PM sent with my evaluation of the Mechanicus army lists.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Making new and changing existing army list *is* changing the game, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Currently, the NetERC will not be making an effort to change the "core rules" of the game; not because some edict from on high prevents it, but because, currently, the rules are fairly robust and playable as they now stand.  

That does *NOT* mean that there's no possibility of "new rules" being added in the future, particularly if they seem applicable to more than one army, just that the current core rules will be the base upon which army development is predicated on.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Often, but not always - e.g. Chroma's the Eldar Champion, but not all Eldar lists are written by Chroma.

Indeed, sometimes an Army Champion will oversee the development of his lists through multiple sub-champions.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

In the vast majority of cases it's true, or there are sub-champions designated, e.g. Pulsar has Black Templars etc.

If there are currently lists the netERC is interested in sponsoring that aren't covered by a champion or sub-champion, the list writer should be contacted to see if they wish to come under the netERC banner as a champion/sub-champion in this manner.

Consistency and all that.

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

Such a thing would both give the Net-EA more credence and solve the messy conflicting and duplicative approach we have now; it confuses me sometimes - who has a lot of experience with epic and the forums - cruk knows what newcomers to the forum/game make of it all!

Chroma, do you have a problem changing perspective?
After you've decided what someone has written you adhere to it quite stringently. "You have decide", not what was intended or explained.

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

I noted my concerns at the time about putting lists into a printed publication that weren't neccesarily ready. Still, that's water under the bridge and we need to look forward at this point.


Some sort of compilation or at the very least an up to date repository of "finished" and "experimental" lists should be a primary concern. The structure at the moment is sprawling and difficult to access.

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

Depends on what I'm looking at...  

Sorry Erik M, not to "bag" on you, but occasionally you seem to change your positions quite freely in various threads, so it's tough to determine your immediate intent.  In one thread you'll be "demanding" static, officially endorsed rules and in another you'll be "demanding" that changes need to be made... and then reverse yourself.  Maybe that's just my mistaken perception, but I can only go with what I've read when responding.

You have to fully understand that, other than the 2008 Errata that GW itself has released, nothing we do here will ever be "Official" in the eyes of GW.  Unless GW itself actually publishes it, it's all "fan-made" with all the benefits and problems that entails.

We are free to change whatever we want, but there's no way of "forcing" anyone to accept that other than the quality of the work itself... the "people" will decide what they want to play.  So, let's do our best!

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

I noted my concerns at the time about putting lists into a printed publication that weren't neccesarily ready. Still, that's water under the bridge and we need to look forward at this point.

I agree with everything Fortis just said.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Don't get me wrong, putting the book out when it was ready with fairly balanced and reasonably finalised lists was a great idea. The exposure that raiders gave epic was massive. You guys should never be afraid of publishing stuff like that when it looks that polished and awesome. The tournament players and the serious regular players will no doubt be aware that the lists are not balanced and are still a bit experimental, but to the noob they are balanced enough and it's far better to have something out there inspiring people to collect an army and play with it then to not have that sort of thing exist.

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

I must agree with Chroma that I am somewhat confused at what Erik M is actually after. It does seem like sometimes you are insisting on a consistent, unchanging ruleset, and other times you are proposing radical changes. Perhaps you could clarify your positions?

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

I tend to forget the Wiki exists actually, I'd looked at it briefly ages ago, but it seemed to be out of date.

I don't it's been the best approach, but regardless - one clearly branded army book should definitely be done and advertised and publicised here and elsewhere for the more official/balanced armies - it's a heck of a missed opportunity!

Once the basic thing was done updating it wouldn't be that hard every so often. It could be decided to be updated regularly every X months or as and when a list changes - list development could still happen in the meantime on the forums for those interested in playtesting, whereas those not would at least be using one document rather than the various possible options on here now. If this can be done then really Mark and Hojyn should be very much thanked and praised for their efforts, but politely and diplomatically asked to take down their versions from here to cut down down on confusion and duplication.

Frankly the confusing state of play probably puts people off the Net-EA and the development, whereas this could be a way of helping people and encouraging people to use the rules and possibly lend a hand developing them further - I don't think compiled lists in print would be a threat to development (it's being done NET-EA unofficially anyway), rather I think the overall effect would be the opposite.

At the start of the document just have some kind of introductory message of a paragraph or so from the ERC, explaining for the layman about the document, it being developed here - with a link (someone could see a printed copy out in the real world and not be familiar with the forums) - and the Net-EA, mentioning it is updated every so often and clearly mark the date / version on there.

I'm also agreeing with what Fortis has to say and think it's great we have a newcomers perspective We should be encouraging many more newcomers!

To chime in with our groups experience.
We recently started playing E:A after playing the SM/TL for years. When it came to look for army lists we had no idea what we were looking at, there were so many versions all over the place. So, like some have said, we now use the Handbook. Sure, it might be out of date, but it is very accessable, all in one place, and easy to get hold of.
I appreciate all the work netERC puts in and I will try to help where I can (if my moaning about Tyranids equals 'help'   ), but I would dearly love for an 'official, up to date' netERC armies book with the armies clearly labeled as E&C has suggested.