(Markconz @ Dec. 18 2007,21:39)
QUOTE
[quote="primarch,Dec. 19 2007,00:33"]
Well I liked E40k, but EA took most of what I and other E40k'ers liked about that system (eg suppression and activation), and added a bunch of other great ideas, so it felt like an improvement. If EA hadn't come along I'd probably still be playing E40k. Also E40k was basically complete out of the box and there was not much development to do with it (especially once Epic magazines added lists for squats and others). In a real sense, adding to E40k could detract from the streamlined and complete feel of that system. If you were inclined to want to add to E40k, well then it's almost a natural progression to EA in my opinion.
EA's future, well check out the recently completed rules and lists revision in the 88 page document in my signature (and a version translated into German is due to be released shortly by a co-developer). The French have already done their own development project of EA, having gotten fed up with GW earlier than rest of us. Additionally there is an absolute host of articles and supplements continuing to be produced by players for EA, with no sign of abatement. Will tweaked versions of these be around in 5 years? Very probably I'd guess (though I'd actually hope the rate of updating will slow down - as it's basically impossible to keep up with all the EA development happening right now...). So my money would be on an active EA community still existing in 5 years time (unless of course SG rereleases Epic again in that time - hahahaha yeah right
).
I think you are right though, that there could be a risk of inertia if people place maladaptive faith in 'GW officialdom', given that this tends to fade as quickly as it starts, as evidenced by it's unfortunate history of broken promises. In fact I don't think there are many (if any) who are prepared to sit around waiting for GW anymore. Instead the trick is to develop in a way that SG can still keep inputting what limited resources it has (and there is still some of that happening... though very vaguely and in uncertain terms with no guarantees).
Anyway, I think the fact that even on this site netepic seems to account for about 1/4 - 1/3 of the Epic players is certainly encouraging for any community based project
Does it make things more difficult having so many different epic A groups basically autonomous one from the other?
Will each of their versions drift apart and down the line be very different from one another, besides the core mechanics?
I find this topic most interesting since in netepic, its one unified set of rules. Basically we have no parallel group that develops rules for the SM2/TL system.
Granted it looks like the groups are more along language lines (which is good for each languages proper support), but is there any agreement for making/adopting the same rules/amendments or tweaks?
Also, do these groups have solid groups of people that can lead their efforts for time to come? The more responsibility that falls on one individual the less likely such a group will survive that ones person abandoning it due to changes in interests or other life happenstances.
In netepic there is a whole cadre of people who make netepic go. I am pretty much long since been a figurehead and coordinator, making sure things move along, but I hardly decide what goes where or even what rules to change/tweak/amend.
So, for example Markconz, if you for whatever reason could no longer pursue epic A and keep things updated, is there someone with your zeal to bear the torch?
I ask these things because even I have had to take a hiatus from running netepic in the last 11 years, there are those who would make sure things get done.
Food for thought, since such endevours require backup plans for the inevitable bumps in the road of life.
Primarch
), or any aggressive marketing or exposure thats a pretty good showing. Then again most netepic enthusiast hang out on the netepic mailing list and only a handful post elsewhere.