I'm going to echo this sentiment. In the short time I've been a member of this forum, I've gathered that some members are more or less conservative than others. And that's not a problem. We all have our things that we like about this game. But I agree that stagnation, especially for a game as old and "off the radar" as Epic, will eventually kill it.

While I agree that the scope of Epic is (and should remain) broad, and restraint should be exercised in including new units, some new units should be included over time to keep things fresh and interesting.

We have to remember why we play this game - for fun. At the end of the day, we're playing around with very tiny toy models that represent genetically altered super humans in a dystopian far future society.... it's not exactly as if we are legislating major societal issues on this forum. I think we should keep things fun and light and include units that are FUN. Sanguinary Guard capture at least 17 poll respondents' imaginations enough that they voted "yes". Why not give them a shot and see how it goes?

The TL;DR version - Fun is the number one thing

_________________
Former Blood Angels Army Champion
Epic Gamers Los Angeles Chapter
Armies Played:
Blood Angels
Black Legion
Codex Marines
Imperial Fists

No worries Ulrik, I understand your point of view, but AFAIK there are no written rules of design for NetEA, so I'm not sure I can really agree with you about it. For example, how many lists include formations that have been made up by a list designer? Witness the Moray and the pages of discussion about it over the years - Yay! How many lists include units that have been highly changed or invented to fill a role in a list? So the inclusion of a single formation that's an actual design for the Warhammer 40K universe is a game breaker...?

Just to be clear, I'm not one to just throw any old unit/formation into lists - even though some are carrying on like I am. I do and will try my best to judge whether or not to do so when/if I do.

1 Nothing has happened to the LatD list

2 If you want to be engaged in list development etc engage in it don't just pop in now and again to say 'no change' and to protect 'your' lists

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

There is a long-standing precedent that vets don't get added if they're just slightly better version of regular troops. Sanguinary Guard IMO straddles the line between such units (which shouldn't be included) and units like Wolf Scouts and Terminators (which can be). I'm just saying that what side of that line you want to put them on is not something you can test in a game.

Another valid argument is that it steps on the Death Company's toes a bit as the iconic BA unit, but I see you've been over that.

Well the Marine list needed something to break out of the "All Warhounds , Thunderbolts, Terminators and Thunderhawk rut that it was in. Yes, I'm exaggerating to a degree but seeing the same army over and over across from you is very dull.

The BA list is completely different in that it's not set just yet.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the rush by folks to get things done in the shortest possible time - not that development has been lightning fast lately but if that's the issue why not try to inject a bit of life into some lists with small adjustments that just might make them interesting again.


Well I would argue that the SG are not too small in scale - part of the reason I felt they could get a run in the list. They're a large block of infantry that runs with the Chapter Master for goodness sake. Even Sternguard numbers aren't that high so can be represented by the SC unit alone.


Well that's your nature - mine is the opposite. I think small changes drive up interest/change attitudes of a list with small tweaks that don't kill the list - i.e the Codex list. It's not dead is it? Did people all of a sudden stop playing it?

Maybe try to see some positives in change rather than the negative all the time? I'm curious, is there anything that has changed in recent times that you have actually liked?

Well Codex Marines has Land Raider, Predator and Vindicator formations. Three tanks which do essentially the same: Drive around and shoot stuff

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I don't know that there is, not consistently. DE Incubi are a counter example, Dire Avengers and Necron Immortals too.

Incubi have heavier armor and close combat weapons, and Dire Avengers are an iconic Eldar unit, going back to the '80s or so. I'll give you Immortals (although Necrons were terribly short on units in the old codex).

While SG are differentiated from other BA by having heavier armour and master-crafted power weapons...

This. Plus at some point it is nice to see stuff that are "cool" and distinctive for the army.

I understand that we should n't meddle with settled stable lists- if someone wants to do that then they are probably better using House rules in friendly game or devising a new variant sub-list for playtesting- either way will only achieve critical mass if enough people think it is "cool".

But Blood Angels are not a stable settled Approved list. They are a Developmental list, hopefully in the final stages of playtesting with just small tweaks, such as this to come.

I can understand not adding Sternguard/Vanguard to Codex Astartes list. And in general I can understand not adding Veterans to a list if there is not sufficient differentiation from regular troops. But has been stated before the SG are not just simply Vanguard. They have equivalent of terminator armour and power weapons all round, not just sprinkling of 1-2 per squad.

They are a restricted choice in that they are 0-1 and can ONLY be fielded if SC taken. I suspect that at 475 points they may not be points-optimal and taken more by fluff players. But the point is as a 0-1 choice they are unlikely to be game breaking. So I voted include them for playtesting purposes. Then we can make a more informed choice of whether to include them in final list.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list

One of the problems is that the Blood Angels already have a cool and distinctive assault unit - the Death Company. Which has been well-established for the BA for years, instead of a recent addition. (I had never heard of Sanguinary Guard before this topic came up, but then I don't follow 40k too closely these last few years.)



I think the opinion is divided enough that Dobbsy needs to make the call on his own, and I can see it go either way. However, I do not think that playtests are the way to go here - either include the Guard, and use tests to balance them, or leave them out. This is a question of theme and abstraction level, not game balance.

I have not played W40K for about 12 months but before would play reasonably often (I alternate with my regular opponent Dean between EA, LOTR SBG and W40k). I don't believe that W40K tail should always wag the Epic dog (to use a turn of phrase that I have seen before).

But I do think that EA should take some things from W40k. Otherwise we either stay locked in the 10 year old set version of EA with just 10 official armies (the ultimate in stable and settled) or we start inventing stuff ignoring last 10 years developments in W40K universe.

I would not be happy making the SG an unrestricted choice. But I like the way that Dobbsy has limited the SG and I think they are a nice characterful addition. Plus if you feel that they intrude on DC too much, there is a simple solution- don't take them!! You can take as SC without taking SG.

_________________
My TOEG- Blood Angels and Deathbolts
My Painting Blog- Evil Sunz, Goffs
My Epic trades list