Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 11
  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

Rules Review Blog
J0k3r
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Just to echo the above sentiment, thank you so much for all your efforts and letting us know about the state of play.  

Its unbelievable that people seem to want to avoid clarification of rules that, in many cases, must have been brought up as issues for many years now.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
blackhorizon
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands
ow, that is a bummer. Big bummer.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Well, that seems cheery.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:52 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9525
Location: Worcester, MA
Again, thanks for sticking up for the community Neal and bringing this forward.

I'm curious though now about what you think about the NetEA route?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:57 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Chroma @ Jan. 29 2008,14:52)
QUOTE
I actually had some faith that Jervis would turn things around, even if only slightly; but now I'm disappointed.

The whole "rules lawyer" response to changes just boggles my mind... how is clarification a *bad* thing?

Yes.  That's pretty much exactly how I felt about both issues.

===

On a related note, I think this means a call needs to be made about NetEA.

I had hoped that the widespread positive reviews and general acceptance both here and on the SG boards would build some momentum.  I figured that getting something done and distributed was our best chance at getting an official update.

Since the chances of that seem very slim, the potential results of a NetEA project now look very different.  No integration basically means a full split with the official rules.

Is it worth the time and effort to develop a fleshed out Net version, in light of the fact that those of us who want to go to tournaments or play pickup games will likely be saddled with a different (and easily confused) rule set?

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Thank you Neal for your effort.
But...who ist Greg Bak? If he never shows up inthe forum it is no wonder he is overwhelmed with the amount of clarifications what he percieves as changes and rules lawerying.
He has to blame himselve if he drops out of the ERC for...what...years???

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9525
Location: Worcester, MA
I would like to see a full fledged NetEA document.  I get why the tournament players might be put off by the idea but as I have only played pick up games, that does bother me.  I would rather have a clearer set of rules then be confined to those in the printed rulebook because we didn't want to confuse ourselves when switching between EA and NetEA.

Unit changes aside, maybe we could also come up with some EA->NetEA and NetEA->EA reference/conversion sheets?  Highlight the major rules differences in them so players who find themselves using both the rule sets can have an easier time.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:21 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

(nealhunt @ Jan. 29 2008,15:57)
QUOTE
Since the chances of that seem very slim, the potential results of a NetEA project now look very different. ?No integration basically means a full split with the official rules.

Is it worth the time and effort to develop a fleshed out Net version, in light of the fact that those of us who want to go to tournaments or play pickup games will likely be saddled with a different (and easily confused) rule set?

I share your concern. I have really been waiting, and hoping that at least one of these series of 'its close now' announcements would yield something that would actually get this wagon rolling slowly forwards. I would dearly like to have my faith in SG and GW rebuilt, and it really wouldnt take much for me to give them a bit more space.

I also agree that it would result in a total division and two potentially confusing rules sets. However, I am not sure that it would be a huge amount of extra work - especially when you factor in the effort of getting SG to do something that we would no longer be bothered about - and the sight of any kind of movement would be good. Personally, I would rather do a lot of work for a bit of reward, instead of a bit of work for no reward, which is the current situation.

So, let me turn your question around: Without NetEA or any EA development, will there still be a tournament scene in a couple of years?

What will happen if we do nothing at this point? Do we really have much of a choice?

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:21 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 29 2008,16:08)
QUOTE
But...who ist Greg Bak? If he never shows up in the forum it is no wonder he is overwhelmed with the amount of clarifications what he percieves as changes and rules lawerying.
He has to blame himselve if he drops out of the ERC for...what...years???

Greg Bak's never been on the ERC.  He's been a long-time contributor to the game.  He was in the original playtest group.  He's had several articles published in Fanatic, including the "Riot" article with Adeptus Arbites rules.  IIRC, he also had some E40K articles published back then.

He was active on the boards several years ago.  I don't recall when he tapered off posting, but he has had very little online presence since at least the last version of the SG boards.

I can only assume that Jervis included him with the ERC members because he holds Greg's opinion in similar regard.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Neal, I think that there is little choice: we make a go of it.  We have discussed this openly here on the forum that the NetEA was always a possibility and really the only realistic one at that.  Now we are faced with the reality and it is time we embraced it.

If we don't make NetEA, the game will surely wither away.  TS Elliot is coming to mind,
This is how the world ends,
This is how the world ends,
This is how the world ends,
Not with a bang but a whimper.

I honestly don't see Jervis, Andy, and Greg Squared doing anything since their proposal is just that - to do nothing.  If they change their tune and actually start making adjustments then so be it.  NetEA can be adjusted as needed, and much quicker.  

Sometimes you just have to take it on the chin (like now).  You shake it off and make the best of the fight.

My proposal if you are up for it: create a temporary NetEA Leader (my suggestion is you, Neal).  Set up a basic structure of how you would like to move things forward, get a committee in place, and move further along still.  In fact, I'll post it formally on SG, TacComs, and Warseer right now unless you have an objection.

What is the worst that can happen?  People will disagree?  They disagree with how things are going anyway so what is there to lose?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:26 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

(Moscovian @ Jan. 29 2008,16:23)
QUOTE
In fact, I'll post it formally on SG, TacComs, and Warseer right now unless you have an objection.

Lets not jump the gun and rush ahead without a clear plan at this stage. We have nothing to lose by planning carefully.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
I only meant that FOR ME PERSONALLY I am on board and willing to do whatever is needed.  I say we start the ball rolling today though.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:01 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9525
Location: Worcester, MA
CS and Mosc bring up good points.  If the ERC comes up with little or no changes, that's the same thing as never giving EA any attention at all.

Further lack of support is going to result in further lack of playing.  I'd rather go forward with NetEA now and deal with any consequences if and when they pop up.

I'd also like to reiterate my support for Neal and a new committee, to let them decide how to proceed.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11147
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(CyberShadow @ Jan. 29 2008,11:21)
QUOTE
What will happen if we do nothing at this point? Do we really have much of a choice?

As I see it, we do have a few of options:

1. Do nothing and continue playing with the rules as is. All army lists that aren't officially approved already remain unofficial for the time being, if not forever. The benefit to this is that we are all playing by the same set of rules and we don't have to worry about fracturing the community. The disadvantages are obvious.

2. We continue with the progress we're currently making, with the hopes that someday Jervis, et. al. give their approval to some/most of our recommended changes. In the meantime, we take meaningful steps to lay the groundwork for Net E:A, because we know that if it hasn't already happened, the axe will probably fall soon.

3. We submit our Declaration of Independence and tell GW to frag off.

I understand the concerns of not wanting to fracture the Epic community. It might make organizing tournaments difficult. However, this is less of an issue for me, because most of the games I play aren't in tournaments. Besides, even if I did go to a tournament, odds are that most of the attendees would be TacComm members.

At this point I'm in favor of option #2. Even with this current bad news, I think it's still a little premature for option #3.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 11
  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net