A word of warning : this is a long text, in the realm of 24K characters, so I ad to split it, and have tried to put titles and some formatting in.

Here is a very short summary if you don't have time to read it but would still like to know what it speaks about :

TLDR :




OK, so here we go : I think we need a discussion on list design.

There are some people saying that play testing has slowed down and that some army development are lacking clear leadership (tyranids come to mind), and that the result is huge delays in the long awaited army compendium. And that it is all bad for the game.

I think there are other issues pertaining to the lists, the process their development follow, and the overall philosophy behind list design. I am starting this thread so that we may discuss these items in a dedicated thread (the discussion derailing toward these perceived issues in the "activation limit proposal" thread).


First, I think there are multiple reasons why there is less involvement from the community* in list development and play-test :

1) The lists do actually work. Many people are actually mostly satisfied with them, as they are. Internal balance might not be perfect, their pet unit might not be included, but they can live with it.

2) Tournaments organizing people are often using a set of list that is maintained by closed ruling committee that you may actually only try to influence by inputting something on the boards. And the lists are all designed as tournament lists.

3) Variants are variants are variants. People will only get interested in play-testing a specific list if they actually plan to build an army with it or might want to at one point, and feel strongly enough about fluff evolution and this or that pet unit to be arsed to argue and not simply use the core list, possibly with count-as.

4) If you feel strongly about a specific point, and there are some recurring ones like "it doesn't work that way in 40K"/"We don't care about 40K" or "this lack flavour/this lack abstraction", and the AC or the majority is not agreeing with you, the easiest solution is to make your own list, rather than play-testing one you don't like.


I'm personally unsure if we shouldn't consider the slow down a good thing. In some case (tyranids again), it's obviously bad since there is a striking lack of consensus, but in many other cases it might be a sign that we got stuff that is good enough that people don't feel so strong a need to get personally involved.


------------------------------------------------
Some measure of consensus is needed on list design principles
------------------------------------------------

Continuing on what point 4 in my short listing above suggested, I think we need both :
1) A set of list design principle, guidelines, that are actually listed somewhere.
2) A set of design principle at core lists level.

Silly Example for guideline principles


Obviously I don't agree with all of that
But these are of course only silly examples.


Debating and then fixing such guidelines would help a lot by itself I think. Notably, to get back to the recurring debates I mentioned earlier, "it doesn't work that way in 40K"/"We don't care about 40K" or "this lack flavour/this lack abstraction", I think a debate to state clearly the general stance would be useful.

I for one think that some of the abstraction that is working nicely for orks could and should be applied, to a lesser degree, to other lists. For example, abstracting land raider variants into 3 or 4 types :
A standard one, an assault one (crusaders and other large capacity LRs), a fire support one (abstracting Helios, Ares...) and possibly a siege one for stuff that would be close range fire support. The same could be said of Leman russes or SM dreadnought variants for example. Actually, this is only what I would prefer, but I can live with the full detail; My point is that the main issue when discussing such things is that there are no clear design principle to refer to after years of fan development.


On the way to treat cannon and 40K stats, we must acknowledge that :
- cannon change over time
- statlines too
- there are some precedents in Epic itself as well as 40K

And thus even adherence to 40K is something hard to define. For example, the association of dark angel with plasma is well accepted by most, but it is only due to the fact that 2 editions of 40K back, they were the only marine chapter able to field plasma cannons in tactical squad. One squad affected for one weapon, in a rule 10 years old, which disappeared since then from all successive editions.

On the other hand, many units, still acknowledged in the 40K rules or not, originated in Epic and might be felt as belonging, even if they date from a long departed past, such as the slug-tanks of the tyranids.

So there are conflicts between being true to epic as it was, being true with 40K as it was, and being true with 40K as it is, and which bits of which is still to be discussed (should Apocalypse guide formation compositions in E:A ?).

And of course, any pair of epic players could debate a long time about the relevance of 40K scale stats and mechanism when discussing epic rules.

The point, once again, is that there is once again no clear stance on that. I think we need the consensus to be stated if there is one, and a consensus to be established if there is none.


------------------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the realm of list design
------------------------------------------------

And lastly, I have gripes with the whole way the lists are made. Not the army champions, which are actually doing a remarkable amount of work, and if some of them sometime lack the commitment at times as their lives have other priorities, that looks like a normal process to me, and even as a healthy one. I tend to think that most A/C don't deserve the bashing they get, but that they should be replaced quicker when they cannot input as much as list progress may warrant.

No, I have gripes with the specificity of lists, and this was one of the basic design choices of the game from the beginning, and as such is permeating the whole game to some extent or another.

Seat tight, I'm going to say something enormous : I think the 40K game designers have made a very good move lastly.
Yes, I actually typed that. I don't like the 40 ruleset, and I don't like many of the decision in the general orientation of GW game development these years, but I think they had a good idea in lifting many requirement in list building, making them much more open and flexible.



------------------------------------------------
A proposition for a solution
------------------------------------------------

I'll try to share what I would like to see by the sanctioned method of wishful dreaming aloud, here and now. You may then proceed to pick it all apart as you feel required, of course.

Let there be a Space Marines core list for Epic Armageddon.
Like now, it has several specific army wide rules. For example, "They Shall Know No Fear".
Unlike now, It lists almost all the units available to any marines chapter that are deemed relevant to E:A, for example :
Land raider, Land Raider Crusader, Land raider Prometheus, Land raider Helios, Land raider Redeemer, Land Raider Terminus Ultra, Land Raider Achiles
or maybe only : Land Raider, Land Raider(Assault), Land raider(Support)
Depending on some design choices I talked about earlier. But still, all that might be available to more than one chapter.
Formations would have no transport, and you would buy them if you want, and the additional value of making faster units would be factored in the transport options, not in the infantry. You would get transports as upgrades or independent WE. It is more sensible, easier to balance (specifically against various other transports options and the garrison ability), and does not require a special rule.

It then provide you with the core list itself; the list contains building guidelines (core/support/upgrades for IG, free formation choice with upgrades for marines, free formation choice with discount for large and huge versions, maybe forced package of several detachments at once, whatever), then list detachments, upgrades, etc, with point costs as usual.

It is quite longer than the current list, because you can upgrade bikes and Land speeder detachments with more bikes/land-speeders, buff-out tank formations, all vehicle variants are available, like Storm ravens and Caestus and whatever.

And, but for a possible addition I'll talk about later down this wall of text, this is it.


------------------------------------------------
Consequences of said solution; obvious objections
------------------------------------------------

As a consequence it is then up to the player to build his army alongside the theme or strategy of his choice.
If he want white scars, he can take larger bikes formations, and put his assault marines jump-pack less in rhino, paint his minis white and be done with it. If he is an iron hand player, he might want a quick black slap of paint, dreadnought formations, large tank dets, and be set.

I know, I know. This would make abuse control harder, because you could possibly take the game breaking jumppack-less assault marines and dreadnought detachment combo ! This is of course only a random example once again. Additionally, some inherently synergistic mechanism (like activation count) would be hard to balance with too free a list chart.

Well, there are, I think, several points to be made in that regard :

1) As long as the synergistic effects are not too out of whack, they would not affect the overall list that much. The main, and possibly only true item here is the "activation count" priority I think. As it currently is, players already feel the need for some more low cost detachments to compensate for activations if they took large ones too (like balancing a marine or guard army after opting for a Reaver priced or even more expansive detachment, like warlord, Leman Russes company, etc).
So I don't think it would be significantly harder to balance for example a large tank formation than it currently is.

2) The combos of death (synergy between two detachments, or kind of units), if they manage to get in, could be in some case just clever tactics (which are good), addressed by pricing if they are manifest imbalances regarding a particular ability that is otherwise rare in the list or perhaps more interestingly by having sets of restriction and allowance on certain combinations. More on that later.

3) A lot of different units makes for a harder to balance list. Yes of course. But note that we have a pretty good start in the form of the present lists at least for both stats and prices, and so long as there are not too much synergistic imbalances (which I wrote a few thoughts about a moment ago), which can be addressed by pricing the right unit (factoring the value of air assault on the optional transport rather than the possibly foot-slogging buggers), balancing a detachment or an upgrade would not be inherently longer than in another list.

------------------------------------------------
outlining some benefits
------------------------------------------------

Now, what would be the benefits ? Well basically, the same basic list could cater for a lot of needs. Possibly, you could not build a BA list that would feel as adequate as E&C one, because it would lack the added flavour of its army wide rules ("Death Company", "The Red Thirst"), but you could obtain something that would be still quite themed as Blood Angels. By selecting Large infantry dets of mixed tactical marines and scout in Land raider crusader or Land raider (Assault), you could build an interesting "dark templar themed" army.

Admittedly, you could build a force of large landspeeder and bike formations, quite alike ravenwing, but add Rhino transported assault marines and Dreadnoughts formations, and you would get something that looks a bit like ravenwing but ends as something probably no one will recognise. Well, there are a thousand chapters out there, it is to be expected that some of them don't aren't already defined by GW. So long as it doesn't break balance, I can't see why this should be an issue.
Given rules like TSKNF, commissars, Hit and run, Strategy rating/initiative and of course statlines, I'm not afraid of seeing a marine tank force play like an IG tank force, nor like an eldar tank force. Which is excellent news.

