So now that the NetERC has the time to get the Army List job done, we want to bog it down with another possible set of changes? And -at the end of 2 to 3 months- if the results are gray and uncertain, what are we to do then? Ask for an extension? Continue to publish and ignore all the work people did? Is the NetERC to admonish people who say they are going to playtest but don't?

I don't see this being as easy as you are making it out to be. I might be wrong but the playtest 'schedules' that are put out there are usually even more behind than anything.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Re: Warhound Poll

Have people forgotten that Warhounds do not sit under the perview of the Marines or IG?

Saying that this AC or that AC should pay attention is not really what matters. What matters IMO is that the AMTL AC is responsible for the change and all other lists will follow suit.

I do not like polls myself as I believe that if you have a vote, then you are required to state why you have an opinion. Even so, those who responded are not a minority. Getting 40 votes on anything is a marvel. The majority want a change of some sort - that was clear regardless of all other options. I dare say that the loudest voices against this are once again, the minority.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

So we're going to insist that the list sit for another year because the NetERC didn't have time to finalize it until now?

Propose the changes. Ask that people provide evidence for or against them. Run a poll toward the end of things, asking for examples as well. Make a decision. That's why we have a ERC in the first place.

Alternately, discuss further in order to create possible playtest changes, then include those with the book.

Either way, this is not nearly as complicated as you seem to think it is.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Discussion has happened and things have changed. SM's have seen a further decrease in points on the Vindicator, along with it gaining walker, clarification on Bikes/Attack Bikes transport, and the vetting of the 2008 point decreases on the armor formations.

I think you're putting the horse before the cart here. We were testing these changes over the following period to see them put in the compendium. Perhaps you're perceiving all this as static because you weren't around when these changes were put forth for playtesting and assumed that they were already part of the list and "official"?

After they're in the compendium maybe we'll see a new list of playtest changes with some of these proposals. But let's finish what we started first and stamp the 2008 changes "official" first.

At anyrate, I'd actually like to see some playtesting (more than three month's worth) done for the new proposals rather than people coming online and telling everyone what they think will work.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

No. Saying that the AMTL AC is responsible for the Warhounds is like saying the Squat Champ (I know there isn't one, just work with me for a moment) is responsible for Tunneling Rules, or the Tau AC is responsible for Support Craft, or the SM AC is responsible for the Inquisitor Death Watch. This is open source development and -because of that feature- it tends to be chaotic at times. Not Warp-chaotic, just Webster's dictionary chaotic! People simply need to work together on things, otherwise you get list dissonance.

An example to this is the tunnelling rule debate. E&C (not picking on you here, bud, just need a reference) put together the tunnelling rules for the Krieg list without consulting with the Squat developers or the Tyranid champ (at least as far as I know). Now we're looking at unifying the tunnelling rules for Nids and Squats and finding out that E&C's list will get muddied if we change things. This kind of stuff happens! Just gotta deal with it.

Furthermore, if there is an election between three people and 30% vote for 'X', 29% vote for 'Y', and 25% vote for 'Z', it is ridiculous to say that 'X' should not be allowed to win because 54% of the people voted against him. The same thing goes for this poll here, amongst others.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Uh, actually, it's not ridiculous at all. That's the most common critique of the first-past-the-post electoral system.

EDIT: And your numbers don't add up to 100, either...

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Special rules and units are two different things - not comparable.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Spoiled ballots...

Incorrect, one person changed his vote, leaving "immediately destroyed" with a higher percentage.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I will adopt whatever final solution is chosen by the community for the AMTL list.
With a strong mandate, I will also propose to the ERC that the modified critical hit effect be adopted for all Imperial Warhound Titans.
The ERC may well shoot that change down, but with 80% of voters asking for change I have a duty to try and represent their will.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I just used the Tunnelers rule from the rulebook, and intentionally didn't re-print the rule so that if the NetEA project wished to modify the rule at a later date then it wouldn't require a re-print of Siege (Unlike the problem where the shared Support Craft rule was later changed requiring a change in the re-print of Raiders).

So basically, I neatly avoided the very thing you've just highlighted, by intentionally keeping the rule itself under the NetEA's aegis. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Alright. I didn't see the post changing the vote, just looking at the results of the poll.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yup.

So for round 2, I culled all the chaff (Options with only a few % worth of votes, or no votes at all), plus the least popular of the four voting blocks ("No change"). Democracy's harsh, but also impartial.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Regarding the NetEA Army Book...

Surely it should include the most recent version of a list that is CONSIDERED STABLE by the NetERC editors. In which case a recently updated list with little play testing can be omitted in favour of an earlier more stable version?

For example, if the marine list gets an update shortly before the Army Book comes out, then that's not a problem because the Army Book doesn't need to include this latest update. Players who want a stable list use the Army Book version, whereas play testers use the updated list.

People who use the NetEA Army Book will feel they are using a 'stable' selection of lists (updated yearly or so).

Anyway I thought that was how it was going to work?

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge