QFT. I just play with the basic rulebook+Errata2008, crazy!! I have never played 40K, insane!!

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

I agree with Hena*, completely and without reservation.

Did I just type that?

The 40Kification of Epic is not a direction I want to see taken. That at least two AC's are holding off on list development because of pending Codexes is just wrong, IMO. The addition of every little wonky toy that GW have released (Achilles, Terminus, Prometheus, Redeemer, Helios, and that's just the Land Raiders!) just seems like a cheap way of making alternate lists. I wouldn't mind if these things were iconic, Death Company for the Blood Angels, Deathwing/Ravenwing for the Dark Angels. But something that's only been in print for less than half a decade, isn't iconic. And most of them aren't even unique (according to fluff).

I don't play 40K. I don't play Apocalypse. There's a reason for that. That Epic is seemingly becoming more and more an unappreciated Cad stepchild to those, is one that slowly but consistently saps my enthusiasm to the point of apathy about the game entirely.

Morgan Vening

I thought alternative army lists for each army is one of the main design features of Epic: Armageddon?
Else we would just tag on additional units/formation to the rulebook armies.

If the only difference of an alternative army list isn't just a different list structure but also new units, isn't this even better?
For every army we can have:
jack-of-all-trades (rulebook lists)
Fast Attack (Raven Guard, Speed Freeks, Saim-hann)
Tank-heavy (Scions of Iron, Minervan Tank Legions, Yme-loc)
FF-heavy (Salamanders)
CC-heavy (Blood Angels)
Siege (Death Korps, Imperial Fists, Baran)

We can also differentiate in low and high tech (Siege Armies: Mossinians vs Death Korps)
Or defensive and offensive (Siege Armies: Baran vs Death Korps)
Even in the same army (Siege Armies: Siege Defence Imperial Fists, Siege Assault Imperial Fists)
We can also mix it (Fast Attack & CC-Heavy: Blood Angels)

That's one of the design ethics of Epic: Armageddon.
Else you would have one list for all.
If you don't like variants. That's fine. Just stick to the core armies you like. If you'r whole gaming group is of the same mind set the better. You aren't even forced to take part in the discussiosn for variant army lists.
But don't expect that everyone in the world shares your viewpoint.

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

The problem could be that a change to air rules for Epic could lead to a change to points costs for planes. That would be bad for ALL players and would then not really give ALL players a choice in what lists they use. This is just an example of my reservations.

I just don't see the need for any of the proposed changes to the air game or for slavishly following 40K/Apocalypse.

_________________
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.

Yes. There is no need to change anything. Just use the core rule book, Swordwind and Raiders (without Minervans off course). Just finish Tyranids and Tau so all major races are covered.

Development ends here.

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

List are that : lists. you can get a very different game play and quite some rebalancing favouring one kind of tactics over others just by modifying formation sizes, allowed upgrades, army list construction rules. THAT is the beauty of E:A. One space marine chapter = one army list is quite 40K actually. That's why half the 40K codexes are marines. Choosing "imperial fist" as a name for a Siege marine list, or Iron hand for a tank themed marine army, etc, is fine by me. What bothers me is that right now, lists are used more to introduce a bunch of statlines than to actually play with the construction of the list.

For example, siege marines might pay less for infantry, but have transports as upgrade, dread formations, 6 strong WW formations, whatever. Some of those are or were in the imperial fist list, and that's good IMHO. Changing the tactical marines statline in the DA list isn't.

If the Ravenwing really can't be represented satisfactorily with just larger or mixed formations of bikes and speeders, maybe ONE statline could be sneacked in, but I don't even think that should be needed. One could probably make a flavourful space wolves list without even a "new" statline. A single rule or statline or 2 at most should be able to take care of most space marine chapters, eldar craftworld, chaos chapter or guard regiment in my humble opinion.

But anyway, I've derailed the thread enough as it is. It's been a long time since I've planned to make a thread about such concerns, and the design principles behind the work being done for this great game here. I guess it just finally came out of itself in a inappropriate thread. Anyway, I don't have any issues with lots of lits, I don't have any issues with lots of different models, I am all for it in both case. I just think we should concentrate more on the army building aspect than on the statlines you're able to choose from.

About the air rules, I don't like the mechanics that allow AA umbrella and the Airborne AA castle, neither do I like the flak rushes. I would rather have the alternative air rules as they were written. Now, what I think would work best would be those alternative rules (disengage as part of the action effectively prevent these two bugs in the current rules), with amendment to allow for some measure of air recycling : evac'd troops being able to come back, and possibly allowing transport aircraft to land, with the reserves i voiced a few pages back : no objective contesting, and no landing-assaulting-evac'ing in the same turn.

I'm sure such a ruling wouldn't be too hard to write, wouldn't be any more complicated than the current version, and would actually probably play faster since everyone stop trying to build aircastle. Now, sure, the current rules are workable, they just allow 2 "bugs" that look quite silly compared to the rest of the ruleset.

Sorry for the whinefest.
I strongly disagree with you on such things as the LR stats apparently. I think I had to voice my concern about some of the design principles at work behind the lists at one point.

Now I agree this is not the right topic to do it, sorry to waste your reading time. Now, I've voiced it, I'll let it rest.

I'll just do what everyone else does : make my fan lists as I like them. After all, UK has a set of rule, FR has a set of Rules, there's Net E:A which somehow isn't official apparently, and one out of each two marine player allready wrote his own list anyway.

This is just toy soldiers, I'm no tournament winner, and I would probably end up hurting the feeling of just anyone who ever tried to wrote a list, and believe it or not, that's really not what I was trying to do.

Sorry for the waste of time and the whining.

Angel : I think you SHOULD mess up with the formations. That was the original ideas behind the list system.

Well i think everyone has to vent off some steam once in a while.
And often than not it is at an inappropiate time and/or place.

My sincere apologies for my venting of steam. Apparently i took some things a bit to personal for a game of toy soldiers.

But to adress variants one last time: I'm a bit surprised that there are so much variant Space Marine army lists. But as in Wh40k they seem to be the most popular army and thus generate the most variants.

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

No need to apologise Atmospheric! We have a diversity of approaches, perceptions and preferences to things on the forum and I generally tend to think that’s a good thing. I try and respect other people’s approaches to the game and list design philosophies even I take a different approach myself e.g. personally I quite like a higher level of detail and adding some of the new units/vehicles from W40k, but I think it’s equally valid to want a more limited abstraction to the units and lists.

I do agree with the dislike of the flak rush and the AA umbrella and if people want to develop and use an optional alternative aircraft rules system that’s all well and good, however I do feel strongly that the official rules should stay as they are and that trying to change them (if that is actually being considered here? I admit I’m not clear) would cause much unnecessary division and argument amongst the epic communities (of which we are but one).

Glyng : this thread was opened to have a second look at the alternative aerospace rules proposed by Jervis a few years back, because there were some heated debate in another thread, mostly about the AA umbrella topic. As the alternative rules we should be discussing in this thread did a good job of preventing the 2 most irritating "bugs" of the current one, it was felt that it might be a good idea to re-examine and discuss them once again.

They would have been a candidate replacement for the current aerospace rules if there had been large support AND agreement with NetERC, epicUK and the FrERC over it. So far it does not look like it. Most of the players who could do with it would at least want some amendment of it, and the change would have ramifications into the balancing of aircraft in current lists.

Or else, I didn't quite understood the purpose of the thread either

Ok, thanks! My bad; I'd just scan-read the discussion while avoiding overdue uni work, I should have read things more thoroughly if I was going to comment. Let the aircraft discussion continue...