| Swarm Tyrant |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
|
Hi all. Recently, I have been thinking a lot about Epic, and its future. So, I thought that I would document a few of my thoughts here, and see whether people agree with me or not. In particular, I have been thinking about the future of the game.
Initially, I had three questions:
1. Does Epic need saving?
Yes. (Looks around for disagreement.) No? OK. Moving on...
2. Can we save Epic?
I think that the answer to this is both yes and no. At the end of the day, if GW just stops making and selling Epic minis, then there is little that we can do about it. However, we can keep the game alive in the minds of the community and fans. To do this, we would need to get organised.
3. Should be save Epic?
This questions, depressingly, is the most difficult to answer with certainty. I will admit that I am on a knofe edge about this. Part of me simply says that if GW wants to kill the game then we should just let then and move on. After all, why should we do the work to keep a game alive when GW certainly wont appreciate the effort? On the other hand, while there are other games out there, and I applaud the various members of these boards in their plans to create a new game, the fact is that Epic has had a lot of work invested in it, development has been well structured and hard work has gone in, I really like the game system itself and if you want to game in the 40K universe in 6mm, Epic will always be the system to do it - even if there are other systems available.
I would like the game to survive. I like the system. I would like to keep it alive.
So the next obvious question - why do I think that am I the person for this and what can I contribute?
Good question. I am glad that you asked.
Firstly, no-one else has stepped up.  However, more importantly, the one thing that has not been mentioned in any previous discussion on life support for the game. Administration. I strongly believe that any coherent effort will require a good administration system. This is something that I think that I can contribute. Also, I have invested in the game - the current edition and previous editions - in a big way. I will be the first to admit that I have more to lose than most if the game disappears.
OK. So, this is all great and everything, but so what?
Well, there are a number of root concepts that I think are important.
Premis - A supported Epic is good for players, and good for GW. A united and accessible game allows current players to agree on a single system and share experience, new players to find an easy access to the rules and a support network, and Games Workshop to benefit from a supported system and increased sales with minimum outlay for them. While I dont think that we will be able to actively work with GW, I do think that we can work within their confines to the advantage of everyone.
Perceived Problem - The game currently is stagnant. There has been extremely little forward movement since the first rule book was released. Coupled with this, the community have been busy in several unofficial capacities, and a huge variety of rules additions and force lists have been created, with little guidance for new players on the official status and legality of these. This leads to a very confusing system where the tournaments are forced to only use the core system (since there are no endorsed or official updates), existing players often have their own house rules and subsets of suggested rules changes, and new players find it almost impossible to get into the game and navigate the rules.
Goal - I would like to begin by clarifying the core rules, an compiling a list of current rules changes and suggested alterations. The longer term goal is to present a limited number of 'rules packages', consisting of the core rules and a number of additions, listing the status of the changes and working on a small and limited number of rule alteration suggestions at a time, producing an updated package and moving on to another set of proposed changes. I hope that this would provide a unified front for the game.
So, my role in all of this?
I see myself as the 'Gatekeeper' (the title was mentioned a while ago, and I like it!  ). My job would be to set up a structure for a board to make decisions, as well as web space resource to form the centre of development. I plan to set up the structure and system, and the to step back. I would appoint the initial board, and this would not include me. I mention this to assure people that I am not putting myself forward for any kind of coup. I would like to remain as the administrator for any new structure in place, and may take a more prominant role in the future, but not initially.
So, my short term ideas are...
I would appoint a board. Notice that I say appoint here. While it would be great to have a community vote, I simply dont think that there is the time or energy for this. This board would exist for a time limited four months in the first instance (until the end of June). It would exist as an interim structure, and voting and more general positions can be voted on and set out at this time. This would give the first set of decision makers the ability to get on with the job, and we would evaluate the progress at the end of their term. They would not be signing up for a long term committment, but could continue after the initial four month period if they wanted. In addition, the community to evaluate their progress in this time.
This board would consist of a number of groups:
- as mentioned, I would administrate, with no rule decision making duties
- the Epic board would consist of three key players
- each broad force list would have a champion appointed, for example a single Marine champion would be appointed, even where the list sees little movement, and potentially there could be several sub-champions for chapter specific lists. I think that this is important since there are decisions to be made across race lists - such as the Vindicator stats. I also feel that it may be a good idea to have a 'fan list champion' to oversee any and all fan lists to co-ordinate where necessary.
Some of these roles and positions would be 'token' positions. This would be where there is little or no movement for a list or race, and therefore not much for the champion to actually do. However, I do think that it would be a good idea to have a person appointed, in case of future issues.
The goals and objectives that I can see are:
1. Organise the rules and the board. Set in place a structure of players and decision makers. In addition, I would be very keen on involving the various other Epic groups in existance. If we could collaborate to a single and agreed set of rules that could be translated then that would be ideal. Initial positions would be for a four month period.
2. Set out a clear and coherent rules resource section. This would be a section of the web site with a list of the rules resources, links to where to get these rules and exactly how official they are.
3. Organise how to progres after the four month period, in terms of getting an approved board in place. It may be that the appointed board have worked well and everyone is happy, but clear responsibilities and roles need to be determined, along with options for people to step down. This should be fun, and too much work stops this very quickly. However, if we support each other and set small steps and reasonable time scales, I dont see why this is impossible.
4. Timetable and task list. We should set out what is definately approved, and where to go from here. This would focus on changes to the core rules first and foremost, with a limited list of rules changes for people to feed back on.
A note on 'the handbook' here. While I applaud Marks work on this, and certainly feel that we would be far worse off without it, my initial feeling is to start with the rules as downloaded from SG, rather than the handbook itself. My opinion is that the handbook has been applied beyond its initial purpose, and while it is an excellent resource (and we may end up there anyway), there are more controversial changes included. I would like to see a single set of rules that are largely debated and accepted as 'the way to play the game'.
Another note. We are not and never will built 'the perfect set'. There will be changes and suggestions that you dont agree with. The idea is to form a base set of rules changes to apply to the core rules as downloaded. If people want to alter these for their own games then they are welcome to do so, but the document is the list of most commonly agreed suggestions.
OK. I have gone on a lot here. Well done for reading down this far.
My questions are: Am I crazy? Is this achieveable or sensible?
I welcome any comments and feedback on this post. I would like to see if people think that this worth the effort.
Comments?
_________________ 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.
|
|
