I think the community's time would be better spent working on lists and supplements ; this is a storm in a tea cup.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It's not a storm at all. It's a simple request. This thread was a real attempt to find out just what rules the community in general (worldwide even) assumes is the convention. If you don't feel it's necessary to contribute, that really is fine, just realise some of us would like more concrete responses to fair questions, not more of "this is not necesary" answers. If I'm asking it, you can bet others want an answer too so that makes it particularly necessary IMO.

It's the least that could be done to help the community get out of the confusion pit that NetEa is fast becoming.

So go do it.

What do you think this thread was for...? <shakes head>

Sorry, I thought this was the 5 min argument!

I'd suggest you/whoever knock up a page of what you think has been agreed then we can begin debating that, rather than the need for it.

Hehe! the problem was I'm not sure what has been agreed - hence this thread to compile them.

Take a guess and write some up... I rather suspect few others have the motivation to do so.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But wouldn't it be better for those lists and supplements to be played on a similar playing field? How can lists even hope to be balanced, when different groups play by different interpretations? Or promote tournaments without some form of unifying rules set.

And it shouldn't be the community deciding it. It should be the NetERC (what's that R stand for? ), making a NetEA clarification, and that being that.

But you're right, it's probably not as big a deal as it is, apparently. At the least, the size of this discussion well exceeds my interest in it. Doesn't bother me much, as I'm fairly happy to play any interpretation, and I don't play in environments where ego, ranking, or prizes are on the line. I just don't want to see arguments over stuff that just shouldn't be an issue.

Morgan Vening

I would hope that would go on to the NetEA website, which is going to launch before January, right guys?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If these documents answer things like the objective capture convention etc., then yes. If not, and having quickly scanned these before I started this thread shows me so, then a list of (at minimum) tourney conventions not listed in any rule doc so we get a convention.

The more this thread goes on, however, the more I see the majority of people don't care too much about it. If this is the view then I'll just abide by RAW and set a maximum objective size for my tournaments. Hell, if necessary I'll make people dice off for discrepancies and keep the feel of Epic as it stands atm -random.

All this will encourage is people to argue anything that goes against them for the 50% chance of having a favourable ruling.

I think you were on the correct wicket is getting a doc made up.

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

Why so bitter? You have a great system which continues to pump out great minis despite being abandoned by it's parent company. The rules are stable, far more so than if GW had continued bringing out a new version every few years.

The cost is that different parts of the world have adopted slightly different conventions, some of which aren't made explicit online. Some need not be. In organized events, the orginizer has to make the judgement call, and the participants need to abide by it. Being bitter because one participant disagrees with you won't help anything. Enjoy the game!

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

It's not bitter Spec, it's frustration. Minis are one thing, rules are another.

When I ask for help and all I get is essentially a brick wall of "won't happen," "not needed" or "you do it," it's bloody frustrating. I love the game - to a point - but this sort of stonewalling is disappointing and detracting. The game's not as good as it could be and it's bizarre that others can't be arsed to do things that could make it better. I'm trying to here, but it's falling on deaf ears it seems.

EDIT - BTW this thread stems from my hope that play in Australia might follow more closely with that in Europe/UK/US. Otherwise we may as well be known as OzEA.

And I find it strange that there's such a disparity between uniformity of Army List, and uniformity of Rules.

Try changing the established conventions of the Army Lists, and you raise all forms of hell. Because you rightfully need to have uniformity across the lists. So why is there such resistance to uniformity of the Grand Tournament Scenario, or the rules in general? Why is it apparently accepted that there's no need for each area have a technically OFFICIAL but potentially significantly different way of actually playing the game.

As an outside example, if Dobbsy decided to make Space Wolves Thunderhawks, which allowed transported units to deploy up to 9cm from the War Engine, he'd be slapped down so quick, it'd make his head spin. But at the moment, the discrepancy that happens between groups that interpret "deploy within 5cm" as fully within, and those that interpret it as partially within, that's essentially what happens. And it makes a significant difference to the usage and balance of the unit.

What's the purpose of having a unifying Army List set, if there's no true unifying Rules set?

Morgan Vening