For reference, link to the EA HANDBOOK 2008 thread:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 69;t=11218

Ok so I'm aiming to start work on this 2010 update at some point soonish. My own group, and by the sounds of things many others, really like having everything in one book, without everything changing all the time. Thus a two year revision as originally planned is in order.

In addition to updating to match NetERC recommendations and latest variants by army champs, I need to decide on content.  Currently I'm thinking of adding a fair few more lists to account for armies people seem to want to use in my own and other groups. Lists not yet approved by NetERC will be marked as experimental.

1. Tyranids (currently at 9.2.1 - will the development ever end?!?!)
2. AMTL (currently at 3.13, and seems fairly well accepted?), Skitari (?), (Knights?)
3. Squats (currently at 4.0 for Demiurg and Thurgrimm Squat at what?, where are these lists headed - I want just one list to be included!)
4. Necrons (currently at Raiders edition, but about to have a revision?)
5. Dark Eldar (approved)
6. Others?  variant lists for other races maybe...?

7. I also want to include some of Jervis's design notes at the back and a revised FAQ. Has there been any progress on revising the FAQ?

8. I may well include a page/halfpage of photos of prominent models in each of the main armies, as this is great for new players, so any offers of help with this would be nice (though I can actaully supply almost everything myself...). Only GW models to keep folks at GW happy.

9. Length will be up to twice as long as 2008 Handbook with these changes (so 150+ pages). I'm also wondering about changing format so that all unit details in 5.0 (Forces section), will go to the back together with their appropriate army lists?

Comments/thoughts?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

The AMTL and Skitarii lists are looking pretty good, IMO. However, I think the Knight list still needs some tweaking.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

I'm a noob and am finding the 2008 handbook infinitely easier to learn then cobbling together the current "official" accepted ruleset of GW rules, errata and ERC lists. If you were to update this resource to be current and as close to accepted official as possible it would be a wonderful resource (moreso then it is currently).

So far as formating I agree with your thought that forces are probably best grouped with their corresponding army lists and it might be an idea to have them take up whole pages so you can print just the army lists that you wish to have on hand.

I'm probably one of the biggest fans of the Handbook. But if you go with this option, could an illustrated and a non illustrated version be produced? While the graphics look good and all, when you're printing multiple copies, large blocks of image tend to chew through the ink at a prodigious rate.

Morgan Vening

Skitarii 1.09 (with the cruiser name corrected Lunar => Gothic) is ok.
AMTL 3.13b is fine also.

And for Squats, what about Hojyn's list 3.4 ?

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

Why not have a "RULEBOOK" and an "ARMY BOOK" as seperate files?  

Then they both aspects of the game don't have to be updated if only one thing changes.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Indeed, Rulebook & Army book please.


Mind you, would the Rulebook be any different from what GW will soon be posting (the updated Core Rules)?


I think the Handbook 2010 would be best as 'just' a NetERC army book compilation.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As long as it's not a horrible watermarked thing, like the existing version. One of the things I liked about the Handbook was the clean white.

Morgan Vening
- Inkoncious

Not really.  The extensive FAQ thread from the old SG boards is still in limbo.

_________________
Neal

I like the idea of a rule book and army books, especially since army lists seem to be more dynamic than the core rules themselves.  I would go so far as to suggest individual army documents so you only download and print out what you want.

_________________
"I think that's how that works, wait get the rule book..."

As others suggest, I would much prefer separatevolumes for the Rulebook and armies, but with some other thoughts:-

1) The rulebook should contain all agreed rule changes (2008), and possibly the few others (if any exist) that have universal approval. There should also be a section at the back for JJ notes and any other rules that are "experimental" (under discussion or perhaps only used by one community)

2) If possible, each Army list should also contain a section for regional special rules were relevant. (Here I am thinking of EPIC-UK tournament rules, or those in the French community)

3) Will you be including the new EA:Siege army lists? (Mossinians, Death Guard)

4) What is your view of those lists that are purely regional (EPIC-UK Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templars?), and what can be done where there are regional variations of a given list?

5) How can this gel together the NetERC stuff, and who will be the final arbiter? The biggest problem the original Handbook faces is that it was 'unofficial' and was subsequently overtaken by other events with the 'official' 2008 amendments. Is there any danger of history repeating itself again?

Equally, I understand there may possibly be moves to put a revised version of the rules back in the SG site, and presume that anything done here should at least have that as its core, perhaps with a section for NetERC changes over and above that core.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

4) What is your view of those lists that are purely regional (EPIC-UK Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Black Templars?), and what can be done where there are regional variations of a given list?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I make use of the 2008 Handbook, due to the fact it is very helpful to have all the rules in one place.

On the face of it, I can't see a problem with splitting the 'rules' into two, by having a rulebook and an army book, so I wouldn't be opposed to that.

The main thing, as far as I am concerned, is not to have to look through a whole host of different threads, PDF files, and hop between here and the Specialist games section, in order to be able to find all the different rules, and approved army lists, so as long as these are kept in one place, this would seem like the most important consideration to me.

_________________

Put the Salamanders in

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x