Frogbear:  I finally had a chance to tear into the list.  I have one major suggestion...

Simplify.

The list is chock full of hidden exceptions and bookkeeping stuff.  Individually none of them are egregious but collectively they are just too much.  I would not play it against anyone because I think it would be unfair.  Balanced or not, there are so many fiddly bits that there is no reasonable way for an opponent to know whether you're doing everything right.  They are forced to have intimate knowledge of the list or just trust you to get everything correct.  There's lots of stuff that can easily be overlooked, whether by honest mistake or overzealous desire to win.

Conversely, I would not play against this list because I would find it tedious to be forced to double check my opponent to make sure he was doing everything correctly.

A list should be something that you can hand to an opponent 5 minutes before the game and they should grasp all the special rules and be able to follow the process when they are used, even if they won't necessarily understand all the ramifications for play, tactics and strategy.  That is simply not true of this list.

As far as feel, the list just seems like "everything Khorne" rather than something that's actually World Eaters.  That's okay if that's what you want but I would have thought it was supposed to be more about the marines, especially since that was one of your major criticisms of the Thousand Sons list.  One of the major things that makes it feel "everything Khorne" is the hodgepodge of old Khorne stuff and the new.  Those have different flavor and feel.

To get into some details (not including editorial stuff)...

1.1 - There is a functional divide on special rules between rules that apply to the army overall, regardless of the scenario, and those special rules that only apply to the GT army list.  The rules should be organized that way so people can easily design scenarios.  Right now you have them mixed up - GT transport rules in the army rules and army Bloodrage (at least I assume this is intended as an army rule) in the List-specific rules.

1.1.1 - There's no need for the change of Initiative.  It will make little difference and is just something to keep track of.  Further, the exception is for Core formations, but one of the core formations can literally never qualify for the lower initiative so there's no point in making it conditional.

2.1 - The exception for Bloodpack character placement is not necessary (more below).

World Eaters Berzerker Retinue - The way I read it, the Berzerkers can never take "Favored of Khorne."  They don't have a Skull Lord, so they can never fulfill the "replace Skull Lord" requirement.  This is the formation I referenced in 1.1.1, above.  Is this intentional or an omission?

The 0-1 per retinue restrictions for Chosen and Terminators weren't immediately clear to me.  Maybe it's just me, but it wasn't until I started putting together mental examples of lists that I realized the restriction was there.  I doubt it's needed as a hard restriction.  With 100 points per unit for the Termies and 4 unit formation size for the Chosen, they have functional restrictions anyway.  Do you anticipate someone taking lots of those formations for some tactical or strategic advantage?  It adds another layer of army construction rules for no appreciable benefit.

Daemon Pool - The change in pricing is unnecessary.  The only reason I can think of for using it is "no non-25 point increments" in the list.  However, the reason people don't like non-25 point increments is not the math but because they feel like they are "wasting" points if they aren't using the full amount.  Having to pay a premium for buying less than 5-unit blocks of Lesser Daemons is still "wasting" points so you gain nothing.  It also replaces straightforward 20-point units with another conditional army list construction rule.

Abhumans - Why are Ogryn Berzerkers in this list?  They are only available as an upgrade and the upgrade is only available to 2 formations (and it's bordering on useless for Berzerkers).  They're just clutter.

Bloodpack - This is a prime example of stuff being buried in the list.  This is not an upgrade; it is an entirely different formation.  You're both shrinking the Berzerker Retinue and adding armored transport.  That is it's own dedicated mech infantry formation so just make it one.  The only reason it is in the upgrades that I can see is that it keeps a "Berzerker Retinue" a "Berzerker Retinue" for the purposes of the army list construction rules.  Take out those unnecessary restrictions and this can be a formation, making selection simpler and clearer, including removing the special Bloodpack character placement exception.

Dreadnoughts - Their stats are better in every way than Berzerkers, but they are cheaper.  The only reason not to max them out is for transported formations.  For any garrison or drop formation, they are a no-brainer.  They are worth 35 points.

Transport - Buying multiple transports causes funkiness.  Berzerker Retinue is 8 units.  I buy a Land Raider, so then I have to transport 6 more units.  I buy the Rhino upgrade to transport 4, leaving 2.  Am I restricted to only buying a Land Raider now because I only have 2 units to transport, or can I buy another Rhino upgrade, giving me 10 transport slots for only 8 units?

Transport - I'm not sure why the Rhinos need a premium on point cost.  The CC boost isn't worth +25%.  Like the Lesser Daemons, I think this is only explained by an aversion to non-25 point increments and like the daemons, this still "wastes" points, so it fails to deal with the real issue.

