I thought I would start a new thread as my suggestion didnt really fit into other threads but I think it is worth airing.

Instead of having 20 different experimental lists with each getting 5% of the development energy why not focus people into a specific list or 3 at a time and get 50+% of development energy?

Here is my suggestion.

the RC come up with a priority list of what Army Lists they would like to see completed, this would generally be influenced by a couple of things (in no order):

1 - whatever is closest to completion
2 - whatever would plug a hole in the variety of playable armies
3 - whatever the most people are keen to assist with
4 - whatever list the heavy contributors would like to push* (this is important see below)

Then working from the top down we as a community grab the top list and play it and provide feedback etc and get the list done.

I read your mind and you are thinking 'people just arnt going to help' well here is the crux of the matter

Without contribution no army you present will be processed

Thats right, Mango wants to come in with his zoat/marine hybrid list well shove off Mango you havent helped push any other lists to completion so why should you get priority over the knorne/ork hybrid list?

That might sound harsh but unless we as a community push army lists then they will take years to move from one level to another or will fall by the way side as people get bored or just dont care anymore. But if the RC came up with the top 3 lists they want to push though and get them done then someone like myself can think, well no1 sucks, i dont like them, no2 sounds cool I will proxy them up and give them a go and help out.

This would cut the need for 15 different army champions as there might only be 3 or 4 RC suggested armies to test.

The thing that this would require the most is:

Some people to suck it up and say 'ok, my list really is low priority, but if I help out these other lists as much as I can then my list gets a whole heap of help next year'

What do you think?

Its certainly achieveable, but would the community come together for the betterment of the community and get specific lists finished over (possibly) their own pet projects?

food for thought....

That's basically what Dave had to do with the Tyranids.

There's also the case that for a lot of experimental lists, only the writer will be intrested in testing it until its gets to the slightly more stable developmenal stage.
Especially for lists where large numbers of models might be needed.

We tried something similar a few years ago, with each month being dedicated to development of one of the main races and their sub-lists. It didn't really work, because instead of the whole community focusing on one list at a time, it just meant that the people who wanted to focus on the current list would (and would have anyway), but all other lists got no development for 11 months of the year.

Personally I think the other way round is more favourable. There's an element of Darwinism to list deveopment; the most interesting lists that fill niches get picked up and tested by the community, while uninteresting ones that cover previously existing territory get ignored and die off. I think that's a good thing, as it means we'll only be working on the stronger lists, rather than being forced to playtest lists we consider sub-par.

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

I dont know the specifics of what was tried a couple of years ago but my impression from your reply is that 1 list at a time is very restricting, it give a yes/no situation with minimal options to the playtesting community. Having 3 lists of different types (shooty, cc etc) gives a wider range of army styles for testers to test which would be inclusive of most people. I would also suggest 1 month is a very short period of time and although could be enough to answer specific questions or comparisons I wouldnt think it would be enough to settle a list down and bed it in. I dont know what the ages of other people in this community but for me a month goes by in a blink of an eye

I certainly think an element of darwinism comes into it but that would be factored in the RC's selection of lists to playtest. At this stage I think that a portion of play testing is scattered and unfocused (and some wasted) whereas if there was leadership and guidance by the RC that could focus the communities efforts and provide direction to achieving the goal of inclusion of these lists. Even if specific people faded in and out due to real life or wavering of interest the RC's direction and focus keeps the list development on track.

Anyways, just some thoughts

Problem I see is that there will be the case where the person that helps a lot yet keeps getting bumped every year due to other list priorities due to supplements or other matters. I think it goes higher than just a decision to play a certain list.

What are the factors affecting the decision and are they fair?

Also there are just some lists people do not want to play. I for one have no interest in any of the AMTL, some of the hybrid Marine lists and Tau. I have set goals for Chaos and some of other fringe alien races. If the advised 3 lists for the year do not take consideration of these elements (hey, let's test this Marine, this Eldar, and this Tau list), then some may be out of luck for that whole year.

With games becoming scarce for a lot of people, it is hard
1. Playing the requested army and
2. Having the opponent agree to play against it (my experience when looking for an opponent vs Tyranids which included the variable entry roll rule)

Keep it transparent and fair, and I guess it could work to an extent. The above however I think is pretty valid.

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

Also bear in mind that individual player's model collections might make it difficult to playtest certain lists.

I do agree that there sometimes appears to be excessive number of fan-lists, some of them with quite minor/insignificant differences to other lists, and all they serve to do is to clog up the forum.

However I am not sure with having 3-4 lists that everyone must playtest would work well. If someone is not interested in a specific list then you cant force that person to playtest it.

Rather than having 3-4 lists in rotation, maybe each indivual AC should aim to get 2-3 variant lists being actively playtested, working with these variant list originators.