A lot of the things Morgan has listed are covered in the rule book or have been confirmed or are not rules problems.

Barrage Allocations Answered by Jevis
Speed Rollings Covered in the rulebook I believe
CAPing Caps not an official rule
When is a unit in cover (fraction, more than half, fully?) covered in the rules, states partial cover

Defining terrain to the Terrain Types.
Any changes to those Terrain Types (I've seen Hills/Craters not blocking LOS being used a fair bit)
these aren't rules problems, players have to agree what counts as what

Terrains counting as cover for AA. covered in the rules book and official FAQ



And Army List dicussions
Any Special Rules explained
Any Special Units explained
Any template weaponry (barrages) and ranges.
Any spacecraft/teleporters/webways/air transports
Any counts-as or non-GW proxies

again not rules problems

Oh, and the other thing I think needs adding to my list, is which version of the FAQ/Errata. Some people will only want the official 2008 stuffs. Others will want Neal's version. And others may have a twisted desire to stick with just what's officially printed.

This is down to the tournament organiser to define which set of rules are to be used and should be included in the rules pack for an event, similar to which lists would be allowed

The 2008 is officially printed as such things go these days. There's no conflict between the master FAQ on here and the 2008 FAQ (aside from typo corrections).

If someone doesn't want to follow the master FAQ on here, then any proclamation we make about rules is equally easily dismissed and what we decide is "official" is irrelevant.


The rules are pretty clear on this - apply cover liberally. The design notes state the spirit of the rules is that when in doubt, you get cover.

Anything else is a change. The change may be a commonly used convention, but it's still a change and anyone going to a tournament should be aware and willing to revert to the book rules.

I didn't properly explain my point. My point was that there were a lot of things that needed discussing in the 5 minute warmup. Rules questions that should have a definitive answer shouldn't be any of them.


No conflict, no. But the NealHunt FAQ puts it's stamp on several things that should be clarified but are still arguable under the officially released rules. This is a GOOD thing. But if your opponent isn't familiar with TacComs, or isn't a regular visitor (I know at least a third, and maybe up to two-thirds, of people in attendance at Heavy Bolter fit into that category), it's still something that needs to be brought up.


I'd rather see it codified and passed up the chain into officialness. But that's obviously wishful thinking. However, having such things concretely decided on by the NetERC, means if I show up at a Tourney, or a friendly game, and say "NetERC rules?", I can avoid a lot of needless back and forth over specifics.


And that's when you run into trouble. What's liberally/when-in-doubt mean? Take a standard GW infantry base at the front of a terrain piece. I can see arguments that 'liberally' counts if more than half in cover, less than half in cover, at least one model fully in cover, at least one model partly in cover, at least a part of the base (I believe it's been clarified for Barrages, but it's not a standard definition), and base touching the cover. Personally, I consider at least one model needs to be fully in cover. But that's just my interpretation of 'when in doubt'. Others, especially when it came to terrain embarkations have disagreed with this.


When the book rules are vague, unspecific, or plain contrary, having an easily agreeable set of interpretations is the best solution, IMO.

Morgan Vening

What rules netEA/rulebook+errata/etc is something for the organiser to advertise in advance or put in a rulespack

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

To me cover thing is simple. If infantry can claim cover by touching an AV then they need to touch any other area that can give cover. And I'd AV/WE claim cover from an area that is difficult then they take a test next time they move.

Nothing to stop you documenting your conventions and publishing them, getting a world wide consensus will be much harder as we all play in subtly different meta's.

And that's a perfectly reasonable take on it, though some might have issue with the base just touching, when Barrage templates apparently work differently. I'd have no problem using your interpretation. Or a different one. I really don't care. The point I've been trying to make, is why is it unreasonable to want a definitive answer, in the rulebook/errata/FAQ?


And that's all it'll ever seem to be. Each group having their own meta, their own house rules, and their own idiosyncrasies. Which is fine. Until you go to a Tournament or a different group, and problems arise because of different acceptable standards, that are NOT in the rulebook. Or that are, and make no sense, or are plainly abusable to anyone with a sense of fair play.

It seems like Army Lists are completely fair game to chop, change, mutilate. Even 'official' ones. But hint at just officially clarifying (at least within the NetEA realm), or passing on up changes to the rules, and it's all negativity.

So it all comes down to subjectiveness. One of the reasons for this thread (I think), was the issue over objectives and measurements that happened at Heavy Bolter. Now, the rules are fairly clear that you measure "from the objective". And that objectives have no defined parameters. So how big is too big, given that ruling? It's obviously subjective, I think the official objective miniatures (the 25mm square pewter ones) are as large as they should be. Some think 40mm is fine, but 60mm is too large. One Forum poster had some great looking Ork ones that would seem to be 100mm+. If someone showed up at a tournament with 2x29cm diameter supply dump/POW camp Take and Hold objectives, and a 40cm square encampment Blitz objective, would people object? Of course they would. Without a line, there's no boundary, and everyone's moral compass floats differently.

We have the NetERC. If they aren't able to get through an official change (and I wouldn't expect GW to be open to it), then a codified list of changes/clarifications/corrections, in exactly the same manner as they're doing to the army lists, shouldn't be a huge problem. Leaving it up to each group to decide, just causes problems, like that seen at the last two Australian Tournaments.

Morgan Vening

Sure we could come up with a netEA rules doc, but not every Epic player frequents this forum so you can still end up with people at events not knowing the latest revision. I really doubt anything new will ever be added to the GW website (Any comment Neal?).

If problems have been encountered at certain events its up to the organizer to decided if they need to rule, and put it in the rules pack, or leave it to the players and the 5 min warm up.

Morgan: The widest and most balanced (in blind tournaments where people may show up with any number of objective shapes and sizes) convention in use is the "measure to centre / point on board edge nearest the centre"... If a tournament wishes to use the RAW and allow players to designate entire buildings as objectives, and measure to any point of them to count for contesting, then that is entirely within their rights and it is up to the tournament organisers to decide what convention they are going to use.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Wouldn't it be prudent to at least put those rules up and let TOs decide if they'll use them or not though?

Otherwise, speaking personally, I'll just fall back to the RAW as I did on Sunday. To me it's at least purer to do so than provide people from different groups with mixed rules.

And in the absence of a strong convention as we have here in the uk, noone should expect any different ... Should I ever play in an Aussi tourney, I'd enjoy designating whole buildings as objectives, as it'd make a fun change from the norm.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Solution would be to have them posted to a simple front page that every TO could point to, much like I created here for the Australian Tournament scene: http://www.wargamer.com.au/epic/armylists/

No it does not contain the rules (yet) but you get the idea.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Post away, get it stickied. But don't get annoyed if people ignore or disagree with what you post.

As long as it's all explained up front, and in detail. Not a problem.

Same as anything that's covered in the 5 minute warmup. If it's discussed, and agreed upon, not a problem.

My problem is, if it's a potentially known issue, but people are assuming it's done one way, and others assume another, and it's not codified, you get ballsups, which do nothing but frustrate and annoy people.

Doesn't bother me much. I don't play Tournaments, for a variety of reasons. But I like my rules concise, especially when it doesn't seem particularly difficult. Arguing against changing a sloppy rule and leaving it up to the players mid-game, leaving it up to the maturity of the players (ie, the one willing to take the potential penalty), just seems so unsatisfactory.

Morgan Vening

You can change all the rules you like here, but if they aren't then uploaded onto the GW website they remain a "local" variant of the rules, not matter how much we believe that TC is the center of the epic universe.

But at the end of the day write you amendments and post them for discussion. I'm sure you'll get lots of responses.

In much the same way as people can ignore, or disagree with the NetEA army docs. Which is fine.

This seems to be where I get a little frustrated. We have a quasi-official set of army lists, that correct some of the problems that exist in the "official Army Lists". But when a similar thing is said regarding the same level of clarification and correction to the rules set, it's seemingly dismissed out of hand.

I'm not talking about wholesale rules changes. I'm talking about the tweaks that fix the loopholes, or issues with multiple interpretations.

How is it different for the NetEA to say Pulse is no longer, and that Revenant Lances are 4+MW not 3+MW (like they are in Swordwind), but not put either a definitive size on objectives or a specified measuring point, or to clarify that "disembark within 5cm" means fully or partially?

Though, IIRC apparently it IS acceptable for the NetEA to consider changes to the Air Rules.

Morgan Vening