|
It could be argued about forever when rules and lists 'could' and 'should' be ready, in the same fashion as has happened year after year. Ie, another month or two as it always has been, (and the war will definitely be over by Xmas, but somehow never has been before...).
Instead lets talk about how deadlines are met in the real world where things actually have to happen. The most basic rule of any project management is something like having goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time limited. (SMART goals).
That means saying as I did with the Handbook (with plenty of forewarning) a release will happen containing the core rules and these specific lists, on this specific date. December arrives and the release happens - the release is not once again 'another month away'.
Spasmodic chronic rule fiddling according to gut instinct with no set timeframe, has been the modus operandi of many, including myself. We would do well to realise that most people DO NOT want constant messing with the rules, and that such fiddling according to endless subjective opinion is NOT improving the state of the game. If we want to change things, lets make sure we are able to do so in time to meet very reasonable deadlines, then lets leave things alone for a while.
Lets remind ourselves - there were months and years for those in leadership positions in the Epic community to achieve something ready for the end of this year. There were months available when I started the Handbook project and announced the deadline for lockdown. When the deadline arrived I took the best everyone had managed to come up with in that time, with the promise that it would be locked down for a reasonable amount of time at the end of that.
To extend the deadline yet again for some indeterminate period, because of vague and wishy washy objections would just be more ERC bs all over again. Not this time please. I think it makes far more sense to update the Handbook at roughly the same time next year, ready for a 2009 edition That way proposed changes can be playtested properly, Chaos tweaks can be included, and you are not going to piss everyone off by sporadic fiddling with the rules yet again, and breaking promised deadlines. Therefore please resist the impulse to make yet another set of minor tweaks. Save it up for next time. Like Ginger says, frankly I think it'll probably take everyone that long anyway, definitely if Chaos are included.
With lockdowns adhered to, people will know that something worthwhile will definitely happen at promised deadlines. Nothing has killed enthusiasm as much as the endless death march that EA development has been thus far. Locking things down now will provide incentive for people to take processes more seriously. Look at your cognitions, and look where you are placing your value - is it on a workable process of making changes, or is involvement in making changes blinding you to the overall process. Are you missing the wood for the trees?
Which brings me back to the point of this thread which is the HOW question I posed above - what is the process for deciding on which rules should be used if a group project is to be taken seriously, which is what people seem to want. What are the role of the Project Leader, AC's etc?
Are there any serious objections to the process that in my view seems to have the most support thus far. Ie, Neal Hunt (or other head honcho) as project leader having final say, AC's developing lists of recommendations, and perhaps most importantly - deadlines actually being met and systems locked down for sufficient periods of time. Please lets not just have more of the same tired, boring comments to the effect that rule changes 'in your opinion' will be ready in another month for this, another year for that (as as they always have been, recited devotedly like some sort of creed by believers).
On the subject of splitting core rules and army lists, well that's what Netepic does, so that would be another step following in that direction if people desire that. I'd probably propose one supplement of the core lists (the mini ranges available from SG and FW), and then a separate book compiling other of the more tourni ready fan lists, and then all the other fan lists can exist outside of that in a freer state.
|
However, I do anticipate that getting an "official" AMTL list is going to be contentious.
