I must respectfully disagree Carlos. From my experiences working on Epic-A, from the very beginning, it is better to start simple and work your way up rather then try to do everything at once. The Codex Astartes list started with a very basic Marine List and from that the other lists were built. Trying to include everything in one list to try and make everybody happy is a sure road to failure. Basically you will not be able to balance it, it will be constantly changing as people find new ways to abuse what is already down (Our job here really. Anyone here besides Neal and Me remember the Burning Wheels of Death Ork Army built off the basic Ork List?), and you will have no grounding to work up from.

I repeat what I said in my first post after accepting this job (Again). I encourage people to begin now working on varient lists right now, and I promise them if they come to me with a question I will answer them. Why? Because they will be laying the ground work for the variant lists to follow.

This kinda of reminds me of when I first took over the Nid List from Maxium, it was basically in chaos and without direction. What I did then was to turn the list right on its head and then re-defined its direction. Then, without asking anyone, I started posting special rules and unit stats and let the playtesters have at what I wrote.

In this case the whole list doesn't need to be re-defined, but it does need to be shaken up with some fresh ideas, and it does need to be brought together. Now I already know I am not going to be able to make everybody happy, so I am not going to even try, so not everybody is gonna like what I do, part of the job really.

In effect I am going to shake the cage real hard and see what falls out Part of that is for me to set limits and make everybody else work within them. Only then are we all going to be able to help the BASIC list move forward to a finished product. Once it is done the variant list are much easier to put together, and if people have already started to work on them, so much the better.

First thought we need to have a solid set of special rules that all the list must follow, my first goal. That will appear early next week after I digest the three posted lists, the threads, and my own notes. Then the real fun will begin.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

Excellent. This is what is lacking in so many developments. It is so hard to define a list when there are no guidlines to work within.

Well said.

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

<i>I'd argue that one of the issues people have w/ 9.2.1. is that it is too much of a Little Critter Bug Horde List. So, in the spirit of getting people excited and doing lots of playtesting, wouldn't it be better to start w/ the Bugs of All Kinds Horde List?</i>

Yes, exactly. Or at least a list that lets people field more than one kind of army.

<i>Part of that is for me to set limits and make everybody else work within them. </i>

Or that everyone shrugs and goes on doing their own thing because they can't even field an army within your limits.

<i>The Codex Astartes list started with a very basic Marine List and from that the other lists were built. </i>

Well, yeah. The marines are the ultimate generalists. They do everything well. And you can completely change the nature of your army within the confines of the three basic troop types - tactical, assault, devastator.

The bugs, as they are currently being guide, are just designed to rush the enemy. They can barely even put blast markers on enemy units before they arrive under the current design system, which seems to be the template for the future in spite of it being so disliked that 4 other lists have spawned just to let people play their armies in different ways.

I think it is great that someone is going to push this list forward, but you need to let people change the playstyle of the army or else it will quickly become boring to play with or against. A close combat horde is going to result in the same game, over and over, no matter how many CC troops you provide. You have to allow a viable shooting option just to keep everyone on their toes during list design. You have to provide a viable AA deterrent, not only because it will cause other players easily exploit that weakness, but also because it has been utterly proven over and over again through history that a side without an airforce is screwed against one who does.

I can understand where you're coming from on this based upon my experience playtesting Onachus, but what it sounds like you're saying here is that all the 'nid weaknesses need to be addressed, which should not be the goal (whatever type of list is developed). Every army needs weaknesses or there is no sense in having different ones.
1) Tyranid armies are quite capable of laying BM's
2) Historically, the air force thing may be true, but I think you're overestimating the effect of aircraft in the game


Also, I think there's a lot of debate about whether or not SM are "generalists."

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

If you never want to finish the work on the Nids this is a sure fire way to make sure it never gets done. You will be unable to play balance the list and will be going down an endless road of arguments that will never get resolved.



A certain number of people are going to do that no matter what I do, unless of course I roll over and play dead to everyone who disagrees with me. The important issue here is to get a working list done, not to make everybody happy.



And the original Ork list started that way, and the orginal IG list started that way, and the original ELdar list started that way, should I go on? All of them started out as a basic list to keep it simple and make it easier to play balance. From that basic list the others where more easily created and balanced. Heck the first Chaos list attempted to combine the Chaos Marines and Cultist in the same list. It was quickly realized it was a disaster to even try and the lists were split up. I learn from mistakes I don't repeat them.



So you would prefer endless arguments to have the toys now rather then be patient, get a working list on the ground, and then get the rest later? I would prefer to get the first lists on the ground and get the rest in later, that way at least the job will get done.



By that definition Ork players should be screaming for better artillery options to keep the enemy on their toes. Nope the Nids are not a shooty army they are a CC horde army. If you want to keep your opponent on his toes try using tactics, it works for me.



Again, an Army list is defined as much by its weaknesses as it is by its strengths. The Nid players will have to learn how to function on the battlefield with a poor AA system. A good tactician will have little trouble overcoming this weakness in a game. I know I have done it more times then I can count.

It seems to me more what you want is a generic list that does everything for you so that you can out list design your opponent. I use almost the same list all the time for my armies, and use tactics to win battles instead of list quirks, and you know I have loads of fun. If you would prefer power list design maybe you should give WH40k a try.

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

The above could have done without that line. It was a little personal. Let's try and keep all this above board and not have it become a Tau debate.

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

Jaldon, I can tell you this, people hate, hate, hate 9.2.1's 2:1 ratio, and Chroma had previously agreed to see it changed to something less restrictive such as a 1:1 ratio or a modular system like Leviathan.

Of course, Chroma then failed to update the list, and the restriction stayed.

It is a despised restriction, and is IMO the prime reason why 9.2.1 has "rotted" and been ignored for the last year and a half by the community.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Definitely agree that the 2:1 makes it impossible to write a list that you'd actually want to play.

Merging I think has mixed support (I'd like to see it *IF* it could be made to work without being exploitable for example).
2:1 on the other hand is universally disliked.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

When I play 3K, I rarely field more than three uncommon broods, that is 8-9 AV:s, and that is quite harsh. 9.2.1 enforces "horde of teeth and claw" and the full allowance of Independent formations. As a result, there are almost as many Titans and Dominatrixes as there are, say Trygons, in a 9.2.1 army.

I think the best way to see more uncommon bugs/worms/slugs would be to change the spawning rules to not include AV:s. Then it would be much easier to balance.

/Fredmans

The alternate army list construction that Neal devised may solve that partially if a list decides to put specialised synapse formations with higher numbers of Uncommons into the support swarm section. I always think in terms of stand ratio rather than cluster ratio. 9.2.1 is between 2:1 and 8:1 ratio of commons to uncommons. The objection I guess is the 8:3, 4:1 and 8:1 ratios for AVs. Artllery and WEs. The Leviathan equivalent ratios are 4:3 for AVs and 4:1 for WEs (although you do need 8 common stands before you start). Jormungandr is in the middle with 2:1 for AVs and 6:1 for WEs.

Due to the dificulty in spawning AVs as it is there would be only a very marginal change in points if AVs couldn't be spawned, they could potentially be left at the same points.

First off please do not blame Chroma for the 2-1 ratio idea, that was mine in an effort to reduce the number of WE being taken at the time. At present I am concentrating my efforts toward the special rules, while the Team works on the unit data. After that I plan on banging on the TO&E for the Nids. But I do have smoe thoughts in that direction and I do want input on the subject, and I am planning to start a thread to that effect. For now forget the 2-1 ratio it is dead in my mind.

Never-the-less here is where my brain is at with no details, sorry got others things to take care of today with little time for complete replys.

I really like the modular idea, and I am also tossing around an idea similar to the Ork Horde List with a set base swarm of ten to twelve units (excluding synapse in thsi number) with the ability to add units to the swarm. I am even thinking of having players purchase a synapse module, and then have all the other units available to it also be bought in modules.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

Just to note that there is an easy half-way point between 2:1 and 1:1; you go with 1:1 but increase the cost and number of units in the common clusters to 6 rather than 4. That's equivilent to 1.5:1 from the current version.

I've not found 1:1 to be a problem in Leviathan, but then I do have the minimum commons limit instead.

That's how Jormugandr works and I think it delivers some sensible FMs.

_________________