Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Net EA remit.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=12638		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun May 18, 2008 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
This is something that came up in the Marine Units thread, and at Hena's prompting I've reposted it here:


What is Net:EA's remit as regards the core army lists?

A - To modify EA in a balanced manner to reflect the current status of 40k in 6mm.
B - To balance EA, and ignore what's been done with 40k.


I prefer A, even where that means occasionally adopting a new unit or two (As long as there are existant models).

The reason I prefer this is that if Net:EA doesn't keep current over time it will be left in the same situation as NetEpic, where it now only tangentally reflects the game system that first spawned it.


Thoughts?
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sun May 18, 2008 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
I would rather new lists get new stuff. Rather than change stuff that (will be) balanced, better to bring in new units in new lists.

I have no problem with the earlier lists being outdated over time and supplanted, better that than changing stuff for existing players armies.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sun May 18, 2008 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
Hmm but would you every time a new unit is introduced in Wh40k develop a new army list?

Here i'm thinking about Apocalypse which introduces new units and formations on a regular base. This or next year there will be Apocylpse Reload, a third book (counting IA Apocalypse) with new datasheets.

I prefere A too, but then we have to decide when we will develope a new army list or if we wait until a certain number of units/formations is available in Wh40k to introdice.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sun May 18, 2008 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
I would say... C... or 'all of the above'.  :p

I think that, as a game set in the 40K universe, it is important that this link is not severed totally. Where a new unit is added which changes the performance or general feel of a race, this should be added. However, just because 40K has a Tau Pirahna with twin fusion cannons, it doesnt mean that this should be added right away to Epic.

The issue here for me is the feel of the race, as defined by its units - which is the best way that we, the players, get to understand what the background writers are going for.

I do share Chris's view that it is often better to add a new variation, specific to a list, rather than change one already in existence. But here we must also look at model availability, etc.

I would hate to constrain the NetERC into a specific 'we said that we would always do x' in certain situations, as I think that each proposition should be viewed from a step back.

Essentially, whenever there is a point at which we could either make chanes to reflect the 40K background, or keep with what we have, the balance of EA as a game should take priority. If we can change EA to better reflect the feel, playability, background and flavour of a race then I would say that we should. If adding a unit doesnt actually add to the force, doesnt add to the 'orchestra' of the force, or takes the force in a new direction, then we shouldnt.

This does leave a potential problem in the case of a race which suffers a rewrite in 40K to make it play differently, but this is an extreme case.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sun May 18, 2008 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
Not every time but when it adds something to a list just make a list for x campain and stick it in.

For instance teh crusade adds zero to the air assault list really, but others if they already existed and would benifit stick it in and make it the crusade of 38 or whatever. Effectively replaces the previous list, but leaves it still valid.
Author:  Ginger [ Sun May 18, 2008 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
At the risk of being a "doubting Thomas" here, I think you really have to ask about the motives the GW have for modifying existing W40K units or adding new ones. My understanding is that they have more to do with the sales of figures than with 'balance' in the W40K world; Apocalypse being an example. Furthermore, even when it is considered appropriate to attempt to follow suit in Epic (because the performance of the unit in E:A is also considered excentric in some fashion) it is often hard to reproduce a similar style of effect because of the divergent nature of the two sets of rules (witness the recent debate over the Howling Banshees and their power sword as an example)

So, I would probably prefer option "D":- all of the above where relevant and appropriate.

My other major concern is that we need to keep E:A as balanced as possible. The recent rule revisions go quite a long way in the right direction (I would have preferred to include the current FAQ as well via revised wording or additional examples), but we still need a number of key revisions to the current army lists together with firm guidelines on making new ones. However over and above this one-off exercise, ?I fail to see the benefit in continually tinkering with the lists (to quote JJ). I still want to collate the minimum changes needed to the existing lists and publish only that. Adding new units and revising existing ones seems to go directly against these principles as far as the "official" lists go - so why do we keep doing it, and more importantly, why does GW??

So for what its worth, my suggestions are
1) Collate and present to JJ the minimum changes required to balance the existing lists for approval and publishing - and leave E:A alone at that point.
2) Consider any extra stuff (appocalypse etc) as a "variant". Start completely afresh on lists and rules to support these as needed - and go through the process to balance them from scratch - though the existing E:A "official" stats will provide a very good start.
3) When a sufficient body of work exists, publish E:A v2.0 as a complete ruleset together with "Apocalypse" army lists (or equivalent).
Author:  Pulsar [ Sun May 18, 2008 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.

