|
We are going round in circles here, and at least partly because of misunderstandings of what I was trying to suggest, so with apologies for repetition and length, here is my view of where we are and what is needed.
Situation
It is clear that GW / JJ want to draw a line under Epic and move on. Equally, that there is a core of support which wants to play and develop the game. I think we all agree that the rules are essentially complete, so any development will be in the army lists.
JJ has expressed a clear (and IMO eminently sensible) suggestion that the army lists should represent the core stuff available to the principle races - but allows and even encourages the development of "fan lists" for particular factions, sub-classes or allies of the principle races.
Over time it has become apparent that there are a number of issues with the core army lists, but the champs decided to pile up the changes for a "one-time" fix because of JJ's views. The handbook was presented, JJ pronounced, and now we are trying to decide where to go.
The Future direction
Without trying to steal thunder (or second guess) the Net ERC, we need a means to process, authorise and publish the army lists etc.
I believe that Net EA is the way forward, given the lack of support from SG / GW, and the evident desire to draw a line under Epic. So the Net ERC has been formed to bring the global community together, support the development process and to authorise appropriate changes. I sincerely hope that Markonz's excellent handbook, which has been an excellent catalyst for change, will continue to be used to communicate all Net EA approved changes.
However, large numbers of people do not visit the boards and rely solely upon the resources in the SG site. If we can, it is my firm belief that we must continue to post the results there. Together with its long-term stability, this is one of the main reasons that the UK tournament group continue to rely upon those resources
Today, these two strands of thought are not incompatible if we are able to get JJ (or someone else) to post our changes on the SG boards. We have managed to get the vast majority of rule changes through JJ, and, provided they are vital to the balance of core army lists, I see no reason why JJ should refuse to publish suggested changes to the army lists as part of the "final revision", which I think will include updating the online rule book - so that will indeed supercede the original printed version. (In saying this I am both mindfull of the various statements above and have also been communicating with JJ).
If JJ does publish some or all of the proposed changes, then we have the ?official? rule-book and army lists on the SG site for general use, and the ?NetEA approved changes? in the ?Handbook? which may contain further developments due to be published. We also have a complete end-to-end process for developing ideas through to their publication at minimal cost to GW, which IMHO is the best of both worlds. Of course if JJ declines to publish the vast majority of the changes, then we will have to look for another way to do this, and the 'Handbook' is an excellent starting point.
Right now to test this approach, we need to present our ?Army list changes? to JJ in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for him to review and understand the ideas being presented. IMHO we must make a clear distinction between "Core" and "Cosmetic" changes and we must make them clear and concise; hence the suggestion of prioritising the lists, and doing every thing we can to make the review process easy.
I still firmly believe this method is the best way to provide a single set of rules and lists for use by all, together with the means for going our separate way as and when necessary (which may indeed be sooner rather than later)
Phew - have I missed anything?
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
It would just allow tournament organisers to select their type of tournament, and players to know exactly what the situation was.
