Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ]

Experimental Rules developments at the SG site.
Markconz	Post subject: Experimental Rules developments at the SG site. Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:51 am
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	http://www.specialist-games.com/forum/t ... IC_ID=1185 Word is that there is going to be an official Jervis sanctioned update with these soon. Greg Lane (the official Exp Rules Champ) has finally returned. I have copied Gregs posts and a reply from myself here. (His intial comments appear to be in response to a post from myself a couple of weeks back - notifying people of the rules amendments section on Epicomms): The official development of the Epic Experimental rules remains here not at Epiccomms, so don't waste your time there. Two experimental rules revisions have been submitted to Jervis and the ERC for review. The skimmer experimental rule should be posted tomorrow, pending final comments from Jervis. It is my intention that all of the experimental rules should have rewrites posted for final comments by the forum over the next 4 to 6 weeks. As the forum makes final comments from play testing, the ERC will review the output and prepare their recommendations for Jervis' approval. I hope the ERC can complete the Experimental Rules review and have a complete rules revision to update the LRB by early February 2006. I would anticipate this rule set to be THE rules for the coming 2 years. Immediately following on the ERC Review of the Experimental Rules, the ERC will consider the Army Champions' recommendations for published army list changes. We want to do this for all published armies at one time, so we can adjust any balance issues and not create new ones. I cannot put a firm schedule on this work, but the ERC has already begun discussions about the army lists. Of course, the forum changes have made it more difficult to work. The ERC is still trying to get a private forum setup here to use for this work. I will be closing off some of the experimental rules commentary threads on this forum as I post the revised experimental rules ... which should be close to the final version. No one who has been on this forum for a year should have any surprises coming. Greg Lane Epic Rules Champion Epic Rules Committee Member As I felt this contained a rather unfortunate choice of words in the opening I replied as follows: Greg - Epicomms has been given the go ahead by SG as an official site for development, and a site complemetary to these boards - so I am confused as to why are you criticising effort there as as a waste of time? At Epicomms official army list development IS occuring with SG sanction, and people want to know what experimental rules to use - that is fair enough. Should we have halted all army list development while we wait (we were told 2-3 days then nothing had happened for 3 months), or instead should we have done what we have done - and develop a consensus on what the future experimental rules should be, and are likley to be, and consider these in our playtesting? In addition, after 3 months with no absolutely no communication about what is happening with the experimental rules, is it any surprise that the active epic community decided to take it in hand themselves? Furthermore it concerns me that your comments may give the impression that you do not regard the experimental rule playtesting experience shared on epicomms as having any value - nothing could be further from the truth considering that Epicomms has had far superior organisation and involvement compared to these SG boards, plus most contributors to these boards are also contributors at Epicomms. Sorry to have to say this, for I have defended SG for a long time throughout all these changes and upheavals. Also, I do value your ongoing contributions towards EA and earlier systems (such as the yahoo epic group etc). I also understand that this is just a hobby and other real life events can intrude into processes of devlepment and slow things down. However, I don't like seeing the effort of many other people who care about developing epic talked about in what appears to be a dismissive fashion.

To which Greg sent a follow up post:


I apologize, there was no intent to be dismissive. People are encouraged to discuss Epic, the army lists and the rules wherever they like ... I do it all the time in emails, over games, with interested parties who call me out of the blue. There is a thriving Epic community that extends far beyond any of the forums. I take all that I hear and see as personal input ... and pass it along to the forum, discuss with other players, the ERC members and Jervis, as needed.

I was only saying that postings on this SG forum are the input into the process of producing the improved EA rules through Jervis/SG. I do not expect anyone to have to monitor other forums for input or feel they need to if they want to be heard during the Rules Review process It just needs to be focused here. Anyone who posts on the experimental rules here will be heard ... that is my commitment to all my Epic playing friends.

We should anticipate all army lists will be discussed on the SG forums before they are published either as an experimental list or as official army lists. This is the process Jervis laid out and I anticipate the one which will continue. There are a lot of armies still brewing in other forums and in small and large play test groups ... Everyone encourages this and I think we all bemoan the fact those discussions are not taking place here ... even though the curreng SG forum organization isn't optimum ... especially for so many army lists at one time. Focus should be our watchword on the SG forum.

You may not have heard a lot from me, but I have monitored the SG forums throughout my posting hiatus and Neal, Zac and others have made sure I knew when issues became "interesting." I have provided guidance and opinion through others over recent months ... while continuing to review the volumes of input on the experimental rules from the past couple of years and especially this past year's discussions of the experimental rules.

But, hey this goes way OT ... so now back to the experimental rules themselves.

Greg Lane
Epic Rules Champion
Epic Rules Committee Member


So there we go... let me also add that I do have a lot of respect for Greg Lane - I remember his consistently helpful and thoughtful contributions back in the days at the yahoo groups and earlier, before Epic40k.com and Epicomms existed.
Hopefully there will be some official posting of new rules in the next few weeks. Proof will be when we see them I guess.