Back again. Had a nice walk up the Purple Mountain (no puns please) in Nanjing, and am now back out of the sun, thankfully. Then had a lovely soup with duck gizzard, duck heart, and (yes) duck blood, which was surprisingly tasty, mmmm.

@Rug: I'm guilty of that misconception   , I had assumed that EpiComms was 'Epic Central' as the only sliver of influence on Jervis was via various people on this site. Therefore the errata etc. that is (very) occassionally ok'd by GW is based on playtesting etc. output from this site.

@Zombocom: I realise that anything that Jervis has done for Epic in the past few years has been entirely voluntary. Epic is no more supported than Bloodbowl or Necromunda. This was merely a suggestion that if he were to continue to provide the only official support, he may prefer to at least know when he would be likely to be called upon. Just attempting to make it as easy as possible for him to help us. However, considering Hena's valid point about GW requiring playtesting requirements, this is probably not a workable approach.

I agree with Mephiston's suggestion of separating the core rules from the lists. I believe we can therefore separate what we need into 3 sections, core rules (chapters 1 to 4), tournament scenario (chapter 6), and lists (chapter 5, swordwind, raiders, individual lists etc.)

First. Does anyone have any connections to any of the non-english Epic communities, and can they find out what rulesets they use, typical tournament arrangements. Also possibly get copies of their current armylist versions, and provide them with those of this site? Ideally tournament results/statistics as well?

Second. From what Rug has written am I to understand that in terms of core rules, the net community, EpicUK tournaments, and EpicFR tournaments all use the original rulebook + errata? If we all accept that Chapters 1 to 4 are the core rules, Hena has already produced a combined document of these chapters with errata included. As I believe has Hojyn's Compendium, for example, and Markconz is intending updating his handbook. If they are, or will be, all identical in these sections then only one is needed, and we already have our common rule book, just decide which one. Nealhunt wrote in another discussion (Jan/Feb of this year), on the same topic, that

“As an update, Jervis has confirmed that he has a copy of the rulebook with the 2008 errata and FAQs integrated into it.  We're waiting on his review.

As Chroma pointed out, it's been very slow but it is progressing.â€Â

Its quite easy to think everybody should be able to speak english. It happens relatively often to me, that I assume as much from my german fellow citizens. And even considering that around me there are quite a lot of people that understand it to some degree, most of them do not really care to go even further.
There are many people that prefer a german rulebook to a english one just because they feel safer grasping the rules, which is not a bad thing and understandable in general.

Another question I asked myself regarding the multi regional rules differences: How often does any of us play a game, especially a game not having that big a player base, outside his or her own country? Not that often I think and even if that happens its not normally that hard to skim through the rules to check for possible changes. Heck, there are games out there where each tournament inside one country can differ extensively. And since I cant imagine to see a "Epic World Cup" in the near future (as awesome that would be...) its pretty faineant to invest time and work trying to get everybody under one banner.

The only beneficial aspect imo of having absolutely one ruleset (and maybe even army lists) would to create a somewhat bigger pool of people for exchange of opinions and playtesting. But as it happens to be, most not english speaking people would even think about a forum as TacComs and a possible desire to post here.

Where do I find those Groover's BoLs articles? I now heard twice about them but am unable to find them.

Head over to Bell of lost Souls and search for epic articles.

You'll find a list of them here:

sites.google.com/site/sydneyepic/dashboard/about

These articles are my attempt to lure some of those 40Kers over to The Side Of Good And Awesomeness that is E:A.  

I'm on a mission from (the) God (Emperor).  ;)

Thank You!
And this is a very reasonable attempt to convert them to the Right Way!  
Gonna read it later!

I voted 'GW rules + Errata', but I do actually scatter a bunch of the NetERC changes into my games too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How often does any of us play a game, especially a game not having that big a player base, outside his or her own country? Not that often I think...

A fair amount of people have given up on taccoms though - complaining that its too 'cliquey' and that valid views get ignored unless they have 1000s of posts.

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

The problem is that to enjoy the game, some of us need rules to make sense and be balanced.

Our group plays with the 2008 handbook because we feel it is more balanced. You will never have a full agreement when you have the division of GW rules officials vs the heretics who want a 'living rulebook'.

Bloodbowl does so well due to the Living Rulebook that is about to be finalized this year to stay put for the next 5 years I think. However it has gone through years of revisions to reach that stage. Epic could learn alot by adopting what Bloodbowl has accomplished. It is less about 'champions' and more about the rules comittee (yet even in that there are issues with favoured teams and the like). It perplexes me that the Epic community 'needs' to stick with the GW rules rather than GW adopting to it's player base in regards to rules that would otherwise make sense (such as modified points values for various troops).

A minority of players not having access to the Internet is a poor excuse not to further rules development IMO. Bloodbowl does fine with everything being net access only.

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

*dives for cover and awaits the fallout*

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

I've never noticed that, what is this 'fair number' you speak of?

I suppose that if several army champions are part of the same gaming group and play each other regularly then they may assume their results are representative of the wider community. That could influence army development, but I didn't think the crowd of eejits    on these boards were too bad. I haven't seen any unreasonable posts from army champions, they are knowledgeable enough to back up their viewpoint, and have generally been around long enough to remember why rules were like that in the first place (not calling them old or anything). I think they are entitled to ask for reports of games to back up alternative recommendations.

Pressing forward with armies without sufficient playtesters is another matter. I'd love to playtest the mossinians for example, but have zippo imperial models, not even enough for proxies. I have yet to suggest to opponents that I could use an entire eldar or ork army to proxy though, that might be a bit much   .

Wow, I don't think I've ever used "post count" as a metric for the validity of someone's argument/point here on anything I'm developing.  I prefer to rely on "show me an in-game example" or "could you explain more, please?" as reference.

One thing I *have* seen happen is that a "newcomer" will enter a debate, make some points they feel are valid, and then be told "that was discussed and rejected a year (or two or more) ago"; which seems to cause no end of frustration, both for the newcomer and the "old-timers"... almost every debate has been hashed and rehashed, but the newcomer doesn't know this and the old-times is grumpy that "everything is going in circles".  Additionally, tone and intent are pretty hard to convey on the Internet and "short answers" doesn't, necessarily, mean "dismissive", but it can certainly be read that way.

Steve54, could you give an example of this cliquishness (is that even a word?!)?

---

To be completely blunt, the "for UK Tournament players only" vibe that comes from some of the EpicUK crew seems more "clique" than anything here... but I *HIGHLY* doubt that is the intent!

We're all trying to keep the game we love alive gents (and ladies), so why fight amongst ourselves?

---

I'm open to listening, understanding, and responding to *ANY* criticisms, complaints, or concerns about the EPIC stuff I'm involved in... the door's always open.  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?