Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next

Is Epic lagging behind?

 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:41 am 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
frogbear wrote:
Onyx wrote:
Epic filled the gap a long time ago...
When Epic Armageddon was first written in fact.

Correct. I remember Armourcast was making 40k models modelled off epic miniatures.

How things have changed.....


Things have changed because GW have changed. In the past, the 40K background drove the development of the various games. With only the 40K game 'existing' for GW, their development shifts so that 40K drives the background.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Iain- I wouldn't say my statement is incorrect. EUK have taken a good number of NetEA lists as a starting point for their own, and there has also been some "bleed back" in the other direction but the only list that is identical is one where an EUK committee member was also the netea AC. It seems unlikely that we'll see identical lists in future unless EUK are in charge of future convergent lists too.

CS Edit - We really don't need to go off on this yet again.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:31 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Iain- I wouldn't say my statement is incorrect. EUK have taken a good number of NetEA lists as a starting point for their own, and there has also been some "bleed back" in the other direction but the only list that is identical is one where an EUK committee member was also the netea AC. It seems unlikely that we'll see identical lists in future unless EUK are in charge of future convergent lists too.


Sorry, you are correct. What I meant was that, yes the lists are identicle because an EpicUK rep also ACs here, but that they would most likely be very similar even if this was not true, and having this situation closes the gap and attempts to reduce confusion in list versions.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Could something like modules work for army building?
For example you have a basic Space Marine army list. Then yous select a module for a specific style you want to play.
The Basic Space Marine list could be the Codex list then you select for example the Siege Module and get access to Land Raider Achilles, Thunderfire Cannons, etc but Thunderhawks with transport capacity and other things aren't no more accessible.
Or you select the Salamanders Chapter Module and get access to certain Salamanders specific upgrades but are restricted in other areas.
This could work for all basically Codex lists.
Only lists with a radical different layout would need a separate list. Staying with Space Marines as example the Space Wolves would be such a candidate.

With this layout new units could be includes as Module Upgrades or Formations. For example allowing to use a Spartan Assault Tank Upgrade you would loose the Land Raider Upgrade. If you select a Storm Talon Squadron then you can't use Imperial Navy Suqadrons, etc.

Ths would prevent the "all and the kitchen sink" army list and retains the flavour of the different armies play style.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 582
BlackLegion wrote:
Could something like modules work for army building?


This sounds like a really interesting idea, and I imagine it would work quite well across the different races as well - different guard regiments, eldar craft worlds, orks etc.

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
CS Edit - Removing off topic discussion.

Cybershadow, about 2 years back there was chatter on one of my supplement threads and through PMs about having multiple mini-supplements published in one book. I am still all for it. I can go back and look through those threads to see who the foolish mortals were who dared volunteer and encourage them to "re-up". That would certainly be something that could be morphed into a giant supplement. Of course, project heads still need to keep their people motivated.

My own supplement, while stalled due to work (old excuse but accurate; no work = no money = no computer = no supplement EVER) is still on the table and very much alive. I need to prod myself into getting that moving again. People are waiting on my Squat list update.

Blacklegion, I just don't like Chaos. It sounds odd but they freak me out. Some of my buddies make fun of me because evil Eldar torturing people and using them as slaves until they suck out their life essence DOESN'T freak me out. But it's just a personal thing. To answer your question, I don't want to work on supplements with Chaos. That does not mean I won't publish one. Somebody else has to do the legwork of completing the pdf file however.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Quote:
Blacklegion, I just don't like Chaos. It sounds odd but they freak me out. Some of my buddies make fun of me because evil Eldar torturing people and using them as slaves until they suck out their life essence DOESN'T freak me out. But it's just a personal thing. To answer your question, I don't want to work on supplements with Chaos. That does not mean I won't publish one. Somebody else has to do the legwork of completing the pdf file however.


I didn't ask this ;)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: Leicester UK
Isn't the modular approach essentially what we have at the moment? It certainly seems that way with the marines and eldar at least..... All the variant lists could be condensed down somewhat.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
kyussinchains wrote:
Isn't the modular approach essentially what we have at the moment? It certainly seems that way with the marines and eldar at moment...

