First I'd heard of the Ragnarok group. Where are they based out of curiosity?

Bit of a shame to introduce another set of rules and army list variants in my opinion as it unecesarily fragments a small community further, but on the other hand it good to hear about more Epic beng played out there.

As far as i know they've been public since at least 2018, when i played a game with Mrdiealot using one, but i think i saw them a few years before that. Usually, they are a middle point in how different they are from EA compared with FERC lists, and many changes and lists are based around wh40k instead of Epic.

They are also at Github as a fork of Adam's work, and have their own website since then.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list

I have to agree. It's sad to see an already fairly small community fracture into smaller and smaller factions.

Especially since a fair few of the NetEA lists are in a rather desperate need for a refresh. And some, like the Chaos titans, er missing or in a year long development hell.

The direct link is https://earagnarok.github.io/list-view/?content=intro

As far as I know it's a lot of the Swedish EA community.

For community fragmentation, I can see both sides.

On the one hand it's good to have more effort on NetEA lists, on the other hand the approval process effectively excludes some niche lists - I've resigned myself to the Death Guard remaining a fan-list as the chances of getting enough battle reports from enough groups are effectively nil.

Also, if you don't agree with the direction that a NetEA list took, and the FERC or EpicUK lists don't fit what you want to play, you're going to be making your own list(s) for regular games anyway.

In terms of rules changes, the Ragnarok group have tweaked the terrain rules but most of the rest is things that have to be discussed in the five minute warm-up anyway.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

I can see your point regarding more effort being a good thing.

But on the other hand... If all that effort was concentrated on a single set of rules, perhaps it would be easier to get more people involved.

I'm only just looking at returning to NetEA after some years away. And I was never really active in this community anyway, so I'm not really sure what it would require to make a list official. But... Well... I fell your pain. I like the look of Nurgle, and it was one of the lists I've been looking at. But preparing an army... Doing conversions for new unit types... And still having very little chance at ever getting anywhere for all the work put into it... I'm kinda wondering if things aren't too restrictive? And if those restrictions aren't driving people away?

So many lists could benefit from getting upgraded. But that seems to never happen.

It is a single set of rules, apart from EpicAU’s variant.

In terms of lists, the big problem is that it’s never going to be possible to get a consensus for any given faction across all the players. Partly because there are so many variants of 40k.

Take Marines as an example. Do you stick rigidly to what GW published for EA, even though (in my opinion) it doesn’t fit the overall design criteria for EA by being too broad and flexible? Do you add newer units that have been added to the faction in the years since EA came out? If so, which units do you add, and which versions of those units do you match to?

I have no problems with EA Ragnarok, as it just gives us more lists to choose from, like
EpicUK and FERC do.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Funny that you should mention Space Marines being too broad. I honestly feel it's the other way around - the lists are too restrictive. I sorely miss the combined arms approach from Titan Legions.

But just as you say, there are so many variants...

Out of curiosity... Having never played in a NetEA tournament, are organisers generally happy with people bringing different kind of lists or is it NetEA only?

It would depend on the TO. I usually limit the lists to those that have seen some two-dozen games, either locally or via battle reports against other well tested lists, when in a tournament environment.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Do you mean in terms of mixing Marines and Guard etc?

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

The Australian community's Epic 30k / Horus Heresy lists do allow marines to take guard as allies (allies max 1/3 of the army points as usual as competing with titans and aircraft allies in that third also) so that's a possible option if that's what you're after. I rate the AU 30k lists as less balanced compared to either the more common Net-EA or Epic UK lists but they generally play fine for friendly games. The AU site got taken down a year or so ago (don't know why) but old copies of the pdfs of their lists can still be found on the files section of the Epic 30k facebook group.

That's a large part of it, yes.

Both the Empire and Chaos are known to use combined arms. Sure, Marines do sometimes deploy in company strength to meet a specific threat, but they'll also often be deployed in demi-companies to support other Imperial forces. The same is true for Chaos, though in that case it's more a case of Marines and their cannon fodder...

And Orks, while they can certainly operate as a single clan, is mainly just a bunch or boyz all getting swept up in a big Waaaaargh!

In all honesty, I feel NetEA has way too many lists. All Marine and Guard lists could be folded into two lists with Chapter Traits / Regimental Doctrines being used to differentiate between various chapters and regiments.

Chaos and Orks could be just a single list each, with the main formations deciding what can be taken as support. The same could probably also be said for the Mechanicus lists.

Another part, which I suppose is somewhat connected to the first part, is the lists themselves. Some of them are pretty restrictive in the kind of formations you can field. And some, like the Mechanicus, aren't even near being able to field the variety of units we know they can field.

I do admit that allowing open list with allies can lead to a less balanced game. Many more combinations available and much more opportunity for min-maxing and other shenanigans.

But then again, I freely admit that I don't generally consider Games Workshop games suitable for tournament gaming in general. And I'm not a big fan of that kind of gaming to begin with, so... But each to his own, as they say.

Bear in mind that the original design philosophy for Epic Armageddon army lists is that there aren’t supposed to be any ‘generic’ lists at all, and that each list represents a specific force in a specific campaign.

So instead of a generic Imperial Guard list, there’s the Steel Legion list that covers a specific small part of the IG forces on Armageddon during Ghazghkull’s (second?) invasion, and the Baran Siegemasters list that represents a specific IG force in a different specific theatre of operations, etc. etc.

That’s what I mean when I say that the Space Marine list is too broad, as it’s not focussed on a specific force in a specific theatre of operations like most of the other lists.

Outside of tournament-style games, the EA book does mention playing scenario games where you choose the forces for the scenario rather than using the army lists (and do stuff like combining Guard and Marines), but unless your gaming group has players actively writing and playing scenarios then tournament-style games and lists tend to be the default.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

There's advantages to both ways of managing lists really.

A plus for themed lists is you can tweak the special rules to ones particularly flavouful for that subfaction and add in units that are balanced in that particular variant but could cause balance issues in a hypothetical single list for marines or the like. It's also just how EA has been developed and played for decades and it isn't going to change.

If you're not intersted in tournament style games you can always tweak the lists how you feel like for your own games f2k. Or the Australian 30k lists I mentioned previously are potentially a good compromise as they force you to select a main faction but allow allies from a wider range of other factions (sometimes with disadvantages for two allied factions that don't work well together).

I can see the point with theme lists. And they can be very interesting.

But they do present a big big problem: if you're not interested in a particular theme, then there's no army for you. Well... Make your own, then. Yeah... Sure... But given the glacial speed of getting new lists approved for official release, then...

I guess my point is that I feel the development of this game has been turned upside-down. You should always start with generic lists, then specialise them into themed lists with their own particular weaknesses and strengths.

Anyway... That is, of course, just my own preference. :-)