We don't have a general "NetEA List Development" forum section and this isn't about the core rules so I might as well post this here. Mods please move if you so desire.

This topic is just to try to extract a point that applies to all list development from the recent Dark Angels discussion:
http://taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/view ... 3&p=529826

The premise is that much of the back-and-forth discussion and sticking points in the development of a list is often due to a lack of consensus on what the context for a list is/should be. List development goes more smoothly if there is a clear idea and direction from the AC of what a list is meant to represent - and the more specific the better. For example, from the beginning of the Imperial Fists list development, a clear decision was made as to whether it would be a siege offensive or siege defensive list.

Let's face it, list development takes years and it is often necessary to remind contributors (old and new) of what the purpose of the list is, and the wider context also changes over time as both the fluff and 40K model range evolve. So, I think it is of benefit for every NetEA list to include a design rationale statement in the beginning of the PDF and in the first post of the TacCmd topic. It should consider:

• the original premise for the list - what it is and isn't meant to do
• what distinguishes it from other similar lists
• any deliberate major strengths and weaknesses
• how it relates to 40K, especially over time

I propose that the NetERC enforce this requirement in all lists for their inclusion in the Army Compendium.

For example:

Design Rationale

"This list is intended to represent a typical Dark Angels force as deployed in the hunt for the Fallen. Its primary purpose is to allow players to represent a competitive but characterful Dark Angels army by making use of a selection of the chapter's unique units and organisational structures that are not represented in the Codex Astartes list. It is not intended to represent any particular strategy/tactics or to be stronger or weaker than the Codex Astartes list in any particular aspect, though this may come about indirectly. The list is based on the NetEA Codex Astartes list, with the initial changes inspired by differences between Dark Angels and Space Marines in the 40K background as of 2014. Any changes or additions occurring in 40K that apply to Space Marines in general will therefore only be applied if they are applied to the NetEA Codex Astartes list. Changes that are specific to the Dark Angels will be considered for inclusion if they are significant (given the abstract nature of Epic) in defining the Dark Angels character, or in their contribution to the playability of the list."

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

I agree with the premise (and actually do this in the Iron Hands, Raptors, Hawk Lords and Penal Legion lists). I'd suggest a much more succinct mission statement than that above but that's tangential to the concept itself. Can we get some feedback from other AC/subACs on this as well as the general community?

_________________
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!

Though I am not an AC or Sub AC, this gets a *BIG* "+2" from me.

Whilst intended to provide a clear context / rationale for the list, it will also provide guidance where Grandma Wendy introduces yet another unit / model to increase its sales / profit margins.

I've tried to do something similar to this recently to give players a clearer picture of where development will go and what to expect from lists with the AdMech developement goals thread. I'm not sure how effective it was in the end since it spawned more discussion about changing the definition of what was included in the AdMech core framework than understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

_________________
-Vaaish

To be fair to you, AMTL was one of the most contentious lists period. Kudos on getting it up to the finish line. I think that your experiences actually underline why a mission statement from the get-go is the best course of action.

_________________
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!

I realise I'm a very small voice in a large pond, but +1, thumbs up, me too, I agree, etc. Having a very clear mission statement would definitely make design and balancing discussions, if not easier, then certainly better focused.

I like the Idea.

Agreed - Plus gives beginners a handle on why so many lists exist and what they are intended to play like (written after a very long conversation last night with two people i am trying to get into Epic... And i am no way an expert so some guidance would be helpful ! :-D )

+1, should be top of every list doc so it's not lost sight off.

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

I agree, would be beneficial I think to have this adopted by as more AC's.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Seems good to me

- puts it on the ever-growing list update to-do list -

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

I guess the most contentions thing I am actually proposing is that the ERC actually enforces it before lists can be published in the compendium.

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

I have no strong feelings one way or another..... I think AoC did the right thing in putting up a poll and following the wishes of the majority of the community, arguments in favour of maintaining the status quo or enacting quite major changes are more than welcome and are good to help people reevaluate the direction of the list, which let's face it, is not always fixed

this kind of thing runs the risk of leading to continual arguments in favour of the status quo, and also means that a minority could potentially hold up developments supported by the majority, by using the mission statement to block changes

I'd rather reiterate the community driven nature of the list and hope that a degree of flexibility and compromise is exercised by all participants if their proposed changes are rejected by a majority.... I've tried to use polls and discussion to include the majority viewpoint and have supported that, even when I've personally disagreed...

just playing devil's advocate here ofc and will respect the wishes of the community, whatever is decided

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Aha, debate!

Yes, you're right, at the heart of this is a general assumption of a particular way to develop lists - that is, decide at the beginning what it is supposed to do, and then enact it. Any different philosophy would then spawn a new list. That's not automatically the best way of course, since it means you might end up with lots of lists (i.e. even more!). However, in my own opinion, this is a cost of doing business and it is also not a foregone conclusion that it would necessarily favour the "status quo" attitude:

I would contend that, just because you decide explicitly beforehand what the design rationale is, it doesn't mean the design rationale can't be changed. In fact it simply makes explicit what is already the case, and allows for the validity of that rationale to itself be debated and changed. All it means is that, instead of discussing back and forth about including storm ravens, or changing the stats of zoanthropes, or the names of nid titans, you have a discussion about the crux root of the issue instead: i.e. whether the design rationale should be changed, and THEN if agreed you debate the implementation of that new direction.

To give an example, let's say the design rationale of the marine list states a static "will not be changed much" policy. This is pretty much just a statement of the de facto "status quo" situation we have now. If enough people want to change that, it can still come about - through a poll such as you did for the IF or AoC did for the nephilim. But until it does, everyone is clear in the mean time about what to expect from the marine list.

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

I'd rather avoid the infinitely branching tree of 'quantum list development' if possible



if there's something the list development process needs, it's an additional layer of debate about every possible option....



fair enough, I just think it's adding a further layer of faff myself, I've not been in the SubAC role for very long, but things are buggering on just fine without me having to have a mission statement and ten point plan....

I'd rather not limit myself to specifics.... tried that and started going down the path of developing a list I had no desire to play, I think active, open-minded ACs who are prepared to discuss and debate a decision is all that is needed, if someone asks a question about the imperial fists list, I do my best to answer and explain the reasoning behind it, I've got a rough vision for the list now based on community feedback and consensus, but I'd be open to adding/removing stuff if people can give a convincing argument other than the "I hate GW and all they have done to the 40k universe lately, I hate all the new miniatures released in the last 10 years and all they want to do is make money from idiotic children because no intelligent human could possibly like what they're doing" chestnut (which I wholeheartedly support and agree with....)

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator