Double post..?

I'll offer the olive branch - sorry i offended you. I have already explained the comment. Note the lack of sarcasm here - please now reply likewise.

About the 'productive discussion' - that is all through out this thread, and all through out my replies.
Which is a nice segueway to the real topic at hand:

Can we please focus on whats relevant to the community now..?


Tee

rather than playing a fingerpointing game of who looks like more of an arsehole here, i will simply suggest this.

if the UK scene thinks the list is unbalanced and needs a gutted version to approve for their tournaments, and if eUK think that the destructor list is so great that they're looking to adopt it, then why is it being put in a NetEA document at all? none of the other eUK lists are, and the eUK committee certainly arent putting any NetEA lists in their books

let them take it, publish it, and as with all things, eUK can focus on the UK metagame-tournament balance at the exclusion of more options, and NetEA can cater to those who want more variety and/or dont play in the UK (and i guess in this case, people want to the most popular (or atleast common) titan model ever produced)

NetEA is not eUK. when australian players raised the suggestion that they might be better served splitting off from the current ERC and governing themselves, the brits all cried that splitting the community further would be detrimental and how NetEA wasnt just an annex of the eUK group. so why now is the NetEA AMTL champion sabotaging the list supposedly in his care in order to promote what seems to be an (e)UK-centric agenda once more?

NetEA already has an approved titan list, if eUK want this reduced list for their tournaments, then let them have it and leave us alone with the one we've already decided we like.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Guys, could you please stop heaping abuse on somebody that's actually putting in a lot of work on a NetEA project? This is not the way to get a good Titan list, it's the way to kill the entire NetEA project.

Nobody's in it for the money here, so the tolerance for bullshit will be a lot lower.

Note that this is an opinion I share.



It's possible to mod it a bit, balance it a bit more, but quite simply I don't think the same level of internal balance is achievable with the fully open weapons configuration rules as is achievable with a more limited set of configuration rules.


I live in the UK, I've poured a lot of effort over the years into list development, I think it'd be pretty awesome if EUK liked a list of mine and decided to use it in their tournies.

That doesn't diminish, over-write, side-line, or delete the War Gryphonnes list. It'll still be there, in the NetEA Armies Book and in the Supplement, for those who want to use it.










Here's a list of the lists(sic) in the supplement I'm working on, noting which version will get a more prominent place in the Supplement :



Codex Marines - NetEA latest version - Champion Dobbsy
Black Templars - NetEA latest version - Champion Pulsar (Maybe Dobbsy by now)
Imperial Fists - NetEA latest version - Champion Frogbear

Imperial Guard Steel Legion - NetEA latest version - Champion Rug
Attilan Rough Riders - NetEA latest version - Champion Rug

Gargant Bigmob - NetEA latest version - Champion E&C
Blood Axes Clan - NetEA latest version - Champion Nealhunt
Gutgrub Badfang's Stompy Onslaught - NetEA latest version - - Champion E&C
Sun-Tz'Ork's Grotling WAaaaaagh - NetEA latest version - - Champion E&C
Speed Freaks Warband - NetEA latest version - Champion Tiny-Tim

Knight Household - NetEA latest version - Champion Morgan Vening
Skitarii PDF army - NetEA latest version - Champion E&C

Eldar Titan Clan - NetEA latest version - Champion Angel_Of_Caliban



Also,

Adeptus Mechanicus Titan Legion - "Director's Cut Version" - Champion E&C



Tell me again I have a pro-EUK bias. I dare you.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I know this is meant as a sarcastic responce but here's a list of some of the Titan weapons/equipment not in use in any current list (and generally for good reason):
Rubble Claws
Extra Shield Generator
Overcharged Servos
Centreline Quake Cannon (Deathstrike Head)
Battle Claw
Chain Fist
Close Combat Head
Harpoon Missile
Power Fist
Power Ram
Power Saw
Trident
Weapon Head
Wrecker
Corvus Assault Head
Devotional Bell
Banner Pole

Let's not pretend that the War Gryphonnes list allows almost every Titan Configuration thought up by GW over the last 25 years.

The War Gryphonnes list is so much better than it's predecessor. A lot of work has been put into it over recent years. It is in it's present form because after many votes, discussions etc, this is what the community wanted.

The Legio Destructor does sound like a good fit for EUK (as I mentioned a page or 2 ago).
I guess the author of the supplement would need to consider if the supplement is for EUK or NetEA.
A NetEA supplement would be best served by presenting the core titan list first and foremost.

For what it is worth, this is my point of view.

_________________
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.

Who says supplements can't be for everyone?


Most of those are seeing frequent play using the Appendix weapons in the War Gryphons list. I often see them mentioned.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Is this the AMTL WG list or the LD list? It doesnt look like it?

What you said earlier


Tee

It's the Legio Destructor list.

It doesn't look like what?


And?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How many NetEA supplements finished so far, have EUK lists in them?
How many EUK army books have NetEA options in them?

Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't happen.
However, if this is a NetEA supplement, the NetEA army list should be the prominent list used. This would mean putting the Legio Destructor at the back of the book in the appendices as an option for those dedicated to the current 40K fluff. I would have no problem with that at all. The focus of a NetEA supplement should be on officially approved NetEA core lists. Varients could/should come after the initial supplement (either in the appendices or in follwing supplements).

_________________
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.

QFT, really.
As the writer/editor, I want this supplement to feature both sets of lists, where appropriate, in a clearly marked and explained manner.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Also QFT.

If both sets of lists are to be featured, then none should be relegated to the appendices at all. They should be given equal prominence.
Of course, this may cause confusion which is the main point that most of us have been trying to make all along.

If a list is being relegated to the back of the book, it is being suggested that that list is not as good as the list in the front of the book (if it was, it would surely be in the front of the book with the pretty pictures). Many players around the world are generally happy with the AMTL list going by the lack of calls to make major changes to the list (see the Tyranid forums for a comparison).

Have EUK appointed you to be their Titan list designer? (honest question)
If not, then why are you editing a fun/balanced (moreso with the new VP changes), succesful NetEA list to hopefully suit their needs? In the past, EUK has done it's own thing to suit it's own wishes. This isn't wrong at all. It just means you may be wasting your time. As you say, you're hearing positive noises from them but that can hardly be said for the rest of us.

Really, it will be much simpler to dedicate the supplement to either EUK or NetEA. trying to please both sets of players could diminish the end product by making it confusing to follow.

If you were to choose NetEA (and I sincerely hope you do), then the official NetEA Titan list would be the best to use in the first supplement to feature a Titan Legion.

I'm off to play hide and seek with my daughter.
Have fun guys!

_________________
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, that's correct.

I don't think the War Gryphonnes list can be as balanced as a list based on a more restrictive weapons selection set. That makes the former not as good as the latter IMO.

I personally also like the modern configuration rules, and think that having a variant list on those lines is a cool thing. I'm all for having as many variant lists as is humanly possible


They've indicated they're interested in a collaboration, in the same manner as the NetEA Tau list also became the EUK Tau list.

I had already begun work on the Legio Destructor list before they mentioned the possibility to me, incidentally, because I already knew that there were some things I could do to make the AMTL list more balanced (And more tactically interesting, too) if I was writing a "Director's cut" list.


It's my time to waste.

I'm quite aware that EUK could reject my list variant or make their own list in the end, etc, leaving me with egg on my face.

Stuff like that happens all the time to me, I'm used to looking silly.


I can only hope that I can manage to write the supplement in a clearly deliniated manner, then.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just to recap here if i may as there'sa lot of talk and i got to admit, a fair bit of politician speak too:

1- (statement) there will be 2 AMTL lists in the supplement, the NetEA approved WG and the new LD list.
2- (question) which list will be in the main part of the book, and which will be presented as an alternative/in an appendice? As far as i understand it, the LD will be primary, and the WG will be appendice.
3- (statement) A part of the reason, i.e. not the sole reason, of the creation of the LD list is to make it more 'balanced' from a EpicUK p.o.v. so it can be used in EpicUK tournaments/more generally accepted by EpicUK players
4- (statement) This is a NetEA supplement and willhave a EpicUK derived/inspired/promoted list in it. I read that this has not been the case at all prior to this and NetEA and EpicUK have separate lists prior to this.
5- (question)Why is a EpicUK friendly list being added to the NetEA lists? Especially so when there seems to be some history prior to this showing that these changes (somewhat influenced by EpicUK requests?) isn't needed nor wanted by the NetEA player base, on here at least. The example i refer to was a vote/discussion to steer away from 40k ret-con inspired weapon fits and stick to Epic historical/inspired weapon fits.
6- (question) Discussion here and history has shown these changes to be unpopular - if so, why not create a EpicUK supplement, not a NetEA supplement?

Tee

Correct.


That is my intention.

The term "appendix list" is probably somewhat unfair, however. I would expect to give more prominence to the War Gryphonnes list than just a 1 page Appendix.


Somewhat Correct.

I had already written the outline of the Legio Destructor list before EUK indicated their interest in a collaboration.


Incorrect.

It is not a NetEA supplement. It is an Epic supplement that happens to feature 95% NetEA content, and 5% E&C content (The Legio Destructor list). EUK may or may not pick up and use the Legio Destructor list.

NetEA and EUK lists are not always separate; Several EUK lists are either greatly derived from, or identical copies of, NetEA lists.



Because antagonism for the sake of factionalism is useless.


EUK have at no time requested that I adopt the modern weapon restrictions.

In fact the only design suggestion I have recieved as regards weapons configurations was akin to "How about fixed configurations, with just 1 arm having 2-3 options, like the Orks?".



Why not just, an Epic Supplement, with no factionalism involved?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter