Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

NetEA Rules Review Process
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=10735		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
As there have been several discussions on the subject, it seems appropriate that there should be a separate thread to help formulate the process.

I guess we should try to limit discussions here to the way that revisioins will be presented and the stages required for approval. While obviously "on-topic" perhaps it would be wise to leave the make-up of the committee to one side for the present.

So,
1)  How were revisions processed in the past (when the system worked) - What were the strengths and weaknesses?

2)  How should we go about rules reviews now?

3)  Where should the rules be published / held?

4)  What other aspects need to be considered / included?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
1 - They weren't seemingly. Only Neal can answer this one.


2 - Vote on contentious issues, get the changes into Markconz' handbook, and get gaming. Report back on any imbalances for the next rules review.


3 - Tac Comms, and hopefully the SG website.


4 - Too many to list, but I'd like to make a note about appointing new army champions and starting new experimental army lists.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 11 2007,13:15)
QUOTE
3 - Tac Comms, and hopefully the SG website.

I did just want to openly state that I am more than happy for this place to work for this. One of the reasons for the Wiki is the requirement for a more flexible content system, and the site will include areas specifically for development and storage of 'semi-official and official' stuff.

Going back...

1. I cant remember a time when the system actually worked well. The largest problem was the lack of visibility in the process. It is quite possible that a lot was being done, but the majority of the player community could not see it.

That said, I do think that we need a core of 'drivers' for development, and that theory should work well.

2. I think that it is very important that we seal a 'current state'. We need a single, up to date version of rules, a crystal clear set of revisions, and a calender of discussion and changes. Rather than run away with development 'just because we can', I think that it is most important that we consolidate. I feel that it is very difficult for 'non-web players' to get a good grasp of what the current rules are. I like the idea 'annuals', where a new set of updates is released at the same time each year, and changes are not valid until this date.

4. I am not sure what you mean by this question. I initially had four areas of development - core rules (nealhunt), army lists (Hena - official), community projects (Moscovian - such as Dark Eldar, lists which were never likely to be official, but were fun anyway), and miniatures (Warmaster Nice - such as converting items like the Death Wheel, and lists of proxies).
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
1)  The rules review was supposed to work just like the army list development has worked.  The Champion took suggestions, made changes, issued a new and definite revision and started taking suggestions again based on the revision.  It was a process of gradual refinement and it's worked smoothly in most cases, though not perfectly.

In the longer term, once a list was "finished" it was rolled out and allowed to sit untouched for 1 year.  The idea of this is to make sure that  any "new army syndrome" has worked its way out of the collective system.  At that point, the champion does the same thing as before - take suggestions and revise incrementally until there is a new "finished" document that will sit for 1 year.

This method broke down with regards to the rules review.  In the brief periods it has been in use, it has been responsible for what progress has been made.  It obviously can work (and did in fits and starts).  It just hasn't been consistently implemented.

2)  I'd say pretty much use that model.  I think the conceptual "heavy lifting" is done for the rules review.  It's down to getting clarity in the verbiage.  Once that is done, let it sit in a "final" form.  There needs to be an extended break without tinkering to let experience show what the real issues are.

3)  A good question.  They will definitely be here, in the wiki and depending on what CS wants to do, perhaps in a separate and more "formal" location.  In an ideal world, they would become the standard and be hosted as official on the SG site and incorporated into the LRB.  Second to that would be for them to be posted to the SG boards for public access in an unofficial capacity with the goal of gaining additional widespread popularity and approach the ideal goal of "official-dom."

4)  I think we should work towards having the "NetEA" (or "Epicomms EA"  or whatever name we pick) changes all reach the point that they are "widely accepted" and push for them to become official.  Whether that's an ERC process for an "ERC Approved" stage or it's sent straight to Andy is a judgement call for the future.

===

As far as future development, that's a lot more speculative.  I think several of the variant lists can be finalized relatively quickly, at least with respect to a "NetEA" status/standard.  I don't see a reason we can't have at least 4 or 5 variant lists in final, let-them-sit-for-a-year form in the next 6 months or so.

The Chaos lists will reach their 1 year anniversary in April and my sense is that there are a handful of changes that are gaining wide traction as necessary tweaks.  I think that will be a brief revision process as well as the consensus opinion is already forming.

So, say...
2 months for final rule language and army list revisions
6 months for 4-5 final variant lists
8 months for final chaos list revisions

Then you're looking at 2 cycles of future revisions - rules and core armies in fall/winter v. variants and chaos army lists in spring/summer (unless you're one of those silly upside down Aussies...  :;): ) - offset by 6 months.  New army races can jump on one cycle or the other based on when the respective champions feel they are ready to finalize.

Again, that's all speculative "ideal world" stuff...
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
From my perspective:-

1) ?As a "2 year old newbie", I have no idea how the original rules review process was intended to work, but it was certainly not clear (at least to me, and I presume the majority of web-dwellers), nor was it regular. I would like to have rules reviews on a regular basis, between 3-6 monthly intervals, with the dates being published in advance.

Also, the FAQ process is a major contributor to the rules review, but seems to have got out of hand in the past. As part of the review, the FAQs need to be considered as pointers for aspects that need revision, and where possible, the rules should be updated for clarity, and the relevant FAQs removed.

Having said that, I would really like to thank Greg Lane, Dave McLeod and Neal Hunt for the work they did as the old ERC members, together with the Army Champions and other moderators who were and are still a vital part of E:A as we know it today. Winging and politics aside, these guys have contributed greatly and put up with a lot of "newbies" like me asking the same questions time-and-again against an impossible background with respect to GW and SG, and I both respect and admire their tenacity - without them E:A would have disappeared long ago IMHO!! Where possible, we need to retain and foster such veterans, and I sincerely hope that they will continue to be a mainstay of the hobby, and to contribute significantly to any future developments.

2) ?I really like what Markonz and Neal have done to-date, and the way that they are going about it. From this approach, it would seem that we should end up with
  • The "current" rules
    Under version control, these are the ?latest "published" version in general use.
  • The Revision list
    The list of rules or sections that have significant changes being made to them, usually because of some significant game-play issue. These will have a status modelled along the lines proposed by Neal and Hena.
  • Proposed / Experimental Rule-set
    Published infrequently, this is the "Current" rule set amended to contain the 'mature' proposed revisions. In effect it is a "draft" form of the next version for general comment and approval - much like Markonz has done now.
  • The FAQ list
    A single list of questions and answers relating to the "Current" rule-set, where the FAQ link is in the "Current" rule-set. This will also be the location of "minor" amendments to rules etc which are corrections (typos etc) or clarifications to existing rules.
  • The Army lists
    Of Course! There should be a 'Champion', at least one backup, and places to hold their developments. These should be held centrally like the rules, FAQ revisions etc, and have a status modelled along the lines presented by Neal and Hena.
  • The Approval Process
    The various stages that Army list, major and minor rule revisions undergo, together with a published calendar of relevant events in the process.
3) ?I agree with E&C here that there ought to be links in the Wiki pages, TacComms and SG sites to the central repository. For preference, I would like that to be SG, otherwise I am ambivalent - except there should only be a single repository (with appropriate data and system security etc).

4) ?In addition, to the site contents (above), I think it would be really helpful to have:-
  • The committee
    The list of people with their current responsibilities, together with the way they are appointed and removed.
  • Relationships
    A statement on the position with respect to GW SG and other interested parties, together with any authorisation requirements and rights etc.
  • Tournament notes and addenda
    Notes and additional rules that govern the way tournaments are run. These are a suggestion rather than a binding set of rules, and should be no more than one page long, possibly containing some minor changes or addenda to the "Current" rule-set which have not been formally approved.
I realise that much of the above may reflect what is already available, but I think it would greatly assist if we were to take this opportunity to make improvements where needed while retaining the many good aspects or principles - and to publish this as a blueprint for the future.

------------------
OK, so I type slowly and Neal got in ahead of me about the review process :) . I still stand by the need for a callendar held somehwere to let the rest of us "Web-dwellers" know the status of the rules and army lists.  And I also think it prudent to have regular reviews / updates no more than 6 months apart in order to report on the current status, revise army champions, provide minor rule clarifications etc.
Author:  Dave [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process

(CyberShadow @ Oct. 11 2007,09:05)
QUOTE
I think that it is very important that we seal a 'current state'. We need a single, up to date version of rules, a crystal clear set of revisions, and a calender of discussion and changes.

...

I like the idea 'annuals', where a new set of updates is released at the same time each year, and changes are not valid until this date.

I'm really in favor of the "one set of rules to rule them all". A set of rules that are currently official, used to tournaments etc., that are all in one place for anyone to download.

Additionally, proposed rules should have a ~3 month drafting period where rule changes are proposed, voted on and drafted into a change doc (much like what Neal is doing now).  After this period they should be consolidated into something like a NetEA Annual 200X.

After ~9 months or so, as people have had time to play with the proposed changes, the results should come back to the ERC and the proposed rules should be entered into the official rules by a vote.  Then the whole process could start again, with the updated official rules and then 3 months later a new annual.
Author:  Markconz [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
1 Set of rules and 1 set of experimental rules, as it was and still should be.

Nothing more, other wise it gets too confusing and you don't know what rules people are using. This is also the format that has been used previously and by other SG and Core Games in the past.

