Sounds perfect to me. I think having quasi "approved units" already written up will speed development. Not to mention having a place to go to toss in the new unit into an existing list in a friendly game without creating it yourself.

Still super on board

_________________
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

Yah this is what I meant too. Doesn't really matter if it combines space wolf and dark angel bits, just say they're specific if they are. Purely to keep the number of lists down.

Don't really mind though. For instance the other way it could be done is: literally reflect everything from the latest codices. So if it has a codex on 40k, it gets a codex in epic.

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

You are getting there guys

The intention is a GW Marine "Sandbox" as a catch-all for any new GW Marine unit, irrespective of it's chapter / codex. The same applies for new GW units for Orks, IG, Eldar, Chaos etc. The intention is that these putative units are discussed and either dumped (as inappropriate) or developed to the point where they can then be added to the relevant E:A list(s).

And yes, potentially this could allow people to develop a list for each of the codices, though in practice I suspect that several chapters could be represented by single lists.

That's exactly the kind of example which really bothers me too , but it does seem to be the case that, and I''l quote you:



[quote[As such I would hope that a folder entitled "GW Sandbox lists", containing the 4+ sandbox lists for each race, would actually help reduce the confusion elsewhere.[/quote]

I think that it's the best way that I've read on this forum to manage this issue, so go for it is my advice. I'm not sure it will solve all the confusion, but at least it will reduce the problem of fiddling with core and/or well established lists.

_________________

Hi men,

As a relatively inexperienced player, (I dont get many games as im posted overseas) all the lists are confusing as it is. GW will continue in their policy of reinventing the wheel and will add and change things constantly for the factions they have chosen to support.

I agree that the "sandbox" lists will be a big help in eliminating some confusion, but on the other hand, for those not already familiar with how the lists work, it could just add to the confusion.

I mean this with all due respect but I really think you guys are overthinking the whole issue of lists, I get that there is a desire for fluffy and different lists, but taking the Tau for example, why have 3 lists, the standard one, the farsight one and an armoured one?...... I would suggest just having 1 tau list! 1 list that players can make any of the 3 forces that are being represented by the 3 lists already mentioned.

Space marines are even worse, what with all the chapter specific stuff etc.... Just have 1 list, all the codex stuff, followed by chapter specific stuff....

Another thing to really bear in mind when making these lists is model availability, some of the epic stuff is getting hard to get hold of unless you are willing to pay premium prices on ebay, Id suggest making the army lists a bit more flexible, ie predators, instead of just 4 preads, make it 1 - 4 costing x amount of points each.

A case in point being the blood angels - I want to make a BA army next, but if I want bikes, then I NEED attack bikes, now they are rarer than rocking horse ****.

Same with the Tau, (I'm aware of some proxie models) in the new development list, the hammerheads have been changed so that you need 4. I havent got 4. I have got 3. I dont want to have to get another 3, just so I can use 1.....

Having just the sandbox or standard lists means that any new junk GW dreams up can be added as and when, players can choose to scratch build what ever it is or use proxies etc.

Anyway, not wanting an argument, just my thoughts.
++Transmission ends.++

Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

it's a question of theme and balance, you could mix the best armoured bits with the best farsight bits and the best regular bits and have a list which wouldn't exist fluff-wise and be overpowered and not fun to face.... the artificial limits in the lists are one of the best things about epic IMO, as you're not facing a bunch of WAAC min-maxed stuff with all the best power combos....



it's an approach, although you do need to remove and replace bits of the codex list to field it as one of the specific chapters, codex+extras would run into balance problems



that will open up mass activation spam, you could just take a few dozen predators for 50 points each and break the game.... not fun, not clever



I feel your pain, but there are options, if you need more, invest in some siligum or oyumaru and make your own press-moulded GS copies, or convert some other stuff (plastic bikes are still available, they should be easy enough to chop up) it's blunt but this is a dead game, model availability is an issue for us all.... there are excellent proxies available for much of the GW stuff, with more being released all the time.... I am lucky enough to have gotten hold of most of what I need, but I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'm probably never going to make a tyranid or tau army now....



you've not considered buying 2 packs and using the others to convert into other models/variants? or make into objectives? or maybe sell the spares on, or do a group buy with some people?



Thanks for your thoughts, I believe you said in the past that you don't play in tournaments and have no intention of ever doing so? fair enough, but the NetEA project and the EpicUK lists are largely developed to provide a balanced set of lists for use in tournament play.... so two people who have never met can play with lists balanced against each other. Outside of this, there is little point bothering with NetEA if you disagree with certain ideas or list structure. The game is dead, GW aren't bringing out new models or supporting old ones, if you want to play with smaller formations because they are the only ones you have available, in friendly games that would be fine (I'd be happy to play against a fan list with a few tweaks to compensate for model availability) you don't have to worry that the NetEA police will kick your windows in and confiscate your unofficial army lists

I think it could be better stated that the NetEA project is a tournament list development one, and also that the list-design ethos, as espoused by the creator of the game, is to avoid kitchen sink lists and instead theme them around specific regiments/campaigns/chapters/craftworlds etc

40k has kitchen sink lists and look what a complete mess of powergaming and WAAC lists the tournament scene has evolved into.... I'm sure there are exceptions, there always are, but it's virtually impossible to powergame epic and you have to win using tactics and tricks with a bit of luck, rather than spamming the latest unbeatable combo....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Fair enough.

I get it. Its all about the tournament scene. No problem with that. If thats what people are into then thats fine. It just makes me wonder how many games are played at peoples homes/clubs etc compared to the games played in a tournament setting.

Anyway, Cheers for the reply.

Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

Drat, Kyuss got in first

Hi Yorkie, those are all good points. The 'sandbox' approach is only intended to provide somewhere to test / develop new GW units and possibly to be the place where all the unit stats are held (other than the Compendium). Evidently we will need to make that abundantly clear to minimise as far as possible the confusion that this addition may cause.

The Epic Rules Committee (NetERC) are very sensitive to the fact that there are already (too) many lists and the confusion this causes, especially for the newer players. To be fair, I am not sure whether it is possible or even practical to have a "standard" list for any race. This is caused in part by the Epic community creating new units in response to GW presenting them in the 40k universe and the difficulties in adding these units to existing 'balanced' lists. Indeed lists are often built to satisfy particular strategies or campaigns, and as such may exclude or include particular units when creating 'balanced' lists. Kyuss has explained this much better than I.

However, I am recommending that we create a single ** Unbalanced ** list for each race in the Sandbox folder, to contain all the units, formations and permissible upgrades for each race together with guidance on how to use them when creating "balanced" lists. As you recommend, all new units would be added to these lists, but each unit / formation would be approved separately indicating whether they are ready to be added to other 'tournament' lists. The point is that these "Sandbox" lists would *not* be suitable for tournaments or even 'casual' games because the checks and balances that make a list balanced would be missing. No doubt people would use them anyway.

Finally like Kyuss said, we can only sympathise regarding the availability of models and repeat what you already know regarding proxies, and the availability of models other than those from GW and Forgeworld. While I understand the frustration in finding individual models to make up formations they can be found, and until that point I can only suggest that the odd-man-out in a formation is the 'Command' tank etc.

To be fair it is not just about 'tournaments', but rather that two strangers can meet through the forums and arrange a game or two knowing that they start off on a roughly even basis. In that respect it is more like a game of chess where both sides start with equal armies.

Cool, I get what you mean. The whole thing for me is one of frustration. I have bits and pieces for marines for example, that I cant use, due to list restrictions. Such as LR helios that I converted, I have 3, codex marines cant use them..? If they could then id probably need 4.

Im starting to sound like a whiney cry baby now lol I just want to play with my toys!!!

I will use your lists as a guide, and make my own.

Sorry for derailing your topic..

Cheers,
Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

On the contrary, your views probably echo the majority of people on the forums, since many / most people struggle to find other Epic players near their homes. Equally, they also have units that they have lovingly converted and now want to use them.

One suggestion is to set up a 'campaign' against a friend or even played against a fictional opponent. I can strongly recommend reading the Beyond the Green River campaign as an example. In principle you start with roughly similar amounts of troops, but these are split up in wildly different armies that can result in very uneven battles that are nonetheless very interesting. Obviously these can use virtually any units / formations that you desire, since you set your own rules regarding what is or is not permissible.

Alternatively, others can give you advice on how to set up your own "tournament" style list if you want to go down that route, though a good starting point is to define some theme, campaign or even a distant planet or galaxy facing some kind of threat etc.

And don't worry about derailing the thread, it is intended to support people with views and frustrations like yours.

Here is a list im working on for my Novamarine strikeforce. - viewtopic.php?f=73&t=27778

Its basically a codex list but using the old 6/6/6 company formation, with a few other bits thrown in!

Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

I didn't meant to come across as a patronising know-it-all, apologies if it read that way

I was just trying to say that while the lists have restrictions and whatnot, you're not as bound by them as it may seem, especially if you're playing outside the tourney environment, narrative gaming and campaigns are two things that could do with more discussion on these forums as much of the list development is directed at a level playing field and slavishly following GW fluff

the model availability point is a good one, but as I said, we're all in the same boat there, there are bits shops on shapeways which can be really helpful in converting readily available models into other things, there's also the trading forum here which is extremely useful for tracking down those odds and ends you need to finish projects, usually the prices are reasonable too

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

No problems, I didnt read it that way

The main gripe for me is model availability, I would be totally on side if I could make the formations in the lists! While its great having all these lists and them all being balanced and playtested etc, they're not much use to me if I cant get the minis for them.

I will concoct lists of my own devising until im in a position to use the "approved" ones.

Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

I think that in retrospect the term "approved" was a poor choice and instead "certified" or the like would be more accurate. NetEA list XYZ is certified by the NetERC as meeting a balance and quality level through a documented testing process. As Kyuss says though, no one is kicking down the doors and tossing flashbangs through the window when they are not used. Play with what you've got and most importantly, have fun.

_________________
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!