Tactical Command | View topic - Official errata posted

Page 5 of 6

[ 87 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Official errata posted

okpjay890

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:29 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:35 pm
Posts: 47
Location: N?mes (south of France)

(Evil and Chaos @ Mar. 21 2008,15:23)

QUOTE

I would love to see what the French ERC have done with AMTL... please drop by the AMTL sub-forum!

And as regards AMTL we are rather in favour of a change in the V2 by facilitating access to knights. We obviously read the proposal from the V3 and we are not especially excited about the direction taken by the latter.

The reasons:

1) the disappearance of traditional ordinatus
2) arming of the titans which call into question too today's standards, as well as the wysiwyg

I can also give you a summary of the status of our discussions on this list.

Jay

_________________
Warning harmful chemical

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:32 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I'm going to answer these over in the AMTL sub-forum, thanks

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:06 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Markonz and Moscovian (et al)

Perhaps I could explain my thoughts further, which revolve around the distinction between revisions to the Army lists as opposed to the Rules. We all agree that there has been much more concern expressed about the lack of changes to the army lists.

However it seems to me that there has been very little dissent over the Rule changes themselves, bar one question around the possible revision of the wording in the Skimmer rule, so IMHO it seems reasonable to accept that this is the "final" revision of the Rules. I am hoping that the removal of the FAQ; the note at the top of the 'accepted' revisions; and hints from Neal's reports of contacts with JJ etc; all mean that the online rule documents will be revised accordingly, which has yet to be done. So, (taking a deep breath of illegal substances etc

) I am hoping that we are not yet at the end of the current "Final" revision process.

Because of this, I think the community should rapidly produce a set of "approved" conservative changes to the army lists and present it to JJ etc, requesting they be added to the vault alongside the revised rules. This needs to be done quickly to "strike while the iron is hot" as it were, and I believe is achievable; many of the army list changes have already been debated ad-nausea. So let?s pick those changes where there is total consensus (eg Death Strikes, and possibly one or two from the Eldar 1.

and resubmit them.

At the same time, Neal or possibly CS needs to get JJ to confirm whether or not he (or Andy) will add any further army list changes to the SG site. (Ideally the site will be split into a rules section and an army list section).

We lose nothing by trying this, and may gain a list that has the wider support of the community. If JJ et al are prepared to review and store further Army list revisions at a later date (in effect ratifying the "community approach") so much the better. If not, or they reject these changes out of hand, then we will know where we stand. So let?s at least ask - even if we privately hold out little hope.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:17 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Meanwhile, let's do what we can to unite the disparate groups on the boards (like the Finns, French, German, UK tournament groups etc) so we can present a united front to GW and their representatives - the more we band together, the better. This way, we can continue to use GW / SG if they let us, or go our separate ways if that becomes the only viable option.

Note - Even if the 'active' support and direction of GW / SG has effectively ceased, I believe we still have their 'passive' support through their web-sites if nothing else. And I am still firmly of the opinion that it is best to use these resources where we can.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:40 am

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

(okpjay890 @ Mar. 21 2008,14:22)

QUOTE

Ongoing discussions Tau and AMTL

I would also be very interested in working with this, to produce a single set of rules accepted by both communities, if possible.

My French is not great (non-existent) but I never let igorance get in the way of an opinion!

Would it better for me to sign up there, or discuss the French perspective here?

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Top

Tiny-Tim

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:05 pm

Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire

(Hena @ Mar. 22 2008,11:51)

QUOTE

How much the main UK tournament holder is willing to move (Braveheart) on tuning the lists?

He listens to his public. We tend to play an experiment list at Open War (held twice a year), last year I used Nids, this year discussion has been over whether to use Tau or not.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:25 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I've met Braveheart once.

He seemed keen on getting new army lists adopted into the tournament circuit, but very much in favour of being conservative as regards existing lists.

As an exception, he does allow the 'rhino / drop pod swap' to be used in his tournaments.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:07 am

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

I have also contacted Matt Otter, and found him open to suggestion and willing and enthusiastic about working together.

One of my first tasks is to produce a feedback form, to be distributed at tournaments to collect information on the army lists players use, and their general opinions on core rules and force lists.

Top

Nicodemus

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:20 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

Yay! Now I can finish my Nurgle Traitor Siege Masters and overpower whole Finland and claim it to be "of-fi-ci-al". *tongue in cheek"

First I thought that "better than nothing". But actually nothing could be better.

I actually finally realised why I dont like epic anymore (I still like to convert and paint 6mm). It is because every frigging game is some "playtesting" and armies changes all the time and I dont have time or interest to try to keep up with every fan-list. I used to play once or twice a month, even then almost every time either my or my enemys army had some "changes" or "upgrades" from before. And even Big Book lists are not safe from all consuming "changes, tweaks and nerfs" (yeah, I talk about Orks).

_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris

Top

dptdexys

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:32 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire

I don't understand all the commotion about the review not including everything that some wanted.
The SG site clearly states that it is the rules review that has come to an end and we got most of what was wanted or needed for rules and the bulk of what wasn't included were army list changes.
Maybe we can all now concentrate on using the same lists and rules and get more testing done on what is needed for changes.Concentrating on things that have an unbalancing aspects through game play not just on maths/theory side or constantly changing fluff and 40k side of things.
Do not forget that JJ had said at the release of the rule book that rules,unit stats and army lists(especially published stats and army lists) would only change if the were proving to be unbalancing and problematic.
I cannot see any mention that there would be no further work on lists and unit stats only that the rules are finally finished (at least until the next rules review comes along :confuse:

)

Top

Reddeth

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:36 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Victoria, Australia

I'm also a bit surprised by those disgruntled by the Errata. As far as the core rules go we got almost everything we wanted, the contoversial stuff didn't make the cut (MW AT as AP Barrage rule), and we now have an official rule set that is updated and solid. Well done to all that were involved in making this happen.

The army list changes are more frustrating, mainly from a space marine point of view. I also hope that the community can continue to push for limited changes to the present book lists, but they are still fairly balanced as is (Eldar slightly overpowered, space marines underpowered if you try play them in ground based armour mode). Sure, it would be nice to have things like the updated Baneblade stats become official, but I can live them the way they are.
The main concern is what lists are considered Tournament ready, with several needing some final adjustment (perhaps approving the siegemasters list changes for example) . I hope some of the newer lists (Nids, Tau, Titan Legions, etc) can one day gain some sort of officialdom re the tournament scene.

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:28 am

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

Also, I would personally rather have a conservative set of changes, that one that is too radical and goes too far. This has left out certain aspects that I would like to see, but adding in too much would have caused all sorts of trouble.

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:05 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

This is it, for both rules and army lists. To the best of my knowledge, nothing else will be done unless/until there is major overhaul in GW/SG as a whole.

==

Personally, I like the rule changes because they are mostly conservative (though they include one or two items which I like but which weren't really necessary). As far as the core rules, I intend to play by them as they are in the revision. Even if there are a few remaining minor disagreements, I see very little that the NetERC would need to even consider.

I am disappointed at the lack of changes to the army lists. If you look, you will note that the changes are almost entirely to the special rules and there were almost no changes to units or point costs. Jervis expressed concern about people showing up for tournaments with illegal armies. While I agree that it's very poor form to change an army list to the point that it dorks up someone's carefully themed and painted army, I would have like to at least seen some minimalist changes to point costs. Forcing major changes to armies causes a lot more hard feelings than a few point tweaks.

It seems that many others are similarly disappointed with the army lists.

Based on that, I think the focus for a NetERC effort needs to be on tweaking the army lists and getting the in-process lists "finalized" for our purposes. I think the most productive way to do that will be to start from the official lists and review the pending changes with a new minimalist view (sorry to the fans of the Eldar v1.8, but I don't think it's viable at this point).

For the purposes of revising and creating army lists, having access to special rules (Lance, Support Craft, etc.) is something that can be done with or without them being included in the core rules.

_________________
Neal

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Official errata posted

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:19 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Nicodemus @ Mar. 23 2008,10:20)

QUOTE

I actually finally realised why I dont like epic anymore (I still like to convert and paint 6mm). It is because every frigging game is some "playtesting" and armies changes all the time and I dont have time or interest to try to keep up with every fan-list. I used to play once or twice a month, even then almost every time either my or my enemys army had some "changes" or "upgrades" from before.

I agree completely with this. It's been a battle to get the guys I play with to test all the stuff I've wanted to try out. It's wearying to keep up with it, and it causes misunderstandings during play. I see the official changes as a great thing, simply for the fact that there is a sense of closure.

_________________
Neal

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 5 of 6

[ 87 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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

Jump to:

Official errata posted

Who is online