I do not like replying to other people's competing lists as I do not think it is appropriate. It has come to a point however that it is unnavoidable.

I have placed over 1 years work in developing a list and stringently playtesting it. I have also organised a supplement, a painting guide, had people come together from across different sites, and spruked the list across the World.

At the point where it is ready to submit for approval, I am asked to collaborate with an untested list?

Surely people can understand my reluctance? It is not personal, it is just a differing of design views.

Discussions stopped at the point where Dobbsy wanted a CC Dreadnought (2xMW) and the inclusion of the Renegades and Annihalators. Regardless of the fact that I advised the CC Dreads were redundant and the inclusion of shooting troops were against the vision of the list, there was no moving from the stance. Then there was the suggestion of starting anew.

I do not know whether people realise just how much time and effort has gone into the list that Morgan and I have developed, but people stating that we have to collaborate at this point in the development is a slap in the face.

As for the suggestion of a third party taking over, Chroma, you have had a competing Nid list and Honda had a competing Tau list. At no time was a 3rd party suggested to take it 'off your hands'. How would you feel if that happened to you?

As for the list not getting approved: I have a right of equal opportunity to present a list as I have met all requirements suggested to becoming a list champion. If this was refused (purely based people's opinions on friendships), then a great injustice and mockery of the established procedure would be evident.

We have both had 1 year to develop our lists. I do not see why I am being predjidiced if I have done everything right and chosen to place all my playtests and development into the World Eaters as opposed to other lists.

There are no hard feelings between myself and Dobbsy other than what is being created by 3rd parties here.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I think either you or Dobbsy could make a good World Eaters list (though neither is perfect right now)... but both of you making World Eaters lists serves to confuse newcomers, dilute the (limited) playtesting pool, and in my case personally turn me off from testing or playing with either list... and I like Khorne a lot, I think it's a rich theme and I'd be interested in playing a Khornate warband army!

I don't care if one or the other developer renames his list to "Generic Khorne Army" or abandons his project completely, or if a third person takes over development of both lists and forms one whole, or if both champions come to an amicable agreement to co-develop the list as happened very successfully with the Dark Angels.

All I care about is that both lists being developed side-by-side in competition over the long term is only bringing, most ironically, chaos and confusion.


The easiest way to settle those kinds of logjams when co-developing a list is to hold an open debate and then a vote.

Maybe one or even both of you will be overruled... but that's how the NetEA project tends to work; "for the many by the many", not "for the many by the few".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ben

I respect you highly, you know that. So I trust you will be 'straight' with me.

You have stated that they were being developed side by side.

Can you please show me one example of a playtest development of the other list, outside of additions added to the list whenever I produced a new version update of mine?

Is it fair to call a list with no playtests or consistent input 'in development'?

Also:



Before I got involved, the playtest pool was zero. A division of zero is still zero. I also have no intention of playing the other list as I believe the one we have hits the mark.

I now also have the prospect of other players playing my list - I know of at least 2 others. Does this hold no 'water' over a list with no playtests?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I too had bite it twice. I had developed not only a Dark Angels armylist but also a Salamanders armylist. It happened that The_Real_Chris also had developed army lists of these two Space Marine Chapters too.
So we sat (virtually) together and and the outcome was a unified Salamanders armylist and a unified Dark Angels army list.
We both had to make concessions to each other but imho the merged results have proven to be better army lists than the individual lists before.

Honestly i would do it again if someone would come up with his own version of a Red Corsairs army list (which is in developement for quite some time too).

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

I completely agree with these points, and this is the crux of the issue.

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

Both lists are consistently sitting on page 1 of the Chaos sub-forum.
That means they're both repeatedly bobbing up to the top of the board and both claiming to be "the" World Eaters army list.

So the technicality of what "in development" means doesn't matter. All that matters is the current logjam is not condusive to the smooth flowing of the development process, IMHO.

I believe that both lists have merits, which I will not get into discussing here, but the merits of both are outweighed by the drawbacks of the dual development (or discussion, or whatever you want to call it), again IMHO.


I am not going to support one developer or the other; I trust everybody who's involved with the World Eaters(s) development is more than capable of sorting things out amicably and responsibly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

You don't even have to work together that much. You just call yours the "World Eaters Attack Force", Dobbsy calls his "World Eaters Assault Force" or whatever.

The only other important thing is cosistency on the stats of common units, as all ACs have to do, much like how I brought up the bloodgor stats because they're also in my list. This really wouldn't be that hard to organise, hell use polls to decide if neccesary. I haven't gone through the lists together to see the differences, but there can't be that many.

Ta da, all problems are then solved.




NB Lack of battle reports is not the same as lack of playtests.

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

I'd really like the full right of reply here, but I will stay quiet to keep the status quo.

FB, I'm really sorry you can't budge from your position of none of my units to be included in a collaboration.  

Good luck with your list

I guess now my list is looking more and more a pointless endeavour....

Considering your first post in the "World Eaters List - Be Scared!" thread was on July 31, 2009, when did this "year of work" begin, Frogbear?  As far as I can tell, you were helping/supporting Dobbsy prior to that and had some kind of falling out with him or his ideas.  Where you also developing your own WE list off-board at the same time?


That "collaboration" is only if you want to be part of the NetEA Project, Frogbear, that comes from the Chaos Army Champion; you can do whatever you want on your own time and with your own efforts and if you can convince him that no collaboration is need, then things can go that way too, but he's the "boss" you have to convince; if he doesn't feel it's ready, it's not going to get "approved".

Heck, even if an "approved" stamp is put on any non-GW published list, a tournament organizer can *still* decide they're not allowing it.  The NetEA "approval" stamp just means that the NetERC feels the list has seen enough playtesting and exposure to be reasonably tournament balanced, but we have no authority to force its use!

As well, if you can convince other tournament organizers that your list is ready for the big leagues, then they can allow it as they desire, regardless of what anyone else says.


Well, that would probably be because both Honda and myself worked with the persons who made those "competing" lists and have looked to work together with them, as opposed to disparaging those efforts; I'm sure both Honda and myself are grateful of other people's input and will even change our lists to incorporate new and better ideas.


The primary reason a list will not be set as "approved" is because too few people have actually used it.  It's great that you've done so many of your own playtests, Andrew, but you need data from people who don't have you there explaining or correcting things; that's to see how it works out in the "wild", not how the designer "knows" it works, because we all have blindspots to things fresh eyes will see.  Your playtests also seem to span multiple version, five if I'm counting correctly, you'd probably want twenty games with the "final" version alone to test things out, played by different people against "core" armies with tournament scenario level scenery.


Freeze your list, get other people to play it and comment on it, and then things can progress from there; that would be my advice.

If both armies are going forward and unit stats and/or special rules can't be agreed upon, especially if such items will affect other lists, then I wholely endorse a "third party" stepping in, whether that by the Chaos Army Champion, or someone he appoints, to get things working together.

And, lastly, both yourself and Dobbsy had the misfortune of diving in and developing sub-lists when the Army Champion was AWOL, so that has surely tainted the whole process as well.  I'll personally apologize for my part in not getting things sorted there sooner and am sorry for any misfortune it has caused.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well I asked Dobbsy that if I removed the Bloodgors, if he would remove the Renegades. The answer was no.

Now if Dobbsy will not say it, then I will. I do not blame Dobbsy. I have no ill-feeling towards him as he is sticking up for his own view on the direction of the World Eaters. He also respects mine and has been a gentlemqan throughout our dealings. It will not effect our interactions at tournaments or the odd game - as a matter of a fact, I welcome them.  

What I am dissapointed at is the NetEA. I am dissapointed at how they will hold a development to ransom for no reason other than the potential for two lists to divide a mythical playtest group of zero people.  

Here are the guidlines I went by as detailed by the NetEA (although they have the NetERC mentioned as a mistake):

Being Army Champion and finishing lists  

1. The list needs to be final, that there isn't anything to add or remove or change. Meaning essentially that you think it's ready to be left as-is for one full year AND that you are willing to stand firm on "no changes" until approaching that end point.

2. Once you've asked the NetERC to ratify it the result can be
a) Pass as is.
b) NetERC requests modifications to be done to the list if they have reservations about it. After this it would pass.
c) NetERC can refuse to ratify if the list seems to be too unbalanced or seems still partially done. NetERC should give some reasons on why they believed this to be the case. After this the list should be playtested more and updated as seemed necessary. After reasonable time has passed and list modified to fix problems that were raised, you can ask the ratification process to be done once more.

So w3hat part of the process required have I failed to have a list considerred for approval where it will remain for a time before being ratified?

The fact that my development is literally being held to ransom against another list that has gone through 3+ revisions with no testing is beyond me. I have a right for the list to be judged fairly as per the guidlines given.

Why is it that the NetEA now shows an interest only after I reach completion towards a submission. Where was the NetEA for as full year to help guide and bring up these issues before I spent a year of my life dedicated to a list that no-one played? What has anyone else ever done to gain interest to this level in the World Eaters for appropriate recognition and understanding to be given.

I also have an interest in the other 3 cult lists. I have purposely stayed away from developing rival lists to the Death Guard and Thousand Sons, even though I feel I could improve on what they have. If I were to place my 'hat' forward and produce those ideas, would those people also be held to ransom on list design, being forced to work with me and potentially throw a years or more worth of work out the window?

It is not Steve54's fault either. He is new to the position, and I understand that everyone is a volunteer and has a personal life. As Chaos AC, I would like him to come forward and give his views on what he wants for the World Eaters. What are the gudlines? What are the restrictions? How are Dobbsy and I ever to resolve things without guidance?

I have placed too much effort to give this away. It would be good to be given credit where it is due to both Morgan and myself. If you (NetEA) have such strong feeling towards a collaboration, how about you all look at both lists and help us agree on the stats? How many more threads do I have to open to get opinions? If anything, I have been open and transparant throughout the whole development. So how about helping out?

As it is, this whole saga has made me physically sick, and mentally exhausted. As it is going the way it is, I am going to update the World Eater list, not in the format that you have it now, but with a radical new way of seeing the list (mostly from ideas of TRC and Morgan providing the format for how it will work). I truly hope the NetEA will learn from this debacle and start to take an interest (especially if they have such strong opinions) in the total development of the World Eaters and help us present something that will eventually be acceptable at tournaments.

At the end of the day, regardless of views, that is all Dobbsy and I want.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I played the Lord I list back in late 2008 I believe and we were already discussing ideas and changes back then.

Dobbsy then showed interest and we did not agree on ideas. I asked Dobbsy whether I could take the list and he stated if I did not agree, I should vcreate my own - which I did (february 09 )




C'mon Chroma. I am not going to argue here. You have been resistent to any input or requests for an update on the nids for months now.... at least give it to someone who will take it to the next level - I am sure if you put it up, there would be a few people interested.



Finally, a number!  You know how long I have been asking AC's for this?




Noted  




Thank you Chroma.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

You haven't "failed" any part of the process.  Is this not the part of the process your list is currently in?  Hasn't your list changed recently or even still undergoing changes?  Haven't the Army Champion and the NetERC commented on your list?

What are you pushing/rushing for?  Is there a deadline you need to meet?  The Army Champion, along with the NetERC, has been looking at your list and is deliberating on it, what is your rush?  Steve54's suggestion has been to "combine" both lists, which is a totally valid suggestion.  If you can convince him otherwise, maybe he'll change his mind, but he still needs time to review things, especially if changes are ongoing!



Again, how has this been going on for a "full year" if you only start posting your own list at the end of July 2009?

The NetEA doesn't "show interest" until someone is looking to make a submission, which is exactly what is happening now, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.  People have commented on your lists since you started posting them, what more are you asking for?



Okay... so you want your list "approved", but are now taking it in a "radical new way"... I'm really confused as to what you're trying to accomplish here, Frogbear.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Well I have had no advise that it was being considerred. All I had was advise that I need to collaborate. That felt like, "we have not seen it and will not look at it until you and Dobbsy find a middle ground".

I am not a mind reader and I do not have an understanding of the NetEA processes besides what has been put up on the threads. Some guidance rather than vague direction would be nice.

I have finished the list, yet I thought the view was that if Dobbsy and I cannot agree, neither will be approved. Due to this, I figured "well what is the point" and decided to gain some ground with a variation to the proposal  (and the variation is quite neat - believe me).

If I can be assured that it is being considered (which has been very different to the voices so far), then I will finish the sun=bmission.

There is no rush, just a timeline, much like the Tau list. If I do not stick to it (which it has already been extended out) then it will never get finished. By that time, a 3rd person may start a rival list and then Dobbsy and I are back where we started I guess...?

I really do have other projects to start (chaos squats being one that is nagging me) and I would love to have the finished list presented so as I can paint up my Skull Lords and 'what not'. Based on the Bloodgors thread, I am glad I did not spend the time painting them up.

So where do I stand Chroma?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I think you're misunderstanding what "netEA Approved" means. It is a stamp that will only be given to lists that are finished, done, complete, balanced and unchanging.

You're not going to get the list approved then continue working on it, it marks the end of the process. You're already talking about taking the list in a new direction; that alone is enough to stop you getting the approved stamp.

Again, let me point out that only one list has so far recieved the stamp of approval.

Getting that stamp shouldn't be your goal; your goal should be to make as good a list as you can, get it stable then get a wide range of players playtesting it. That may or may not lead to netEA approval.

There are plenty of lists that have been around for far longer, been stable and playtested by wide range of people that still haven't got netEA approval. It's a very hard thing to get, so don't get upset if you don't get it.

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

Sorry, you'd have to ask Steve54 that, but I believe all the NetERC members have commented directly to your "current" version of the list.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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