Seconding Ravensburg.

Also, I do web development and can do print/document layout if you need either a website or the rules laid out.

That's it basically, yes. The rule system is not subject to copyright, the text is. It would need to be rewritten.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

More volunteers excellent.

Thanks guys.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

I was having a couple of further thoughts about this last night :

1. As human resource is tight on this project (trust me I'd love to get involved but too much going on to commit for at least the next year) would it be a better first goal to compile a single printable document of the "official" amendments which can be used as a reference by those of us with the original books already?

Over the last few years I've slowly compiled most of the Firepower mags etc on either eBay or download, but whenever I've tried to convince anyone to play the conversation goes "this bit from here, that there and, no, not that bit it was replaced by this..." and it just puts people off (understandably.)

I would imagine this compiling and editing process would need to be done anyway, and the smaller "errata" document would be an achievable goal in the shorter term than rewriting the whole rules.

2. The name. Having recently got 4/6 new players into EA I can tell you the random combinations of abbreviations, epic and net are completely opaque for new comers and a source of much frustration (hell its bad enough for old timers.) Its not good having to tell someone they spent 3 evenings reading the netepic gold rules due to a Google search and that's why they can't make head nor tail of their netEA army list...

I would seriously try to find a name which is distinct from the various other epic projects out there - probably with "3rd edition" prominently included.

Blip mate,

1, Probably a good idea you have here and as you say fairly easy to do.

2, Also a wise idea it does get confusing with all the different versions of epic we have on this forum, a distinctive name would help it stand out.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

Ok Guys, Let's start.

first of all we have to agree on several things. Which will not be the easiest part.

Epic 40K is not perfect. Even if the global concept of abstraction behind the rules is fun, fast, tactic and elegant. The game suffer from many different problems. And we shouldn't ignore what pulled out so many from player from the 3rd edition in 1997 and face the reality.

Secondly, as I said before, the game was release 18 years ago. This is also something that should be taken into consideration. The 40K lore had evolved, NetEpic had evolved, EA had evolved, not Epic 40K.
I have the conviction that we could do something to give this edition the attention it deserve by changing and adding some rules. Epic 40K is a simple game that allow bigger battle and in less time than all the other Epic systems. This is a real strong point here, and it's more true today than 18 years ago.

Finnaly, we've just learn today that the specialist range is getting back in the business. What an opportunity to allow new players to discover this amazing system.

Here's what I think we should do:

Logistic:

- Rewrite the rules from scratch and put games workshop copyright everywhere.

Why?
We don't want any problem with GW here : )

- Compiling all the official Erratas/FAQ in the document. Don't know for the english version but the french team did a great work on the Epic Armagueddon rulebook.

Why?
Because it's a pain in the ass to find all those Errats, FAQ and additional rules that could be officials/experimentals/rejected in 14 magazines that are almost impossible to find. Knowing that some of the rules you can find in those mags are incredibly importants and change radically the perception you could have on the game

- Finding a name for the project is a good idea. And I agree with blip, net Epic 40K is not the best way to go.

Why?
Blip said it well, NetEpic40K is to close from NetEpicEA and NetEpic.

Rules:

- Adding new attributes to create more tactical diversity among the army:

Why?
Let's face it, many players used to think that the level of abstraction on the game was too high. Even Andy Chambers said it and they were gosh darned right. Some units are too similar and it's wrong because sometimes you get the feeling of playing all the same units.
Other stats are just totally what the darn, a rhino have the same armor rating than a stompa. Playing a space marine scout unit feel exactly the same as playing a tactical squad, and I may continue like this for a long time. Finnaly, the stats of some units didn't reflect neither respect the powers and the specificity that the fluff is telling us about those units. A land raider have a twin heavy bolter and a twin storm bolter. Those are obviously PF weapons that are rated 2 regarding what you can find on an attack bike.... But no firepower on a land raider. Instead of this you get ATx2, and the drama start because you will not prevent the player from thinking "well that's mean 1 twin lascanon = AT"... but once again no... because a dreadnought may be equipped with a twin lascanon and do not get AT.
Please, be sure that my position is not to tweak the game in order to have something that will inevitably tend to become Epic Armageddon. But we have to make something credible and logic. If we don't we will fail as sure as 1+1 make 2.

How?
Well, this is the interesting part. Here is an example of the alternative space marine list i'm working on.
My main goals when doing this list was respecting the spirit in which E40K was made but also gives a little bit more diversity and detailed to the units. And the main constraint i had was to remain logic regarding the stats and the fluff.

You guys have to know that i made a point cost formula for E40K that i think work pretty well. Also note that all the stats modification due to attribute has been incorporate directly to facilitate the excel function to calculate the units cost. Be quiet, the formula i've made stay close to the original unit cost, but I prefer a mathematical approach regarding the balancing in a game. Other advantage is that with this formula players will be able to create the unit they want

So, What are those new attributes:
- Inspiration: Allow the detachment in which the unit is to add +1 to the dice when removing blast markers. (may not be cumulative)

- Heavy armored: The unit gain +1 armor. The unit may only double his move during a force march order (Not sure of this counter part).

- Fast: The unit gain +5 speed

- Charge: The unit get +1 assault when charging during the assault phase.

- Cavalry: Now give a +1 assault bonus but only when charging.

- Sniper: give +15 range

- Infiltrators: Now reduce the armor of the unit by 1.

- AT: Yes, AT is now an Attribute, This solve the problem of the Land raider. The land raider have FP 1 to reflect the twin heaver bolters and the storm bolters AND AT 1, not 2, in order to reflect the role of a tank that get 2 twin lascanon on it's hull and it's "logic" because when you check the predator annihilator he get AT for having 1 twin lascanon turret and 2 lascanons

Why all those changes in the units?

- Terminators: Dudes, with this change you will have the feeling of playing terminators squads.

- Scout: Having snipers on the battlefield is important, even at this scale. Also by making the infiltrators units less resilient it reflect more the light armor they wear in order to be stealthier. (It also better reflects the carapace armor of scout).

- Chapelain: EA got them and i'm jealous, everyone love Chapelain + it's a cool alternative to a psyker.

- Bike squadron: Describe as cavalry in the army book but didn't get the cavalry attribute Also with the charge ability of cavalry it make this unit a killer machine for hit n run assault. Finally, a squad of 3 space marine bike is clearly more resilient than a group of tactical space marine NOT LESS, also with their incredible speed, they are harder to hit.

- Attack bike: Sorry guys, but this unit doesn't deserve it's 2 FP regarding the stats coherency between units. If a space marine tactical squad with 1 heavy weapon and 4 bolters get 1 FP, then an attack bike with 1 heavy weapon and 2 bolters shouldn't have 2. Good thing is that it keep a 30 cm range which is already cool and get a +1 armor buff.

- Land raider: yes i added save to the land raider. If a predator get a 6+ armor which i can understand then a land raider must have something better, i read the description of the save attribute and it fit absolutely well for the land raider. Also the land raider not only 1 AT but may add some firepower during fights. I think that this unit is totally overpowered in the current version of the game. This one is more balanced without artificially balancing the unit by making it extremely expansive.

- Dreadnought: Once again I felt the necessity of adding some more details to this emblematic unit by just marking the difference between the classic dreadnought and the Hellfire version of it. Also the dreadnought shouldn't get 2 FP for just having 1 heavy weapon and this is for the same reasons i explain in the attack bike paragraph.

I also added the variant for vehicles like the land raider crusader and the predator annihilator.

The AT Issue:

AT weapons has always been an issue in Epic 40K regarding the balancing. They tried to fix them multiple times ending with something that is incredibly expansive and i think not very satisfying. It is as easy for an AT weapon to destroy a land speeder, a land raider and a squad of boys. Rules for AT arevery simple but also very strange. You shouldn't get the same chances to destroy a light vehicle and heavy armored one. Finally, it is clear that AT weapons are meant to shoot at vehicles not infantry. And i always find it weird that AT weapons could be as effective as an anti personal weapons.

Here's what should be done regarding AT weapons:
- We keep the targeting choice rule for AT (Infantry or vehicle)
- We keep the one die roll per AT shot.
- Infantry are always hit on a 6+ with AT weapons.
- Player must score the armor rating of a vehicle to destroy it but add+1 on it's dice roll.

Well guy, that's it for tonight. Let me know what you think about all this. I will make a long post this week end about with a proposition to improve the assault resolution this week end.

