I was chatting with a new player in my club today about his Eldar. He was talking about plating with the mech eldar list because he wanted falcons as core formations. I told him that he can easily fit 3 falcon formations in biel tan and that its probably the easiest eldar list to understand how you're supposed to build it. He then mentioned that he also wants to run hornets and lynxes. That got me thinking about why these new units need their own list rather than being added to older lists. Same deal with space marine storm ravens and land raider variants and many other formations.

I can understand the idea behind having alternate lists with different formations for variety like the white scars list does with bikes and initially not wanting to have alt lists that are just better than the base list but these formations of new units which seems to be focused on formation balance rather than overall list balance don't strike me as inherently necessary to keep out of the base list provided the formation cost and unit stats are balanced.

I can also see why you'd want to keep the base lists shorter for new players, but this is having the opposite effect of having new players required to read 5 lists to find the unit they like and then realising it limits the other unit they like.
So basically why is the list community keeping jervis's lists sacred and not adding new formations? There doesn't seem to be a balance or flavour reason... It just seems like dogmatic policy. I'd imagine if jervis was still in charge he'd be updating base lists instead of having 10 lists per race.

Well the 'core' lists work pretty well as they are, they're balanced and have been tested pretty extensively, they are also meant to have a core 'theme' and contain the units required to play to that theme.

Epic has always been intended to have strongly themed lists and very much avoid the 'kitchen sink' approach of having every single unit available.... for me that is very important and stops the game feeling like 40k....

If you have models for lynxes and hornets then they could be used to represent eldar superheavies and vypers respectively.... in a game of abstraction not every unit needs to be included imo, also in friendly games there is nothing to stop you using whatever models you like and mixing bits of lists together.... the lists around are intended to provide a balanced platform for tourament games, so if you want to male your own lists there is nothing to stop you

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

What Kyuss said - (got in before me )

Basically it is a question of 'balance'. In reality, battles are always fought between uneven forces. However people like to play 'evenly balanced' games to see who is the better general. In this way, Epic games are much more like Chess.

Your suggestion is a bit like asking to add Japanese Chess pieces to a game of Western Chess, played on a Chinese Chess board and possibly with the addition of dice to allow pieces to 'fight' when one piece takes another. While I am sure that it would be possible to do this (and there are a *lot* of variant Chess rules and games out there), doing this only to one side would make the game very uneven and less enjoyable.

In Epic this 'balance' is achieved by a variety of mechanisms in each list, and unfortunately this results in the considerable number of Races and lists out there. Indeed this approach is central to all other miniature rules.

However, what I think you *may* be asking for is a spreadsheet listing the units possible and the army lists that contain them.
This spreadsheet would allow people very quickly to find that Hornets and Lynx are only in the Eldar "Yme Loc" list, or that Marine Bikes are a core choice in the "White Scars" list, and would allow novices to pick the list that most suits the units they would like to use.

Or as Kyuss says, you can always just put the models on the table - just don't complain if this ends up feeling very one-sided . . .

I know I will take a lot of flak for saying this, but mind me this is just a personal preference so read it as thus. I think the community is over zealous about adding new units to the core lists. I also find that it is frustrating that there aren't more comprehensive lists available. They don't have to be in the tournament pack but at least in the full pack.
For example Imperial Fists can't bring Warhound Titans. I find that to be silly. It doesn't achieve any particular kind of balance. What it does mean is that Imperial Fists can't field those models. The points chosen for the game played will achieve the balance. On the matter of Thunderhawks it could be argued that they give another set of tactical opportunities that give Imperial Fists an edge. But I honestly think I would rather have them included and then give vanilla marines an edge that Imperial Fists have. But completely foregoing the mobility is not how I would do it.

I think there should indeed be an Eldar list that comprises most models for friendly games even if the more limited ones are kept for tournament play.

I find it highly frustrating that guard lists can't have an Capitol Imperialis. Such an iconic model. Or even the Ordinatus weapons which are now kept for the Mechanicums. These models are old school epic guard and if a guard player field them it means he won't field all the other artillery pieces.
One other example is the Chaos lists. To use all the Khorne engines with detailed rules you need a Khorne list. There is not one all-encompassing Chaos list.

