This is a placeholder for discussion of the upcoming NetEA Army List compilation to be put out be the NetERC and the Army Champions system.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

What compilation?? Where was that mentioned? Or is this the first time it is being mentioned? What form is it taking?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

It's splitting the "army lists" from the "core rules" and making two documents so that updating the armies doesn't create a new rule book.

And, yes, it's a new development.

More to come.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

Good call with this Chroma? Hope the other Net-ERC are behind it too?

It came about through the long discussion in this thread here Mark.

Ah, cheers for the link Glyn.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

the new version of Black Templars list should be ready soon so, how long till you are starting to put this together?

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Just doing some ground work first.

Will be sending out an emailing to "primary" Army Champions, and any "secondary" ones we've got on file, touching base and calling for updates/revisions.  Response time is a factor.  *laugh*

And Neal's just gone off on vacation, so, please bear with us.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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

All of which is why it is important to give yourself a deadline to produce something. Give yourself a decent amount of time but stick to the deadline and make the best of what you have by then.

Like I did with the Handbook 2008 (a 6 month lead up), and as I was about to start doing for 2010 version (and still will do if things don't progress sufficiently here). While individual army champions may 'um' and 'ah' about small points of balance, I believe even more strongly now than I did previously that constant tweaking of lists and scattered development is highly aggravating for the majority of epic players. As is evidenced by the fact that virtually no-one has stated they are using current NetERC recommendations, and that over 25% of people online are still using the out of date Handbook 08 simply because it is convenient. All about communication and presentation - you need a Handbook or Compendium or similar, and you need a netERC website, and you need a deadline for all this to be done. Focus, one person with overall responsibility, and not the death of 1000 excuses by committee (even a committee of 3).

So when is your deadline?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

I have no problem with lists being tweaked, as long as this central document is kept regularly updated on a website and lists the date of the latest update.

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

And please, please, please any new updates in Blue, if it is still 'in progress'
(Chroma and his Tyranid list)  

I agree with everything Marcconz says above, and hope things get moving with it rather than it languishing or being excessively drawn out.

Have you decided how this will be done Chroma? Rather than starting from scratch would not much updating and re-branding an existing document by the likes of Mark or Hojyn and working closely with them/drawing on their experiences get it done much quicker?

The thing that concerns me is that I have heard similar statements from the netERC before. I gave a revised (with the new Jervis errata) copy of the Handbook to the netERC well over a year ago for final updating with ERC lists (as I got busy with study and didn't have time to play Epic let alone develop rulesets). I also mentioned the NetERC website idea to them and Cybershadow at the start of this year. While there were affirmations that something would happen regarding both of these, nothing ever did. Now this may have been due to all sorts of factors that I don't have information about, but it doesn't inspire confidence... especially when I'm seeing people like E&C warning that the netERC risks becoming "irrelevant" in other threads.

It also seems to me that Chroma has been doing many sideline and other projects in the time available... all very good, but not really a priority I would judge given his ERC position - it seems a wiser priority would have been getting an easy to access and digest document of the rules and lists out (easily possible for 3 people  given that myself and now Hojyn have produced documents like that individually). While Hena has been updating the various original PDF's of the main rules (which sounds like it was a nightmare and very time consuming), unfortunately I don't think this is what most epic players really want (lots of watermarked files rather than a single clean rulebook file and single clean army book file)...  Neal has been doing his usual thankless task of trying to please everyone and stubbornly trudging through his review schedule largely on time.

Anyhow, if all of the above is viewed positively as a useful learning experience, I really do hope the ERC take on board the message their supporters (or at least the vocal ones) would like the focus of their work to be...

1. NetERC Handbook/Compendium. Maybe as two files (Rulebook and Armybook).
2. NetERC webpage with domain, for communication and downloads (eg look what UK epic scene has done).
3. Schedules and deadlines for completion of the above...

Too much time is being spent debating the ultimately trivial merits of various changes. The ERC need to just say 'here it is' in an easy to use format and most people will accept and use it.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

To be fair, we've only just come to the end of the year long review of all NetERC lists.

I've every confidence that the NetERC will put out an Army Book sooner rather than later...

... and I'd love it if some of my army lists were judged to be good enough to make the grade!  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think lists should be graded on a readiness scale (1-5?) by the netERC and the army champions for this compilation. (lists in brackets are of course only my own opinion of the sort of level they're at).

5 = Final list, not going to change unless a major issue arises. (e.g. codex marines with netERC mods)
4 = netERC tournament recommended list. (e.g. dark eldar)
3 = netERC recommended list, some issues may remain so not yet tournament recommended (e.g. I dunno, death korps? Tau? Nids?)
2 = list which contain balance issues, or typos etc which will need to be addressed (e.g. Necrons?)
1 = lists not considered balanced (e.g. the RAID (necromundish) lists from fanatic)

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

I'd just have a three stream system:


1 - ERC 'Official' That'd include Marines, Steel Legion, AMTL, Dark Eldar, NetERC Black Legion, that kind of stable well-regarded list.
2 - ERC 'Experimental' Lists that are experimental but enjoy a good reputation, such as the Red Corsairs, the Tau or the Tyranids.
3 - ERC 'Highly Experimental'. That'd include lists like the Knightworld or the Blood Angels lists (to pick two of my own, heh).


1's would mostly be stable lists unlikely to need any big changes in the medium term, although occasional changes (once every year or two) might be pushed on small items.

2's would be lists that should be balanced enough that they could stand as part of the Army Book for a year. Development could carry on on Taccomms in the mean time so that by the next year a new list would be ready for inclusion in the army book, possibly ready for graduation to Official status.

3's would be lists that are either largely untested (like the Skitarii army) or simply have known balance problems.


Then there's another category that is '4', which is lists that aren't yet ready for inclusion. For example I'm on the fence as to whether the Knightworld army list is ready for inclusion in the Army Book, as it's certainly highly experimental...

...it depends how far into experimental territory the ERC want to go.

Personally I think they should include all the 1's and 2's, and a selection of lists from category 3 too.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter