In order to get a Net-EA list approved and in to the tournament pack it needs at least 6 playtests each from 3 groups around the world. Currently the official line is that only approved Net-EA lists can count when playtesting against to get lists approved.

I propose that the rules should be changed to allow Epic-UK opponents to count as battle reports for approving lists. Pragmatically there are a lot less battle reports getting posted generally than years ago and it would mean lists would get more playtesting and be approved faster. It also would give our community a more open and inclusive attitude.

Many people in the UK and around the world play both Net-EA lists and Epic-UK lists and some in the UK support Net-EA development and want to playtest but have some opponents who only ever use Epic-UK lists. A number of people have posted up battle reports of Net-EA lists versus Epic-UK lists. Recently people were celebrating as it was thought the Titan Legion had sufficient battle reports posted up to be approved at long last, but the Net-ERC rejected this as 4-5 reports were against Epic-UK lists so approval and inclusion has been pushed back.

To go into more detail for those not so familiar with them: the British Epic-UK organisation has been around for many years now and though their lists are developed and playtested off-line they are well balanced for tournament play and periodically updated based on game feedback. Epic-UK versions of lists are a bit different in some ways but not significantly on the scale of a list as a whole and even if a particular Epic-UK list does go in a different direction, it's still balanced generally against other lists. Things aren't always different either; both camps use the same Tau army list and good ideas are often copied from Net-EA lists to Epic-UK lists and vice versa.

surely the more different lists used to playtest, the better right?

I mean if you want to be scientific about the process, you should really require at least 3 (or more) batreps against every other approved NetEA list to make sure there aren't any issues.... as I understand it, currently there is no formal requirement for the batreps to be against a thorough cross-section of opposing lists, that's clearly desirable but not essential

maybe the ERC need to come up with a list of 'approved testing lists' as the various 'main' lists are very similar across the NetEA/EUK divide, Codex SM, Steel Legion, Orks, Biel-Tan, Black Legion are all basically the same list with the same playstyle, they should count..... there are probably many others.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

yes, with caveats.

It makes sense that playtests focus on balancing the new list against a 'core' of lists (traditionally orks, ig and eldar).
If a infantry horde list is balanced against the core, and then an armoured company list is balanced against the horde and then a titans list is balanced against the armoured company, the titans list might not actually be well balanced against the infantry horde, let alone the core.

This is an extreme example, and as long as a developmental list plays against three reasonably different balanced lists it should work out fine. The next question being - are Epic-UK lists balanced?
I would guess they are. I've never had any trouble playing a netEA list against them.

_________________
My shifting projects

I agree with you. IMHO the biggest issue has always been power-creep, which generally occurs where successive lists are tested against recently approved lists, rather than the initial ones.

As different lists have evolved, they often follow a theme which invariably makes them better / worse in various aspects, and this in turn makes them less suitable as a yard-stick for 'approval' purposes, though not totally inappropriate. In this respect, E-UK lists may be considered to represent a 'variant' race, and so are equally valid for testing purposes.

Ideally, all lists should be balanced against the 3-4 'core' lists, which have themselves been slightly adjusted over time. However, playing up to 50% of 'test' games against other 'valid' lists should help validate the theme balance as well.

Of course it should be allowed! If we want Epic to be a living game we have to let it grow. Allowing EpikUK lists to be used is surely a step in this direction. I think the ERC should take a long hard think over how they want to handle this games survival and develoepment, as it stands now they're just making it hard for new lists to come out with having a overly strict approval-process.
That combined with very inactiva AC:s in some cases is a really bad combination for growth...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Are NetEA lists used to playtest the EpicUK lists?

If they are, I struggle to see why there's two different groups to begin with. If they aren't, there's your answer: it's two different groups.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I stand with mordoten. Don't see any reason to not include EUK lists in approval process. Personally I would also include EFR lists.

I have no idea and I obviously understand that it's two different groups. That doesn't preclude Net-EA recognising Epic-UK lists as valid and balanced enough to count for playtesting Net-EA lists.

The poll could do with more time to run but so far it's pretty clear what the community’s feelings are on the subject. I hope the Net-ERC take note and act on the wishes of the community.

As far as I can see the gw basses "core" lists are subtle variations - they at least can't be too far out of "balance."

In a game of dice, surely the local meta, terrain conventions, flier/flak conventions etc will be much more significant factors than the lists themselves (?)

So if they choose to bevery closed so should you? Sounds like a very childish argument. 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Who on the ERC are Involved in tve EpicUK scene? Whats that persons view on the subject?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Personally I'm all for anything that gets more lists approved. I realize that once I start providing battle reports for lists it's going to be all NetEA but that's because i'm in the US and I'm building our local scene and that's what I want to play

That being said if I get lucky and it grows it might come up. But I'd like to see movement. This year we've gotten the Tyranids list finally fully approved and it looked like we might get Titan Legions as well before the current oopsy. Which is nice since those are the first approved lists I've noticed since 2012 I think?

_________________
Current EA Armies:
Steel Legion (6k+)
Orks (6k+)
Iron Warriors (Currently Building)
Daemons

My Commission Website: http://hulksmashstudios.webs.com
My Languishing Blog that will soon host some Epic stuff: http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.com