Now then, I've only been part of the UK tournament scene once; at WPS first Club Challenge in GW HQ I was more or less responsible for the 40k being played there. That said...

DWWFY does not work. netERC and EpicUK does.
Those two work (as well as F-Epic) because you got a group of people sitting down and decide what's what and what's not.

The ideal solution, that might also speed up and legitimate all this work, would be if each of these got one representative each and then present suggestions and all three bodies vote for a common solution.

Until that happens we'll have this cotteri-al division.

Right now the only legislate army lists and rules there is comes in hard printed form. Epic Armageddon, Swordwind and Epic:Raiders.

Let's form a judicial triumvirate for NetEA!

(nB - seriously technical terms and not native language may make things sound a bit strange. But I hope you'll get the geist anyhow?)

Edit ~ DWWFY works in small strong groups. But is a biatch when it comes to introducing new players and doing general PR.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Thanks for that, dptdexys!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Please remember that this is a discussion topic. Keep all comments civil and constructive, please.

I am too tired to get into this in a lot of detail, but I did want to make a couple of points.

Firstly, anyone who thinks that this only affects people who go to UK tournaments is mistaken. The UK has the strongest Epic tournament scene, and leads the world (largely due to the efforts of Matt). By saying that the UK tournament scene will use a set of force lists exclusively, it sets expectation in that direction. If I am a new player, I simply use the tournament lists, as labelling them as tournament approved gives them a legitimacy. Anything that affects new players to the game, affects us all.

The bottom line is that this move sets these new tournament approved lists as the default force list. That affects anyone that plays the game, and anyone that wants to start as a new player.

Also, if this move is an attempt to stabilise development, where is the input and contribution to the current development? Where are the tournament thoughts and comments on the Tau list? Where is the feedback, and the list of changes that are recommended? How many regular contributors on the Tau development forum are a part of this move and have voiced their opinions on the latest discussion?

Why?

This entire development exhausts me.

I just dont understand why we cant come up with one set of lists. Surely, we all want a balanced set of force lists fit for tournament play, even those of us that dont attend tournaments. That is what I want.

_________________
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.

I am an epic tournament player and will support matt and the others in in this,

as all i want is a good set af useable lists,

I hope to see all the list from this fourm make it on to the epic uk site when thay are finished.

i do think that it will happen in time(i do think the dark eldar list is valid and should be on the site).

but for the moment please give the guys time.

we all want whats best for epic

_________________
http://s266.photobucket.com/albums/ii249/kev101/

agreed. No Epic player would turn down the chance of a game or the offer of a balanced list.

I feel there is a slight risk of tribalism arising. If Epic-UK don't feel the 'approved' lists are balanced then they won't use them.

If EpicComms and the NetERC are producing lists that are not making their way into the wider world (it exists) then they have failed in their mandate.

Epic-UK are not obligated to provide detailed feedback on the lists and defend their changes, but it would produce more good then harm.

It is appalling that until recently so little attention has been paid to the work of NetERC-FR and as soon as my girl learns the lingo I'll be paying her to translate    bloody anglo-saxons.

Can't we all just get along?
ps. We need a hippy emoticon

_________________
My shifting projects

Well you go away for one evening to your local club, come back and look what happens

I think the main point here is see wait and see. The lists arn't behind closed doors; as other EPIC UK tournament players have said, they are playtested within the community they are designed for.

They won't go on a forum because the same thing would happen as it has in other army list development posts (and to an extent this one) it will go round and round in circles and get no where.

Give us time!

Thank you

Matt

_________________
EPIC UK Chairman
www.epic-uk.co.uk

EPIC UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic gaming in the UK

chairman@epic-uk.co.uk

I've stumbled into this topic a little late, and I'll give my opponents ammunition by stating my relatively recent entering into Epic Armageddon.

I'll try not to ramble for too long, though sitting on the fence I can see both arguments.


Epic UK- As a tournament goer, and an Epic player living in the UK I want a consistent, stable supply of army lists, especially for armies yet to recieve (and currently will never via GW) army lists, so that I can use them in various tournaments without wildly varying stats, units, rules ammendments between tournaments. If this means somebody on the other side of the world is put out because I want to enjoy stable Epic gaming in the UK, it's hard to find sympathy.
Truth is, you can't please everyone, especially a worldwide community, this idea that we can all come to the 'perfect' Epic army lists and house rules universally used around the world via forum discussion is a little naive, and has proven to be ineffective.
So given the choice between a stable set of lists, that I and all other tournament goers and tournaments in the UK will be on the same page with- or a confusing mixture of various rule sets, army lists and ammendments, often with competing lists, in various languages (this Epic world unity we're talking about) that I have to 'lucky dip' to see which each tournament uses, it's no contest.


Tactical Command & other Contributors- The doubt is, will Epic UK be stable? Or yet another squabbling voice/ splinter faction in the Epic community offering their wares? I'm highly skeptical that it will provide stability, if it can get the consent of most, if not all UK tournaments and remain unbiased and open- then maybe it can.
The lack of credit given to these contributors (if and when their ideas are plundered for Epic UK), or worse the ignoring of them all (if Epic UK starts pulling it's own stuff afresh) is very disconcerting. I have seen a lot of great work in the Nid 9.1 list, in the Scions list, and various others, along with general rules ammendments, rebalancing of official lists, etc.
Where forum contributions can never bring a unified, stable game set- it can produce a wealth of brilliant ideas and options.

Combining the ideas and concepts provided by many forum individuals (very important to provide credit where due), with the control and organising of an 'official body' if only for UK Tournaments seems the best method to get consistent Epic gaming (again, if only for UK Tournaments).

Ideally Epic UK should be a 'gathering and organising of ideas and concepts provided by forum members and contributors into a formal list of armies and ammendments for UK Tournament play'.

Unfortunately, it seems to be 'ignoring of all ideas and concepts to date, secretly writing our own armies and ammendments then enforcing them through UK Tournament play'.

The harsh truth is if the Epic UK formal list of armies and ammendments proves to be fair and consistent (and enjoyable) then it will win my support (provided it acknowledges credit where due to contributors).
If it proves to be hamfisted, ignoring the mistakes and lessons learnt of previous material, or in itself confusing and muddled as current affairs (and so unejoyable) I will avoid tournaments using it, and continue to use some of the great works provided here in friendly play.

Not picking on Matt, this was just a convenient post to quote.

I'm really getting tired of this statement that everything just "goes round and round."  It's patently false.  A large number - the overwhelming majority - of army lists worked on around here progress quite nicely.  A few challenging ones don't equate to "nothing ever happens".  The list of accomplishments is actually quite long.  Just off the top of my head...

NetEA tourney mods have been stable for a year.
Dark Eldar have NetEA approval.
Templars and Blood Angels have progressed
Elysian and Krieg IG have solidified
All the Ork variants have progressed
Most of the cult CSM lists have progressed nicely

and so on

There are a _few_ lists that have continued to be problematic and points of contention that are not resolved.  As such, those issues represent a vastly disproportionate number of posts and grossly distort the perception of casual board viewers.

I completely understand why people think that nothing happens, but that does not make it true.

_________________
Neal

Matt:

What happened?  I think we're all at a bit of a loss.

About a year ago when Jervis determined the official changes and we decided to start NetEA, you were expressly invited to participate.  In particular, we asked you to give input on the NetEA Tourney Mods.  We reviewed your (at that time) current tourney rule changes and took them into account.  As I recall, every concern you expressed was addressed in the NetEA mods, not necessarily in identical fashion to your tourney mods or statements but addressed nonetheless.

We also explicitly asked to coordinate efforts with the UK tourney scene moving forward.  You declined at that time because you were in a crunch period in grad school and weren't doing any work on Epic stuff.  Fair enough, but you also stated that you were willing to do so and would contact us after you got to a point in Real Life where that was possible.  You knew that we were not going to wait, but we did still want you to join in when it became possible for you.

Now, out of the blue, we get this announcement without so much as a courtesy email or pm to say "I thought about it and decided not to play with you guys."  Further, it seems clear that you are not willing to even consider/reconsider working with us.

I'm not going to try to convince you to change you mind, but I would like to know what else could we have done to make cooperation seem attractive, if you don't mind responding.

_________________
Neal

And all this time I thought this thread was just about a tournament in the UK.  Silly me!  

As the fella who headed the Raiders project (which was mentioned about a dozen times) I wanted to throw my hat into the ring.

Matt's decisions: I really don't see a problem with a tournament organizer declaring one army list as balanced and the other as imbalanced.  I have done this and nobody questioned me.  I was the one organizing the darned event and putting my blood, sweat, and tears into it so I felt it was my call to make.  I did get opinions from a few others, but I also included things that I wanted just 'cuz.  Matt should be able to do the same thing.

Army List Development: However, when it comes to list development and modifications to existing lists, this EpicUK thing is not in the spirit of open development that has been around since the times of Jervis.  If you have something that you think is a better list, you really should put it out there for all to see.  The best case scenario is that you are making a contribution to the community, the worst case is somebody points out something that you might have missed.

Having 'secret army list development' is a sure fire way to fracture the community.  I can say that with 100% certainty because it already has - just look at this thread, Matt!!  But a fracture isn't a break; this can heal if we can coax both sides back together.  But that takes effort and often some pain (read: humbling).

Just because somebody posts a comment about your army list doesn't mean you need to get frustrated or even respond (I ignore half of Zombocom's posts just as a matter of course   ).  Seriously though, when you post an army list (or army list change) you are sharing, and last time I checked with my kids sharing was a nice thing to do.

Ex. Raiders: Ben Skinner (Evil & Chaos), Corey, and I worked on Raiders for 13 months.  Two Americans and one Brit.  Ben and I could NOT get any more different.  You did not see the nasty emails and temper tantrums that went on behind the scenes while we worked on that book.  However, out of all that adversity something really special was born: a book that has had about 2,000 downloads and 124 prints sold in twelve countries.  Despite the fact that Ben to this day still drives me nuts I can state unequivocally that Raiders would not have been nearly as good without him.  We could have easily developed the three lists independent of each other.  That would have been easier (not to mention kinder to the Minervan list which I think we all acknowledge needs some improvement), but easier isn't better.  Raiders would never exist in a EpicUK environment, nor would the great supplements coming down the pipeline.

Having the NetERC, Fr:ERC and EpicUK working together is hard work, but in the end fruitful.  But I leave you with one of my all time favorite quotes:

"Of course it's hard... It's supposed to be hard!  If it was easy, everybody would do it.  The hard is what makes it great."

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I always liked that film.

I'm going to (kind of) repeat myself here.

The EUK tournament lists should not concern anyone who isn't going to go to a EUK organised tournament.
I don't think anyone outside this group should be concerned.
Nobody should feel that EUK rules replace anything from GW or NetERC.
Just think of it almost as a private club.

I, for one, will not be using EUK rules except at EUK tournaments or practice games for said tournaments.

Now

Anyone who does want to go to a EUK tournament, and feels that more official rules should be used should take it up with Matt. He's catering to this group and if you're a member of it, he'll listen. Turn up and have your say.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Neal,

I do apologise for not getting back to you. The truth is I completely forgot about your email(s). Your, right I was completing my dissertation at the time and unless your email was regarding 'trade unions within local authorities' I would not of remembered a thing . However apart from that email I recieved no other contact. The other problem is, as mentioned earlier, I had no idea who and where NETRC are ... so how could I contact you. I have very limited time, organising 5 tournaments a year takes it's tole you know .

However I still have massive concerns about 'non UK tournament EPIC players' creating 'UK tournament' lists; this is echoed through the people who go to my events ... I sorry but these people are my priority as they pay for the events and keep the UK tournament scene alive.

As I've said the lists arn't closed (they just won't be available on the internet); we have a champion based in London, Midlands, Milton Keynes, Exeter and North of Leeds (however I still say, Manchester area ). Also the Space Marine list will be available on the Full Scale Assault Gaming Day ... come down and have a look and a chat; it's only £4 to enter and you could get a game or two (see the website for more information). Remember these are lists designed for the UK tournament scene.



Thank you

_________________
EPIC UK Chairman
www.epic-uk.co.uk

EPIC UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic gaming in the UK

chairman@epic-uk.co.uk