A great thread, and thanks for keeping it productive.
Ginger wrote:
However, I would also suggest that the army lists should also consider the additional dimensions of location and time. At the moment W40k and E:A are somewhat one-dimensional when compared against the 'fluff', because there is no sense of time or history in the army lists. For example, shouldn't there be significant differences in organisations and structure before and after Horus Heresy, before and after the 'Nid invasion etc? I am sure you can all present other examples.
Adopting the concepts of time and location in the lists would allow greater flexibility in developing lists and balancing lists against each other, because each list would only need to balance against the relevant sub-set of opponents; "Horus heresy" lists need only consider those lists, not necessarily the 'Nid invasion lists, or those from other time-zones or galaxies.
Ulrik wrote:
I don't think it would be a good idea to split NetEA (even further).
Here is the strength of the EA list system - want to include modern units in a marine army? make a list with them in it. Honestly, I think the lists from Swordwind and Armageddon should be frozen, except for balance concerns. They are what they are, and they work. Instead of taking something that isn't (significantly) broken and padding it with new units, build a new list from the ground up. Epic as a rule system handles a Codex Astartes (2003) and Codex Astartes (2012) just fine. The only problem is that some people get their panties in a bunch if they can't point at one list and say that that list is THE core list.
Okay, a bit hyperbolical here. But there's no reason that all lists have to exist in the fluff at the same time. Rename the Codex Astartes list if that is necessary, call it Astartes Armageddon, a list representing the various Space Marine chapters present at Armageddon. Then make a new list, find an appropriate campaign to set it in, and put in Land Speeder Storms, Storm Talons, Thunderfire Cannons and all that.
Start naming the lists for specific places, and I think you'll find that there is a lot of space for lists.
Both of these suggestions are really at the core of how the original EA lists were set up. There was no generic list. You have an Ultramarine/Codex Marine force list as deployed on Armageddon, and as expansions were added specific Marine Chapters such as the White Scars or Eldar Craftworlds were included. The original idea (as I see it) was that there would be more, specific lists instead of 40K's system of a generic list with variants. This means that the issue becomes how we categorise these lists and keep balance as the number of lists increases. Two possible solutions for this are by time or by geography.
That said, I do think that the way forwards is to draw a line under the traditional EA lists, and create a new list with the new 40K toys, but only in cases where the tranditional EA list is 'complete' (and, where this list exists - for example there is no traditional Necron list). The bottom line is that EA list development simply doesnt keep up with 40K miniature development. Every time a time a new 40K unit or model comes out, it is relatively easy to add to 40K as that is a unit based game, but with EA being army scale and more synergistic, adding one unit impacts on other units and development and testing takes longer with fewer playtesters. If we try to add every new 40K model to a list, it will never end.
Onyx wrote:
Game balance MUST trump keeping up with GW's business requirement to sell new toys to eager players. Many/most/all of the approved lists are balanced and finished. The lists work.
For exampkle, if someone wants a Storm Talon in their Marine army, buy the model (if/when it ever becomes available) and use the proxy rule (as a Thunderbolt) until someone comes up with a variant/alternate themed army list that has these new shiny toys in it and when it's balanced.
GW will always come up with new units that change everything. It's their world and it's their right to continually invent new things to sell. If we try and keep up with this, there will be no such thing as a finished (balanced) list.
I entirely agree with this. Bottom line is that we are a relatively small community in the grand scheme of things, and this means that we have to prioritise our development. This has not happened in the past, with people able to go off and create whatever list they want, and the result is a lot of lists that don't get completed.
Moscovian wrote:
While I appreciate the idea of a single supplement everyone can contribute to, it is difficult for me to make such an endeavor THE focus for supplements. For instance, I have absolutely zero interest in Chaos; any project including them would never capture my attention. Multiple projects, while they are unfocused, at least grab the volunteers that are truly motivated.
I would caution everyone, however, about judging forum activity during the summer. Cybershadow can correct me if I am wrong but every summer there is a thread or two where somebody posts about the lack of AC support or the drop off in Epic interest. Then September/October rolls around and interest is renewed. It remains high until April when it dips and the whole cycle starts again. The fact is people are busy in the summer.
It is entirely true that the Summer months are significantly quieter than the rest of the year. Between June and August, visitor numbers are typically less than 75% of the rest of the year as a high proportion of people are at uni and dont play so much through the Summer, are on holiday, or are just busy over this time.
The idea of a larger suppliment is almost a compilation of smaller suppliments. Each scenario wouldn't have all races fighting in it, and the entire endeavour would be split into sub-categories. The chief goal would be to include all aspects of the game and development so that everyone could get involved. It feels like apathy sets in because little is achieved, which is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we had a suppliment that would be completed by Easter of 2013 it would show people that stuff can get done, would get everyone involved and get the creative juices flowing, and provide some hard deadlines.
frogbear wrote:
In my position, I really do not wish to be changing past a tweak here and there the World Eaters and Emperor's Children lists. I hope to lead them to an approved status in the near future. This is regardless of what we may see in the future. I already worked on representations of the current format Daemon Engines and they just did not fit into the flavour of the lists - so what do I do? Leave the lists as is or change them to represent the current 40K and risk losing what little (if any) of a player base I have with the two lists due to the need of proxies and minis that no longer have a place in Epic?
I agree. You shouldn't have to change the list to meet 40K units or stats. My preference will always be to complete the list as it is. If people want the Daemon Engine stats from 40K, a variant of new list is where that should be, but only when the core lists are completed. We simply have to accept that not every EA player is going to have the list that they want from day one, and it is better to have a stable complete list that is not tailored for your army than an unstable, unbalanced list that is.
Evil and Chaos wrote:
The Tau list is only identical because EpicUK are in charge of it.
Not true. I have no inside knowledge, but I would be very surprised is EpicUK's Tau list didn't take the NetEA Tau list as a starting point or inspiration for their own, irrespective of who AC's the NetEA list.
frogbear wrote:
This is also one problem I see for orher lists - especially when those same ACs would put epicuk development first. IMO no AC should also be involved in epicuk list - but being from outside the uk, that view is probably in the minority.
Not allowing an EpicUK representative to AC a NetEA list is likely to disqualify one of the people most able to AC it, and would further seperate the community. Having the same AC unites both lists across both systems. I accept that there are potential downsides.
And, the majority of members from this board are outside the UK, so you would actually be in the majority.