Titans - Leader is a no-brainer for the big titans.

Scorpion Engines - Why are two different models needed?  If they are needed, the points are off.  Between the extra DC and the armor saves, the Greater is something like 2.5x as tough, with only a 40% increase in price.  It should be more like a 60% increase.

Units - You've basically combined multiple units under single datafaxes in several instances.  It's one thing to do that with units that have variations that result in only minor differences in battlefield roles.  However you've crammed together units with radically different battlefield roles, like BP support engines and direct fire MW support engines.  Those are far more different than, say, Pred Annihilators and Pred Destructors.  They should have different docs.

Bloodgors - Don't need the note on Disposable.  That's how it works all the time.  Since it's not an official rule, it should be included in the special rules for the list.  Ditto for Ogryns (though they should just be dropped entirely).

Bloodride (Slaughterfiend):  The way I read it, a mounted Slaughterfiend can be targeted by AT fire and if it is destroyed the mounted troops take a hit like a normal transport.  In addition to that the troops can be targeted directly with AP fire.  Is that correct?  I assume barrage weapons would get to attack both the troops and the vehicles, and then any vehicle destruction would hit the troops again?

==

Again, it's not that any one complication is especially difficult to navigate.  It's the sheer number of them that are built into the last that is the problem for me.

_________________
Neal

Bump, because of that weird page-break hidden post glitch.

_________________
Neal

Wow. That is a lot to take in after waking up before going to work    

This is what happens when you go ahead with a project and do not gain guidance from the AC of a list....

Neal: Thank you for taking the time to review the list (and Steve54 - offline). I will have to look over all the suggestions and see what I can do and what is viable. It is a shame that such guidance did not come before a whole year's worth of work - not your fault I know.

I will see if I can simplify things and what it does to costs, and maybe get some replies to the questions that you have.

Cheers.....    

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

Yes, I'll have to state that I pretty much agree with what Hena and Neal have posted; the army feels very much like an "and the kitchen sink" overly inclusive list, if it's supposed to represent the way World Eaters fight.

Now, if it was redesigned as more of a "generic" Khornate Warband army list, instead of a World Eaters list, I think I'd be more accepting of all the non-Marine inclusions; is that a possiblity, Frogbear?

And, I'd too like to see some kind of "working together" between yourself and Dobbsy if this is to be "the" World Eaters list.

Lastly, I'd suggest starting new threads with each version change, so there isn't so much to wade through when reading.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Hena: Sorry to not have acknowledged your ideas as well - I was rushing off to work. I have them to the side as well

Hena again: I have tried to have discussions with a Stubborn replacement. I was forced to just go with 'Frenzied' as from what I remember, you stopped replying. Happy to open discussions, either on the threads or offline. You have my email. Just let me know either way

As for combining lists, they are very different. After all the playtests and balancing, I am not sure whether I would want to change the Berserkers and would rather the others be placed in line with what we have in this list.

Baby steps however. I have a range of changes to incorporate the suggestions being reviewed at the moment. I will go over them, and then tackle the bigger aspects that will create debate and collusion.

I have to remember these main points:

1. The list has to be fun to play with, and play against - This is what cult lists suffer from initially
2. The list should not exclude players who have models and cannot use them - If two lists are required to stop the 'kitchen sink' syndrome, then so be it - the other will not however be World Eaters, it will be Khorne.
3. The list needs to appeal to the fans
4. Blood Rage needs to be iconic and be a purposeful addition to a charge

I think I have shown throughout the development that I am open to change, so be aware that if it requires a massive revision, I will do it, as long as it meets the above criteria (or any that need to be added because I forgot it - Number 1 being the main point). Hence all 'Fearless' Core units are not on my agenda.

New Thread: Let me get through a review of the changes and then I will look at this also

Cheers everyone and thanks for your input in keeping this alive. I need the feedback and I always listen and debate - eventually it will make for a finished list.

Cheers.....    

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

I thought I would get some quick answers out of the way.

Any ommisions are because the ideas presented above are still being discussed



The intention was related to the initiative rule. You are probably correct and this is being reviewed as I write this. The point was that you can buy a Skull Lord and then upgrade it to a Favoured of Khorne if you wish. Without a Skull Lord or Favoured of Khorne, the unit was a 2+ initiative. Like I stated, I will probably just add the Skull Lord to the unit as standard and re-cost them.





