I would agree that it is a good and valid point if there were one set of rules for EA, but there isn't. There's Net EA, Epic UK, Epic Fr, and EA (GW's original rules + FAQ), so that's even more confusing for new players. If there were just one set of official rules which was still being overseen by GW, as was the case when EA was first released, then you'd be spot on with that analysis, but in view of the current status of that game, I find it difficult to go along with that point of view.



This runs into difficulty if you're playing people who want to use optional rules which you've never heard of. If you're playing friends who are on exactly the same wavelength as you when it comes to the game, what you're saying is workable, but in any other case it's liable to cause problems. It certainly has the potential to cause problems trying to reply to army list and rules enquiries here.

I completely agree with you about Dark Eldar .

_________________

None of those are rulesets. Those are all army list sets for local tournament play, mostly the differences are as slight as drop troopers having heavy bolters or missile launchers, they all use the core EA rules with the official errata update. No actual rules fragmentation there at all.

I get that you are just against any form of change whatsoever, I do, but other people want to see the game evolve and at the end of the day that doesn't need to affect you mate. You can decide that you won't acknowledge anything that has changed in the last quarter of a century nor do you have to play with anyone who does, problem solved.

I for one would like a suppression dynamic in netEpic, I like playing about with new and interesting house rules that I would have never considered before. There is room for both views that's why Primarch is pooling the optional rules into an optional rules file. At the end of the day if a new player gets confused about whether or not the optional rules in the optional rules file are compulsory or not then they are probably not gonna be successful in applying most of the rest of the game's rules anyway.

[Edit log: Damn you bolsters!]

Army lists give you the rules to play a given army, therefore, they are a set of rules. Not the core rules, but rules nevertheless. There are significant rules differences between some of them, notably some Eldar and Chaos lists, thus there is significant fragmentation of the rules.



That depends on how you define change. Changing the rules to fix errors, improve clarity, or to solve major balance issues is okay. Just adding new or optional or alternative rules to accommodate differences of opinion between gamers is something I disagree with. I also disagree with updating Epic to reflect unit and army evolution in 40K.



The problem arises when players are using different rules. It makes building community cohesion and clarity very difficult. It's also divisive in my opinion.

_________________

lol wut, Irisado? Alrighty there man. I'm sorry but your "list==rules" is pedantic (yup so you're saying that when GW added the Renegades box it caused fragmentation to 2nd edition too. Oh noooez the fragmentation actually started in 1st edition when it stopped being Marine on Marine battles!!!!! ]. Perhaps I'm misremembering but I'm fairly certain you've said on other sites you don't even play NetEpic anymore so... I'm not really sure why you've got such a need to tell everyone how they should play with their toys because regardless of what you say or publish, in the end people will play with what they want and how they want. Might as well give some guidance because ultimately that's all a rules set is: Guidance. There's no "doing it wrong" will our dollies.

The fact is the type of tabletop game all flavors of epic are and the types of gamers it overwhelmingly tends to attract are not the types that are playing pick up battles at an LGS where fragmentation could at least be a cogent argument to be a stumbling block. This is a game that tends to be played with one's local friends and/or tournaments (more 4th than NetEpic but they're not unknown), both of which are already going to be tweaked and changed REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE THINK because people are individuals and have likes/dislikes and the tourney comp packet isn't controlled by anyone other than the organizer anyways. The myth of "I can play with anyone anywhere if we all just followed the rules!!!" is just that. (OMG you're coloring outside the lines!!!)

I just wanted to pop in an say that watching NetEpic, and the versions and evolution, has been a wonderful thing to see and that the way Primarch has balanced a core set of mechanics with the desires for options and alternative "components" has been really neat. I'm very impressed with Magnus's work on NetEpic, especially his points system and openness to explore armies and concepts that may be of interest to other people, even if it's not something he personally cares to use himself. I personally would hold up the NetEpic project as the pinnacle of a fan-run project. I personally love lurking in this section for these reasons.

Seeing modules and spin offs of a core system is not a sign of impending disaster. It's the sign of a robust and actively engaged audience and community.

Now I do think that Irisadohas some VERY valid points about making things EASY for people to find stuff and that organizationally, NetEpic needs to make these optional or fan-rule add-ons clear. It's probably something to consider that a rules questions section needs a convention about what the post is or even better being segregated into two areas.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Supplements like Renegades replaced existing army lists, so they do not relate to my point. The fragmentation we have in the Epic community is caused by the vast array of lists which are variants of original lists and not replacements.



