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 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Is Epic lagging behind?

 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Steve54 wrote:
Given the problems in developing one set of lists I can't see how doing 2 parallel sets of lists is really a realistic option

It could be done by being better organised and active instead of Darwinian and idle, I guess.
A laughable suggestion, of course.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:46 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
What about an "Epic modernisation project".

An entirely separate (albeit largely overlapping in form) set of lists, balanced against each other, but with no obligation to be balanced against the "classic" lists.

Not in favour of this *shrug*.
It would basically make all the work done to this point a waste of time.

It seems there are just a few loud voices hear that keep repeating their point of view. There is nothing new being added to this discussion anymore.

Forgive me for being blunt but really, if people want to play 40K, there is a solution...

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
In principle, I think that has some potential, but the problem will always be implementation. It would involve a lot of work balancing all these armies when you don't have the classic lists as a reference point, or would they still be used as a reference point in that one sense? In addition, it could be potentially divisive, and that's something that I wouldn't like to see, as there is already plenty of that going on as it is.

What I'm really trying to get at through reading and participating in this debate is how strong the desire is within the Epic community to keep changing the core army lists every year. If the majority is in favour of annual list changes, then there's no point fighting against the tide, King Carnute tried that, and we all know what happened to him, but if it is decided to stick with this annual list review and change policy, then something has got to be done to make this clear to beginners, and everybody needs to start playing to the same set of rules, otherwise it's just too confusing for new players to get into the game.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Onyx wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
What about an "Epic modernisation project".

An entirely separate (albeit largely overlapping in form) set of lists, balanced against each other, but with no obligation to be balanced against the "classic" lists.

Not in favour of this *shrug*.
It would basically make all the work done to this point a waste of time...

Looking at the truly pitiful amount of Approved lists in the compendium (and noting that AMTL has even been downgraded from Approved to In Development(!) I can't say as I greatly disagree.
A lot of idle AC's have wasted a lot of time. Years, in fact.


Irasaso- you actually missed the point of the king Canute story there. Canute knew exactly what he was doing - making his fawning supplicants look stupid.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:01 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
Epic not reflecting 40k/lack of NetEA progress are completely different issues

IMO the overly simplistic and coloured by personal agenda comments on the netEA situation are not very helpful. If you're concerned about idle ACs/NetERC members bear in mind that could well have all been sorted by now had one or two people not been so wilfully obstructive over setting up a framework for development.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Steve54 wrote:
Epic not reflecting 40k/lack of NetEA progress are completely different issues

IMO the overly simplistic and coloured by personal agenda comments on the netEA situation are not very helpful. If you're concerned about idle ACs/NetERC members bear in mind that could well have all been sorted by now had one or two people not been so wilfully obstructive over setting up a framework for development.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm saying I think it's unlikely that the NetEA process as-is could manage a modernisation process even if the community solidly wanted it. Getting even a few lists to Approved status has been a very rocky road.
It is indeed a separate issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Evil and Chaos wrote:
What about an "Epic modernisation project".

An entirely separate (albeit largely overlapping in form) set of lists, balanced against each other, but with no obligation to be balanced against the "classic" lists.


I think that would be bad for the game. You're basically splitting the Epic community again, this time with the explicit goal that lists should not play lists from the "other side".

I'm all for making new lists with new models, but make them compatible with the existing lists.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Irisado wrote:
That's not the point that I'm making. My point is that in view of the capabilities of Terminators, why would Space Marine player be crying out for Assault Terminators? If I played Space Marines I know that I wouldn't be, because Terminators are already more than effective enough.

Since you ask, my reasons are these: they have been a distinct unit in 40k for several years or more; they have a separate enough role on the battlefield to call for representing; SGs may not have had the budget to stretch to making Assault Terminator models but a good proxy exists now; less and/or more costly Warhounds in the ‘modern’ SM list will likely slightly reduce the average amount of MWs in the army which can be counterbalanced by slightly increasing the MWs here (and Terminators killing things in combat is more fitting than relying on their allies to do so).

It's a close call and situational but out of the two I think regular Terminators are probably still slightly better overall, due to their greater flexibility in their uses and the fact they can shoot or FF skimmers, whereas Assault Terminators are powerless against them.

Irisado wrote:
This all brings me back to the issue I raised earlier. The original Epic lists should only be altered if there are balance issues or mistakes.

I’m suggesting Assault Terminators deserve to be included in the second ‘modern’ core SM list that is proposed to be developed as well, separately by those that choose to, not adding them to the Codex Astartes core list at all. The two lists could and should co-exist perfectly happily allowing both those who want modern units in a list and those who want the Codex Astartes left as is to be happy :)
Evil and Chaos wrote:
What about an "Epic modernisation project".

An entirely separate (albeit largely overlapping in form) set of lists, balanced against each other, but with no obligation to be balanced against the "classic" lists.

All Epic lists should aim to be balanced to the same level of power, a ‘modern’ list might have more units than the original, but it still should be equally balanced as the old. 40k has power creep in newer lists to sell them more but that element shouldn’t be copied to the epic lists. Balancing ‘modern’ lists only against other ‘modern’ lists only seems unnecessarily limited, undesirable and impractical anyway with the amount of playtesting now.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 948
Location: Nottingham, UK
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Irisado- you actually missed the point of the king Canute story there. Canute knew exactly what he was doing - making his fawning supplicants look stupid.


I've fixed the spelling of my user name for you ;).

Mea culpa, I was thinking of an old primary school song line, not the actual written legend of what happened.


GlynG wrote:
I’m suggesting Assault Terminators deserve to be included in the second ‘modern’ core SM list that is proposed to be developed as well, separately by those that choose to, not adding them to the Codex Astartes core list at all. The two lists could and should co-exist perfectly happily allowing both those who want modern units in a list and those who want the Codex Astartes left as is to be happy :)


In that case, I have no problem with this, or the reasons for introducing Assault Terminators you outlined, providing all of this is made crystal clear in the explanation of lists, and rules development. At the moment, there does not seem to be sufficient clarity about how and why the decisions regarding the inclusion of new units are taken, and which lists the changes apply to.

I reiterate my plea, however, that all army lists at least follow the same core rulebook to minimise confusion for new players. In the past, we've had Handbooks, the GW rulebook with errata and FAQ, and various NetEA/ERC amendments. Now we seem to have a NetEA rulebook/army lists, which is a great piece of work by all those involved, but there is still no official ruling on which set of rules everyone is supposed to be using. If anything is causing Epic to be lagging behind, lack of clarity of which set of rules everyone is supposed to use is as much to blame as the issue about whether to introduce new units.

_________________
Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Good, glad we cleared that up.

There was confusion in the past with Compendiums, ect but the situation with the rules is better now. The Net-EA rulebook and the one on the GW site are one and the same - it's just the original rules incorporating the errata into their text.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Incidentally, it's now looking 99.9% certain that the leaked release list I posted is genuine.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
To answer the original post,
No Epic as a gaming system is not lagging behind, in fact in my view it is far superior to 40K.

As for the inclusion of new units, lists an so forth, for me no.
It may not be that lists are developed as quick as some want or units are added as fast as some like but Epic is seen as a very balanced gaming system so units cannot just be added "willy nilly" to keep up with the Jones' at a risk of losing the way Epic is viewed by players as almost perfectly balanced system.
Take a look at the new lists and units in the compendium that have been developed for Epic since official development was stopped.
Lists like Krieg and their Gorgons, a lot of the experimental Marine lists have new units in them, Eldar (mymera I believe) have a list with new units in hopefully being tested for further development.

Epic may not be developing lists and units as quick as 40K is pumping them out but if we want to keep Epic as a good balanced system then development will have to be slow.

I for one don't want Epic Adult to become Epic 40Kid.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
I think the thing this thread has taught us is that there are multiple views on what is "needed" from Epic, across the spectrum of representing stable unchanging lists for old models, through to mirroring the latest greatest super-mega-chrome-plated shiny thing from GW. These appear intractable.

It seems certain that some people want "new style" (or maybe more accurately "the current point in time") lists, including for core rulebook lists like SM. Whilst this is not something that interests everyone (myself included), it at least seems it needs to be tried to see what happens. IMO we really do not need to change much to accommodate this: people are free to create new lists, and if enough people want the same thing they will succeed. I do however have two suggestions for ground rules:

1. I am against further splitting the community. All lists should be balanced together.

2. Name all lists specifically. I think it's fine to have two Codex Astartes lists if that is what people want (as opposed to a made up chapter), but a sensible differentiation for name is clearly necessary. Attaching each new list to a specific conflict, as is the existing precedent for rulebook and supplements, seems perfectly serviceable. Preferably not a well known campaign, as GW is liable to change the fluff which would be confusing in future.

3. For every new list (or indeed every old list too maybe) decide explicitly what it should represent, and include a statement to this effect it in the list itself. This is separate from the fluff aspect (which changes over time), but in real life terms. For example, "a list representing Space Marines at the time of the release of Epic: Armageddon, using only units available for purchase from Games Workshop". This sets expectations straight away, focusses development and stops intractable discord amongst people who want different things from the list. Note however that even for "new" lists there is a difference between "new Necrons" and "2012 Necrons": what was once new will inevitably become old, so figure out whether the list is a constantly evolving list, or anchored against a specific codex. My feeling is that almost all lists should be static in nature, because interest in them wanes over time. Lists with a strong and predictable demand for constant updates (i.e. SM, Eldar) are likely to want both static and changing lists.

To me, this will create a state of affairs where, once a certain divergence accrues, enough people will want to play a more modern list that it will pick up traction.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Back when the list development process was all new and shiny it was decided that each race would get a month to be the 'prime' race and development would be concentrated on that race.

What happened? Well everyone just carried on working on the list they wanted to work on, regardless what race was the focus race that month. I see this happening now.

If people want to create stats to incorporate new models from GW crack on, and if the AC for the race would rather not add them to a current list, you'll have to create a new one. This was the model of list creation Jervis envisaged as far as I know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Epic lagging behind?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Problem is the idle AC's, leading to no central consensus on stats in some armies, so even variant lists can't get made.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


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 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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