The restriction was there so as to promote the use of Berserkers. I notice that the Thousand Sons have a 1+ restriction for their retinue. I may also adopt this. There is always a concern on people taking only Chosen, Termies and Bikes. I have to decide whether this will still be the case however as Chosen are a unit of 4 (thereby quite fragile), Termies are just plain expensive (yet these are also being reviewed), and bikes have less CC potential and their numbers are less. So overall, you have provided me with 'food for thought' for the weekend.  




No concerns or disagreement from me on this one    




These are priced to be walking across a battlefield. Yes they look cheap on initial views, however if you want to use them for their main role (Dreadclaws) you pay for their points buying the Dreadclaws.

Example:

Your suggestion of Dreadnoughts 35 points - In Dreadclaws: 40 Points   2 Dreadnoughts in Dreadclaws: 80 points?

World Eaters Dreadnought 25 points - In Dreadclaws: 50 Points   2 Dreadnoughts 75 points

Singly, the World Eater player is paying a premium. As a duo, a slight (5 point) discount, yet the 'slow' aspect of the weapon and reduced armour are a given. Does the above not make sense as in not paying top dollar for a ground based unit that is not really worth it's drop points?  

Interested in yours and others thoughts.




Really? I struggle to find the points. 1 extra BM or shield is no big deal. Try making the list and pay the extra 25 points and see what it does to the bottom line.  




These are the biggest pain, and frankly, a totally useless formation IMO. Why anyone would want to pay more is beyond me. I would be interested in other people's thoughts that have actually played these engines. I found them greatly wanting. They may look good, but they are not. Happy for people to playtest and advise differently. In any event, they may just be removed from the 'World Eater' list and be reserved for the 'Khorne' list.




The whole idea was that those transported can always be hit with AP weapons, so yes, direct fire and barrages would effect the troops. In all other effects, they are treated as a transport, so if the Slaughterfiend dies, the riders take a hit as well. TK weapons would destroy the Vehicle (failing the IS) and the troops on board.  I find that opponents do not mind it as it does not overpower.

Anyhows, it is 1.41am here and I have a 6am start, so I better go to bed

Cheers all.  

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

KISS solution provided my Mr Vening:

Transport (Add enough transports in any combination of World Eater Rhinos and/or World Eater Land Raiders to transport the formation.)

- 25 per two Rhino,
- 150 per two Land Raider

Problem solved. No 'odd formations'. No potential abuse




I understand what you are saying Neal in regards to other lists. I have a problem understanding what 'real issue' there is in costing Rhinos in such a way as it simplifies the buying of these vehicles. As a player, that 5 points (or potentially 10 points) is not going to be used anywhere else in the force. With the example provided by Morgan, you would essentially have to purchase 8 Rhinos to gain the points enough to buy a Lesser daemon (or 10 if I keep the daemons at 25 points). As much as I play the force, I have yet to consider 8-10 rhinos. Even at that point, I daresay I am not going to miss the points.

If I have to reduce the points to 10 points per rhino for a final approval to get these accepted, then I will do it. It is a no hassle change in the end and I will do it. For now, I really do like my 25 point costings as it takes me 5 mins to make a list without looking for the missing points. It's just a KISS solution for me now. I daresay it will not prevent others testing the list because of 12.5 point rhinos - I hope    


Side Note: Alot of what the list presents is a new way of list design seperate from what the NetEA has produced. It takes ideas from lists such as the ground based marines, as well as providing 'holistic' costs that are not initially obvious until upgrades are purchased which brings the unit up to its correct costs.

An example: Berserkers are currently priced as foot slogging units. There is no reason why a player should pay top dollar for Berserkers if they are not dropping down. Now if you take them in their role as a drop force, your costs are realised in the purchase of the Dreadclaws. This is also evident with the Terminators and the Teleport upgrade, and the cost on the World Eater Dreadnought. I know this challenges people's perceptions, I am yet to be shown how it is not as strong if not fairer, than the current list design methods out there.

While I attain feedback on things being cheap, I notice that I do not gain any feedback on the costs of the Dreadclaws. I can only assume that people have not realised that these have a 500% price increase. So which is correct? Both desins are correct for their list. At the end of the day, it is not the collusion of the lists, yet the way it plays that is important - IMO. The BL list appears to play the way people want it to in regards to drop forces. After 23 games, I can say I am happy with the way the World Eaters play as well.

I hope this helps to clarrify some of the details that may confuse people when making comparrisons.

I will start a new list for the World Eaters (I promise), I just thought this was an important addition reaching the end of such a long thread.

Once again...Cheers...    

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

Neal, is your issue that if you have to buy two rhinos as a block(e.g no option to buy 1) you then have the problem where you have an odd rhino left over with no one to transport?

e.g 8 zerkers get a LR (transports 2) needing 3 rhinos to trans the rest of the formation but you can only buy 4 rhinos(due to the purchase two at a time design).