The Handbook is the rules and all experimental rules combined.  It all needs to be playtested together as a set.

Also like Neal says it needs to sit for a while (a year or so), to allow sufficient feedback without it changing all the time.

(Edit - in other words yes I support what Cyber, Neal and Dave support in number 2 above - an Annual that is sealed and left alone for a while. Like how the Netepic versions work).

================

Also I hate to say it, but I'm curious about the less than overwhelming response on the SG site to Neal's change documents, my Handbook, and Mosc's petition....

No "I hate those rules!"

No "I love those rules"

Instead long days of basically nothing... even a year ago that certainly wouldn't have been the case.

I don't blame people. After 3 years of waiting around for changes, hearing continuous empty promises, and seeing only one document  (covering a single rule!) produced, why would you bother to visit SG anymore?  Possibly many people have shifted here, but unfortunately I suspect that a large part of the reason is that while we were all talking about what should be done,  EA has basically died on us :(

Also we should remember that even by being here commenting we are the exception. Meaning most players certainly do not like having rules spread over lots of different documents that are changing all the time. I know in my own group it pisses people off, kills enthusiasm, and I've seen people leave over it.  I don't blame them, why should they bother when there are hundreds of other systems that don't involve such effort simply to get the rules to play them? (even Netepic for instance). Most people want to spend their time playing games, not hunting through forums trying to deduce what the latest rules are for this month. Hence my idea of a Handbook that consolidates everything major into a single document... though it looks like it may have come too late for many I'm sad to say.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:07 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
EA has basically died on us

The SG forum has been dead for a while.

Also remember that the vast majority of forum readers don't actively post (I think the usual ratio is well over 10 to 1).




Every couple of months, I'm have the chance to reach out and hit many thousands of people with the Epic stick though being Firebase's SG Editor; Once this project hits V1.00, I can guarantee that the word will be spread to slightly larger numbers than those who read the SG forums...
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:54 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 12 2007,01:07)
QUOTE

The SG forum has been dead for a while.

Also remember that the vast majority of forum readers don't actively post (I think the usual ratio is well over 10 to 1).

Yes that's true. I'm just surprised there have not been more more comments of both outrage and endorsement. I suppose almost everything has already been discussed to death over 3 years though.

Also on the positive side:
6 days of Change Document thread - 150 hits.
3 days of Handbook thread - 200 hits.
2 days of Petition thread - 100 hits.
So someone is looking at them at least.  I hope it's not just you guys clicking them lots! :D


Thanks for the further spreading of news through Firebase too E&C. That's what it's all about!
Author:  Steve54 [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:25 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
Personally I disagree with some of the rules changes included - MW barrages especially, eldar changes - I don't believe they need any more than removing pulse&spirit stones, widespread changes to IG&orks a lot of which seem to me to be change for changes sake, but I have said this several times before so I really don't see the point of making the argument again.
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process

(Steve54 @ Oct. 12 2007,07:25)
QUOTE
Personally I disagree with some of the rules changes included - MW barrages especially, eldar changes - I don't believe they need any more than removing pulse&spirit stones, widespread changes to IG&orks a lot of which seem to me to be change for changes sake, but I have said this several times before so I really don't see the point of making the argument again.

On that note I think the status classifications are an interesting (though very incomplete) historical curiosity, but ultimately they are also very arbitrary, subjective, and this or that classification could be argued about until the cows come home. Eg witness many UK tournament peoples reaction to the ERC's MW barrage rule. Ultimately people will judge all aspects of the rules on their merit. Telling people 'thou must use this rule' cos Greg said so several years ago doesn't have much to recommend it to me.

Steve has obviously been one of those favouring an even more minimal approach than the course we have steered. Hopefully we have nevertheless managed to strike a suitable balance between this and those that favour more extensive changes (eg Sotecs earlier Eldar change proposals!), and also between changes favoured in different areas of the world.

Also having everything in an integrated and updated ruleset, rather than having to use an errata in conjunction with a separate set of rules should make the whole deal a lot more palatable to people (and public and private feedback I've received definitely reinforces this logical hypothesis).
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
MW barrages especially,

Can't say as I agree to that one either, but I always like to follow the will of the people (Or change it, if I think they're wrong!).
Author:  Moscovian [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  NetEA Rules Review Process
I think the defining time when the SG forum died was right aftr Biel-tan v1.8 came out.  It was finally done, people expected the rules review to actually manifest into real changes so the army lists could be done and the vast amount of time spent on hammering out that list could be seen as something accomplished.  Instead everyone sat and waited on e-paper promises by Greg.  I was one of them, patiently waiting and then nothing.

The amount of people actively posting both at SG and here at that time was close to double.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/