It would be pretty nice, now when we're playing we have to refer to sections 5-6 AND the Errata for some stuff AND the NetERC sheet.

Having corebook (and ideally Swordwind) lists and unit datasheets with Errata and NetERC changes integrated would be very convenient.

That is what I am using, basically the Handbook with hand-edited changes from the FAQ and the netERC recommendations. With the Handbook still being somewhat erratic, I think it would be a splendid idea.

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Once again we seem to find ourselves with too many options. Official + errata? Official + errata + netERC mods? EpicUK? FR-ERC? Handbook 2008? Handbook 2010? Compendium? Now this?

No wonder people are getting confused and asking for consistency.

The netERC need to be supplying clarity, and with that in mind I'd recommend a netERC website with two documents - updated rules (official + errata) and a second document kept up-to-date with the latest version of all the ERC championed lists.

The one thing I do like about EpicUK is their clarity, having a website with the current rules easy to locate and grouped together in a single file. While I may disagree totally with their development methods, I do agree with their presentation.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I agree with Zombocom.

The preserve of the ERC shouldn't be in ajusting the core rules, it should be in clearly providing a set of ERC sponsored army lists.



As soon as the updated core rules are posted to the GW website, I hope the core rules sections of the Handbook and Compendium will be removed from the web.

Projects should focus on army lists and supplements, not tweaking the core rules.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Amen!

The development of Epic is so fragmentary.  Epic UK have got it right presenting everything in a clear accessible fashion.  It's friendly.  They explain what they're about.  Where's the explanation for what netERC is, what it stands for and what its aims are?

I want to have a singular reference document in my hand with which to play Epic.  Not a sprawling research project of what to bring together.

_________________

Got to agree with this whole-heartedly.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Indeed.


So my suggestion to the ERC:


- Collate the Handbook and the Compendium into one ERC-sponsored army list collection.


That's basically what the Handbook and Compendium are anyway, just unlabeled as such. It's time for the ERC to take the reigns and collate all of the ERC-sponsored army lists into one concise army book.

So forget 'sections 5 and 6', the 2008 rules review covered everything that needs to happen there.

The ERC should get working on the 'Epic Armageddon Army Book, 2009 Edition'.

With the compendium and handbook to draw on, it shouldn't take long to produce, and then the former two can fade into the past.


We've had our year of list-by-list testing, it's time to collate.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Spot on.

We're not anyhow allowed to change the rules.
(Various people - don't even go there.)
But with ONE Rulebook we can get people involved.
Preferably in the French format, ie Errata and FAQ integrated in the text.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

And equally importantly set up a netERC website.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

And ERC (Epic Rules Committee?) should change name to what it is (that name really confuse me at least!), which would be Committee forEpic:Armageddon fan made  army lists (CEFAL).

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

They are known as the 'reformed' Epic Rules Committee as they are the inheritors of the original ERC, and Jervis still regards them as the 'go-to guys' for Epic, for example in providing the updated rulebook for the GW website.

I'm fine with them keeping the ERC name.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But there's no rules to committee... Jervis was quite clear on that. Not even points are allowed to be altered.
So its down to make the plethora of self made army lists he envisioned. But not touch one whit of GW written words.

And a clear and concise web site where all is presented.
Not this random criss-cross we have here now.

I Say - Vive La France!

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

My guess is... there's about to be launched an Epic V within a year. And GW thus don't want us to have to much influence and "power".

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Army lists are also rules, just not Core rules.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter