I can certainly see where frustration about model availability/unit sizes will feel like an insurmountable barrier of entry to Epic now. I think I might just have a crack at presenting a *WHOLLY UNAPPROVED* Codex Space Marine list, trying to make some balance while also letting in the odd minis here and there.

Very busy time now, but look out for something more than just an idea soon (tm).

Probably the easiest approach would be to allow an Armour formation costing 75 points per Land Raider chassis and 50 points for Rhino based chassis that can be mixed 3-6 as the player has ability to fielded. One thing that is NOT in any short supply are Space Marine 1&2 beakies and old style Rhinos

_________________
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!

The point is that there are a whole host of 'new' Marine vehicles created since E:A was published over 10 years ago, and even some variants on infantry units. Many / most have got agreed stats and formations, and I think it is worth just putting together an * un-balanced * list of the entire lot, with comments etc.

However, I suggest that the standard folder is *not* the place for this because of the inevitable confusion it would cause there. That is why I am suggesting that this needs a separate "Sandbox" folder.

Until that is available, I suggest adding it to this thread

My initial thinking is to have a 1-3 formation of land raiders and likewise of other tanks, then limiting total choice to one reduced formation per full detachment and only one reduced formation of each type of armour anyway. Hopefully it will keep at bay too much activation spam and still let people use what they want. A 3-6 mixed formation might also be a possibility though.

No desire to make it approved, nor a primary tournament army for anyone - "Experimental" at best - but I do rather like the idea of a late-campaign space marine force having had to deal with casualties and still field what they have however they can to finish the job - or perhaps hold a desperate holding action... Mmm, ideas.

The fact is there is no way to have linear increments of points values in EA due the the suppression and breaking rules - a formation of 3 of something/anything is completely different to a unit of 4. A unit of 8 is something again but definitely not double. Therefore even a sandbox list needs to have suggested unit size relative to points, which then provides a jumping off point for other lists.

The Sandbox list should contain all the units and all the currently available formations, together with any 'new' units and the latest stats and formation sizes being discussed. There is also a case for holding the stats and formation sizes from the various communities where they are different. So, for example

• Codex Assault Marines would have the standard stats and two formation sizes; 4x for 175 and 6x for 270 taken from the standard codex and Blood Angels respectively;
• The Nephilim fighter would show the latest stats and formation sizes being discussed;
• The Eldar Swords of Vaul would have 6x Falcons for 300, while the E-UK Falcon formation is 5x Falcons for 250 etc.

While I agree with the sentiments Blip, the whole point of the "Sandbox Folder" is to provide a location where 'wacky ideas' could be discussed and possibly developed, leaving the 'normal' threads as the location for more formal list development using the units and formation sizes that have the relevant approval (though obviously there would be some cross-over here).

So to use a very recent example, the Sandbox might be the place where formations of 3x Marine AV could be discussed and tested, while in the Codex Marine thread the Novamarine list would be built using these formations once the principle, stats and costs have been agreed. After that, these Marine formations might just provide an alternative way for players to cross between the E:A and Net:EA rulesets.

Sandbox is a good idea. I would like to see a compendium of units/ vehicles by race. Just the stats would be fine. A bit like an Imperial Armour book. Don't need more army lists.

Agreed with lylekelm.... this is being a little bit overthought.... just a list of units with their stats and cost per model would do..... then its up to the players to use them sensibly

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Perhaps the name "Unit Compendium" would be more usefull - I agree that this is not intended to be yet another 'army list'. However this confusion of intent is precisely why it needs to be in a separate folder.

I suggest using a format similar to the NetEA_Army_List_Compendium, but compressing the existing columns slightly to allow the following additional columns

• Source
  Typically this will be NetEA where the details are consistent throughout all the different groups.
  However, there will be a separate entry for units from E-UK, E-Fr, E-Gdr etc where those groups have different stats, formation sizes or costs.
  
  
• Formation size and cost
  Typically there is only one entry, though separate entries will provided where appropriate.
  
  
• Updates
  Again, the list of possible updates is usually consistent, though these will need to be represented by abbreviations.
  
  
• Army List
  Either "All" to indicate a unit / formation used in all lists of a given race, or an abbreviation of the lists that contain this particular unit / formation
  
  
• Status
  Several will be needed from "New" indicating something that has just been added, through "Experimental" to "Certified" and "Used". Are there any others?

At present I suggest separate documents for each main Race, effectively mirroring the folders currently in use for Marines, IG, Chaos etc, though obviously this could be provided in a single document. Elsewhere, (probably at the top), there will need to be a preamble regarding the intent of the document, version number date etc together with an index of the various abbreviations used and their meaning.

However, the main issue is one of maintenance (as Dave will attest ). I suggest the individual documents need to updated far more frequently than the NetEA compendium, so ideally they need to be 'public' at least as far as the various champions on this forum are concerned - and by that I also include the key people from NetEA, E-UK, E-Fr etc. However, I also feel that only certain people should "Certify" a given entry (probably just the ERC?) and potentially we might need hidden audit fields for tracking purposes.

So, how can that be achieved in the most 'user-friendly' fashion?
Obviously the best approach to limited authorisation is a database, indeed that would greatly assist other aspects especially including data from different 'sources'. But how practical would this be in the Wiki location for example (if it still exists). One implication is the use of a widely available (cheap / free) tool. Can anyone make recommendations? (I have MS Access loaded, though that may well not be everyone's favourite )

What other mechanisms can people suggest to make these documents easily maintainable by many people, and indeed is there any synergy with the existing Compendium, E-UK or other stuff (and yes I know that is highly unlikely at the moment - though not entirely out of reach . . . )

Isn't what you are suggesting something like what Elsmore is setting up via a website - a single database location of unit stats which can then be fed out to army lists (hopefully) avoiding the problem of typos and other miss-matches across lists...? What you need is an separate tag for new/unapproved/experimental unit types to be included in the sandbox list.

This.

We also do not want to have Compendium in the name as that could only lead to confusion.

Indeed, this whole project could just end up causing more confusion as players see units/stats that are not in approved/developmental/experimental lists.

If Elsmore is compiling a unit database then I suggest we leave the details at that and try to focus on actually playtesting/finishing army lists that are already in development.

_________________
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.

If Elsemore is indeed already doing this, then I quite agree it is pointless to do this twice

Where would Joe-Public access the database once available, and would it contain ** every ** unit / formation?

I understand the caution about holding 'un-certified' information - though to some extent that is the precise point of the discussion; to find a way of holding the information in an accessible manner that supports the community and preferably also assists in supporting those developing and maintaining the various army lists, including the Army Compendium.

I will leave the name up to you, though it seems that calling it a "List" is just as contentious and confusing as calling it a "Compendium" - would "Thesaurus" or "Lexicon" be more acceptable?

How about the Unit/Formation/<army> Library, or Index?

E:A Unit Library does have a ring to it.