In the case of the ATML-list, we would hapoily help out but since my main partner plays Iyanden mostly it's hard to do.

Is EpicUK putting out a AMTL approved list soon?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Yeah, there used to be WAY more Net-EA development, testing and reporting years ago than there is now, the decline is probably due to a number of factors, but it's a shame. I agree that the Epic-UK guys are a good bunch and I enjoyed the tournaments I went to back in the UK (should have gone to more).

I reckon the Net-EA lists are generally pretty solid and well developed as is though and we have the tournament pack and compendium now so the current state is good. There's just a few lists I particularly wish could be developed and tested further e.g. the 'Leviathan' tyranid list, which I want to use eventually, but have seen balance concerns of.

Given the scattered and small amount of development I wonder whether some kind of playtesting calander might help slightly, e.g. encourage interested people to spend 3-6 months testing army X, then move on to army Y. Having a focus might encourage people and snowball some more develpment together and I'd try and support it if I could. ATML or Tyranids would be high priority, but SM might be better to start with to get the ball rolling as more people have them.

NetEA has an approved list as well. I just think there are a few small problems with it that it's hard to fix at this time within the NetEA framework. EUK has it easier in this, they can issue an updated list and have it accepted because the EUK commitee is trusted to produce balanced lists. NetEA lists are trusted as well, but that's because they're widely playtested and discussed by a large community. Currently there's no community testing of the Necrons, and I managed to shut down discussion by requiring testing of the changes that were up for discussion...

October this year.

When this was all fresh and new a calendar was drawn up, with each race taking the front seat each month. People played and tested what they wanted rather than the force of the month.

A calendar is all well and good, but open development is just that, open. People will do what they want to. Or that is what seemed to happen back in 2007 or 2008 when the calendar was published.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

The problem I have found is that the playtesting really has to be done against other approved lists from that particular organisation - so for example my playing of Titan Legion vs. my friend playing the original GW Eldar rules is useless, my playing of NetEA Space Marines versus a friends EpicUK Steel Legion is useless etc.

Getting two people (from a small playing circle) to agree to both play from one organisation, one using a developing list and one an approved one is a serious challenge.

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

Yeah, a calendar isn't the best way to do it. Open development is voluntary, and we neither cannot nor should not force people to play stuff they don't want to.

That means that sometimes development grinds to a halt, but I, at least, can't see any good ways to fix it.

I don't think the lists are so different that testing has to be done within one framework. GW or NetEA or EUK Eldar, doesn't really matter. The lists are similar enough for testing.

To put it another way: It's ideal if NetEA testing is only done against Approved NetEA lists. It's good enough if it's done against EUK lists or GW lists (unless they're purposely exploiting a known flaw in GW lists of course, like a Marine army with 4 singleton Warhounds.)

The main thing that drove NetEA development in the past was upcoming deadlines: SG rulebooks, SG list uploads to the website, and latterly Supplement projects.

Since nobody makes supplements anymore (and to raise the main reasons why will only start fights), nobody playtests towards a release anymore.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I will say that the biggest problems for ACs are a lack of motivation (me being one I can admit that) and a lack of time.

Lack of motivation comes from a confluence of internal problems (laziness, fatigue, boredom) and external problems (a lack of participation and/or playtesting from the community, bickering). The Squats, for instance, have been getting decent feedback but it could be better. I've been doing a fair job of staying on top of them, but I could be doing better.

Lack of time is just real life interfering and I get the distinct impression (from the people here in the States anyway) that most of us are working longer hours for less money, struggling harder to pay bills, and trying to wear many hats for ourselves and our families. Also a large portion of the Epic community have families and careers to fill their weeks with, not just a cat and studying to occupy them. I look back at the time I had when it was just my wife and me and say "What did I do with all that free time?"

I agree the the NetEA team can do better, however I also say that the community can be doing more. The closest supplement to being done is the Epic: Xenos supplement and that has three armies. Most of the players out there can easily field an Ordo Xenos army (it's Space Marines and Imperial Guard) and give feedback on it. How many playtests have their been? How much feedback has Dwarf Supreme gotten? Tyranid armies are at a premium, but surely there can be more playtesting of the Onachus list. And while I have been well immersed in the Thurgrimm Squat list, there are about 30 other things I could be working on to get the supplement moving faster. More playtesters out there means I can do other stuff, and I know for a fact that their are about eighty bazillion Squat armies available (slight exaggeration).

E&C is correct that the supplements seem to drive interest in the game which drives list development. If you are disappointed with the waning efforts, I ask that you consider what I've said and throw some effort into playing those three factions more.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Disagreed - My last supplement is basically complete, and has been for nigh two years, bar needing some unit photos, and a suitably themed Skitarii army list.

All the other lists are/were complete, or in one case was a "joke" list that was more about fun than it was about balanced gameplay.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Just to add that even if you're studying, rather than working full time, you don't necessarily have any time. In my case, most of my time is taken up by my PhD, and part-time teaching. What free time I do have is eaten up moderating on another site, and playing the odd bit of 40K. There's no room for play testing Epic army lists at all.

_________________

Part of the issue is probably the rather byzantine nature of the forum. The number subfora is bewildering, and nowhere is there a 'new to TacComms?' section or anywhere which explains forum jargon like EpicUK and NetEA.

It takes quite a lot of time and effort to dig into the forum and work out where things are, and while questions like the opening post tend to be answered politely, it's much like asking an eldar – you get three answers, all true and terrible to know!

Regarding playtesting, I've got a group keen to playtest the Leviathan list against everything from Guard to Marines to Tau. We just need a few pointers, but the Tyranid subforum is pretty quiet except for the Onachus thread, which our new Tyranid player isn't interested in (he wants the new stuff so he can match his 28mm scale army).

Regarding development in general, the majority of lists have settled down, and most discussion is now revolving around very minor changes. This is good, as it implies most of the lists are pretty balanced, and that people are happy with them.

Unfortunately, it also means that there's not a critical mass of people to create much discussion of the remaining lists – notably Squats, and Tyranids.

Five to ten years ago, the core lists still needed testing, and – for obvious reasons – lots of people could help, and that warranted so many subfora. For these orphan lists of long OOP or otherwise rarer armies, I think they'd benefit from being grouped.


TL;DR
My group and I would like to get involved and be more active in playtesting – I'm sure there are more people out there. Please help us assist by putting up a 'this is what the NetEA want you to playtest' post somewhere obvious

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Also keeping up to date with what is happening is quite difficult.

Exactly which lists require the most urgent playtesting at this moment in time?

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

This is currently under discussion here, so by all means chip in there if you've got some ideas.

I don't think that there are too many boards for Epic. There are perhaps too many boards dedicated to other games, when there's insufficient traffic to justify their existence, but that's a matter for CS.



This, however, is true, although some tidying up has taken place in recent times to try to make things easier. I suspect that more needs to be done in the case of EA in this respect though.

_________________

Yeah that's a shame

I'd love that to see that print some day, but things weren't handled well and I'm not overly hopeful of an amacable comprimise to do being reached by this point.