It is, though Eldar are essentially leaderless IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
I don't really like the idea of modules. While a very interesting concept, I fear it will be alll too easy to fall into a trap where you hunt for the best combinations of modules for building good lists.

It might be useful as a list designing tool, but I think it's better to use it to get some sense for what elements a given list uses and then "freeze" them as a named list. This also allows small tweaks to be made to make it more cohesive.

One thing modules might be very good for would be "chapter" modules. I think the current setup (Codex, Blood Angels, Dark Angels etc) steers a player towards painting his force to match the list and then only use that list. If chapters were instead represented by modules, you could take one of several "generic" Space Marine list (Astartes Armageddon, Siege list, Scouting list, a list with modern units etc) and apply the chapter module to it to create a Dark Angels scouting list or a Blood Angels siege list. The Dark Angel module would probably have good syngergy with a Scouting list (Ravenwing!) while the Blood Angels siege list might be a bit weak.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
CyberShadow wrote:
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).


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is the Necron Raiders list not a "traditional" Necron list (as in, based on the old Codex)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
CS -
I don't think discussion of why an 80% complete supplement got cancelled is off topic.
It's a big part of what's gone wrong with the NetEA process, IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:39 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
Ulrik wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is the Necron Raiders list not a "traditional" Necron list (as in, based on the old Codex)?


In the sense that it has zero model support and was not one of the original lists embarked on, I would assume that it isn't (along with Tau and Tyranids). To my mind, the original EA lists were not based on a codex but on the background. Later lists - both additional forces such as the Necrons and variants of existing lists - took specific codex iterations as their basis, and this is the current issue. If SG had kept with EA (and still existed!) I am not sure that the move to basing lists off a codex would have happened (I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing). Whether the first lists based off a codex are any different to the current call for lists including more recent codex additions is a moot point really, in my mind.

Evil and Chaos wrote:
CS -
I don't think discussion of why an 80% complete supplement got cancelled is off topic.
It's a big part of what's gone wrong with the NetEA process, IMO.


Which is a fair statement. But the conversation was going over well-troden ground and showing personal bias which - I think - would have derailed the current productive thread and not ended well. Mistakes were made, this much is very clear, and there was a lack of clarity and focus in the original situation which myself and the NetERC will need to address and are discussing, and - yes - was (is?) an issue.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
(is?)

If you consider putting one of the two people in the community to have taken a full supplement to completion off of further work under the ERC umbrella due to lack of trust in the status quo, then it's still an issue.

If my contributions to the community will not be missed, then it's not an issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
CyberShadow wrote:
In the sense that it has zero model support and was not one of the original lists embarked on, I would assume that it isn't (along with Tau and Tyranids). To my mind, the original EA lists were not based on a codex but on the background. Later lists - both additional forces such as the Necrons and variants of existing lists - took specific codex iterations as their basis, and this is the current issue. If SG had kept with EA (and still existed!) I am not sure that the move to basing lists off a codex would have happened (I am not saying that this is a good or bad thing). Whether the first lists based off a codex are any different to the current call for lists including more recent codex additions is a moot point really, in my mind.


I see your point, but I'm not sure if your correct in that the original lists weren't based of the current Codex at the time they were made. I've seen a design note that the distribution of heavy weapons for Marines and Guard is based on how units were fielded in 40k at the time - Tacticals were usually fielded 5 man strong with one heavy weapon, Devastators were usually a full unit of 10 (with 4 heavy weapons, giving 2 per base) and guardsmen had to have 10 to get a weapon crew, which led to the Guard Autocannon rule. (Hmm, would a Modern Marine list need to adopt the Guard Autocannon rule for Tacticals? They currently have to field a full 10 Marines to get a heavy weapon, don't they? :))

I also think that NetEA would benefit if we worked towards getting new lists to be fully equal to the original lists published by GW, so that an Approved list is an Approved list no matter where it was first published. My personal feeling is that the Necron Raiders list is an excellent list that captured the feeling of what was up until a year ago or so the only vision of the Necrons. "Locking" it in it's current states (except for balance tweaks like walker for C'tans) together with Biel-Tan, Codex Astartes, Steel Legion and Ghazgul's Warhorde seems like a good idea to me.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net