Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Rules Review Process 2008
Dave
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA

(Rug @ Jan. 11 2008,13:25)
QUOTE
The one thing I don't like is the fact that army lists are being done at the same time as rules changes. It introduces so many new variables, surely it will cause problems?

The believe one of the reasons for it was the considerable dry spell of any official updates.  People have made a case for separate army list and core rules reviews in the future however.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
Hi all

Is the intent in this thread to also discuss changes to existing list and additions to existing list? Or will this be given a specific thread? And can we start to see what is up for revision in the way of list so that people can begin commenting and playtesting to provide sound feedback to the community.

Cheers
Aaron
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:24 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(CAL001 @ Jan. 26 2008,04:28)
QUOTE
Is the intent in this thread to also discuss changes to existing list and additions to existing list? Or will this be given a specific thread? And can we start to see what is up for revision in the way of list so that people can begin commenting and playtesting to provide sound feedback to the community.

Added a clarifying sentence to the start of the thread regarding what changes have been proposed so far.

If you think any of the proposals in the Change Documents are problematic then please list them, but don't discuss them in this thread (link to another thread to do so).  Likewise if there are changes you would like to see but haven't been listed so far, then please list them, but don't discuss them in this thread (link to another thread to do so).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
IMO there is a problem with the proposed Indefinite OW, combined with the proposal to allow two garrisons to start on OW see this thread for details

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I am heavily against the 'infinite overwatch' proposal.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:03 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA
I'd be in favor of the Skimmer no DTT no cover save tweak.  I never understood why a flying unit had to worry about terrain.

As to the flame template... EA has done fine so far without it.  I say leave it out of the game.

All the terminology suggestions are good.

The Demolisher Canon is a rather hot topic, people are very divided on this.  I think removing MWs from Firepower and putting them in the notes section would go a long way towards solving peoples issues.  That way we could specify AP and AT values separately instead of just one MW value.  Also, it would allow us to grant Macro-weapon to just AP, AT or AA, as we see fit per weapon.

What was the argument on Howling Banshees?  MW could be argued because of the power weapons maybe?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:08 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Added the overwatch issue to list.

Howling Banshees keep being mentioned as a bit naf compared to other aspects, but there is no discussion thread on them thus far that I am aware of.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CAL001
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 1927
Location: Australia
Thanks Mark for the heads up. I am no rules guru but I do enjoy the game and I have enjoyed its development over the years. Ok so I have two links here to things I see in the Marine list, they are there for discussion by those people that are interested. I know the big players will be reading this and I look forward to seeing what you all have to say. So here they are:

Assault Detachment Upgrades

Thunderhawk Transports

Cheers
Aaron
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
If there is one discussion that needs to be had it is the demolisher.  'Divided' doesn't do the description justice and IMO we're just barely seeing the fallout from making it a MW.  

The Macro-weapon creep seems to be a constant force that needs to be fought on the boards (as evidence above on the Banshees.  See a unit that needs a nudge?  MACRO it!!)  I'm open to any suggestion that moves the demolisher away from this change.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:54 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
That issue is already on the list Mosc! :)

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Rules Review Process 2008
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:05 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I've given a tremendous amount of thought to this over the past month or so... or at least more than a rational person should.

First, I am extraordinarily appreciative of all the positive things everyone said about me.  It always sounds clich? and goofy when people say it, but it is overwhelming to be the subject of accolades.  It made me very self-conscious but it was also extremely gratifying.  Thanks to everyone.

I've though about how to set up a process and emailed several people for opinions on management strategies.  The idea, of course, would be to integrate as much general input from as many people as possible without reducing the process to a mob that never makes progress and without injecting too much personal bias (not that I'm ever opinionated... :glare: ).  A lot of people have made very good suggestions that I think could, put together, achieve a pretty good semblance of all those goals.

There is one big issue, though.  I'm really struggling with what the point of a NetEA would be.

It's really cool to have a community where we can all find like-minded nerdiness.  It would be extremely cool to have a consensus opinion for a NetEA version.

But is it practical or useful?  Is it even possible?

The main reason I had for pushing forward and trying to get an alternate version out was to push forward an "official" process.  Build momentum, get support, get it implemented.

Without that as a reasonable hope, the only purpose it would serve would be as a set of somewhat glorified house rules.  They might be more widespread than most house rules, but not by a wide margin.  The plain fact is that we (denizens of EpiComms) are, as a group, rather obsessed with fiddling with the rules.  Even though everyone thinks the Handbook is a great idea, it's still effectively a menu or cafeteria plan more than it is a coherent, all-or-nothing ruleset.  Different groups have chosen to adopt or cut varying sections based on their preferences.  Even some of the relatively non-controversial changes have been cut by certain groups.

All that's fine.  As we frequently point out, it's a game and you should play it like you want with whatever house rules you think make it more enjoyable.  Go. Game. Be happy.

But I think a NetEA process needs to be considered in light of the actual state of affairs.  I don't see a reason to expect a NetEA would be any different than the Handbook in that respect.

No matter how "official" we made it, there is for all intents and purposes no difference between a "NetEA" ruleset and any other widely distributed set of house rules.  An official NetEA project won't allow people to play pickup games using it or expect it to be used at GW events.  There might be an occasional tournament using a NetEA set of rules, but that's no different than any tournament saying "we're using the official rules, with changes A, B, and C" as is done currently.  In fact, there's every reason to expect a good chance that an event would run "NetEA with changes X, Y, and Z" in the exact same way.

It seems to me that it would be almost as useful to generate a set of "Official Epicomms House Rules" that specifically avoids the idea of a holistic, integrated ruleset and actively acknowledges the "cafeteria plan" style of game play.

Of course, taking that path involves giving up on some emotional investments that many of us have in "official" rules.  To be a bit confessional, I was a bit surprised at the impact the recent rules review events had on me as I imagined myself to be rather jaded on that front.


Don't take that the wrong way.  This isn't supposed to be all "doom and gloom."

I'm still a ridiculous geek and more than willing to lead a rules development project and to do so in a manner that seeks as much broad support as possible.  I'm just looking to develop some clearly defined and realistic goals so as to prevent disappointment and hard feelings all around.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net