If the forums ever get back up and running, the SG/GW plan was for them to be semi-official.  They requested that all the answer mods remain answer mods and indicated that except in unusual circumstances they would probably consider those answers the most authoritative available.  A revised "Master FAQ" thread there would definitely happen but whether or not that was turned into a posting on the GW site is probably unanswerable at this point.

_________________
Neal

I was at one point planning to make the Master FAQ a PDF document but never got around to it. Ultimately it was a resource for the most rabid Epic fan. I think the FAQ on the website is more than adequate for the average Epic player, any more would be overwhelming, and makes it look like Epic is a poorly-written system. Of course, the reality is that games like 40K are miserably under-supported as far as FAQs are concerned, but that's not the point!

Does this "...if..." mean that we still are not going to have a JJ-supported updated version of (net)EA?
I'm sorry to be such a total bore about this, but without credibility... Drain, anyone?

I'm about to start running 6mm Sci-FF in Sweden. I would prefer Epic because it's a short step for everyone to make. It's quite possible to get the old Epic-players to give EA a go. But only if continuity etc can be shown. (Else we'll stay a to small a group to thrive.)

And there's not as if EA is the only choice. SoW is viable, FWC too, ASQL2 is a fast and action packed game, Battletech is thriving as ever before. All can have EA's forces adopted/adapted to the them. And not to forget the mother of EA - Dirtside2...

Which reminds me, if these AMTL rules by E&C can be used, can there perhaps be room to actually do something about the nEA rules? (Lord Inquisitor says below that it might look like EA is a bad design. Well, it is a bad design... 75 paragraph entries in the Official FAQ...)

Gee, am I GRUMPY today or what?!
Could we get a grump smiley? Like this one...

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

The 2008 FAQ and Errata are the final word from SG.  That is the "JJ-supported updated version of EA."

There is no other support from SG/GW for the foreseeable future.  The most we might be able to get out of them would be a review of an  expanded FAQ, but I wouldn't expect that.  They were pretty much handing over the FAQ reins to the answer mods with the forum migration.

I'm sorry to be such a total bore about this, but without credibility... Drain, anyone?

_________________
Neal

Epic UK isn't proposing any rules changes - and I can't see why we would, the EA rules set is the strength of the game.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Ok Neal, different views for sure...  

Credibility first then.
We got netERC, with the hands tided behind their back for two reasons. One is being buddy's with JJ, and thus following his (for Epic defunct) design philosophy, the one that works for DBA.
One is JJ keeping a strangle hold on EA and not allowing serious rule work to be done. See first paragraph.
Not surprisingly there's no "major rule issues". It's meaningless to bring them up as that would change "core values".
Things like embark/disembark being one that is so strange as to only being explainable with things like "that's how this universe works, the individual being can bring basic rules for time and room to change at its whim".
As it is EA is a rule system, find the strange things in the rules and you'll do just fine... Thunderhawks and Assault troops being a fine example.

How the rules are written is also fairly idiotic. I know as I've learned them from the book, not from my mother's lap...
It can't be right that I have to look in three different places (four including Design Concepts) to find out how a certain thing works.
Design Concepts are taken to the bank for crizzies sake!

I really like this game, no doubt there. I find EA to be a really enjoyable experience. But the rules are on every level total rubbish and need a serious overhaul.
To put it mildly, GW is not capable of neither writing or constructing good rules. But as everyone is so deeply involved it's very easy to get things "working" anyhow, because you want to use your models!
That's perhaps a good financial strategy, but we don't need that and We Here Can Change That.
We can do what netEpic did to Epic II, we can make EA rules that are good, feasible and well written.

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

I don't understand how you find EA 'really enjoyable' but hate the rules, list selection etc.

The lack of rules changes has nothing to do with their being brought up being futile but because the game is excellent as-is, regarding your particular point about embarking/disembarking this was rejected recently as it fundamentally changes the game - and has been 'thought of' and rejected on a yearly basis. This is where its a shame the ol-old forums aren't still available so people can see how ideas have been worked through. In early versions of the rules thunderhawks+assault marines could perform 'eternal' air assault as it was called then with the marines jumping back in. This was found to be overpowered and dropped.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Actually, what we've got our "hands tided [sic] behind" our backs by is the GW Legal department.  

The reason the NetERC has to "tread lightly" when it comes to releasing rules updates or updated rulebooks is because EPIC IS STILL SUPPORTED BY GW!  All the available models and rules can be acquired right from GW's revamped website, they still consider it a "live" game and will mercilessly crush any copyright or trademark infringers that threaten that.  This is why we seek Jervis's support in our efforts, so that they aren't all "cease and desist"ed into oblivion.

The NetEpic project that grew from Epic v2 (or whatever version it was) was allowed fairly free rein because, at that time, Epic was *dead* to GW; marketting and sales had been stopped, so there was no threat to their bottom line, so they let it slide.  It was also a time of "loose control" for GW... they are much more strict now.

Jervis actually *wants* us to expand Epic and make it grow, he is definitely not the bottleneck/limitation you seem to think he is.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Thanks for pointing at exactly the problem I'm trying to address - the futility of bringing up rules that really need changing.

Yes, a game can be enjoyable with lousy rules. Because it give other values while playing. (I really hate poker, strip poker can be quite enjoyable.)

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

Could you list, say, five of these rules that "really need changing", Erik M?

As to the "embark/disembark" thing, it *has* been dicussed, analysed, tested... AND REJECTED... it wasn't idly tossed away or diregarded, it was thoroughly vetted and found wanting.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Ah ok Chroma, what can be done then is to call it a fan based Epic evolved from Epic II?

Epic:Repentia, anyone?

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

We can start with the credibility of Advance and Double.

How come that you can only step out of OR into a car travelling an average 25mph  while you can jump in AND out of the same car travelling an average of 50mph?

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

This is a frequent strawman, an easily defeated statement substituted for the other party's actual position, e.g. "Your position is X and I can easily prove X wrong."  However, it's a fallacy because X is not the other party's position.  In this case the strawman is "you only like the rules because of blind loyalty."

If you had been around during playtesting you would have seen Jervis taken to task several times for bone-headed rule ideas, not to mention the fact that everyone is painfully aware that he plays purely for fun and his tactical approaches commonly suffer for it.  No one is blindly following Jervis' pronouncements as if they were holy writ.

We're following the design concepts that have a proven track record.  That is most of them.  However, we have dumped a few as needed.

Not surprisingly there's no "major rule issues". It's meaningless to bring them up as that would change "core values".

_________________
Neal

I think it (Advance/Double and embarking) should be looked at more abstractly than physically. I feel that the different orders should be regarded as different levels on a scale from shooting to moving. If you want mobility, you march or advance. If you want to shoot, you sacrifice movement.

When it comes to embarking/disembarking, I too found it a little weird in the beginning, but if you think of it, it is not like entering a car in a vacant parking lot. When embarking/disembarking in a battle zone, there are a lot of fire positions, covering fires etc that takes place at platoon level. Embarkation/disembarkation (?) is an operation in itself and doing both in one turn impedes on your long range fire abilities. Nowadays, I think it is a fair trade-off. For instance, if you want to use the vehicles for cover, you cannot use them for long-range engagements. So, you consider whether to stay in the vehicles or not. I think those kinds of decisions makes you think, in a positive way, about what you want to do the next turn, or the turn after that.

I know there are a lot of people with first-hand military experience on this forum that can explicate further on how Epic:A relates to real warfare, but I think the gaming system works excellently in almost every way I can think of. The orders and different rules might not be realistic at first glance, but if you consider them to be strategic, I find that they often make sense.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

That's the funny thing Neal, I actually like these Battletech/Dirtside 2 rules we use. Unfortunately they have been mauled.
And I am not strawcutting, it has been said again and again that this or that can't be changed because that's how Jervis want it.
That it most probably was a typo doesn't enter the discussion... It's Jervis Canon, period.

Yes fred~, I've heard that "strategic" argument before. So just because it's on a "strategic" level I can only get a cup of coffee while you in the same time get a massage, then a three course dinner and top it off with a feature movie as I empty my cup.

I'll be silent now and see what is what and what to do about it. Cheers.

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