I'm actually against this.

There is no need to dilute the game by increasing the number of rulebooks out there. It *will* result in confusion for newbies down the line, and disincline people from starting Epic.


The prime responsibility for the Net-EA project is to get a single document, an Armies Book, out there, IMHO.


There's no need to start supplying a rulebook too, unless the GW website stops supplying the official rulebook+errata.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Hm, now something went astray E&C.
If there is an updated rulebook submitted to the SG "site", why not make it available already?
Instead of waiting for them to get their thumb out of their...

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Rather than any new changes isn't this updated rulebook just the current one with the existing official errata included into it? So it's what we're already using, just streamlined into one document.

Leaving the rules alone seems wise, but streamlining is a good thing and likely to reduce potential confusion. Hopefully GW will eventually sort it and upload it, but you've done everything you can there'll and will have to see what happens.

Any update or comments on the much more important army project though Chroma? Or how long you think it might take?

Because dual dissemination *will* cause confusion.


*we* might use it, but noobies will simply get confused, and disinclined to pick up the game.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I assume then that whatever form this new webpage takes that there will be direct links pointed to the Epic page displaying all the GW pdf's rather than pointed to the GW homepage and navigate from there.

Along with that the Army list document updated semi-regularly (6-12 months) hosted directly.

I know it would be least confusing if all the GW pdf's and the Army list document could be hosted on the webpage directly but I assume that is legally problematic.

Problem remain, don't it? The only thing added are some errata and a few (two?) army lists.
Why not ask SG to make good their promise of netERC being the ruling body and have them put up a link to a (well defined!) SG-fan web-site?

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

The problem here is that SG in no way made any such undertaking that I'm aware of.

netERC came out of general opinion on this forum if my memory serves. Nealhunt is best placed to answer this.

Specialist Games/GW made no such promise, in fact, one could say they promised the exact opposite: that there would be no more official updates or errata produced.

The NetERC/NetEA project is purely fan-driven, built upon the ruins of the "ERC and Army Champions" system that SG was using before their budget and staff were slashed; it is in no way official or GW/SG endorsed.  While we occasionally have the ear of Jervis, we have no official standing with GW.  Any efforts made on the GW website in regard to EPIC (or any other Specialist Game) are done purely as favours by GW staff who still love the game.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

But why is then netERC the (sanctioning) body for that SG published "update"?
Ok, I guess JJ is the actual sanctioning body, but you get my drift.

How about instead strenghten this site and all lovely people and their work?
Wouldn't it be possible to put all army lists in a database, and all else too?
That way easily accessed by all, and still updated, alive etc etc.

'Cause this site, as for information on suitable gameplay, is as bad today as when I joined a year ago. Much talk, not much shop.
All work aside, which is a marvellous piece of art and prose, it's not easy to know inside from obsolete.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Because Hena volunteered to do it as a labour of love, that's it; Originally, it was just going to be posted here, but there was the concern that it would cause confusion, and Jervis then thought putting it on the GW website would be a good idea for newcomers. So the package was all put together and sent to GW.

And GW has been dragging its heels since.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

How about a wiki?

Epic Armageddon Army Lists

Several links need updates, but that site has been around for quite some time.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

And we all love Hena for it.  

I find the wiki hard to use. And as you say, quite many dead ends. And it's hard to use. (Did I say that twice?)

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

That's not very used or up to date and is not a very good approach to presenting the lists. The presentation and layout of it is poor, a Wiki makes it seem technical and amateurish and it's WAY too wordy - there's a full two and a half pages of waffly (and largely unnecessary there) text before you even get to the army lists! There are also tonnes of confusing and unnecessary links all about the initial page. The lists, when you do eventually get down to them then, are all muddled together with the good well balanced lists mixed in with the untested not developed in years lists. Is that really something I should consider pointing a potentially interested new player unfamiliar with epic to?

A website can easily look more professional and be easier to navigate than that - look at the epic-uk site have done it to see what I mean.  The focus should be a simple clear list of the main balanced lists and/or the all in one army book, with the links in the text. Below or on another page can be a list of the other less balanced / tested list with a warning there to the effect.

If we can get something as simple and functional as the epic-uk website, but if possible a little more aesthetic looking then I will be very happy. Their website does the important things right, but is a bit plain and gloomily dark and very lacking picture(s) of some very well painted epic models in combat with scenery in the background - like the sort of thing you'd get in WD, the GW site or any number of fan sites - which could visualise and enthuse people about the game.