------------------------------------------------
Variant lists
------------------------------------------------
Variant lists could still be made to better represent a given chapter; they would probably be very short, restricted to one or two special rules thought as necessary (say "Death Company", "The Red Thirst" for BA), one or two altered statlines (faster rhinos ?), a few specific formations (death company ?) maybe and a guideline of thematic restrictions. BTW, variant lists were supposed to be just that : a few units/detachments at most, very few specific rules.





*being loosely defined as "people here on taccom", since it is largely the main nexus of development for the game

------------------------------------------------
An additional idea : "traits"
------------------------------------------------

On that subject, you remember when I said "more on that later" ? That was about combos. We could have sets of "traits", or "doctrines", "special tactics**" or whatever you want to call them, defined at core list level, that would allow some options while restricting others. Kind of like what GW did with some of their 40K lists. I have only the Marines and nid codex for the last edition, but I think they did something similar to traits for space marines with doctrine for guards. Well some free examples could be :

- plantefall assault : may deploy any non-allied ground detachment by drop pods, including armoured vehicles detachments, but cannot take any transport upgrades.

- fast as the wind : May take one additional bikes, land speeders, or assault marines upgrade by detachment, but no infantry that doesn't have the scout ability is allowed to garrison.

- autarcic : cannot take any allied detachments, such as navy planes or titans; may add hunters upgrades to all detachments garisoned; may add the Terminus ultra upgrade to predators and land raiders detachments

- whatever : May upgrade all commanders and characters to dreadnought for 25Pts each; can't use dreadnought detachments or upgrades.

There might be either traits with included bad sides, or you might have to choose as many "good traits" as "bad" ones. This would impose some form of theme (while I think the game mechanism alone would probably incite you to form your army with some theme in mind if you want it to be competitive), and possibly expand the possibilities while keeping a mean to balance them. such things could work differently depending on the core list.

A tyranid list might propose either an "old crappy unavailable slug models" traits designed with SM2/TL period units, or a "current unavailable contradictory GW fluff models" that would allow either kind of selections.

One could then make a variety of armies for tournament play using a single, but expanded, Core list.



------------------------------------------------
Other benefits and consequences of such "traits"
------------------------------------------------

- All staltines for a given race would automatically be centralised, which would facilitate both balancing and keeping up with what is being discussed/changed/evolved, since for but a very few units, almost no statline would be specific to a list.

- One could play very differently styled armies without having to crawl through many different lists in various state of balance, updates, and recognition by the community*. As it stand, you go with the standard marine list for air marines, with apocrypha of skaros if you want foot sloggers, Imperial Fists if you want a siege themed force, and whatever chapter specific list if you want to be able to represent a given "GW named" chapter.

- variant lists would be more concise, would probably need less work, but have a much larger toolbox available. They would probably be felt as less needed.

The whole idea, whatever the means (traits or not, status of variant lists, etc), is to have more flexibility in what you can make with a specific list. It is a failure of the current list that they get so specific that most armies built with a given lust ATM are forced to play in similar ways. You want to play differently, you have to get familiar with another list, quite possibly not well known or accepted in your gaming circle.
To get an extreme example, if you want to make a marine army of your home brewn chapter, and this chapter doesn't work like air assaulting codex marines, you have to make a new variant list, get it balanced, and get it accepted by the community*.
If I had to summarize the principle behind these propositions, it would be : get the theme out of the (core) lists, and back to the hands of the player. I am of the opinion that it is better design.

Some of the current lists are inherently better designed than others in that regard, in that they allow much more variety in gameplay than others; for example, the ork list is probably one of the bests and the marine one of the worse ones concerning that point. Chaos and eldar lists might seat somewhere in between.


------------------------------------------------
The main problem; free your mind; there is no spoon.
------------------------------------------------

Of course, the main objection to that day dreaming proposition will be "We already have a lot of stuff that isn't finished, despite this it is working OK, and you are asking for us to throw away a lot of work AND do some more work yet !". Well, you know what, it's only a wish.

We all tend to become more conservative with time, because we grow fond of what we know, and, well, you know, we get older. We tend to think most changes are too much work for what they bring.

Well, I think we have a strong basis for balance with the current lists, draft general lists could be produced quite fast I think, and while they would require quite a bit of tuning to perfect, they could certainly be at least enjoyable in a reasonable amount of time, and the tournament lists we have could retain their "official status" as long as necessary for tournament.
So what I am saying is that while it would obviously demand some work, I don't think it would need THAT much as we tend to think when talking about any large change; keep in mind that in the current way of doing things, list development is so fragmented that it takes YEARS to only compile the available lists, and that a whole core army may remains in an quite unfinished state years after its first inception.

