(Markconz @ Jul. 16 2007,00:54)
QUOTE
Yes I agree Dobbsy. I was talking to a guy yesterday who is making a a big order of FW Epic Tau, and he's asking me 'what is the list?'. So I come here and find the same problems that are afflicting much of the rest of the Epic rule revision process right now.
One list please.
This is to Dobbsy as well.
I think there's a big distinction between tweaks for a published list and playtesting of still experiemental lists.
Take the Tyranids for example; as acting Champion, I thought things were pretty much nailed down, and the playtesting I was seeing (and my experience) was showing Bugs as tough, but beatable when people got used to them.
Then Nealhunt posted a large number of batreps that showed a properly tuned (and not "beardy" by the fluff) Tyranid list was practically unbeatable and this was with very experienced EPIC players. This was a wake up call to me, and I explored the potential for radical change for the Bugs, and as I did, more people came out of the woodwork, or even experience Tyranid playtests came forward and said they'd been feeling that something was "off" or "too good" for the Bugs for a while, but hadn't said anything, because, essentially, "No one will listen to these complaints" and "the Champion just won't listen to weaken/change the army".
Well, they were wrong. Despite all the playtesting, I was willing to uproot/remove stuff that had been in the list for a long time; changing things, shaking them up, despite the long time standing to those parts of the list.
And, you know what? It improved the list, opponents in my play group were having *fun* playing against the Bugs again, it wasn't a near fruitless fight against an "unstoppable" foe. Honestly, *not* changing things would've done more to split the player base than listening and making changes. The Bug list still needs lots of work and changes and polishing, but seeing that happen should motivate people to participate, since they can see their contributions having an effect.
Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's set in stone. Just because one is comfortable with a certain setup for an army doesn't mean it's the right end point to stick with. What's wrong with *experimenting* with the experimental army lists? Isn't that the whole point?
(As an aside, I think the bloody financial cost of playing Tau can definitely make people want things to have "few changes". I fully admit that part of the situation really sucks; with I had a remedy for that.)
Now, this has nothing to do with the slow pace of the Rules/Armies review/update... that really seems to be taking a lot more time than necessary. I appreciate everyone's efforts, but what's the hold up? Even without official sanction on the SG site, can't the "final" review be posted and vetted on TacCom?
Thanks for reading.
).