Ravensburg

I think the one thing that most people will be excited to contribute is their vision of developing the game system further. Unfortunately, there really is no mechanism for consensus on one's particular vision and while I might find my changes are genius, another will generally see them as some guy's house rules. I think we need to be very rigid in prioritizing our work here. I believe our priorities are:

1) Written draft of the original rules with errata accounted built in
2) Website for distribution
3) Professional layout and design (including an editor, a typesetter/pre-press and one or more people to acquire license-free art)

Once we have these three things underway, we can start to think about rules development. My suggestion is to keep all new rules in a occasional Webzine, just like Firepower was for E40k, but we can debate that later.

I have a few academic deadlines through the rest of this month, but if those go well, I can provide some of the labour in December. I've already added a google docs, if people want to contribute their efforts as writers.

Dude, we are at the very best 10 to 15 peoples playing this game in the world right now, nobody is going to publish a magazine or a webzine like firepower. I realy think that with such a small community the logic of how we should approach the project should not be the same that EA.

I see the necessity of compiling Erratas and FAQ in a new rule book, but same causes produce the same effects. What's the point of doing the exact same things that a one who failed?

It's not like if what's pulled out players from E40K was hidden:
- Too many abstraction
- The assault phase
- Not enough difference between units

If we don't come with something a bit new that at least try to fix those things, then well, there will not be so many reasons for newcomers or other Epic system players to come and check this system. Plus, players can already get the 3 rule books and the FP1 easily to get everything they need to test the game and I think we all could agree to say that it didn't seem to bring tons of players. I'm not saying that changing the rule will do that, but at least the strategy is changing. We have to show that this game is not dead by making it evolved.

The E40K system is a foundation to create something better not an tomb epitaph.

It will be interesting to see whether you get consensus for those changes. I myself am happy to use the rules system that most people don't like, and prefer Epic 40K's abstraction over Epic A's details. But I'm not arguing for what you should do.

One specific, though. You won't want to give GW copyright of the text. Copyright covers the particular expression, and the reason for rewriting everything is to not challenge their copyright. You'll want to copyright the text yourself.

You will, however, want to make sure you attribute all names, images, setting, etc to them, and say something about not challenging their trademarks and such. Look into what other Net rules have done. I'm not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure you want to credit GW without giving them copyright.

andy

Ravensberg your proposals have merit and will need further consideration, so how do you propose we start to re-write the rules because we'd need to have your new updated unit stats and special abilities sorted before any re-write could be started otherwise you'd end up with constant alterations as things are tweaked, changed, deleted etc.

We need a set plan layed out for all interested parties to see and contribute to if they wish. Also it may be a good idea to find out who here actually wants to participate in the project. If we have a small team sorted out at least we can communicate amongst ourselves and debate over what changes we'd like to see before putting them up here for other members to comment on.

It may be better to exchange email addresses than do all communication on the forum.

Anyway I look forward to your next post.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

Fair warning, professional layout/typesetting and projects on taccom do not go hand in hand … I wouldn't wait for that to be in place before you start rules development. Unless you have someone competent at document design at the start, keep it as simply structured text, then if you do get someone to design it at the end they don't have to undo it all.

(yes, design should be involved from the start, but with the best will in the world that isn't this community's strength!)

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Well, KevinW mentioned that he does layout and I myself have done professional layout and prepress for over a decade now (heck, I started on QuarkXPress... I hope that doesn't date me).

Well then it looks like we have people to sort out the layout/publishing side of things that's a great start.

@Ravensberg, I've downloaded your new marine stats which I will comment on after study.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

oops, missed that, fair enough then, look forward to the results!

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Ravensberg - I understand your frustration. Every time Ive (and many others who "got" e40k) looked at the rules we see the potential for building it up to something new and better. The problem is there isn't the time, energy and player base to lead a complete revision like netEpic did with 2nd ed. Look through the forums here - it's been tried.

IMHO (and by the looks of things many other people going back years on the epic 40k thread) what is needed is a nice clean set of the basic rules which players can then use as a sand box to build on. By pulling it apart before you start you start down a rabbit hole which the momentum quickly runs out on.

I don't want to discourage you, if you have the time and energy to rewrite from the ground up then great (it's a fun process in and of itself) but don't underestimate the effort required.