Just trying to get my head around this problem.

Neal is correct in his view.

Theoretically you could take Chosen and buy 1 Land Raider + 2 Rhinos and have 2 extra capacity. The problem appears to be that if you have more transports, shooting the unit will not effect their ability to zoom around the table which may not be fair. Usually if you want to hobble a unit, you take out the transports - what Neal highlighted was the ability to ignore this with extra transports.

The below quoted solution fixes this in the list:

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

Well from my perspective, I'd be keen to perhaps do a combined lists set up - perhaps one focusing on an Orbital drop force and the other a ground assault force... ?

I know Frogbear has done more drop force work than I have and mine is pretty much a ground list atm with Dreadclaws added in. The two lists could be generated simultaneously and essentially separately in gaming terms.

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

This is defensive and, to be frank, condescending.

As to your point, everyone gets it.  Context is a major factor in all our discussions.  Did you never notice that Defilers have major point cost differences in Black Legion and Lost and Damned?  Units are priced differently based on how they work overall in the list.  Those units that don't fully take context into account due to legacy reasons, like Imperial Navy aircraft in the SM and IG lists, or units that simply have multiple modes of use with different values, like Assault Marines on the ground versus air assault, are regularly cited as being problematic.

This is not a "new way of list design" that challenges the status quo.  This concept is the status quo.


I picked this as an illustration of a pattern in your responses.  You're not addressing what the other side of the conversation actually says.  You seem to be responding to anticipated attacks rather than the points being made.

What I pointed out with respect to pricing were internal inconsistencies where units were too cheap with respect to other choices.  Dreadnoughts aren't "too cheap".  They are too cheap in comparison to Berzerkers.  Greater Scorpions aren't "too cheap".  They are only too cheap in comparison to the regular Brass Scorpions.  However, you replied as if the comments stopped at "too cheap."

You responded similarly in the TSons thread.  When I asked about the underlying reasons for your opinions, you acted as if I were attacking those opinions - "your mind is already made up and you're going to do it your way no matter what I say".

===

Edit:  Apologies if that sounds harsh.  The stimulants in my cold medicine tend to make me aggressive.

_________________
Neal

Neal

No condescension was intended. I was at work with 15 mins to spare and I quickly wrote it all out. Your feedback has meant a major re-haul of the list, so please do not take it as defensive. If anything, I have taken on ALL of the ideas, and am reworking the list to attempt to meet many of the findings.

I have mentioned in the past that people appear to take things personally. I really do not know what more I need to write and how many smiley's I have to put to change this. You recent post would indicate that I am still failing    

I give feedback and responses with a mind to respect the other person. At no time this year have I endeavoured to be anything but respectful to people. I hope you can appreciate that. Yours and other people's ideas are needed. Sometimes I do not think people understand my reasoning on things, so I explain them again. At no time did I ever mean to get you off-side.

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

A few thoughts from quickly flicking over the list:

World Eaters Bezerkers: 2xCC3+ is a LOT better than CC2+. Do they really deserve to be that much better? 2xCC4+ is still an improvement for example...

The basic retinue seems cheap and spammable with awesome CC. Have you tested spamming them? I suspect it may be too cheap.

Chosen: 30cm and jump packs is a lot better than scout.

Bloodgors / Ogryn Bezarkers: For my Servants of Slaughter list I had CC4+/FF- on bloodgors, mostly because the latest 40k information doesn't allow them any ranged weapons. Our ogryn bezerker stats are identical

I'm concerned about the disposable, for both internal and external balance reasons. Externally it seems a cheap way to make retinues awesome, but internally the abhumans upgrade costs the same for retinues as it does for attack squads, even though the retinue gets disposable thrown in for free. Do they really needDisposable? I'd likely take them anyway.

World Eaters Terminators: The Power+Assault weapons should be separated into two separate weapons for clarity. It's unclear currently.

World Eater Bikers: Why FF4+? Why not FF5+? As with many units in the army they just seem better in all ways than the standard versions. Introduce more downsides in the units to compensate for the amazing CC.

World Eaters Rhino: Why CC5+? That seems a bit fanboyish. The notes about who can and can't buy rhinos belong in the tournament army list, not the unit rosters.

There seem altogether too many war engines, 4 titan types is just too many.

I'll go through in more detail at a later date, but overall many units just seem to be better than the standard versions with no downsides. There's also a lot of clutter in the list that should be cleared out; it needs simplifying.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread