|
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.
_________________
Neal
|