I no longer played NetEA. I am currently not playing NetEpic. I would still like to play NetEpic, but I disagree with the direction in which the community is going with creating new and alternative rules alongside the Gold version. I believe that it's imperative to stick with NetEpic Gold and to ensure that all its rules and armies are working as intended, and not to try to create new and alternative sets of rules alongside it.



Nowhere in any of my posts does it say 'you should do this'. I'm expressing my opinion, which does not involve dictating how people should play the game, rather it expresses my disagreement with a number of suggestions being made.



Except that when GW was responsible for the rules (note I'm referring to SM2 here), people played to them, without all this fragmentation that currently besets the community. This is the inherent problem with fan based rules, the player base can never agree on everything, and it leads to division.

So, to turn back to this suppression issue. What would it add to the game, even as an optional rule? Why do we need to introduce an EA mechanic into NetEpic. The whole point of NetEpic is to avoid mimicking EA, because a lot of those of us who have played it do so because we're not massive fans of EA's rules mechanics.

_________________

dude i've played epic with people on 3 continents. if this was such as issue it'd be obvious. you keep droning on about fragmentation but you've absolutely failed to explain why this evil "fragmentation" is even bad as people overwhelmingly play epic with their friends so it doesn't matter what people the next town over are doing OR are playing a tourney wherein the organizers comp it anyways. Seriously, it DOESN'T EFFECT YOU. You're NEVER EVER going to play a game against alsted, or sayerwolf, or myself in all likelihood so why are you worried if he's interested in the fan made suppression rules to play with his friends?

I'm sorry but UK tournament players deciding that Baneblades should be dropped by 50points or should be able to take 4 tanks (all hypothetical examples) in UK tournaments and sticking it out there as a PDF pack is no different than your stated desire that NetEpic armies should being playing as intended (presumably you mean composition, points, and the rules for them are unambiguous aka wording and side effects) as they replace the list at UK tournaments. It's funny as the actual author of 4th edition IN THE RULE BOOK stated explicitly that the design goal for his game was to have myriad of lists and variants of those lists out there for people to use and that any players should feel 100% enabled to make any change they care to it when they play. You may disagree with the design decision and think that's stupid and I'll never tell you you're wrong to feel that way but it's not a new set of rules by the definition of the rules themselves.

Your logic is like claiming that because Battletech had mech creation rules, every creation of a mech fragmented the Battletech community. There are THE RULES (EA + FAQ) and then there's lists those groups you mention manage for people to play with under the presumption that they will be used, more or less with those afore mentioned rules. If two players happen to use a French list with a scenario from one of the NetEA produced supplements and for shits and giggles, use my night-fight rules, it's not really pertinent.

Need I also point out that you're completely glossing over the fact that GW produced OOOODLES of optional rules for 2nd edition in White Dwarf, a couple even being from fan write-ins. I know, I own every one of them still and they're a cracking great read 20+ years later. So why is that kosher when an optional fan made rule was thrown out there and not now? Is it because GW somehow blessed it? Well they never blessed netEpic whatever at all either and that was ok to publish.

Now that being said, NetEpic, as a name, is awesomesauce. NetEA as a subsequent name years later coming along is rancid goblin spunk, but I don't have any say over that. THAT'S more confusing than any number of friendly play optional rules collections.


Ummm then don't play with those alternative rules. I'm sorry but dude, that's basically throwing your toys out of the pram. I hope you don't got any lighter fluid and a youtube account because we all know what the next stage is [<= playful, not argumentative]

Presumably you like straight vanilla NetEpic gold. Awesome! So play that. I think you have this idea that if Platinum is created that it makes Gold somehow go away. That's the EXACT opposite of what Primarch has stated. If that ends up meaning that it's such a hit that you end up having no one to talk to about Gold with, so what? No one's obligated to play what games you do. No different for me than when the battletech I knew and loved went away and everyone went to the new version.


Why? No seriously, why - do - you- care? Now if what you're meaning is, "I think there's a priority that we need to instead focus on making sure the current rules are as clear and unambiguous as possible first because we've got problems as they are, then we can focus on that other stuff" then fair enough and I can totally get behind that line of reasoning!


But dude, you came into a thread where a person THAT IS CURIOUS ABOUT THE FAN MADE RULE FOR THEMSELVES, and feel the need to go totally OT about how NetEpic needs to freeze in time and how you don't like changes IS TELLING HIM HOW HE SHOULD PLAY. If Primarch feels the desire to create something for him or says "cool, let's post that somewhere for posterity" your opinion isn't appropriate because frankly, it wasn't asked for. The fact you don't like that fan ruleset has nothing to do with the actual topic and you're 100% wrong: You ARE actually telling people about how they should play. Nowhere did Peter mention anything about adding them to Gold (which if that's what you're actually meaning by your posts then I apologize)


What a load of bollocks. The very first thing I had to do on moving to three different cities (one of which actually was 100% based out of an actual honest to god GW store so the mighty governance of GW rules lawyers you think were a thing didn't exist) during that period was learn what changes people there were doing in their epic games. Actually that's not true-ALL THEIR GAMES they played. Perhaps YOU never considered the possibility on changing anything but stating there used to be some magical halcyon days where everyone thought and acted the same is demonstrably false. Hell man, I used to read and share crap about Epic 2nd edition on old BBS systems CONSTANTLY. It was a thriving thing way back when (and presumably into the internet days - I was out of the game by then).

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I have explained what it is. If you choose to disagree with my explanation, that's you prerogative. Using inflammatory language to make your point doesn't make you sound any more persuasive or convincing.



Because when or if new players come here to ask for advice, help, guidance, or about the game in any way, they're going to receive so much contradictory information about the rules and armies that it's going to confuse them in my opinion.



GW sanctioned it, so while it was optional, it was printed in the official magazine. That's the difference for me.

They didn't need to bless NetEpic, because that was a re-write of a set of rules which was replaced by Epic40K and subsequently EA.



You're missing my point. I would like to see an integrated community playing to one set of rules, as this makes community building and getting new players into the game a much easier task, in my view. That's why I care about this so much. It has nothing to do with my gaming situation.



I agree that it's the exact opposite of what he has stated, but ever since all the other projects began, the focus of the vast majority has shifted to Platinum and alternative rules. The net result (no pun intended) is that my ability to contribute here has diminished significantly, and considering I actually like to make contributions and to help players with their army lists and tactics when I can, means that I feel redundant. That's not a pleasant feeling to have.



That's a compromise position that would alleviate some of my concerns, especially since every time the Gold rules seem to be sorted more problems with ambiguously worded rules keep cropping up (kudos to Scream for finding most of these by the way).



It isn't, and you do not need to shout at me to make your point. If I meant 'should', I would use the word 'should'. I did not use that word, therefore, that is not what I said.



One of my concerns is that if sufficient momentum is generated behind optional rules is that said options may well end up being added to Gold.



This is one of those 'your experience versus my experience' type of things. I need to be clearer about what I meant by people, so I'll elaborate. All the people I've ever gamed with never felt the need to change the rules. Back then, we were all young and inexperienced gamers who followed GW's rules to the letter. Evidently, people you met approached the game differently.

_________________

Cool! I grok your points far more now. All in all I do appreciate the responses The medium really sucks to convey any subtlety and nuance.



yeah that part is sucky. =/ I totally feel for you on that.


Agreed that probably some house cleaning is needing to be a priority. I don't know NetEpic well enough to assist on that otherwise I'd be up to help. Organizationally the classic way to tackle this type of situation has been to split an org and assign a lead to focus on maintenance and another for vnext (which is what Platinum feel more like, less a revision). Honestly I think you'd be great to be deputized and responsible for redacting and publishing the gold book with that exact mandate. The passion you have for Gold is apparent. Perhaps that would help alleviate the above mentioned feeling?


This is where I think you have a point that without some guidance it's a real possibility to be a cockup. How it's also one that's pretty low effort to handle simply by having a "Rules Questions for Gold" and "Rules Questions for Fan-Rules" and be done with it. I mean, it works well enough for the oodles of 40k fandexes out there; Talk about a fractured community!

I know this is my personal experience here but it honestly doesn't seem atypical but 99% of the troubles I've run into helping new people deal with directing people wanting 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or 4th edition in the right place. (again, NetEA as a name ==Goblin Spunk) Once people have the "rulebook" they want it's realllllly apparent what's fan-made. Probably the reason I'm more PRO fan content than not is a pragmatic one: you can never ever get it to be The One True Rules tm no matter how hard you try to. Instead I suggest that the impulse is sublimated and directed in such a way as to shuffle it towards the "junk drawer"/etc folder At least it's somewhere where an eye can be kept on it after all, it's going to get made and stuck out there on there on the internet regardless anyways. Better here for instance than in a million blogs and file sharing systems and permutations thereof. Information has the nasty habit of not staying in place. Any attempt to squash the above is a Sisyphean task.

A crap analogy is the concept of the Backlog in SW development. No idea is ever said NO to. It's just that it may never be produced

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

We're getting on the same page now .

I'm sorry if I wasn't explaining myself clearly. You've got the essence of what I'm saying now .

Regarding organisation, I was having a bash at organising that over at Specialist Arms, in terms of explaining what NetEpic is and where to find the rules, but I lost my direction and motivation after the focus shifted away from it. Getting that going again would help.

Anyway, I'm taking this too far off topic now in this post, so I'm going to stop, but to summarise, I agree completely with the organisational issues, and it's something I'll talk to Primarch about.

_________________

This is the last I'm going to post on this.

Regarding EpicUK, EpicFR etc. one is for the British tournament scene. That's the only one British people are gonna concern themselves with since that's the only one anyone really uses in that area. It's essentially self correcting to moment you look for players in your locale. I suppose it's possible a Brit, a Yank or an Aussie could accidentally try to find players where they live that use the EpicFR lists but I can't see them making that mistake for long.



Well, for starters, as mentioned by someone else previously I'd like to see fire and manoeuvre simulated within the wider netEpic rules. The second a civilisation has accurate ranged weapons in warfare, and a near peer enemy, it needs fire and manoeuvre. No exceptions. For this to actually be a viable tactic you need a way of temporarily degrading a threats lethality and mobility so you can set up the destroying action later. It seems a tad "off" that there is nothing even resembling fire and manoeuvre in the game. If I were to be extremely uncharitable about it, an awful lot of netEpic tactics are "find a nice big fire lane, stay there all game and shoot things." That's not a niche spammy tactic either it's an extremely viable one, where is the manoeuvre? I'm know you can have a high tempo manoeuvre full game too but that pretty much requires both players to agree informally not to simply camp and shoot because if one does it then the other kind has to do the same to compete. That smells awful lot like an optional house rule to me.

I accept that when the rules were first developed you had a bunch of guys hashing out a fun game with zero days military experience between them, so this might not have jumped out at them. Cool, it's still a great game with great rules but I'd like to be able to kick a sliver more realism into it. Let's not get into the argument that it's ridiculous to want realism in a game with militant space fungus in it. I don't want strict realism but I do I want a bit of fun altering the game's dynamic a notch using an innovative house rule someone came up with which, by golly gosh, was easy to find in the "optional rules to try file."

As for the EA suppression system, I really like it, I mean it has its glaring flaws, but as it is such a core mechanic to every aspect of the game it's not something I'd want to fiddle with house rule wise within that system. Getting back to netEpic though, without alternating activations I don't think the blast marker system would be very appropriate. So this has nothing to do, at least at its core, with aping EA. I'd like to see what someone else could come up with to cater to the specific case that is Gold; I mean it could be useless, or it could be EPIC, but regardless I'd still like to see it.

I disagree.

First, your comment about fire lanes assumes favourable terrain layouts which make it easier to generate said fire lanes. On the tables I've generated terrain for, it's actually pretty difficult for there to be fire lanes covering such a wide area of the table as you are suggesting, and even if there are fire lanes, you would be surprised at how many armies cannot actually exploit them that well.

Fire lanes really only benefit Imperial Guard and Squats to the extent that it can tip the chances of victory so much in their favour. My Chaos army has never benefited from a fire lane, for example. It simply doesn't have enough long range fire power to make use of one.

As for manoeuvring, my Eldar are very good at bypassing fire lanes I can assure you . It's all about making the best use of mobility and terrain to avoid becoming caught in a fire lane. Some armies have more difficulty with this than others, but even the less mobile forces have some mobile units which can be used to take out crucial units in the opposing army which are covering the fire lane. In essence, I believe that the tactic you're complaining about can be overcome using counter tactics.

Second, there are already ways to restrict manoeuvring in NetEpic by using snap fire. There are more options for hindering the movement of the opposition than was feasible in SM2, especially when you factor in alternate activations between players when it comes to moving their units.



Again, I disagree that more realism is necessary. If players want 'more realism' EA is there. It was designed in that way. NetEpic's remit is to update SM2 without breaking its core rules mechanics. Adding any sort of suppression rule would, in my view, go against this remit. We're not supposed to be re-conceptualising the game, and even if there are optional rules, they need, in my view, to stay within the core rules framework. Suppression does not.

_________________

My understanding is that Primarch has stated several times in the past that Gold is the standard and will not be tweaked further. Therefore, there's no need to worry about Gold getting messed around with.

I don't know why there is concern about the Net Epic community. It's not like it was back in the glory days where huge numbers of people played the game. So far as Tactical Command and other groups go we seem to be down to handful of people across various continents who still play. I don't see there being much community to damage.

Id also like to think that we are all grown ups who can understand that the different rules have different names which means that they know there is some variation from what they are used to in the past. Gold itself is a fan ruleset so again I don't see the issue...

For me, rules options are fun. Find what works best for you and your opponent (or opponents if you are lucky enough) and enjoy!

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules