So whats the consensus? Work on new army lists, revamp old army lists, create a vanilla list with options that shut out specific army choices based on the style of play your going for? Or a new battle book highlighting some armies and modeling ideas? The battle book has my vote.

Blind-

I am an avowed 'fluffy phobe' as you all know, but I wonder whether we can take a lead from real history in terms of direction. IMO it would help significantly if we had some concept of the following,

HISTORICAL EPOCs

The equivalent of the Stone age, Bronze age, Iron age through to the Industrial age, Space age, Computer age. These represent periods of time where some significant inovation changes the way the whole 'world' works. This can be the result of some change of religion, self image, invention or catastrophic disaster of epic proportions.

So what are the Epocs in the E:A universe?.

EMPIRES and INDIVIDUALS

Think of the rise and fall of the Greeks, Romans, Franks, Normans, Arabs, Otterman Turks, Mongols, etc.
Or the rise and impact of particular individuals Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemane, Attila, Saladin, Ghengis, Napoleon. And intertwined with them are the ebb and flow of various religions and sects, national and religious leaders.

So what are the Empires within these Epocs, which are contemporary with each other, who are the leaders and what impact did they have?

IMPORTANT BATTLES and EVENTS

The battles of Gaugamella, Cannae, Arsuf, Hastings, The Armada, Leipzig, Overlord, Vietnam
Or long term events and movements like the rise of particular sects, changes in direction caused by schisms in leadership or assasinations, or even natural events like Typhoons, plagues, volcanic eruptions and 'space events'

So what significant battles and events have shaped the empires?

=============================
IMO E:A would benefit significantly from having this kind of structure in mind when developing things. It really does not have to be encyclopaedic. On the contrary I am thinking of something that could be presented as a short thread on these boards by one or two of the more knowledgable individuals, possibly in the form of a "Rise and fall of the Imperium" style documentary.

This would allow us to structure our development by tailoring units and formations to particular Epocs and Empires while tailoring armies to particular Empires and Events. The whole development cycle should thus become a little easier, and we can intriduce the new W40K units into appropriate points of the narrative;

• Storm Talons were first introduced by (insert name) in the (xxxx) campign, conducted in the reign of the 4th emperor.
• The (xxxx) variant of the Leman Russ was created to counter the (xxxx) units of the (xxxx race) which had proved particularly effective in the (xxxx) sector of the Imperium

From this approach we can concentrate on certain parts of the E:A universe - think 'Battle book' - that relates to particular armies and races. We could devlop campaigns to drive the history, enhancing the background structure, and equally particular supplements to cover them with an enhanced bit of 'history'. Finally we can continue to drive internal and external balance, but within the context of the structure rather than trying to do it across the entire E:A piece which is becoming near-impossible
Etc

So what are the Epocs in the E:A universe?.
M41.999 afaik. Time effectively stands still since the Horus Heresy. There are only a few armies who didn`t exist then. Like the Sisters of Battle who only came into being during the Age of Apostasy and the Tyranids and Tau in the late M41.

So what are the Empires within these Epocs, which are contemporary with each other, who are the leaders and what impact did they have?
AFAIK all the Special Characters in the various Codices are still alive. With the exeption of Eldrath Ultran who died (or not) durng the 13th Black Crusade.

So what significant battles and events have shaped the empires?
The Horus Heresy. Everything after this did nothing to change the Status Quo. Even the Tyranid Invasions since ca M41.750 didn't cause any major upheaval.

If you want a Chronology then this might help
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Chronology_of_Events

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

The history of 40k is by and large too nebulous to apply the type of historical gaming approach you are talking about, Ginger. Also trying to take this appoach would too often run afoul of GW's cavalier attitude towards their own fluff - a new codex would appear, and you'd need to rewrite portions of the narrative in order to stay consistent.

Finally, what you suggest for balancing only against contemporary opponents means the effective fragmentation of EA, similar to Frogbears suggestion. This is beside the fact that (for instance) Codex Marine armies have stayed essentially the same for the last ten millenia, and would need to be balanced against any army from that period in any case.

I truly don't believe balance is becoming more difficult. Certainly not internally, and while testing a list against an exhaustive set of opponents is indeed becoming untenable, for the purposes of balance you can generally test against a smaller set of common armies against which almost every other list has seen significant play, and be nearly as confident as you would be with a more wide ranging test.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Sorry if these have been asked before, but as a new player I was wondering what the intention of Epic development and the role of Epic Armageddon was. Is there even a clear aim amongst the community. Basically, what would people answer to these questions, and would people answer the same way. 'Lagging behind is only a concept that is applicable depending on your view of what NetEA is for. I have three (very interlinked question).

1 - Who is Epic for?

(a) It is a set of rules to allow existing players to use their miniatures after the original creator stopped supporting it.

(b) A set of rules that will entice in new players, (either through its ability to stand alone as a good ruleset or as an extension for 28mm 40k players)

If you want new players, then what should the draw be, what IS the game?

2 - What should it be?

(a) An independent game in its own right, GW's game was a starting point but only that (as NETEPIC seems to be conceived)

(b) A fun 6mm game set in the 40k universe as it was in the mid 2000s. Simple and balanced. Nothing more, nothing less.

(c) A 6mm version of Warhammer 40k that should develop with the literature of Black library and the Design Studio


The answer to that dictates the answer to my next question.

3 - What is development for?

(a) To finish and balance what GW did not finish and to then leave alone.

(b) To keep Epic in line with the developing 40k mythology as GW would be doing if they were still active.

(c) To improve and innovate but with little thought to the larger world of 40k.

My personal preference is for a game that, while it does not make massive changes to the core rules, gives at least alternate lists to draw in 28mm 40k aficionados who like the background but want a different game for a change. My fear is that anything but balancing and finishing off what is already there needs a manpower I'm not sure a volunteer group drawn form a very small community can sustain.

I think the focus should be on place, rather than on time. The lists in the rulebook all represent forces present at Armageddon, IG and Orks are already explicit about it (Armageddon Steel Legion, Ghazkul's Warhorde). It's a small leap to rename the Codex Astartes list slightly, and define it as a Space Marine chapter fighting as part of a larger Imperial force. This neatly explains both why they use Navy Aircraft and why Titans are so common - the Navy handles air superiority and close air support for all Imperial forces instead of having several separate organizations flying around in the same air space. Likely missions for marines could be spearheading an assault with the Titan Legions, going on a deep strike mission by thunderhawk and calling in help from Warhounds who are quick to respond, or dropping in to support a Warlord titan who is in need of immediate reinforcements.

In a conflict around the Eye of Terror the battlefield is more than just a single world. The marines need to operate independently and bring along Storm Talons to handle aerospace missions.

Agreed. Lists should be themed by conflict when possible. When they are more generic they should then have a strong playstyle indicated. In example Siege Assault list vs Minotaurs Chapter is better even though that's what it really is.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Callling lists "Armageddon" or "M41.5" or "newstyle" or whatever is just semantic papering over the cracks that solves nothing.

The fact is that there is not much development going on. That's just the way it is. Wanna change that? Pick up a list and develop it.

I stood down as Necron AC for two reasons: firstly I don't have much time to commit at the moment, and what time I do have for epic is being spent on Epic:Hive and the development of the three lists for it. Frankly Necrons were not top of my development priorities, and that's not good enough for an Army Champion.

Secondly, I've become disillusioned with the netEA project in general, and the netERC in particular. Unless something changes it's unlikely I'll be developing further under the netEA banner. I'm content to finish my supplement lists entirely outside the existing "structure", as I've ceased to see what benefits it brings.

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

Agreed that is not the end solution to do and then suddenly everything's better. Actually most of the points in this thread are valid and forging them into a set of cohesive initiatives is probably a good thing, people have something to work on that interests them specifically, the community as a whole benefits, and more end product is delivered. As a design philosophy that is used in SW architecture that has relevance to something like this is, "good design is about setting limits and removing choice so that focus on a specific goal(s) is achieved". Same holds here.

However, I will counter that semantics do matter as they form the context of the dialog and end goal when designing. Essentially they frame the bounds of the discussion. For instance, the fan list for Raptors, the originator (can't be bothered to look it up, sorry) really was falling into an "everything and the kitchen sink" way of thinking as there's NO limitation due to the semantics of the name. It clouds the discussion and colors the reasoning unintentionally. He wanted armor heavy list with ambush light infantry list with air drop list all jumbled together as those are ALL things the Raptor chapter are known for. When SG and I rephrased the discussion as "build a ambush recon marines list" all the sudden something really cool was developed and the discussion stopped being so broad. A good name helps to direct the discussion into the right path for almost free vs everyone debating what they think the [insert name of chapter] list should be. Same thing with codex marines, well that's such as broad term as to be almost worthless for design discussion as everyone has their own bias as t owhat that means. Thank goodness that was delivered to the community in situ.

All that being said I will give my voive to the following
-refocus on engagement with current ACs and the community into active vs passive development model
-cull dead / abandoned / redundant lists. Find new active owners for abandoned lists where possible.
-More active Net ERC involvement
-Focus on finishing lists to Approved status. NetERC should triage and take a handful and make them Pri 1 until done. Rinse repeat
-Forge a small set of next generation supplements. Ressurect Mechanicus, get the Total War suppliment support and more active development, and if desired by Zombocom, get some additional bodies and skills recruited for Hive War.
-Get a team together on the modeling and scratch building side for a suppliment
-Actively recruit and publish new scenarios. Lists are less important. I can't tell you how tired I am of tourny style play vs narrative. There's enough historical batles out there that we can blatantly rip off be inspired from that we should be able to quickly make progress. See Storm of Ghenna fanatic scenarios PDF for exactly the thing I am talking about.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Zombocom, FWIW the supplements have never been built under the banner of the NetERC. We're trying to incorporate the two projects with the advent of my ERC position, but to be honest I've been struggling this summer with keeping my own project online, let alone encouraging others. However this thread has given me some renewed interest. Sometimes when you work on things you forget about the audience that is actually interested and become distracted by the naysayers or the silence. So in this respect I'd say this thread is -by virtue of showing our failings- creating more opportunities for success.

Hilarious that you would be the person to say that - how is your testing of your lists going?

I'd agree that changes need to be made as development has stagnated but IMO lots of posters here have varying motives, personal grievances and agendas that are clouding matters

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Agreed.
The situation is nowhere near as bad as some in this thread would have us believe.

_________________
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.

To be sure there are problems, but the Army Compendium 2012 was a significant and welcome achievement

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Agreed! Definetly the best thing to come out of NetEA since Raiders/Siege. Dave's Tournament pack is also great, and compliments it nicely.

I'm not an Army Champion. And the fact that i simply don't have the opportunity to test anything is the reason that i never have volunteered for a vacant AC position.
Now i have a gaming group but they refuse to play Epic....for now.

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