(Ginger @ May 18 2008,22:47)
QUOTE
So, I would probably prefer option "D":- all of the above where relevant and appropriate.

i think Ginger hit the nail on the head,
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Mon May 19, 2008 8:15 am ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
I also agree with Ginger on this
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 19, 2008 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
My main problem with trying to follow 40K is that with a few exceptions, the 40K lists are all-encompassing.  You're supposed to be able to take the generic IG 40K list and create nearly any IG regiment from any place in the Imperium (including stand-ins for everything from tech guard to chaos-influenced rebels).  There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it presents certain challenges.  It might be really cool to "theme" an army list but you can only do it and remain competitive if the theme list doesn't violate the min-max combos in the "core" list.

My thought has been to continue NetEA with the original development intent - fix the core lists and make lots of variants instead of plugging things in retroactively.  It seems like that will be easier to avoid the issues with all-encompassing lists.

The army lists in Epic don't just reflect what an army _can_ be, but the way it fights in the "reality" of the 40K verse.  That includes not just gear and tactics the army has theoretical access to, but preferred tactical and strategic doctrines.  I really think (and I've said it plenty of times before) the White Scars Fanatic article sums up the variant mentality quite well.

Many times new units included in the 40K army lists are given backgrounds that state they are used by specific groups.  They were developed or rediscovered or whatever, and they either fit well with the patron group's tactical style or a style of warfare was developed specifically to use the new/rediscovered unit.  Then they go on to add it it to the "core" of the army selection.  That sort of makes sense in 40K.  The scale of 40K is such that even if Army X has only a handful of Equipment Y, the 40K battle might just happen to be that portion of the battlefield involving Equipment Y.  Even fairly rare items can be a "normal" choice without violating the background material in that respect.  However, that's not the same as an Epic army throwing down 8 or 10 pieces of nominally rare equipment, scattered all the way across a large battlefield in 2-4 separate formations.  From that perspective it doesn't make sense to include them retroactively in a traditional army org as represented by a particular EpicA list because doing so violates the background in ways that a 40K army would not.  

Some SM examples ('cuz  they've been in my head pending June's NetEA project):

LRCs are supposed to be rare.  Even though most chapters are supposed to have a handful that could be deployed singly or in a formation, they should not be in a basic list where they could theoretically be fielded in large quantities.  That particular ability should be restricted to SM Chapters with larger numbers and a penchant for fielding them en masse, e.g. the Black Tempars.

All SM chapters can theoretically deploy SMs without pistol, chainsword and no jump packs.  However, most don't.  It's a tactical doctrine only employed in specific situations and it should only be allowed in lists for SM Chapters that would favor that kind of assault force, e.g. Raven Guard drop pod assaults.

All SM chapters have the equipment to field large formations of Bikes.  They just don't in practice.  The Codex list doesn't need the option of taking 8-unit formations like the White Scars.

==

All that said, we don't need to restrict ourselves strictly to absolutely not adding anything to the core armies.  If the background is revised so that a previously rare piece of equipment or unusual formation becomes more standard, then it can and should be added to a "core" list in NetEA.

I think the litmus test should be if a majority of non-specific SM Chapters, Craftworlds, Ork Tribes, or similar group would reasonably expect to field a force that included a large number of the unit/formation/whatever under consideration, then it needs to be considered for inclusion.  This should be considered as a "if in doubt, leave it out" spirit, so that if it is not quite clear the unit has become standard should not be considered for retro-inclusion.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon May 19, 2008 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
I think Neal's stated my own thoughts much more eloquently than my 'A' managed. :)
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon May 19, 2008 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
Seconded :)
Author:  Ginger [ Mon May 19, 2008 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
So Neal, are you effectively agreeing with what I suggested earlier:-
1) Fix E:A as we have it now and then leave that 'locked'
2) Start/continue work on new "variant" units / lists etc to match what is happening in the "40K universe".
3) Publish the new work in "fan list" format until a sufficient body exisits to produce it formally as a supplement or perhaps E:A v2.0. This should be 'backwards compatible' with the current E:A and could be thought of as an enhancement.
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Mon May 19, 2008 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
Are we really just looking at it from a "fluff" perspective then?

For example, assuming Scouts actually get a new dedicated transport. Having Scouts with rhinos has always been a bit of a patch, I'm not sure the Scout company even has rhinos?

A new, dedicated, Scout transport seems to be something the Codex list has always needed, from a background perpective.

Of course, this is going to depend on the actual unit itself, it's availability, etc.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 19, 2008 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Net EA remit.
Ginger:  I'm not sure.

As far as I know, there will be no #1 from your list.  We gave Jervis what we thought were necessary changes for list balance and he declined.  I think the official EA is "locked" and that avenue is closed.  Hence, the "tournament mod" project.

#2 is dependent on what comes out, but for most changes or additions I agree variant lists will be the place to work them into NetEA.  In a few rare cases, it might be necessary to insert something retroactively.

As far as #3, that is pretty much the NetEA plan, only with the caveat that there is little expectation of it ever becoming official.  It will likely be only a fan effort for the foreseeable future.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/