Finally I think Epic Armageddon should evolve to allow new units like say the Riptide for Tau.

What I propose (knowing the diehards at this forum will disagree) is that a non-tournament list is created for each army, possibly a section of it's own in the non-tournament book. So that players who are happy to bring all the new AND old models to the table can have an easy reference.
Those lists should preferably have a large array of choices for titans incl. all the old published weapon configurations.

This could mean simply having a few large holistic lists:
1. Space Marine large list with everything with special rules for the chapter you choose incl. new fliers and spartans etc.
2. Imperial Guard that encompasses new FW models never made for Epic as well as old iconic entries as Ordinatus and the Capitol Imperialis.
3. Orks that holds all the models produced as well as new ones like the morkanaut and the FW mega dread.
4. Eldar list with the lynx and newer fliers and models and updated knights lists but also rules for exodites etc.
5. Chaos list that allows a multi god list with all the old and new list, possibly with some advantages for fielding a mono god list or a no-god list. This list could introduce new models from the current 40k GW and FW range.

This section could explicitly be for friendly games and "agreed to be used". Between them I think there would indeed be a balance that can be worked out.

Again - I know this will be shot down, but I would love to have such lists for friendly games.

If you are playing with friends then why not use whatever you want? If I'm playing with my group I know they would have no problem with me turning up with a biel tan army with a couple of formations of hornets or IG with a CI or specific titan weapons loadouts. We're all friends, we're not trying to be hceesy or overpowered using them and any issues that are presented don't matter as we know each other.

The rigid armylist system is there so that 2 strangers or loads of strangers can meet for a game or a tournament and have balanced lists and a fair game.

Kitchen-sink lists aren't developed as that goes against the whole ethos of EA list design from its birth

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

I explained the reasoning behind the list choices in the IF thread, would have been nice if you'd gotten involved in the discussion there....

balancing a list by points just doesn't work, look at how bent most of the tourney winning WFB/40k lists are which are mostly balanced by points alone.... you need to introduce restrictions on unit choices to ensure a strong theme in a list.... it also helps with the 'rock paper scissors' element to the game wherein certain lists do well against some and badly against others, rather than a number of uber-builds turning up and it essentially coming down to who gets lucky on initiative rolls...

There is nothing to stop you including all the extra units in your army in friendly games providing your opponent agrees, but it's not how the list design ethos was originally developed

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

All of which still begs the question why not have comprehensive lists in a separate section for easy of use and easy reference. Would be nice for inclusive games.
Creating them oneself is timeconsuming when we dont have the excel files behind the pdfs...
Also the lists arent really created for pick and choose as some concessions have to be made between them...

because it's a minority thing, most E:A players support the current list structure and development, which leads me on to...



yup, creating lists is time consuming, but I spent the time doing it, it would be no different for you to do it, there are no 'special' excel files behind the pdfs.... just basic excel files with formatting, I took the time and effort to make my own sheets, if you can't be bothered to do it for your own ideas, nobody is going to do it for you



do you mean for a 'pick up' type game with a level playing field? all the NetEA approved lists and a good amount of the developmental ones are very balanced against each other, no concessions need to be made at all.... not sure I understand what your point is here, if you'd care to elaborate?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Already here I think we are so far apart on what I consider community spirit and what you do, so no need to go into the rest of the things. Since a global setup of data files / excel files already exists in a common format, why sit down and type the whole thing again! (notice the lack of question mark).

I know my view points regarding balance, including old models (eg. Capitol Imperialis) and new ones (eg. Riptides) are not the majority on this forum, which is why I said I expected flak. Also I knew the idea of having an addendum with comprehensive lists for friendly games is not supported since the list makers have so much invested in them and are not open for other suggestions.

So let's just leave it there...

It has been suggested by many people, myself included, that an addendum of 'friendly game' units is created for people to bolt on to lists for friendly games, campaigns or special scenario games.....

I have no interest in making use of such a thing so don't have the motivation to write it up.... someone else might however

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Ha, as Steve says, between friends who know the game and want to try something a little different, then you can always add those formations you like. Assuming you play to a points total, you should use the formation costs from other lists (that have been worked out using the quite lengthy testing processes . . . ). Equally you might set up a campaign with more 'exotic' formations using the same principles.

However if you want to play against a stranger, someone who does not come from your group, or in a tournament of some kind, then it is more friendly to use the approved lists (which are more 'restrictive' as you already note).

However, Jervis Johnson's guiding principle in the E:A rules is creativity - so within reason there is no reason why you should not include a Capitol Imperialis, Ordinatus weaponry, Khorne engines etc if you want to. As L$ usually says Do What Works For You (DWWFY).

You should note that adding these units raises many questions alluded to by Kyuss - what are their costs, how many are permitted, what weaponry and stats etc. These questions and others are the subject of list creation and help the E:A community to establish just how to use a given unit - - - - which come full circle to your question of how and where they can be used

*cough cough* (in my SIG)

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

"We've always done it this way" isn't a great reason to keep doing it that way to me. I was wondering if anyone had considered the idea of adding units into the base lists rather than creating a new list every time something new comes along. I completely understand that there are lists there with different restrictions the create a theme, such as the white scars and the eldar world lists. Restrictions is a good way to force a theme, and having some form of "bonus" to using that list means that there is a meaningful difference between the lists, like access to wraithguard formations and large bike formations for example. I was more wondering if people had considered adding things that are more common in the flavou but didn't exist when the original lists were created should just be added into the base lists.

Stuff like Lynxes, Hornets, Thunderfires and the Land Raider Crusader and Redeemer should be available to all lists of that race as a matter of fluff, the formations of them are balanced by their points and they don't create a huge amount of unbalancing by being taken out of the context of their lists. It seems that by having them in a variant list only it just limits their useability for no real gain.

It's a dog whistle argument to say that the core lists are "balanced" and shouldn't be touched. We all know that isn't true and the core lists have been revised many times since they were first written. There shouldn't be any reason to at least consider testing these newer formations that make flavour sense in the core lists to go in there and see if they mess up balance at all. I reject the argument that the Hornet formations is balanced in the Yme Loc list but not the base list for example. If you can explain to me what about having larger formations of Falcons and War Engines in the list as core instead of aspect warriors and guardians does to make hornets balanced then I'd really like to understand what it is, otherwise it's just arbitrary and dogmatic that new formations can only go in new lists and the base lists don't get touched.

I completely agree that restrictions and additional access to different thematic formations in the alternate lists is a good thing, adds flavour and allows different builds, but it just seems to me that keeping the newer units out of the base list doesn't really achieve a hell of a lot and makes it harder for new players to figure out how to build a force, ultimately cramming them into a theme force they don't like just to use a unit that they do like. You guys have said that "kitchen sink" lists are bad but I don't quite understand why. The first handful of lists were kitchen sink lists at the time, it's just that more units have been released in 40k since then.

I'd be very much in favour of having comprehensive lists with every unit in them as an option for whoever wants to use them. There's a couple of main problems that I see:

1. Someone has to actually do the work and make them.
2. If you are basing them on GW 40k lists, they will be out of date every few months and require updating.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

This comes up every few months and, while I understand why people might want comprehensive lists I do worry slightly that this is essentially "battle forged" epic. Despite it's few idiosyncrasies; slightly clunky flier rules, the barrage table and the occasional macro weapon weirdness for example, this system does play very well and always gives a good game. I'd hate to see it open itself up to one-dimensional power builds in the style of modern 40k.

At the moment the community is small enough, or maybe just niche enough, that that might not happen. If it grows in popularity, which I guess would be welcomed by all, I suspect the system would be more prone to abuse. The easiest way to avoid this kind of thing is simply to rule against it.

If a system can be abused, sooner or later it will be, and that's not the fault of those people using it, that's the fault of the system.

I might just be worrying about nothing but would it be so hard to just house rule this stuff?