Second, I tend to think that just as E:A development incited a lot of players to get back into the game, and more involved than ever, a new step in the development process of E:A would possibly help gather players as well. The simple production of compiled documents (like the army compendium, or an updated rulebook with consolidated FAQs, list updates, and errata would do) is already a great help for new players and veterans alike.

I have alluded to that in another thread (on "activation count limit"), that I think a somewhat deeper than usual look into the rulebook would be good. I was thinking of the Activation system (detailed arguments in the other thread), the air rules (which have spawned vigorous debates regarding some of its gameyness), and some minor stuff like the underwhelming commander ability. I suggested there that parallel (until further notice) development of a 1.5 edition would be a good thing in my opinion; I think if GW were to decreed it, everyone would be crazy with enthusiasm. As it is, we have to face the idea that this is probably never going to happen; if such a revision would be good for the game, we may as well consider it our job.

Blaming champions each time something doesn't work is maybe a signal that we are not doing things in a way that facilitate collaboration; the community* is very split, and the one theme = on list frame of mind imply that people who want to develop will do so in their pet list.
I reckon variants have merits, of course, and some army that have more deviation from the core could still warrant variant lists more detailed than the one simple rule, one or two units, say space wolves for marines, but even for such case, it is possible that more flexibility in the core list could allow a much more themed army.

Well, that last proposition (Design reboot" for the core lists) will probably get me a lot of flak (or simply get ignored), but I think the first part, about defining the consensus and the stance of the community* about lists and list design guideline is really something that should be done, whatever each personal opinion might be.


------------------------------------------------
Apologies for your eyes and concluding thoughts
------------------------------------------------

I have already type a text that will probably be the longest of all my walls of texts; congratulations and thank you if you have read it up to here

I will be mostly internet-less for some time (recent move), so I won't be able to answer the critics this will all undoubtedly get; I took time to write all this at home to post it from work; I will try to compile a possible marine list (as it is one of the more fragmented area of list development) as an example while internet less (I will be able to read from my phone, but answering with more than single sentence posts will be almost impossible).

I'd like to start a discussion, or at least make people think about the general idea of an in-depth look at E:A; both its ruleset and what could be done to make it better, List design in general. Basically, this is a "where does it goes from here" questioning, about a great game that has very strong mechanisms, but is about 7 years old - which is about as long or longer than any incarnation of Epic ever lived, I think) and abandoned by its editor. What could we, the community*, do to correct its flaws, make some shady area better defined, and support it ?



*being loosely defined as "people here on taccom", since it is largely the main nexus of development for the game
** much love to anyone getting that reference

edit : bugged by the "too many users" thingy

edit : bugged by the "too many users" thingy

Great post – lots of food for thought. As few quick knee-jerk responses:

i)
A great idea, and one I'd support.
[Side note: Epic: Armageddon strikes me as unusual in comparison to the older versions (and 40k), in that the initial GW-published lists were seemingly designed with less reference to each other as the core rules (the core principle seemingly being that the army's play style should accurately reflect the background). In comparison, the lists in older versions of the game tended to be based on the central game (i.e. very similar at the generic level, with arguably excessive specific differences; with lists such as Tyranids being the exception, with their unique army-structure.]
I like the fact that each army is constructed in completely different ways that reflect the background, and would be keen to preserve that.

ii)
The specificity makes army design and balance considerably easier – especially in the context of the impersonal internet, and between trial lists that have/will never have contact before the list is released.
I like the principle of more open lists, but if the result is a long list of exceptions and rule in order to limit abuse, then that will ultimately be a failure (a noble one, but a failure). Of course, that's not to say it would automatically be a failure – if it can be made to work, then that'd be fantastic!

The 'crunch' list, where success or failure will be decided, would be the 'Generic Space Marines' list, allowing you to do everything from Space Wolves to Blood Angels. If that can be made to work, then I'd whole-heartedly support a complete overhaul of army list design.

iii)
I'd be very unsure of this, purely because it makes one additional step for new players to get into the game. TacComms is a hugely important forum for Epic development, but it's not central to the game – I'm sure there're lots of players who've never heard of it.

If such a deeper appraisal of core rules was started, I'd encourage it to be released as an expansion for the core rules – a sort of 'Epic: Armageddon Advanced Rules', than an overwrite of the existing material.

+++
TL;DR – a cautious thumbs-up for all of the ideas contained in the opening posts, with an all-out cheer for the willingness to talk about the elephants in the room.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC