-tier formation picks across multiple key game categories.

If BT was proposed as a new NetEA list now i suspect it would be shouted down (too many very strong special rules, top-tier formation picks across multiple key game categories).

Can we have middle ground between people saying BT is totally balance and fine, and people saying it's game breaking?
If eldar lost one of their SEVEN special rules would that be the end of the world? (no, dropping can't garrison dsn't count!)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

BT Eldar are a top tier list IMO. There are quite a few worse lists to choose from.

But I can beat them with a solid generic Ork, Codex Marine, or Steel Legion list, against opponents who have won tournaments (something I've never done), so they're not an auto-win.

Pizza is a tasty food.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Given that the problem is mainly Eldar - makes sense for Aus tournaments to simply require that their own preferred AU eldar list is used. It's not much different from e.g. how we ban the Avatar in minigeddon games. Trick is agreeing how to change them. EUK is a mystery to those outside but the advantage is avoiding a Baneblade situation where 10 people suggest 15 different ideas and reject each others as out of the question.

I don't think the faction rules are an issue for Eldar, though as Apoc points out, if somehow someone brought a list with all those today then yes they'd get tomatoes in the face. However that's not the case as Eldar were brought by the man himself and I should add they are likely the reason for subsequent conservative approach as we know what could happen.

Now I'm with E&C above that Marine/Guard v BT Eldar were my primary matchup in the PNW. In fact, I'm almost certain I've fought against that "steamroller" list way back. I'm a terrifically bad player and I didn't feel it was unfair.

HOWEVER, the BT list is absolutely so overly broad and has no focus to the point of why bother making other craft world lists (yme LOC and Eldar Titans notwithstanding). Perhaps giving some focus to it might be in order? I mean just look at BT vs other lists in the EpicUK data. Something's demonstrably amiss. Like I said, it's not OP (seriously, if I can beat it anyone can). It's just so adaptable as to give no other purpose to other lists.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Except Harlequins Jimmy - LoL
Now that is a very different list, but sadly still being developed

That's why I went out of the way to write "craftworld", Ginger!
BTW offtopic but I had my doubts about harlies but I actually like where you're headed!

I mean could BT core to support ratio be tightened up and not even affect 90% of winner builds? Absolutely.
Does it NEED 3:1 ratio? I mean BT is all about hard hitting Aspects. They should be a huge amount of the army so having one formation and taking lots of SoV (3) and/or a buttload (6) of Voi Spinners is probably offkilter to fluff at a minimum and likely (lack of) theme in BT as well. They should be able to have them but perhaps not as much

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!