Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

New units in lists

 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:45 am
Posts: 284
Fortis wrote:
"We've always done it this way" isn't a great reason to keep doing it that way to me. I was wondering if anyone had considered the idea of adding units into the base lists rather than creating a new list every time something new comes along. I completely understand that there are lists there with different restrictions the create a theme, such as the white scars and the eldar world lists. Restrictions is a good way to force a theme, and having some form of "bonus" to using that list means that there is a meaningful difference between the lists, like access to wraithguard formations and large bike formations for example. I was more wondering if people had considered adding things that are more common in the flavou but didn't exist when the original lists were created should just be added into the base lists.

Stuff like Lynxes, Hornets, Thunderfires and the Land Raider Crusader and Redeemer should be available to all lists of that race as a matter of fluff, the formations of them are balanced by their points and they don't create a huge amount of unbalancing by being taken out of the context of their lists. It seems that by having them in a variant list only it just limits their useability for no real gain.

It's a dog whistle argument to say that the core lists are "balanced" and shouldn't be touched. We all know that isn't true and the core lists have been revised many times since they were first written. There shouldn't be any reason to at least consider testing these newer formations that make flavour sense in the core lists to go in there and see if they mess up balance at all. I reject the argument that the Hornet formations is balanced in the Yme Loc list but not the base list for example. If you can explain to me what about having larger formations of Falcons and War Engines in the list as core instead of aspect warriors and guardians does to make hornets balanced then I'd really like to understand what it is, otherwise it's just arbitrary and dogmatic that new formations can only go in new lists and the base lists don't get touched.

I completely agree that restrictions and additional access to different thematic formations in the alternate lists is a good thing, adds flavour and allows different builds, but it just seems to me that keeping the newer units out of the base list doesn't really achieve a hell of a lot and makes it harder for new players to figure out how to build a force, ultimately cramming them into a theme force they don't like just to use a unit that they do like. You guys have said that "kitchen sink" lists are bad but I don't quite understand why. The first handful of lists were kitchen sink lists at the time, it's just that more units have been released in 40k since then.


I couldn't agree more. In fact I agree with everything you said. I think the best way to make Epic look cool for new players is to include new units and let it constantly evolve. This includes evolving the standard lists.

Also I still think including iconic models that GW / FW actually created Epic models for is a must (eg. Capitol Imperialis for the guard). My example with the lack of Warhound titan in the Imperial Fist list is a great example of over-zealous rule-making. While on the other hand one could discuss if they should have Thunderhawks (which I personally do, but that is another matter) as that changes the vibe of the fortification list. Including a Riptide in Epic Tau lists is just opening up the fun rather than taking away from what is already there.

I still think that while the regular lists should evolve it would be nice to have collated lists with lots of units for friendly battle. As I said a completely separate addendum or even a separate pdf with disclaimers on it that the lists are outside the regular netEa lists and for friendly games only.
The question arises who should collate such lists. Again I have to say, it is less work and more of a copy paste job if the excel / data files behind the pdfs were widely shared. Having to type again just because someone doesn't want to share their work is where the grapes sour for me..

Why have them? Well again for reference and easy of use. The chaos lists is a great example of how I have to consult three different lists to create holistic list for all my models. It would be less painful to put it all in one list and create large chaos host list for friendly games.

Edited for clarity...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
@Fortis. I assume that you are not arguing to add Hornets to the Marine lists, or Crusader Land Raiders to the IG - even though there are many historical examples of captured equipment and soldiers being used by their captors or allies.

If I understand you correctly, you would like to have a singular all-inclusive list for each race. How would you reconcile this list with the 'fluff' that presents different themes for the various armies, clans and even planets within each 'Race'?

For what it's worth there *have* been attempts to add 'new' units produced by GW into existing lists - check out the discussions on the Land Raider variants and Dreadnoughts, indeed, the Howling Banshee, Hornet and Lynx debates are still ongoing. Finding ways of making the Tau and Tyranid lists work in E:A have literally gone on for years, likewise the AMTL and the even larger titans, or the pre-Heresy weapons and units.
As the others say, balancing a unit / formation within a Race is quite difficult, often because of the mechanics of the game, cost comparisons with existing units and general questions of 'look and feel'.

Not only that but as Markonz says, GW business practices (to sell 40K models) do not provide a consistent basis for creating army lists. This has been a constant problem within all the Epic rulesets, but especially E:A. Trying to do this would mean that Epic would end up with different 'power' lists like those in 40K, and ultimately in major disappointment to the fans of Epic.

With the greatest respect, we have repeatedly suggested that you *can* add variant units and formations to your battles, including 'captured' Falcons in a Marine list if you feel like it. However, the current list structure is actually one of the strengths of E:A because it gives a (relatively) solid basis to evaluate new units and lists against, as evidenced by the various 'house' lists that also exist on these boards.

@Draccan, I am sure many sympathise with this issue of 'collating lists'. The Army Compendium is intended to be the source you require, along with the stats by jimmyzimms. Please post your proposals in the relevant Chaos thread at the bottom of the TacComs index page.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:53 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:45 am
Posts: 284
Ginger wrote:
@Draccan, I am sure many sympathise with this issue of 'collating lists'. The Army Compendium is intended to be the source you require, along with the stats by jimmyzimms. Please post your proposals in the relevant Chaos thread at the bottom of the TacComs index page.


I particularly don't want to cause confusion in the Chaos, Imperial Fists or other threads, as I know it is kicking the hornet's nest. Also I do think great and important work has put into these lists (even if I disagree with a few decisions).
I would be more than happy with a separate addendum. And as I said it would be nice with comprehensive army lists for reference as opposed to having to look in many places for rules and stats.

In the end I will probably just sit down and type the whole thing into Google Docs myself, since other options does not exist...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:02 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Draccan wrote:
I particular don't want to cause confusion in the Chaos, Imperial Fists or other threads, as I know it is kicking the hornet's nest. Also I do think great and important work has put into these lists (even if I disagree with some decisions).
I would be more than happy with a separate addendum. And as I said it would be nice with comprehensive army lists.

In the end I will probably just sit down and type the whole thing into Google Docs myself, since other options does not exist...
I would call this 'healthy discussion' rather than 'kicking the hornets nest'. :)
I am sure there are others that would want to hear your arguments, even if they are apparently counter to current thinking. And please post your versions of the lists - preferably entitled "variant . . . . " which I am sure will generate some discussion, and might even cause the changes you intend - though you should be advised that this will not be at all quick.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:54 pm
Posts: 783
Location: Catterick UK
Hi all,

@Draccan, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you are saying. But, unfortunately I think you are going to have to put the work in yourself. The majority of players dont see the need for the "kitchen sink" approach that you are suggesting, therefore they are not going to make them.

I on the other hand would love to see a more open list, to me a SM force is a SM force. You want white scars, take more bikes, etc. If the lists allowed you to add single bases, to change formation sizes, then for friendly (ie Not tournament) games, why not?

I wouldnt mind having formations of 3 whirlwinds, why cant I? (I can, obviously, but not under the current lists). People are mentioning balance, and min maxing lists etc, that can happen anyway, with any game. The current lists seem to be the way they are to support a tournament system, I wonder how many friendly games between mates take place compared to how many games take place in a tournament setting?

Anyway, just my 2p thrown in there, I shall just make lists to suit myself, ill make stuff up and just play the game, the way I want to, with forces that I have, not what someone else has told me is correct...or not. ;D

Steve :spin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:48 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: Leicester UK
I think to say that the list development method is from the 'because we've always done it that way' attitude is not really correct, it's more because it was originally proposed by the designer of the game and the majority of players at the time agreed and felt it was the most characterful way to maintain a strong theme and character for the lists

I agree with this for the most part, I'd rather face a krieg army that plays like a krieg army, rather than a force made up of gorgon formations with manticore artillery and stormtroopers which has no theme and essentially takes the best bits of different guard forces and blends them together

I think adding stuff to the percieved 'core' lists is a case of fixing something that isn't broken

if you want to use all the new-fangled GW units, there is nothing stopping you doing that in your games, but that isn't the remit of the NetEA project. If you wanted to develop your own lists with all the toys, and you felt others would enjoy them, develop them as fanlists, Fatdex is developing an entire 30k supplement along those lines

I wasn't getting all proprietary about my excel sheets, I was simply saying that if I can make them, then anyone can.... if you want a copy, you're welcome to it by all means

from a personal POV, one of the biggest draws for me about epic and warmaster is the fact that all the crappy new units aren't included, and the games are essentially a snapshot of the old days before GW completely lost the plot and churned out a bunch of cartoonish dross on a monthly basis, but that's just like.... my opinion man...

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm
Posts: 867
Draccan wrote:
Ginger wrote:
@Draccan, I am sure many sympathise with this issue of 'collating lists'. The Army Compendium is intended to be the source you require, along with the stats by jimmyzimms. Please post your proposals in the relevant Chaos thread at the bottom of the TacComs index page.


I particularly don't want to cause confusion in the Chaos, Imperial Fists or other threads, as I know it is kicking the hornet's nest. Also I do think great and important work has put into these lists (even if I disagree with a few decisions).
I would be more than happy with a separate addendum. And as I said it would be nice with comprehensive army lists for reference as opposed to having to look in many places for rules and stats.

In the end I will probably just sit down and type the whole thing into Google Docs myself, since other options does not exist...


As everyone here is a volunteer the quickest way to produce the list you want is to create it yourself. I think someone was working on a database of all the units in netEA but can't remember who or how far they got.

As someone that has created and attempted to maintain QRS's for the game I do know how time consuming such an effort is.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
FWIW I have contemplated trying to put together an "all-lists" SM Codex to see if it could be done and work at the same time :D

You'd basically add whatever special rules pertaining to any specific chapter etc from a list provided and then chapter-specific unit types once you choose (these could either work alongside or replace certain units etc).

All lists would have access to all common unit types except for chapter-specific ones. This is almost the same as how the compendium used to list armies. You used the Codex List for your units and depending what you played it would give you different unit types to "counts as" in place of those codex unit equivalents.

That said, my tendency is not to shoe-horn every single unit type in just to please the fan boys etc. I think several unit types are represented (or could be) by a select few. Land Raiders come to mind here. You don't need 10 variants of Land Raiders! Five is really enough. Niche Land Raider types aren't really representative of EA. It's an abstract game. Abstraction plays a big part in Epic Armageddon otherwise it just becomes Epic40K and you'd start to represent every model on the table with its exact GW copy, which IMO, is totally unnecessary and kitchen sinking. Sure, I understand people love a specific type but if you want, just get the model you like and use the model as "counts as." I'm fairly certain it's why it was written into the rule book in the first place.

I guess I sit the fence firmly here and I'm sure even if I did put the list together it wouldn't go far enough for some but you can't please everybody. Dedicating the time and effort to this is another matter of course! :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
MephistonAG wrote:
As someone that has created and attempted to maintain QRS's for the game I do know how time consuming such an effort is.

Amen! You should try compiling all the lists available into a compendium! I nearly went blind for a few months!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:45 am
Posts: 284
Come to think of it, it would be really cool if all the list champions / volunteers added their units and lists to a central database instead of sending their records to pdf independently. Would make collating and making your own lists really easy.


Last edited by Draccan on Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm
Posts: 867
Dobbsy wrote:
MephistonAG wrote:
As someone that has created and attempted to maintain QRS's for the game I do know how time consuming such an effort is.

Amen! You should try compiling all the lists available into a compendium! I nearly went blind for a few months!


I seem to remember you volunteered for that? ;D

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
A labour of love ... and slight insanity :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New units in lists
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Posts: 931
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Don't want to derail this thread too much but good work there elsmore. Haven't checked this out for a while but it only looks looks like you gone and done it!!

Is it now complete or are there parts that need finishing up? I guess if you could call up all unique units tagged with "space marines" or whatever you'd pretty much have what some of the guys are asking for right? I'm guessing that army list entries might not be handled with the same granularity as the unit stats though...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net