The conversation about Epic 40,000 resources in the
magazine thread got me thinking. Like SM2 and EA, E40k also has a persistently loyal following (albeit perhaps a bit smaller). Like those games, E40k also suffers from being scattered far and wide across numerous publications, many of which are extremely difficult to find today. To access all of the official rules, gaming resources, errata, army lists, FAQs and optional rules, you must go to four print publications (White Dwarf, Firepower, Epic 40,000 Magazine and the Citadel Journal) and countless websites.
So why hasn't E40k enjoyed the reorganization and republication as a living rulebook that we see in it's cousins, SM2 and EA? Not only have the Net-editions been able to gather all the disparate rules and errata in one convenient place, they have arguably grown the hobby—I've read more than a few posts by players claiming that their only exposure to Epic has been NetEA (not EA, when it was still around). That is a rather remarkable thing. E40k certainly
needs to be collected and properly edited (something which the original game designers realized almost immediately after the game was first released and which remains no less true today). Growing gamers, however, is even more reason to undertake this task. Does E40k deserve to be forgotten to time, or should new would-be fans have the chance to find another game they love? I was one of those would-be players a month ago, and now I am extremely happy I found E40k (after writing it off for decades for no other reason than it seemed obscure).
So what would be needed to publish a living rulebook to organize the fanbase? There would have to be some basic material needs—professional layout (I can do this: see my
Sisters of Battle list for a very simple example), a website (I can't do that!), editors and writers, a small handful of steady playtesters and so on. There are also some design goals that we must establish. I intend this to be a fully open conversation, but here are my thoughts on those:
Design Goals1) Stick to the original game. Much of the success of NetEpic and NetEA, I feel, is how much they cleave to the original games that they seek to revitalize. To that extent, I think we should conceive of our core mission with NetE40k (NetE3?) as being primarily focused on troubleshooting the rules (at least for now). That means no new additions or alterations to the core mechanics, options or army lists, except where the original game seems to have accidental discrepancies (for example, a vehicle with the Close Support special ability and Firepower 1, so that the special ability is meaningless).
2) Along the same lines, no changes to point values or unit profiles. There are many, many problems on this front, but all of those changes will need serious playtesting, time and discussion and are thus not part of our immediate goals (which is publication).
3) And in general, any changes to the wording of the rules (or tweaks and fixes to resolve contradictions) should always maintain the spirit, balance and design ethic of the original game.
Developing the GameThat said, I fully believe the game deserves to be truly "living." It deserves to be developed into the future by a smart and passionate community. Thus, I recommend a platform for this development: an occasional webzine. Ideas can be bandied about in gaming clubs, on blogs or on forums. They can be passed around as playtest documents. Eventually, however, broadly supported rules additions should be published in an occasional webzine in an "official" form (at least official in terms of community support). This is actually the exact same method that GW used with Firepower and other magazines. It works great, it allows players to add in new elements at their leisure and preference and gives influential weight to new ideas that really fix or add to the game. In honour of Firepower, I suggest we title this webzine "Assault"!
If you support this idea, then please chip in. If you have some involvement with NetEpic or NetEA, then please lend your advice!