Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Rules Review Blog
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=9239		 Page 1 of 11
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Not really the Epicomms amendment stuff, but I wanted a central place to post so everyone is aware of process issues.

=====

As of today I sent the proposed "minimalist" air rule changes to Greg.  Details in this thread.  I believe that these can be considered "final" form and ready for inclusion in the revised rules document.

Perviously, Greg, David (Sotec/Tepoc) and I had an email exchange on April 11 regarding revisions to the Skimmer rules.  Basically, the rules in the sticky thread on the SG boards are accurate.  I suggested an editorial change to pull all the Overwatch-related text into a separate paragraph for purposes of clarity.  Everything is agreed but I have not seen hard, final verbiage yet.

As posted elsewhere, I recently initiated a discussion on changes to resolve the Fearless/Withdrawal/Assault issues.  This was done at Greg's behest following a discussion about events at the Battle Bunker last weekend.  SG Thread.  My estimate is 1-2 weeks before I will be comfortable drafting something that can be considered "final" but that will depend largely on the volume and discord/concord of discussion.

Greg and I have also had an exchange over the past week regarding the experimental hit allocation rules.  I relayed negative opinions expressed on here regarding them (that's you, E&C  :D ) and stated that I largely agreed with the complaints.  Greg has not stated his intentions regarding revisions as yet.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
(that's you, E&C  :D )

Relevant thread here: LINK
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
On 4/22 Greg emailed David and I that he would have specific verbiage for the barrage changes to discuss within the week.

Going back a bit, on 4/18 Greg and I also exchanged emails on the Sniper rule and on multiple specialist abilities.  The position I expressed:

Specialist abilities should not stack.  Most inherently do not (i.e. Scoutx2 would be meaningless) anyway.

Sniper - I believe it was always intended to be ranged-fire-only.

Both those could be clarified via FAQ.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Neal - re. special abilities not stacking. Surely they should? Like two characters adding to the same unit and stuff? If you could in a list add two leaders/inspiring/whatever as a deliberate list feature they could?

But isn't this very easy to deal with - simply don't add in armies the option unless it is an objective of the list?

The most common one I can think of is supreme commander/leader. Drop leader from supreme commander to resolve all those?

Sniper I think can either have a ruling or simply be moved to weapons in the unit, not the notes section in that case?
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog

(The_Real_Chris @ Apr. 24 2007,10:08)
QUOTE
Neal - re. special abilities not stacking. Surely they should? Like two characters adding to the same unit and stuff? If you could in a list add two leaders/inspiring/whatever as a deliberate list feature they could?

Inspiring actually doesn't stack as it is. Invulnerable save is another one that shouldn't stack. Most others as Neal says are meaningless if stacked (what does Fearless x2 do?)

In fact, I think it is only Leader that people say should stack. Firstly, think about what characters do - they add their special abilities to the unit datafax - so how would that work? Actually write 2x Leader? Leader Leader?

Put another way, is it even realistic for Leader to stack? Leader represents the formation benefitting from the personal leadership of the character. That leader is going to be attached to a particular squad - does adding another leader to the same squad suddenly make the formation as a whole more effective? Probably not, beyond making that one unit more capable - the troops near the first leader are already being lead, more orders are likely to confuse matters if anything. On the other hand, if the second leader were to lead another squad in the same formation, the formation would benefit much more - two squads have direct leadership, and the "area of inspiration" for the leaders could be spread wider. Even in 40K Imperial Guard you want to spread your command groups rather than bunching them together.

So leader stacking isn't particularly realistic anyway. Inspiring and invulnerable save shouldn't stack, and it doesn't make much sense for anything else to stack. Just saying abilities don't stack is by far the easiest solution!
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:07 am ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
I would have thought inspiring would stack. You are simply twice as inspiring :)

The leader stacking bit I think only happens with supreme commanders as is - so drop leader from the supreme commander  to solve all istances of that. Otherwise it makes sense to have you commisar in every command squad (unless you have some Ogryns) bar the sc - and he surely would need watching the most :)

It would also remove the one instance of leader from the Eldar list :)

Re invulnerable save - I would prefer it to either stack (6+/5+/4+ etc) potentially as part of a wider review of that rule (see rules review thread) or remain as is. There isn't much point giving it twice, but maybe you expect a lot of MW and TK fire?
Author:  Moscovian [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Locked thread

Well, that pretty much sums things up now, doesn't it? :(

At least there is a stated timeline from Greg: mid-Summer.  Okay, I am officially disenchanted. :glare:
Author:  Steve54 [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
After this latest fiasco I've given up hope of any official rules review.

I guess

'We have a few minor wording changes to clarify some things and a final pass of forum review on a coupld of the items ... Very close.

Greg'

was basically bull.
Author:  Moscovian [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Steve54,

I guess you were right- my apologies.  My vision was clouded.   And with no disrespect to Neal or Greg, the 'friction' in that thread is not encouraging, especially in light of what still needs to be done with the rules review.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
I remain hopefuly as a) I won't get back to regular gaming until mid summer :) and b) everyone involved is still a fan and still playing the game as it were.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
I can honestly say that if an official rules review never occurs it won't bother me. There's always NetEpic, a system which I prefer anyway.  :;):
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Final Skimmer verbiage has been given thumbs up by all of the ERC as of today.

I requested clarification on how Greg intends to proceed with the Rules Review.  Several statements he has made imply a "serial" approach where each rule is approved and posted and a final, collated document produced at the end.
Author:  Steve54 [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Neal - is there any indication whether SG will accept any future rules review recommendations from the ERC or will the Epic Rulebook have to be out of print first?
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog

(Moscovian @ Apr. 25 2007,15:06)
QUOTE
And with no disrespect to Neal or Greg, the 'friction' in that thread is not encouraging, especially in light of what still needs to be done with the rules review.

No offense taken.

Greg and I won't be playing any games together any time soon, but nothing between us should stop the rules review.

If it comes to that, I'll just resign.
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Rules Review Blog
Neal - is there any indication whether SG will accept any future rules review recommendations from the ERC or will the Epic Rulebook have to be out of print first?

It hasn't been addressed in quite a while.  I have a hard time believing that they could still have a substantial backstock of rulebooks 3+ years after SG went all-electronic.
Page 1 of 11 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/