Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Open War
Ginger
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I think I would agree here. To start with, go with the entire Handbook and the orginal lists. Then use the revised lists for the existing armies (Eldar, Marines and Orks if available etc). Finally consider including "mature" experimental armies (preferably when they become official)

I would agree with avoiding playing people in the same club, numbers and draws permitting, but that can be difficult with smaller groups of players.

As a thought, do the game score to team score conversions need to be examined or published? Equally, scores for incomplete games may need consideration or review. That does raise another point about team scores etc -

As I said earlier, anything to increase the game time and reduce the administration time would be welcome - Army trays are essential; 2.5 hours is the bare minimum, 3 hours is preferable to allow for count-ups etc.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Ginger, sorry but I don't think any more than 2.25 hours will work in the schedule the Vets have. Is 15 mins really that much of an issue? Games will generally expand into the time available in my experience.
Top
 Profile  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
While I agree the Vets timetable is tight and Parkinson's law is definitely at work, I am sure that we could gain the odd 15 mins here and there for each game. As you may recall, quite a number of games did not finish in 2.25 hours last event, and the extra 15 mins could well make the difference as we know that last turns are always a lot faster.

Equally, within the OW team system, it would help if we could find a way of letting important games extend where appropriate - Matt and others could possibly provide some pointers here. Also ways of scoring "unfinished" games would help too. For example, is it practical to check objectives at the end of turn two??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
skullric
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:43 am
Posts: 49
I attended both Open Wars this year and the biggest difference I noticed from
previous years was the (welcome) variety of armies in use now that the chaos
and 'nid lists are legit. I'd be happy to see this range expanded with one or
two experimental lists that were pretty much nearing completion. (I'd bring Tau
myself, having collected an army over the years, but never having had the impetus
to paint it).

However, I'd be hesitant to make too many changes in one go as far as the existing
lists were concerned. The best way to judge how the experimental list works is how
they compare against a standard benchmark: eg a typical Marine, Ork or IG list.

On time limits: if an extra 15 mins could be found for each game, not only would it assist the
slower players amongst us, but it would also help those with experimental lists (and
short memories!) to note down how the army faired in their respective battles.

As for the main rule set: I've mainly played with the published book, but have also
used the experimental rules (published 2004?) occasionally. Sometimes, I feel loathe to
suggest using them as they may favour one army over another, hence an official and
_definitive_ statement on their use in any tournament would be welcome. After all, if
you know you are going to have to use them, then you have more incentive to learn them!

Skullric

_________________
Blast markers are your enemy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Steve54
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:28 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4311
I think the problem with that is Matt has made it very clear his tournaments will only allow 'official' rules and armylists.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:43 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Oct. 09 2007,11:19)
QUOTE
I'm planning that next tournament that I hold in here would be using Neals docs. Unless of course people would disagree with them.

So I would urge my english counterparts to consider them as well. And give hopefully reasons if they won't use them. Marconzs book is based on Neals docs so in that sense it would be similar.

It's more than based on it, it follows them exactly - or have I missed something? Why not just say you will use the Handbook instead of confusing people by implying there are two different sets of amendments Hena?  ???

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:21 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Oct. 09 2007,18:12)
QUOTE
However. you've stated many times that this handbook is for you and if people don't like, thy can leave (you've stated this to me, Blarg and Niblebitzer). Now this is left open a chance that you can add there things which you want. At least that is how I interpreted those things.

Rubbish. That's a paranoid invention of your own mind. I have stated time and time again that I will go with the will of the international Epic community (with the proviso that Neal Hunt has final say on everything).

You 3 didn't like me choosing popular community opinion over your own pet ideas, and threw a hissy fit about it. I slapped you down for being silly, and so did Neal and others - here (seeing as you insist on bring this up again):
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....5;st=45

Also right from the start I offered Neal Hunt the 'God Jervis' position as having final say on all matters. He has recently produced change documents, and thus the handbook now matches those change documents exactly, and ironically his documents include exactly the few changes you seemed so bitter over (Demolishers, Dreadnoughts).

Just to be clear:
Handbook = Neal Hunt's revision documents.

If not there is a mistake and I want to know before the version 1.0 release. So far most people have been very helpful in providing such feedback. Obviously having changes integrated into the rules themselves is preferable to lengthy errata sheets. Perhaps you could return to helping make sure those rules are clean and acceptable to you and your group rather than remaining hung up on old arguments Hena?

Regarding typos - they will exist in both documents. It is worth noting that several typos in the change documents have already been corrected in the Handbook. Thus the Handbook is currently more correct than the change documents, and your excuse of not using it for this reason is rather obviously influenced by your resentment at other issues.


(Edit: Given Hena's comments here, I suppose it is also  possible that I have not made it clear enough that the Handbook will match with Neal Hunt's change documents. I have certainly tried all along to make it clear that this will be the case, eg here but perhaps fault rests with me for not conveying this clearly enough and if so I apologise for that.  I should probably update the start of the Handbook thread more clearly, or start a new Handbook thread).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Guys

As ever, there will always be a subtle but important difference between tournament acceptable rules and lists, and those proposals that are progressing towards the next "approved" version of E:A. The basic issue being that while Neal's proposals (or anyone else's for that matter) are in discussion, being tested etc they are still open to the possibility of change. It is worth noting that there is some disagreement over various parts of the proposed changes, which is why Neal has listed them as experimental - and why in the interests of fairness, tournament organisers like Matt and Hena have every right to be cautious about accepting them 'lock stock and barrel'.

I really like the notion of a "tounrament organisers pack", containing those elements additional to the "current rules" that are universally accepted, but just have not received the official seal of approval. We all have pet ideas and strongly held views, these need to be tempered with a degree of humility and tollerance if we are to further the cause of E:A. I am all for the current effort of Markonz and others - but this is a long term project that needs to go through further stages before it is finalised. Until that point, Tournaments will need a reduced version IMHO.

The biggest issue here is actually to distinguish between those revisions that are corrections (typos, and clarifications etc) and those that are changes (affecting game play, revising principles etc). In tournaments we need to get as much of the current corrections, FAQs etc into a single document, and Mearkonz's Handbook is a really good first step.

Markonz, would it be possible to reflect these differences between clarifications and proposed changes in the Handook; for example heading the revision with "Clarification" and "Proposed revision", or would we just ignore the "blue" typeface?




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tiny-Tim
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:11 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
The more I think about this, the more I feel that we should just leave alone. We have a set of rules that can be accessed via GW/SG with the first admendment (Skimmers). We have army lists slowly being approved for tournaments (OW at least). With regard to other lists, we just need to talk to Matt about allowing them into WPS & DS tournaments and approach Brian (/Matt) for the main GW Epic GT.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Open War
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:14 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Ginger the version 1.0 release of the Handbook will contain the entirety of Neal's revision change documents that ends up being accepted.  Neal's change documents are the sum total of revision work by the ERC and international community over the last 3 years, and nothing has been included by Neal lightly or on a whim. Nothing in Neal's documents should be a huge surprise to anyone who has followed ERC discussions.  The purpose is not to have everyone using different sets of special rules, but to establish a fresh international set of rule amendments. All used or none. After 3 years that is not an unreasonable proposition. Of course groups are free to use them or not as they always have been.

Thus if you think something shouldn't be in Neal's documents, then the time to feed back to Neal is NOW. That is why those change documents have been put out there. So far after several days very little feedback has arrived. That suggests to me that either most people are happy with them, or they just don't care. Given that years of development work has gone into them already at this stage by large numbers of people who do care about them, I would hope it is the former.


Edit: In other words I basically agree with the process Hena just outlined - amazing!  :;):  Though to be clear I would emphasise that I'd like to see this done internationally and collectively rather than on an individual group by group basis (for reasons of improving standardisation and future development - getting more feedback to help improve the game in other words). Also I am certainly not producing individual national handbooks - if I'd wanted to do that my group would have had a NZ handbook months ago!  I have given the Germans a copy so they can produce a translation (they were already translating the rules, but they were keen to be part of, and use the end results of, a collective international effort such as that led by Neal, and have been contributing all along to the process anyway).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 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