Surely it's best to come up with a general (Codex Ultramarines style) list for the Nids, Abstracting down the bugs and from there the splinter lists are easy - much the same as with Space marines, Eldar, Guard etc.

It's easy to change up the army structure and throw in a few new models once there's a "Parent" list with unified stats and special rules available.

I don't think you need a "core" list for the nids, but we do need a set of stats and some general guidelines to army comp (like how all IG lists have the company -> 2 support structure, or ork lists work with big and 'uge). It's still possible to develop one list first where these concepts show up, but if it is not designed to be THE core list, it doesn't need to represent tons of different playstyles but can rather focus on one or two and do those well.

edit: That's how Eldar work. The Biel-tan list made the structure, but it is not a "general" Eldar list, it is an Aspect list.

I think that's based on the premise that NetEA and NetERC represents all the non-UK tournament lists and players around the world. Under that premise, there's one set of rules and one set of core lists, which we, as a community, agree on and can use freely in games with each other both in our local gaming groups and with people in other countries. I don't see a big deal with local gaming groups having their own house lists or house rules, but by the same extension, those house lists and house rules shouldn't be put forward as NetEA lists or rules. As I'm sure you're aware, there's quite a big difference between having a local house list and putting forward an alternative to the main community list.

If we want NetEA to continue (and that's a big if) then we need to work within that framework (with common rules, core lists, stats etc), as you do with your other sanctioned NetEA lists. If we don't, then I see no problem with every gaming group the world over developing their own lists and rules and whatever as they see fit. That's a choice we as a community need to make, but until that choice is made, I suggest we assume that this NetEA framework, and the processes it contains, are continuing.

Mtm

While the neterc fail to provide movement on a list people want to play, you cannot expect those with the drive to see something better to sit by and wait. That's why we have so many variants. It's not just me.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I assume the issue relates to the old models and rules where those creatures where bought and used as individuals. In this case a think a split may be warranted. for example into the Lictor (LV) and the Lictor Brood (Inf) where the Brood version is statted and pointed for a brood of 3. Do that also for Biovores and Zoanthropes. Stats I don't feel is a significant issue, just pick an option and point the unit accordingly.



I wouldn't even go that far. We only need the stat list and the special rules list. The actual lists can continue as they are with their own army construction methods. The 9.2.1, Leviathan and Ork type methods are all viable and I don't think we should prescribe a NetEA Tyranid construction method. There should however be a recommendation on the maximum number of different creature types in a list.

I think this needs to be made perfectly clear. The stat list should be as complete as possible, so all the slugs are in there plus several carnifex variants however no list will ever use the complete set. Abstracted multiple creatures to a single 'broad' creature type should be a feature of the relevant army list.

We need a NetEA stat list and special rules list. Army lists can then conform to those to create NetEA compliant variants (and labelled as such, propsed for the army book etc) or go there own way for a local group list (using different stats and rules). To be complete the army book has to have a tyranid list (or several) and they all need to run the same stats and rules. We don't have that yet and that can be considered a failure both of the NetEA and of ourselves.

I've added a partially unified list to the first post.

It discounts the EpicUK list as it is too divergent from the lists here for a number of creatures. Any disagreements between the remaining lists are highlighted in red on a single statline per creature. Hopefully it will focus the mind and show that there isn't a great deal difference for the majority of creatures between the lists.

Looks good, nice work

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much difference between the variants now.


(Also there are a few entries missing the red colouring on the second page - heirophant/heridule )

sure, I can see how that happens and that's fine if a list is effectively abandoned or blocked by the community. However, if there's a desire by the community to see some kind of unified stats/rules/lists/whatever, then it would be common sense for everyone, especially all those 'nid list developers, to get behind that and work towards a common goal; saying that "I've got my list, so you peeps can do what you want" isn't going to help, is it?

Updated, there were a few more as well (just the highlighting missing).

Fundamentally it's in the best interests of the NetEA to have unification of rules and stats. At the very least some people won't be happy but the current method isn't working and I can't see any alternatives.

It really is not about that. What this needs is for a Tyranid Army champ (whoever that is to be) to come in and state what is going to happen - with transparancy. Simple as that. This should be regardless of what lists are out there or ones that are to be published.

What this thread is attempting to do is to do that job through a consensus. I believe this is a task that will not see a resolution for the simple reason that the list designers have made their lists to fit an ideal. While the goal of this thread is admirable, it does not take into account how the lists were made and what they represent. As an example, 9.2.x appears to be built on the premise of the LV units, and concentrating on the Synapse aspect. Change that one idea (remove LV from Warriors) and you pretty much throw the list out. Costings, units etc are built as whole parts, not in individual elements. You only appreciate this once you start to place a list together and attempt to achieve balance through power, costings and making the list easy to use and understand.

Now if an AC comes in and makes decisions and it means lists are scrapped, that is fine. Players can play whatever list they want in the end. I believe arkturas has done an amazing job. At this point an AC can now walk away with all the data and start deciding on what the NETEA nid list should look like.

The goal of this thread was as follows:


I simply do not believe that the consensus is the way to go - simple as that. The thread does not look to combine it all into one list, but provide a set of stats for people to go off and make lists. It is the AC that needs to make a list (1 or 2) and go from there. There has been plenty of feedback, ideas, and examples now that a list can be made. They are all unique in their own way, yet for tournaments, we need a NETEA list as we have sufficiently moved on from 9.2.x. It would be a shame not to have a competitive nids list available for the next few tournaments.

It is not all about me me me. It is about the failings of a controlling body to have a list produced. It really does not get any more complex than that. When the list (9.2.x) had a controlling and 'active' AC I was probably it's (the lists) biggest supporter. When feedback and development stopped, it was natural for me to try and fix what I saw was broken (much as many others have also done). Get an AC to come in and do the job and threads such as this and umpteen alternate lists will not exist.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

...and when a 'nid AC is appointed, he'll find his job impossible for the reasons you've stated.

Yes the ideal solution is an AC who will actually follow through and say this is the "one true list" (it would certainly help though if they also specced out a complete unit list, even if their list doesn't use them, to keep any variants in check from the start). No one has held the position long enough to sort it out though.

I would rewrite the lists I've done if a unified unit list and special rules list were created. With a concensus approach there is some level of input and control over the overall direction but of course someone can always refuse to use unified stats if they disagree which is what led here originally. So it seems we need to wait for an AC to come in, rule with an iron fist and force everyone to scrap or rewrite their lists. Definitely one way to get things done, it's just a shame that we've gotten into what amounts to multiple drawn battlelines with no one willing to give an inch.

How about the list developers discuss among themselves which creatures they think should have variants and which they think should be cohesive? Then do some polls to resolve which variant should be the exemplar for a particular unit and get rid of the others.

It's a one week process. Tops. I'd do it, but my knowledge of the Tyranid list is effectively zero. Though that might be an advantage.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Sorry, you lost me there.... I have no idea what you mean by that.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Stats and special rules. Lists can be made later.

Of course, the special rules are what have killed champs thus far isn't it.